so good evening everyone, welcome What we're going to do here today is take one of these very short texts and show some implications of what's behind it, meaning what the lavel is implying in the text So let's go let's go I will first read until the end and then I will come back and comment so in the face of others, sincerity is an effort to abolish all difference between our real being and our manifested being But true sincerity is sincerity before oneself, it consists not exactly in showing the that it is, but in finding it it demands that beyond all the superficial planes of consciousness where we do nothing but experience states, we penetrate to that mysterious region where those deep and agreed desires are born that give our whole life its point of departure. connection with the absolute because the look we direct at ourselves produces the best or worst effects in us depending on the object to which it is directed and according to the intention that directs it or it only takes into account our states to which it he always shows too much complacency or he goes back to their source and frees us from their slavery the very person of sincerity is obliged to be myself This is becoming myself what I am it is a search for my own Essence that begins to adulterate since I borrow from the outside the reasons that make me act because this Essence is never an object that I contemplate but a work that I carry out the call to action of certain powers that are within me and that wither away soon cease to exercise them in sincerity an indivisible entry into oneself and exit from oneself a search that is already a discovery an engagement that is already an overcoming a waiting that is already an appeal an opening that is already an act of faith in the face of a revelation that is always latent and always about to emerge he is the line of union between what I am and what I want to be she is the line of union between what I am and what I want to be to say that the virtue of the heart and not of Intelligence, where your heart is, there is your true treasure, which is enough to explain why sincerity always brings more wealth than the most resplendent lies, this text is so full of implications for those who have read the other texts of do lavel that this here is a prodigy of compression, we can say that and if not all, but at least half of La Velho's philosophy is compressed here in a way that we are going to say to the newly arrived reader, he doesn't understand the thing , eh, he says, it passes easily, the text doesn't have any intrinsic difficulties, right, but in fact it hides many difficulties , the first is the following , he suggests that we must penetrate to that mysterious region where those deep and consenting desires are born, right? certain place within the evolutionary scale that occupies a place within a planet in a solar system that lives under a set of physical determinations that make it have certain proportions, certain organs, certain capabilities, etc.
, etc. The main occupation of this Creature is evidently the his own subsistence, food and procreation, obviously, the subsistence of the individual and the subsistence of his species and among the many that he needs for this. There are certain functions that are said to be cerebral or subjective, thought, imagination, memory, etc.
etc. and Within this vast picture, first you have the circle of natural conditions and then within that you have brain functions. So within the brain functions you have a subset called let's say emotions, that's not it, so it is understood that this activity subjective it is born and evidently within the framework of the natural physical conditions in which this creature lives.
So this is the image that we have in our culture that is then reproduced in the media in schools etc etc etc but the fact is that this is not let's say the image spontaneous that each person has of himself no one when he relates to another human being It's true that he relates to a member of an animal species that lives in a physical framework like this like this like this this means that the subjective life that in the reference current culture is seen as a kind of a small by-product, right, from within a vast set of natural conditions, in direct experience, it is the first element that arises, but if you when you meet another human being, you will never notice first only your physical condition That's right It means every and every act Any gesture every expression of the human being has a meaning for you so this is what appears First it's right Now to understand this old Leila's perspective we have to invert aaaaa current cultural reference It's right and understanding that the relationship between surface and depth as it appears in culture is inverse in the field of real human experience, that is to say, in the cultural image we can believe that our desires and impulses arise from physiological mechanisms that are conditioned in turn to a surrounding frame and F So the instincts the conditioned reflexes etc etc So all this is so to speak this physical basis it becomes in this perspective the cause Okay, of the inner states of emotions etc etc etc so that means the emotions would be the surface and physiological mechanisms would be the bottom, okay, so this means that in principle, each and every human inner state, everything that happens within subjective life could be referred to, I mean, a physical mechanism that is implied there, so This means, from the point of view of the current cultural reference , all human subjectivity is just a surface of which physiological reality is the background. teaches in all schools and that is how people believe it to be, but they only believe it when they are at school because in real human coexistence, what appears first is subjective life, including these data from subjective life are in fact the first thing you notice about a person you've just met, they always have pressure, they 're always performing a function, they're communicating Alais through their own Let's say through their own physical posture, through their gaze, etc. ET It's that you notice first and I am not sorry for this scientific conception, so to speak, in quotation marks, of man, it is not extracted from direct experience, but it is an abstraction made from the confluence of several sciences that delimit their field of observation at this point, these aspects and create So this image for your use That's right, ISO means that in our Culture in general the relationship between surface and depth is given in an entirely artificial or artificial way so that you look for natural scientific explanations for human behavior and believe that this explanation is the depth is the deepest layer, whereas everything that happens in your subjectivity would be like an illusory shell, an illusory veil.
