Monday, May 29, 2023

12 Layers of Personality, by Olavo de Carvalho

The Twelve Layers of Human Personality, And Their Unique Forms of Suffering, by Olavo de Carvalho, is a comprehensive exploration of the different stages or layers of human personality development and the associated suffering. Olavo views personality as a whole that undergoes transitions between layers, each influenced by new objectives or focal points in life. The layers can be divided into integrative layers, which enclose the personality within a defined framework, and divisive layers, which expose the personality to external influences and trigger a struggle for higher integration. Throughout the text, Olavo delves into each layer, discussing its characteristics, developmental milestones, and the specific forms of suffering individuals may experience within each layer.

According to Olavo, each layer represents a significant shift in the purpose and focus of the individual’s life. These transitions occur when the entire personality changes as a whole, without altering its individual parts. The whole personality can only change in relation to something external to itself, often a new objective or focal point in life that the individual strives to achieve. These transitions mark the progression and evolution of the individual’s personality over time, resembling a scheme of life and temporal development.

Olavo’s theory emphasizes that self-consciousness plays a crucial role in understanding the layers of personality. Each new layer represents a new pattern of self-consciousness, and the transitions between layers involve shifts in values, objectives, and the overall direction of the individual’s life. The layers encompass various aspects of human existence, including physical attributes, temperament, cognition, emotions, social roles, intellectual pursuits, and moral responsibilities. Suffering arises within each layer due to failures, misunderstandings, discrepancies between intentions and abilities, and unmet expectations.

Overall, Olavo’s work provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the development of human personality and the unique forms of suffering experienced at each layer. By exploring the transitions between layers and the changing objectives and focal points in an individual’s life, the text offers valuable insights into the complexities of human existence and the challenges individuals face in their personal growth and self-realization.

Introduction

The layer is the synthesis of personality, so each transition from layer to layer is a change in the entire personality, meaning that the whole acquires a new form without altering its parts. For each of these changes, it changes as a whole, and the whole can only change in relation to something, and that something cannot be its own parts. Therefore, it has to be in relation to something internal to it, in this case, external to the personality, and in relation to which it will assume different positions throughout life. Thus, the respective value of the parts begins to change, and there must be something that changes the evaluation of these various independent traits without changing the basic structure in a certain way, as this structure has to remain intact, as if it were a machine that, while remaining the same, is used for various purposes.

This something in relation to which the entire personality changes is a new objective in life, a new focal point of concentration for all energies, during a phase in which the individual will strive to achieve it.

In these progressive transitions from layer to layer, what changes is the aim, the purpose to which the whole personality is directed. It is a different purpose in each era, and this purpose itself has nothing to do with the structure of personality because it is part of an ideal development of the human being throughout life. It is like a scheme of life, a scheme of human temporal development.

It is the layer, therefore, that will give the purpose of the act, and this can only be explained through its purpose.

This Theory of Layers can only be understood in terms of self-consciousness, and each new layer is a new pattern of self-consciousness.

Consciousness: Consciousness is only understood if it is understood as a value, which is a human possibility that is not realized automatically. When it is accepted as a value and pursued, sought after, and desired – then it develops.

The layers of personality correspond to a chronological division or at least an ideal scale of evolution, and each layer encompasses the entire personality, concretely.

Any chronological division does not separate parts of the being but stages of time and assumes that the being exists concretely in each of these stages and, moreover, that it is only realized in time and space.

The layers can be:

Integrative Layers – close the personality in a defined framework.

They are: 1 – 2 – 5 – 6 – 8 – 11.

Divisive Layers – open the personality to the influx of external influences, disrupting the previous balance and triggering the struggle for a new and higher integration. They are: 3 – 4 – 7 – 9 – 10 – 12.

Until Layer 8, all are present in every normal adult individual, according to Gaston Berger:

Layer 1: Character Integrative Layer. Astrocharacterology.

The body is the precondition for the existence of personality; it is “prior” to personality, already given, ready, at the moment of birth, whereas personality will be the result of the effort of existence through the progressive absorption of elements.

Layer 2: Heredity, constitution, temperament, pulsional structure

Integrative Layer. Szondi (typologies in general)

This biological contribution is the first condition for the body to acquire real and concrete existence. For this realization, heredity, constitution, etc., are necessary. In this layer, many elements coming “from outside” enter the personal constitution, favoring or hindering its realization.

Layer 2 encompasses all heredity, as revealed by the Szondi test. A newborn can only suffer from the impact of adverse external physical conditions or from morbid tendencies of their own heredity.

Layer 3: Cognition, perception

Divisive Layer. Piaget, Kholer, Gestalt in general, behaviorism, Festinger; psychology of language.

All the above-mentioned schools have dedicated themselves to describing the cognitive process, its evolution, and its various stages. It is evident that the cognitive process is schematically the same in all human beings, but being quite complex, it introduces an element of variation within the framework delimited by heredity. What an individual will learn and how depends partly on heredity, partly on the environment, partly on the individual’s free will, and partly on the inherent logic of the cognitive process itself, which is entirely independent of individual heredity.

