The prophet, physician and painter Mani - founder of Manichaeism - born in Mesopotamia, lived in the third century and his religion had thousands of adepts, lasting for more than 1,000 years.

In that distant time, Mani enjoyed great prestige, attracting even the sympathy of kings, like Sapor and Hormidas.

Mani attempted to bring together the best-known religions: Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism, all around the thought that there is a dualism governing creatures. On one side the Good, on the other side the Evil.

Two antagonistic forces that fight to control the Universe: God and the Devil, Good and Evil, Right and Wrong ... A predecessor of Hegelian dialectics and his quest for a synthesis of opposites.

Of ambitious ideas, he preached the equality of castes and the extinction of the privileges of the ruling classes.

Obviously, in opposing the interests of the powerful, he attracted powerful enemies. It is not difficult to imagine what happened to the prophet in more directive times, so to speak. Mani was taken prisoner and put to death by the wizard Kirdir and King Vahram, and, like Socrates and Jan Huss, had the fate of those who had anti-hegemonic speeches.

But if Mani were among us, incarnate, he would see that his vision of the world, after so many centuries, had won fervent followers, a hegemonic character of organizing ourselves by the incommunicable duality. And today, although Manichaeism has been extinguished as religion, we bring impregnated to our way of thinking this dualistic culture, of polarization, of heroes and villains.

The government is bad. The people are good.

The government says it is good and says that bad are the opposition members.

The opposition, in turn, signals the opposite.

The employee judges himself wronged and states that the employer is wrong, in turn, the employer says the opposite.

They are localized speeches in certain space-time, which bring groups into these visions, which of course have a degree of fragmentation, but they appear as truths for them, nurturing a blind faith in their presuppositions, unmovable from their views, forgetting that in the world everything changes, with a breath, without apologizing. Jesus, Himself, asked what the truth would be.

For various reasons, and some still unknown, we now live in a world, and also in a country, dominated by extremes. You are right or left, like blue or red, enjoy mountain or beach etc. We polarize ourselves, as a reflection of labels and categorizations, as an effect also of a profusion of information and opinions that, in the search to standardize what is good or bad, exalts reactions, sometimes very violent. They turn into sharpened knives.

A society that is somewhat Manichean, who lost (perhaps it never really had) a taste for reflection that there is life beyond the "walls" of their conceptions.

We can appreciate a little bit of black without ceasing to like white, and in this mixture we get the gray, that is, the way of the "middle", which can be represented by the pondering to achieve common sense.

We can, likewise, like blue, but respect our friend's right to like green, understanding that each has an opinion.

And when we let ourselves be weighed down, there is room for disagreements over issues that could be resolved in an intelligent and respectful way. In fact, the disagreements take on enormous proportions because the extremists are not different, but similar, very similar in the way of thinking and acting: almost being truculent.

Obviously, we are talking about ideas, around principles, but it is very simple to predict empathy and understanding on minor issues, but it is difficult when they directly affect people's interests and values, as in recent discussions about gender, sexuality, crimes, secularism, and so on.

They are trade-offs, dilemmas, in which we have valid arguments and consistent conceptions of both polarizations, each one according to their world view, and follow issues like this causing polarization, and we see little hope of consensus in them.

But the issue is not the themes, the truths, but what we are doing with them in our spheres of existence. The great obstacles occur not with the different ones, but with the similar ones, who act in a similar way, that is, Manichean. Why do fights happen? Because these truths are the engine of the fight, when there is a desire to fight instead of seeking mediations.

The history of society is also a trajectory of trying to balance points, conciliation spheres and harmonization of controversial issues, through debates, chambers, councils, magazines, auditorium programs, all instruments that seek to give vent to this plurality of ideas, arguments, so that we can mature and as a group we choose our paths. This is also one of the bases of democracy, of building spaces for dialogue and consensus, so that the limits are built.

But when this fabric of equilibrium weakens, passionate initiatives emerge to defend the point of view, and in this sense Kardec speaks of making concessions. In fact, he uses the term "mutual concessions" for reconciliation so that peace reigns. The problem is that the search for truth has supplanted the desire for harmony.

This long and philosophical preamble (or a little more than that) comes to reflect on the reality that, immersed in this polarized world, we, as a Spiritist movement, see ourselves invaded by this position, either because of issues of party politics that are reflected in our themes, or by controversies that are already known to us, some with new clothes, and that fill our pages in social networks.

And this movement of dissent sometimes becomes aggressive, blind and sharp, denying dialogues and cutting off relations, causing the rational, reflective sense of Spiritism to be lost, and in return, an idea of ​​persuasion, censorship, proscription, strange to our ethos, and that has already led many people to the bonfire in other times.

If Kardec were among us, incarnate, how would he react to this swarm of Spiritist works in bookstores, some questionable in their assumptions? And how would Jesus behave in the face of the defense by Spiritists of criminal lynches in the streets of big cities? Were these two of our examples for texting social networks to encourage long and tiring polarized debates? Well, back in their day, there were these polemics, some still current, and we do not think they reacted like that. See how, in The Book of Spirits Kardec deals with issues like Abortion and the Death Penalty and see if this approach is reflected in this model of discussion that we are living today.

The revolution of information, of technology, brought ideas and paradigms together, globalization brought together peoples and cultures, and this in some way harms us by our own plurality and by the irreconcilable character of certain visions, and also by traumas and pains that we bring in the “imo” of our soul, but we do not feed on the illusion that we will achieve the harmonization of all human tensions, but that we will be able to deal with them, based on principles of dialogue and respect, listening, being listening to and positioning ourselves as each one judges best, respecting the instances to which each of them converges, as a point of reference for concrete cases.

Doubtful books, let's study harder. Controversial positions on political issues - let us keep our intimate position in the light of immortal life. I appeal to radical solutions, remember that life is eternal. Only in this way will we be safe from the dangers and manipulations arising from extreme attitudes, and more from the waste of energy that could be used in the building up through study and improvement through the love of the like. In fact, many of these tensions end up undermining worthy Spiritist works.

If God wanted us like that, extreme, radicals, He would not give us incarnations in order to move forward. But if he also wanted us always passive, "just follow the others" He would not have given us the pain to propel us.

Life is a struggle, but we must know how to fight.