Okay, so you can see how easily people resort to explanations, right? Genetic or neurophysiological explanations? human behaviors and do so even in everyday life appeal to these these explanations reveal that it is easier for you to deal with this cultural reference than for you to deal directly with your subjective experience people do not have instruments to deal with subjective experience so they appeal to say to concepts that are standardized and that as it applies universally to all human beings does not specifically refer to this Or that then every lavel says we have to seek the deepest root of our of our states we have to seek those deepest and most consented desires this operation is the opposite of what is normally done, that is, we do not have to look for a generic scientific explanation for what we are doing, we do not have to observe the real experience as it actually presents itself in our life in our concrete life and this operation is enormously more difficult and intellectually much more relevant than any scientific explanation you find in manuals on neurophysiology, genetics, psychology, etc.
, etc. , etc. , etc.
, so this means that in most cases the appeal to these scientific explanations is an escape in relation to real experience, then the individual is not really capable of knowing himself and others, but he can easily appeal to a scientific explanation that is already ready and that is generic and serves all human beings as if it were a shoe size the same for everyone, so you see here the penetration of this scientific influence in everyday life creates among human beings a terrible network of prejudices and preventions because you begin to explain the conduct of others is right by this or that element that you picked up in in the scientific press in the media, right, and that seems to solve the problem, so certain behaviors can be easily explained, let's say by the lack of a substance or by a conditioned reflex or by something you call childhood trauma or by any other explanation like that like, none of this corresponds to real knowledge, knowledge from experience, all of this is just a manipulation, let's say of ready-made concepts. So what he is suggesting here is exactly the opposite, that is, We have to delve deeper into our real experience now when he He says that the deepest desires are consented desires, this means that what most characterizes you is what you want to be, right? In other words, it is an image that you created freely, that you freely chose, OK, and that therefore does not reflect even the genetic influences nor cultural influences Okay, not all the bodily predispositions that you may have, but a free choice means that free choice is the only thing that is truly individualized in you because we contain several elements that are not individual that you see in our family It comes from genetic inheritance, it comes from the environment, it comes from the language that we speak, etc.
, etc. I say well, all of this is in me, but I can't say that this is me, so what is me, properly speaking, is what I nurture I chose Okay, so that's where, according to him, the deepest part is and the rest, well, the rest are elements that this deep part finds on its path and which it will try to use as instruments to realize itself in external life, instruments that in turn Sometimes they are also obstacles and difficulties, for example, I may have certain plans, I may want to be a certain person, that's right, but my genetic predisposition goes in the opposite direction, that's right, or the education I received isn't suitable for that, it doesn't give me the elements for that. Okay, so all this material that we find and which is, so to speak, in the scientific conception of the human being, they all exist, they are present in some way but they are not me and if I look for my explanation in them I am reversing the situation, I am trying to explain myself by what is impersonal and generic in me and not by what is individual to me, which is particular and which characterizes me as a person capable of saying the word I, right?
Eh, then note well that eh exists popularly, so to speak, it exists a certain one erizes the word Me, I remember that certain authors, as totally different, have nothing to do with each other, like René Guenon and Gracano Ramos, were highly praised because they never said the word I 'm right, I say good, that may seem like a lot beautiful but when Moses asks God who he is he doesn't answer we are us he says I am who I am Okay so that means that the word I is a divine word and the fact that we can say a word I of we are totally personalized is what characterizes us and what differentiates us from all other species of animals, this difference is immediately accessible to all human experience, but there is no natural science, natural science cannot deal with any concrete phenomenon, I have already explained this in others, classes means science never deals with concrete reality But in real life we are dealing all the time with concrete realities and we ourselves are a concrete reality for us and concrete reality and I have already explained how to say it is what happens to us let's say the conjunction the confluence of all accidents the essential causes and the accidents necessary to produce forming a complex whole that has no way be understood conceptually but in practice you understand perfectly, that is, we understand perfectly certain concrete situations that we would never be able to explain or describe and the proof that we understand is that we can react to them, for example when a person looks at you in a certain way and you immediately understand that she is either suspicious or sad with you that's not it if you say prove ISO say well you can do all the tests in the world you won't be able to prove ISO however you capture ISO this Corresponds to the reality of the situation then this immediate knowledge that we have of ourselves, it is the true starting point for this deeper self-knowledge, of course, you can also use instruments that you have learned from the natural or social sciences, but they are just instruments, sometimes they are a vocabulary that you use, that's right, but the concrete experience is the basis of everything, right? He is also assuming here a difference between an essence and a manifestation , that is, there is a very deep inner reality here, only you have access and there is the outer manifestation, the outer manifestation has to use the instruments that you find in the world around you and that you find in yourself. Including your own genetic disposition, your education, etc.