When an individual enters this layer, an element of freedom and indeterminacy is introduced into the framework previously delimited by heredity: not all people with the same hereditary characteristics receive the same information. The history of an individual’s cognitive development must be told independently of heredity because heredity does not determine learning opportunities nor is it omnipotent in determining the capacity for absorption.

The onset of the learning process can be a time for errors, failures, misunderstandings, and humiliations. Between the ages of two and seven, a child makes a tremendous effort to learn, continually wanting to learn, not necessarily what adults want to teach, but something that interests them. This means that being able to understand and master a subject or not is very important for the child during this period.

The inherent difficulties of learning appear early on when a child learns to walk, to talk, and suffers when they fail.

Layer 3 represents everyday events and has a fast pace. The sufferings of Layer 3 are related to the learning process, like an exercise that can tire or irritate. This layer indicates the acquisition of mastery over language, over the meanings of the environment in which one lives.

The suffering related to Layer 3 is related to failure or success; it is a mismatch between the child and themselves, between what they intend and what they can actually do. This type of failure does not leave traumas because it lasts a short time, and the individual’s own development overcomes it.

Layer 4: Pulsional and affective history. Divisive Layer.

Freud, Klein, psychoanalysis in general.

The affective pattern of the individual has a history; it comes from lived experiences that gradually crystallize certain reactions, resulting in the “character” as understood by Freud, which is like the result of the lived history that channels impulses in this or that direction until it consolidates a sound or neurotic circuit that tends to repeat.

This pulsional and affective history can also be studied independently of character, heredity, and cognitive history – but it is evident that to know the real and integral personality, we must gradually incorporate each layer into the next one, according to the chronological order of their entry into the scene.

As time goes by, the issue of happiness and unhappiness arises, which does not arise earlier because, in a way, it is normal for a person to be happy. For a child to express deep unhappiness and start striving for happiness, something must have caused sadness.

The fourth layer comes into play long after the third layer. The idea that people like them or not takes time to form because it requires repeated experiences or some fundamental experience that becomes significant.

The fourth layer is identified with the individual’s biography and has a slower rhythm than Layer 3. Even if a child has all the possibilities to have a well-resolved Layer 4, they may still suffer due to matters related to Layer 3. Physical inability to achieve a goal, for example, can generate immense suffering, even if the child’s affective environment is excellent.

The suffering of Layer 4 arises when the child discovers whether they are happy or not. This is only possible if there are repeated experiences and frustrations that lead them to feel loved or rejected. The events here represent extensive cycles of life that take time to form. After childhood, these events shape an affective pattern that will mark the rest of one’s life.

Development up to Layer 4 is almost inevitable, except in the case of mentally retarded individuals who do not have sufficient understanding to have an affective relationship. They have latent affectivity, which means that mentally retarded individuals are unaware of the sense of rejection that a normal child experiences. If they are treated like a dog, they may not even perceive that there is something wrong with it. If Layer 3 is not well developed, Layer 4 does not manifest. All individuals who are not mentally retarded reach Layer 4. They are people who never put themselves to the test, as they shy away from challenges. They are timid, dependent individuals who do not want to succeed, who only want to be loved. In reality, these individuals do not need love as they imagine; they need difficulties so that they can begin to respect themselves.

In the affective history of individuals, there is systematically a mismatch between the real need and the alleged need, which is a consequence of a discrepancy between Layers two and three, i.e., between impulses and the availability of means of communication. If a person has an unexpressed and unmet need, over time, this need may be replaced by another known need. This creates a misconception that is a general rule in the lives of all human beings, who reach maturity with numerous forgotten needs. These needs can be symbolically satisfied, which obviously does not work because it would be like satisfying someone’s hunger but leaving them thirsty.

The affective request is greater the less the individual has entered the following layer. They believe they need a lot of love, a lot of affection, and they do not act in their own benefit unless with the support of others.

In this layer, the individual sees themselves as someone very special, entitled to almost everything. If the demand for affection continues throughout life, it means that Layer 4 has not been resolved. If the problem lies in the realm of childhood affective deprivation, there is a need for psychotherapy. Layer 4 suffering cannot be resolved without specialized help because it is necessary to make the individual re-experience childhood emotions that do not fit into adult existence. Within psychotherapy, infantile needs can be revealed and worked on in some way. The demands of Layer 4 cannot be met in the normal course of adult life, thus requiring the creation of an artificial situation that isolates the individual from reality and, in a way, returns them to an infantile stage. If a person does not move on to the next layer (5) before reaching maturity, they will need psychotherapy.

Affective deprivation is only considered normal in a sick environment. According to INPS, 10% of the Brazilian population has mental illnesses. However, normality cannot be determined by statistics but must align with the requirements of real individual contact. It is the response to a need that marks normality, and it is this need that imposes a judgment standard. For example, it is normal for an animal to do everything necessary for its survival because it is naturally equipped for it.

Normality is an intuitive concept that refers to something that is functioning and goes unnoticed. In human relationships, it is almost impossible to achieve this level of normality. The norm would be to satisfy various needs with the least friction or difficulty. Professionals in Psychology, Pedagogy, Astrology, have a tremendous responsibility in this matter because they cannot accept such a low standard of sanity as that of Brazilians.

An individual who has not moved beyond Layer 4 requires psychotherapy because the needs of this layer cannot be met by an adult in the normal situation of life. The attention demand of a Layer 4 individual is immense, requiring the creation of a specific therapeutic environment for it.

Layer 5: Ego, self-awareness, and individuation

Integrative Layer. Jung.

Jung’s entire psychology is nothing more than a psychology of the ego and self-awareness; it is simply a response to the question: “How do I perceive myself as a self-conscious individual, and how does this self-awareness develop from the darkness of ignorance to the apprehension of the archetypes that determine its individual form and destiny?”

During adolescence, when an individual begins to define their vital space, they cannot do so without being conscious of themselves as an autonomous entity. A child imagines having powers that they do not actually possess, also attributing to themselves the powers of their father and mother. They do not define their own vital space and, therefore, cluster people around and within a common vital space.

Upon reaching adolescence, the individual understands that they are autonomous and that they must solve their problems on their own. They realize that being loved is not enough; they need to develop their personal power.

The feeling of desiring something and not having the personal power to achieve it is very different from the feeling of being loved or rejected. Even if the individual were loved, it would not solve anything. Suffering from rejection is different from suffering from a lack of power.

The transition from layer 4 to layer 5 occurs when the most important thing for the individual is no longer to feel loved but to achieve something through their own efforts. When this key changes, the layer also changes. In layer 5, the individual is satisfied as soon as they demonstrate their power, even if it is in a completely useless sphere of activity. A person in layer 5 judges everything in relation to themselves, paying no attention to anything outside or beyond themselves.

In layer 5, the source of suffering is self-deprecating self-judgment, not in a moral sense, but in terms of personal ability; it is self-deception. The only way to help an individual centered in layer 5 is psychologically because any material assistance offered can further contribute to their negative self-judgment.

Transitioning to layer 5 is problematic because this layer expresses a desire to be someone, to test one’s own strength, and a large number of people do not manage to do this. They prefer to voluntarily restrict their vital space and seek satisfaction only in layer 4.

In layer 5, the individual has already gained self-confidence and, even though they may not know how to do anything, they know they have potential to develop. They can face life, but what they face at the moment is not yet real life, it is only their self-image.

It is not normal for an adolescent to demand a lot of affection. On the contrary, it is normal for them to reject affection, to desire to be solitary and adventurous. An adolescent does not want “love,” they want to win, to feel that they are worth something to themselves. We observe that an individual has transitioned to layer 5 when their self-satisfaction is sufficient to make them more or less happy even when alone (not all the time, obviously).

In layer 5, it is not about an affective problem but about experiencing one’s own power.

It is quite common for people to not know they have power; therefore, they are unaware of the consequences of their actions, thinking that they are the only ones who suffer. If a significant portion of the population could enter layer 5, it would be great because it is better to have a population of arrogant youth who do not know how to do anything than a population of helpless individuals. The arrogant youth can at least learn something someday, but the helpless individual cannot.

In the case of the demand of layer 5, we can consider what we wanted to do to test ourselves in adolescence. Everything important that was not done due to shyness or fear keeps the individual in layer 5 because it is a sign that they do not possess that power.

However, it is essential to determine whether the problem lies between the individual and the world or between the individual and themselves. Anyone can be defeated by the world, but that is very different from voluntarily restricting one’s vital space. Proving one’s worth to oneself is essential at a certain stage of every individual’s life. If this is not done during adolescence, it will have to be done later. On the other hand, persistently demonstrating personal power indicates that layer 5 has not yet been overcome. Self-assertion must be experienced in adolescence because maturity begins at the point where the effective outcome matters.

Layer 6: Aptitude and vocation

Integrative Layer. Ungricht, Cyrill Burt, Eysenck.

A distinction can be made between aptitudes, which are more or less innate, and abilities, which are more or less acquired. However, it does not make sense to study this issue before having a sufficient understanding of ego psychology because aptitude is the conscious mastery of something. Latent aptitude either transforms into ability through the filtering of the ego, or you never become aware of it. Aptitude is the set of intellectual, technical, etc., means that the individual has at their disposal to express their character, and these means partly depend on themselves and partly are provided by the environment. It is one thing to study the relationship between character and heredity, character and cognitive development, and character and aptitude. Someone with favorable heredity may not develop the capacity because their environment did not provide them with the opportunity to acquire it.

In the transition to layer 6, the assertion of personal power is abandoned in favor of achieving effective results. In layer 6, what matters is not the demonstration of personal power but the achievement of something objective, such as working and receiving a salary. This is a consequence of a shift in value, which transfers from the subject to the object.

An individual who works and receives a salary does not cause a change within themselves, but outside of themselves, which returns not only in the form of subjective satisfaction, as in layer 5, but as an objective result.

Knowing something concrete, not only knowing how to do it but doing it routinely, having an effective mastery of something, even if it is small, is the foundation of any objective view. Until the individual experiences this, they continue to be “on trial” because they are constantly measuring themselves against the world, whereas in layer 6, the real world becomes the measure of the individual.