, etc. are the instruments that you have for and within this there is, so let's say an essential core, which is the one from which Precisely the word I comes out and in which you recognize yourself those who did the obituary exercise must be quite clear here what I am what I'm talking about what you want to be n You know that in our society if you ask what do you want to be ? terms of qualities Ah, I want to be a person like that, like that, you'll see that you can't either.
The only way you can express this is in narrative form, that is, you will invent a story and that will be your story and that story doesn't have how to be conceptualized means Expressed in terms of static qualities the names of the static qualities will serve an infinite number of other people and not and even if you cross these various static qualities you cannot manage to define yourself whereas aaa story the imaginary story it individualizes you perfectly, I mean I'm the suit who did this plus this plus this plus ISO plus this plus but this plus that that's why I recommend that you return to the obituary exercise from time to time to deepen it because you'll see as you As time passes, you try to achieve what you wanted and as you try to carry out your own project, your own idea changes, it deepens, right, sometimes deepening critically in the sense of seeing that you have actually moved away of what you are being is something else and the perception of this difference is evidently and very important for the process itself, now what you want to be is what individualizes you, only that which is individualistic. For the rest, the other differences that exist between you and others other people are all expressed in generic language in a generic concept, that is, a crossing of generic concepts that try to get closer to an individuality but never get attached, but this method, let's say of the ideal story, it already individualizes directly, not by comparison with other people and not It is through the progressive individualization of generic concepts that you are trying to understand yourself, you are not directly expressing what is, let's say, the most essential and the most differentiating part of your self, so this leads to one of the most serious problems in philosophy, which is the problem of essence. existence because if what I am as an individual only appears to me as a power, as a virtuality that perhaps comes true, this means that before I become this Essence I have to exist and in this sense, lavell says that existence in the case of the human being precedes The Essence wants to say first you exist and then you are something, it is clear that this only applies to the case of human individuality, that is to say, the individual seen as a species is the opposite, he has to have an essence.
That's right, even for him to be able to exist, the simple fact that you are knowing that you are a human being and not a parrot or an earthworm is already declaring that your essence is co-existing with your existence or even precedes it, that is, before you even existed you were already a human being That's right and nothing else This means that the relationship between essence and existence is inverted depending on whether you look at it from the aspect of species or from the aspect of individuality, when you are talking about the definition of species, then it is evident that Essence precedes existence, so we know for example that all human beings who come to be born belong to the essence of the human species even if they do not exist yet So in this case you say the essence precedes existence but in the case of human individuality in its concrete existence I in order to become something that is so I can have an essence I need to exist before and what I will call individual essence is something that only comes to my knowledge as a vague potency as a vague virtuality that will have to be updated over time, now this has a tremendous implication when I say that I want knowing myself, right? How can I know myself through experience if what I am does not yet exist? That is to say, how can I apprehend My Essence if it only exists in me as a power that is up to me to realize, right?
according to lavel it is already a doing so it is in the act of you recognizing what these virtualities are and you recognizing that they impose on you the obligation to be yourself it is the obligation to realize this is the only self-knowledge that exists the only sincerity that exists if there could be a descriptive sincerity In other words, you are a ready essence It's true that it can be known by mere description this implies that this Essence is ready and it can be contemplated but we have just seen that this is not the case, the essence only appears as potency So she cannot be contemplated because she is nothing yet she is in a kind of indistinct zone between being and not being she is She can be known as a possibility Okay but what you can be is already you I say it depends on you whether you are making an effort to realize it depends on whether you identify with it, whether you accept it and are realizing it, let's say, the potency was simply vaguely perceived then you changed the subject so you are not really that thing that is just a vague possibility So it is not your essence it is a possible essence that has not become yours therefore sincerity is an eminently dynamic and self-creating process the subject becomes sincere to the extent that he is truly committed to realizing himself and he knows what he is performing So that's why he says that sincerity does not consist so much in you showing This or That but in you finding yourself, it is not ISO, including the process of showing, meaning what you reveal to others is part of your process of self-realization and maintains a very complex and ambiguous relationship with him. In other words, you cannot show yourself the same to everyone in all circumstances. Okay, so that means you, your relationship process requires adaptations and ambiguities.