If the acquisition of a specific skill that allows the individual to act objectively does not occur, they will always see themselves as the center of everything. It is easy to perceive the difference between a person who has mastery over something and one who does not. In performing a task, the former wholeheartedly engages, while the latter keeps observing themselves, in a kind of rearview mirror, narcissistically evaluating their own performance.

Clearly, full individual capacity is only achieved when the problem of narcissistic self-evaluation is no longer in play. What matters to the individual now is accomplishing something objective, not just feeling capable.

In this layer, the individual strives to maintain or alter the organization of their life, prioritizing personal interests and needs. This attitude can create a conflict with the social role the individual occupies, revealing their inability to fulfill that role.

In layer 6, the source of suffering is an objective loss, as there was an expectation of a result that failed to materialize; it is a real, not psychological, harm, even though an individual in layer 5 considers their harm as real as that of someone who cannot afford to pay rent. But if someone helps resolve their problem, they are satisfied because they no longer see themselves as being on trial.

Layer 7: Situations and Social Roles

Divisive Layer. Adler, Honey, and culturalist school in general; psychology of communication.

The same individual has various sub-egos or subconstellations of personality according to the different social roles they play. We must distinguish the various situations that the individual experiences, what the different roles are, and the different subpersonalities they create to adapt to these situations, in order not to confuse mere social roles with personality or character traits.

The attainment of the power to do something specific and to defend oneself never encompasses the entirety of existence. We are capable of doing some things, but not most of them. We need others, and thus, over time, we develop a social role that represents the set of expectations we have of others' accomplishments to our actions, and vice versa. It is therefore a set of reciprocities.

The social role abbreviates communication with people around us, for example, in a professional situation, and also facilitates communication within a predetermined line, thereby excluding a series of others. Many behaviors that would be humanly possible are absent from a specific social role. As the social role establishes constant expectations about behavior, it places individual action within a framework of reciprocities. This applies not only to professional roles but also to family roles.

The social role legitimizes claims and allows for automated responses according to its nature. However, this requires a limitation. If an individual who occupies a role starts to repeatedly act outside of it, others become confused, which compromises the system of automated responses.

We recognize that someone has fully incorporated a social role only when the demands of that role are fully accepted and assimilated as a source of motivation. From then on, the organization of personal life is done considering the expectations of others. The goal is no longer just to meet the individual’s conveniences but to enhance their social role.

The definition of a role often becomes difficult, such as the roles of father and mother in relation to their children. People in general do not have a clear understanding of what the family structure is and therefore do not understand that the roles of father and mother are primarily biological, that is, the child is a helpless being and the parents are their protectors. In this sense, parents have absolute authority in essential matters for the child’s defense. If the roles get mixed up, with the mother interfering in matters that are not maternal and the father interfering in matters that are not paternal, the child ends up confused.

Currently, all roles are confused, such as father, mother, son, husband, wife, etc. When a society does not distinguish individuals' roles, their relationships will become problematic because there will always be a need for explanations, false expectations, disappointments, and conflicts.

Human coexistence is marked by a distribution of roles, mutual expectations, and a system of legitimacies, reciprocal rights and duties, whose correct meaning indicates that for every right, there is a corresponding duty. Proclaiming a right, for an individual or a group, is assigning a reciprocal duty to another individual or group. The promulgation of a right thus implicitly brings a duty. In all human relationships, there is a system of mutual expectations in which each duty of one corresponds to a right of the other, and each right of one entails a duty of another. The confusion of social roles occurs when one’s expectation of rights does not correspond to the other’s duties, and vice versa.

After the attainment of ability, that is, the power to defend oneself resulting from selective hierarchization, the exercise of a social role represents the seventh layer in the construction of personality. The attainment of effective power, experienced in layer 6, may or may not be converted into a social role. Social roles are implicitly delineated as they are based on and consolidated in custom. What I am capable of doing, if I do it repeatedly, people will notice, and they will end up creating a system of expectations around it.

Marriage is a prototype of a social role and is the most problematic of all. Dr. J.A. Müller stated that marriage generally meets a constellation of very different needs, which we could relate to the layers of personality. First and foremost, there is mutual physical attraction, which does not occur between any individuals since it has a significant hereditary background, and the Szondi test is revealing in this regard. However, this alone is not enough because two people can feel mutual attraction but have different languages and disparate cultures. Furthermore, they must meet the affective needs arising from their respective personal histories. For example, the pattern of the relationship between a man and his mother, and between a woman and her father, can positively or negatively determine the affective needs to be met. Likewise, their respective living spaces and real possibilities of action must be somehow coerced.

Since the social role of husband and wife must respond to a constellation of motives that originate in various layers of personality, it is needless to say that marriage represents the sector with the greatest role discrepancies. It is very difficult to meet so many demands, especially when society itself is unclear in the distribution of social roles. On the other hand, the correct definition of the social role in marriage, which encompasses a person’s entire life, requires knowledge of sublimated needs and requests relevant to layer 4.

The definition of the social role is completed in marriage, which is a system of commitments that encompasses the individual as a whole, whereas other social roles require only a portion of the individual. In general, social roles are limited to a line of action and participation, except for marriage. Even the relationship between parents and children requires only certain aspects of the individual, but marriage encompasses everything. We also find that certain companies require almost a marriage-like commitment from their employees.

When an individual assumes a social role, it means they were born, had hereditary tendencies, went through learning, experienced a history, and conquered their living space, where they selected certain areas in which they acquired specific power that allows them to perform a social role and be recognized through it. Thus, we can outline a life. However, the individual may have acted erroneously, not meeting the normal responsibilities of their position.

When someone does not assume their social role, they behave like an actor who entered the stage in the wrong place. This happens very frequently and turns the system of rights and duties into a source of numerous frustrations.

In the process of constructing personality, the attainment of a defined social role, even if insignificant, makes the individual aware of what they are doing, allowing them to understand their dissatisfaction with it.

The sufferings of layer 7 are related to the non-fulfillment of mutual expectations. Any person, upon acquiring a social role, expects acceptance and rejection, and for others to act according to the legitimacy of their position. If this does not happen, or if the individual does not fulfill their role, two sources of suffering are created. The first is due to being socially disoriented, and in this case, there was no entry into layer 7. The second is that despite having security about their place, the individual does not find reciprocity in others.

Inhibition is intolerable in adults, in any aspect. If rejection in collaborating stems from this, the individual is prevented from reaching layer 7 and therefore cannot participate in human activities. Inhibition is a severe limit imposed on a person’s social usefulness. We must be ready for everything that a situation demands; we must be socially useful to achieve layer 7. When we show interest in helping, we can become someone socially, recognized as members of society. This is the reward of layer 7: being socially accepted and considered equal by others.

The defense of the social role, of social respectability, is an important element of layer 7, that is, fulfilling what is expected of us. An individual who is already in layer 7 wants to remain in the conquered position and be recognized as a member of the social environment. Thus, they must carry out all necessary acts to perform their role. If they fail, it means they reject that role and, wanting another, they cannot occupy space improperly.

Layer 7 implies a desire for acceptance; one wants to be respected, accepted, and even loved, but just like everyone else. It is about claiming one’s personal share within a moderately equal division, knowing that no one will get more than that.

Failing to fulfill the social role is a reason for suffering for an individual who is truly in layer 7 because in this case, they are aware that they did not live up to their duty.

The concept of duty is fundamental in layer 7. It is normal for those who have reached this layer to understand that fulfilling a duty is an expression of love. For example, a father who works to support his child, does he do it out of love or duty? It is exactly the same; it is a duty determined by love, and nothing more.

Fulfilling duty is an expression of love for others. Generally, people do not think about this affective aspect of duty: if we fail to do something, we will harm someone else, who will be unhappy.

Emphasizing the concept of love from layer 4, which is a very primitive concept, does not help people become adults and responsible. Love is not a feeling. When we love someone, all possible feelings arise in the relationship. That alone is enough to realize that love is not a feeling. Love is an attitude of fostering the existence of the other person. It is facilitating their strengthening.

However, people often do not want to exercise love but merely feel it, which is a sign of immaturity, a childish and unhealthy perspective. We must understand that an attitude of love requires satisfaction in renunciation, in giving up something for the benefit of others. In short, it is limiting one’s own space for the sake of others and enjoying doing so.

Layer 8: Individual Synthesis

Integrative Layer. Le Senne, Berger. Provisional individual synthesis at each stage of development, i.e., “characterological profile” in the sense of Le Senne and Berger.

If we understand character not only in the sense of the first three columns, but as one of the nine columns of Berger’s test, we can say that it is a summation, an individual synthesis, which at a given moment provides a portrait of the individual as they are. At this point, we arrive at the notion of a global personality for the first time. But personality does not end here – it only ends here for the average human beings, but there are people who have other ranges of personality that cannot be encompassed by the studies described so far. These people have something more that sets them apart.

From the seventh layer onwards, we encounter a complete personality, when the individual, after having acquired a defined social role, can retrospectively look at the trajectory of their life and make an assessment.

It is at the moment of this summation that the individual reaches a degree of stability in their tendencies, which provides a more or less permanent result in Le Senne’s test. This stabilized set of individual tendencies is what Le Senne calls character.

For astrocharacterology, character in the sense of Layer I has a different conceptualization. The same word acquires a different meaning when referred to Layer 8. According to Le Senne, character consists of the stabilization of tendencies that mark individuality, not only physically but also encompassing social role, capacities, living space, personal history, etc. The totality of these tendencies becomes stable in maturity, especially regarding basic tendencies. Le Senne’s test applied prematurely can yield variable results depending on events, modifying the framework of tendencies.

At the moment the individual defines their social role, character emerges properly in the sense that Le Senne attributes to it. The adult personality, well-formed or not, is the expression of the eighth layer.

Once the social role is assumed, repeated experience and habit help in the consolidation of basic tendencies. Of all the inherited tendencies, some manifest themselves, while others are neutralized. Even if these tendencies have been emphasized, dissolved, or simply forgotten, they persist in a kind of simmering until a social role is achieved.

At this moment, there is a stabilization of tendencies, so that if the individual is removed from their social role, these tendencies will persist. This is what Le Senne calls character: the set of stabilized tendencies in adulthood, thus after assimilation of permanent social roles.

When reaching Layer 7, that is, when a person acquires a social role, they also define their tendencies, inclinations. Several people can have a similar social role, but in order to fulfill the resulting demands, each person responds in a specific way, which becomes stable over time.

Le Senne states that basic traits hardly change. However, he added other traits, such as intelligence that can be scattered or concentrated, in the sense of encompassing a multitude of data simultaneously or capturing a specialized line of reasoning. This consists of an individual’s reaction to some external world’s solicitation.

The terms “concentrated” and “scattered” are not used in the pathological sense, when the subject is unable to pay attention, but in terms of the content of what they pay attention to: whether it is a whole horizon of heterogeneous data or, conversely, something specific. Scattered does not mean distracted, but rather that the spectrum of information is broad. The concentrated subject, in Le Senne’s sense, can be distracted in the pathological sense and vice versa.

The stabilization of individual tendencies coincides with the incorporation of a social role, which acts as a catalyst. The social role concentrates a set of demands within a system of rules for coexistence with people, with whom there is a reciprocal and presupposed expectation, as it implies customary actions and reactions that create a standardized behavior. A failure to meet the expectation would indicate an abnormality, while the habitual fulfillment of that same expectation goes unnoticed.

Social roles represent a system of customary expectations that compose the framework of lawful coexistence, so that the non-fulfillment of an expectation cannot be admitted.

Until this unconscious expectation is present, it is not possible to stabilize tendencies because the individual is forced to make many more decisions than someone who already has a defined social role. The change of social role itself requires successive adaptations, which prevent the consolidation of tendencies.

Tendencies can only be fixed through habit. That is why Le Senne’s test yields different results according to age and only show stability in maturity. For Le Senne, character is not innate but rather the product of an evolution that stabilizes, similar to organic growth.

From birth to adulthood, an individual’s organism undergoes changes that later stabilize. Just as there are changes in physical evolution and after a certain age no further changes occur, or they occur at a slower pace, similarly in the construction of personality, changes occur until a certain point. After that, under normal conditions, these changes cease.

When the individual reaches this point, even if they change their social role, their character no longer changes because it has already acquired autonomy. We can then observe a distinctive way of acting that has consolidated. It is at this point that one realizes that the individual has a formed personality, and changing jobs or cities is not enough to change their character. After the age of thirty, no one can remain as susceptible, and when this happens, it is evidently because a previous layer was poorly carried out.

The social role facilitates the consolidation of various subjective tendencies. However, from a certain stage of life, these tendencies no longer depend on the social role, so even when removed from the social role, the individual remains intact. If this does not occur, it is because a complete personality does not yet exist.

The suffering related to Layer 8 is the suffering of the individual with themselves. It is typical of mature individuals who, having gone through all the layers to acquire a social role and everything it entails, end up asking themselves: “What have I made of my life?”

Assuming that a person has truly obtained what they desired, they can still reveal dissatisfaction with themselves. For this, it is necessary to look at one’s own life as a whole. What is being questioned is not only the social role, the living space, the affective history, but the entire course of existence. In general, people are unaware of this type of suffering until they reach the age of 40.

The ability to judge life as a totality, without blaming anyone, is the subject of Layer 8. This is where the confrontation with destiny takes place. The individual is already individualized, defined, knows that their personality and life constitute a distinct whole, knows that they are the author of their actions and that it was their choices, whether right or wrong.

A person who has just obtained their role, being accepted and respected in its exercise, suddenly sees a colleague giving up everything because they entered a crisis of conscience. How could this be evaluated? How to distinguish the individual in an authentic evolutionary crisis from the one who has gone crazy?

Under normal conditions, a person in an evolutionary crisis does not lose their social role but simply positions themselves on a different plane. When an individual renounces a social role to seek something that makes more sense to them, others who hold a similar role generally find it strange. A change at the peak of a career may indicate that the individual has reached the limits of the possibilities offered by their profession. However, this change is not necessarily professional, it is a change of orientation. It is a change for more and not less.

Layer 9: Intellectual Personality

Divisive Layer. Pradines, Bergson, Koestler, neuristics.

Intellectual personality, superior; genius; artistic creation, style, etc.; “poetic personality” in Croce’s sense, opposed to “empirical personality”.

Everything mentioned so far is empirical personality, the personality that the subject actually has throughout their experience. We can begin to speak of work and personality from the moment this empirical personality receives conscious evaluation in some of its aspects. That is, when the individual realizes that certain elements of their personality may contain the affirmation of certain universal values and starts dedicating themselves to realizing those particular aspects.

We call this the superior intellectual personality, and not everyone has it. You have it from the moment you desire it and seek to develop it. Nature takes man to a certain point, creating certain organs in him, but there are others that man himself “invents”.

There is an “organ” in Balzac or Beethoven that does not exist in other people, and that is what Croce calls poetic personality – it is the creative aspect of personality, which, stemming from empirical personality, sometimes encompasses it entirely, to the point that the traits of the latter are neutralized.

From the level of awareness represented by layer 8, a ninth layer can emerge, which does not arise in the vast majority of human beings. The norm is to reach the eighth layer, with the remaining layers remaining only as potentialities.

In principle, any human being has the potential to progress to the final layer, but depending on will, social environment, and other factors, not everyone achieves layer 8, many do not reach layer 7, and others not even layer 6 or 5.

In the normal evolution of the human being, it is possible to reach up to layer 8. In this layer, the individual experiences a complete personality, able to see their life as a whole, tell their own story, and, to some extent, judge it. From there, layer 9 can develop, which we call intellectual personality.

Intellectual personality begins at the moment when the key to the subject’s behavior is the realization of certain societal and human cultural ends. This goes beyond personality in the common sense of the term. Intellectual personality is therefore an aspect that surpasses personality itself, although it does not necessarily express itself in so-called cultural activities.

An individual acquires an intellectual personality when solving a theoretical or practical problem that arises for their intelligence becomes more important to them than their own personality. It is something extra to which the individual dedicates themselves because it seems relevant and is not linked to a specific social role. If this extra something becomes the center of the individual’s life, then they have an intellectual personality, which seeks primarily to serve the interests of society and culture.

However, it is perfectly possible for an individual to be engaged with issues that transcend their personal sphere and have no intellectual personality at all, but simply fulfill the needs of lower layers. For example, any government minister who has not solved a problem in an original way does not possess an intellectual personality, at most, they have reached layer 7. If they merely bureaucratically fulfill what is expected of their social role, they are at layer 7.

What is fundamental for layer 7 is to correspond to the duties of a position, while for layer 8 it is sufficient to have the satisfaction of having accomplished something meaningful. However, if an individual has developed an intellectual personality, this will never be enough. What matters is whether, within the social role they have played, the individual has limited themselves to the demands that role entails or has done something more than they were obliged to do. The difference lies in action.

Intellectual personality emerges from the moment there is this something extra, that is, when the individual seeks to solve a question posed by their own intelligence and no one around them will notice if they don’t. It is a kind of additional consciousness they possess, a duty towards the ends of culture, society, and human existence, as this individual interprets them. It goes beyond personal interest or social role.

An individual who fulfills their duty as another would in their place is merely meeting a social role. They don’t even need to judge that role because if they do, they enter layer 8. From there, there is a point where the individual can contribute personally to something that transcends them.

When an individual develops an intellectual personality and begins to act in accordance with it, those below them cannot understand that the motivation, in this case, arises from an internal need that goes beyond social role, financial interest, or the desire for self-affirmation.

We can explain an individual’s actions based on layers 4, 5, or 6, but there are people whose behavior defies common explanations. Conversely, we can also attribute complex motivations to individuals when they are simply seeking to meet infantile needs.

The dominant tendency is to opt for depreciative interpretations because as information spreads, it is likely that an increasing number of uneducated individuals will use means of expression that were previously restricted to more educated individuals. Nowadays, it is not necessary to reach the level of intellectualism required to practice a profession, which has led to the emergence of what we can call an intellectual proletariat.

The dissemination of culture is highly ambiguous: on one hand, it allows adequately gifted individuals who lack material resources to benefit from it, but on the other hand, it enables talentless individuals to engage in intellectual activities.

The ideal would be a rigorous selection process, similar to the ancient system of Chinese literati. Access to the profession of literati in China was independent of social class and based solely on individual ability. Nowadays, in order to eliminate the unjust principle of economic selection, the false expectation has been created that anyone, without distinction, can become an intellectual or scientist.

Layer 10: Transcendental Self

Divisive Layer. Kant, Husserl, Berdiaeff, Gusdorf, Caruso. Transcendental self, moral responsibility, free will, etc.

The problem of moral personality arises only when the individual has an intellectual personality, as it is the intellectual personality that highlights in the individual the idea of universal value as something that exists for us. Without this, how could we morally judge our actions? Below a certain level of personality integration that allows for the emergence of this superior intellectual personality, we can say that the individual’s actions are morally irrelevant – in the sense of Kantian morality, not social morality, as their actions influence others.

The moral problem we speak of arises when, conceiving that there are universal values in themselves that it is their duty to fulfill, the individual refuses to do so. But how can we demand this from someone who does not have a formed individual synthesis, from an individual who is still developing within the collective mindset and who, when they make mistakes, makes them along with others?

The tenth layer signifies the individual who conceives themselves as a representative of the human species, as a being endowed with self-consciousness and responsible for all their actions. It is, in short, the “transcendental self”.

In layer 10, the individual observes themselves from a standpoint where any other human being in their place would have the obligation to see themselves in that way. Herein lies man before reason, before their higher faculties, possessing the ability to evaluate the rationality of their actions in absolute terms.

Socrates, while engaged in discussion, knew that the conditions of truth that existed for him were the same as those that would exist for any other person because his thoughts expressed the self-consciousness of his own universality.

Layer 10 represents the attainment of a defined role within the hierarchy of humanity. To be in this layer means to constantly have intellectual awareness of the universality of all actions. It is an awareness that the rational being, in general, must act in a certain way in specific circumstances. Actions then acquire a universal significance, though not universal scope.

Layer 11: Character

Integrative Layer. Dilthey, Weber, Waelon. Here, we find the individual facing History, Civilization, Humanity.

To the extent that one has a superior intellectual personality and a transcendent self capable of standing above their entire existence and judging it, when one reaches this point of being able to judge their existence and actions as if from a position above oneself, the individual provides satisfaction of themselves before the tribunal of Humanity, of History.

The realm of universality, apodictic thinking, are elements of layer 10. We find there a theory universally valid, but acting universally is something different. The next step would be to judge the totality of life in relation to the actions taken and their consequences for humanity.

Reaching certainty with objectivity does not yet impart a historical meaning to the individual’s actions. It is as if one has universality, but only in theory.

Layer 11 represents individual action within the context of history. It does not matter whether the actions are great or small because what matters here is knowing exactly where the individual is situated, not only as a rational being but within History as a whole, within the process of the evolution of the human species.

When an individual achieves a historical role, their actions are judged by Humanity, thus attaining a global dimension.

The prototype of layer 11 is the figure of Napoleon Bonaparte. He sought to discover the extent to which an individual’s power could change the course of History. Studying his biography, we will not understand him by explaining him based on motives from earlier layers.

When one acts in pursuit of historical ends, one acts in pursuit of something that does not yet exist, which means that this action cannot be evaluated based on social content or practical gain because it transcends them. Only by ascending higher will we find the key to behavior. Only then do actions unify and acquire a complete form.

Napoleon did not have a predetermined plan to execute, and this is his characteristic trait: the absolute lack of a sense of mission. What he possessed was a spirit of experimentation that led him to experience human freedom and the power of the individual to the extent permitted. Napoleon sought to direct this in a direction he deemed good.

Defining Napoleon in terms of a simple desire for power does not do justice to him, as in many cases, this is an irrelevant factor in the face of History. However, some individuals leave a mark, and those who know what that mark is and what judgment History will pass on them reach layer 11.

Napoleon was aware that he had irreversibly altered History, something few men have achieved. This is not a result of the amount of accumulated power, which can later be erased or reversed. Tragically, the effects of actions can even turn out to be the opposite of what was imagined.

In layer 11, the individual positions themselves as a piece of History, who, at a specific moment, with complete certainty, carries out certain actions that will change the course of human collectivity.

There is no room for everyone in layer 11. Nature itself is hierarchical from beginning to end. There is no natural democracy because it is evident that individuals have different levels of health or intelligence. What is truly observed is a selective process, even though it is difficult to admit that some individuals are better endowed than others.

Layer 12: Final destination

Divisive Layer. Traditional mystical psychologies; Paul Diel, Victor Frankl. Final destination: The individual before God; the meaning and value of life, etc.

Mystical psychologies fundamentally deal with the individual’s sense of life, the individual’s relationship to their ultimate moral responsibility, something that goes beyond the character, something that Humanity itself does not know. It is fundamentally the individual as the Universal Man, as Christ, as a shepherd and responsible for all of humanity.

Layer 12 consists of the individual’s action based on the ultimate purpose of all things. For Gandhi – who is a prototype of Layer 12 – only the relationship with a purpose that transcends biological life and the life of the human species matters. When both of those end, God would remain, and it is in anticipation of that moment that his actions are guided.

In Gandhi’s case, not even the political objective explains his behavior, as he did not accept the independence of India on any terms, placing moral demands far above what human beings usually imagine. Gandhi acted exactly contrary to political reasoning, appealing to the heart of the matter and offering not only his own life but also his “post-mortem” destiny as a guarantee.

In Layer 12, all actions are guided by the following rule: “What would God think of this?” This is the subject who, according to the Bible, walks before God and knows what He is thinking. Normally, even an exceptional person does not subject all their actions to this criterion. The confrontation with God presupposes that the individual is capable of conceiving each of their acts from an eternal perspective.

If we have a decision to make, we can do this or that for reasons from Layer 5 – it strengthens me, I feel more self-confident; from Layer 6 – it will yield results; from Layer 7 – it is a duty that falls upon me; from Layer 8 – it makes sense within my biography; from Layer 9 – this is what the duty of intelligence imposes. Even in Layer 9, the existence of the world is presumed because it would make no sense to act according to practical gain if everything were to end tomorrow.

Fulfilling the duty related to a social role presupposes the existence of people who have expectations of the occupant of that role. Acting based on the coherence of one’s own biography presupposes that it should continue. Acting towards goals dictated by culture, intelligence presupposes the existence of achievable ends within the timeframe of a historical existence. However, if the individual acts exclusively based on a final outcome, they are precisely acting based on the non-existence of a world around them. With or without a world, they would act in the same way. The actions then acquire a supratemporal, suprahistorical meaning, that is, the way a person should always act, before the world existed or when it ceases to exist. Here, action is regarded as the direct expression of a divine quality that does not depend on the existence of the world.

Any person who believes in God eventually acts inspired by the eternal, although it is difficult to understand someone who acts like that permanently, such as Gandhi, for whom we must use a different standard of behavior. It is as if he knows what God wants, as if he is in constant conversation with God. A realized holy person acts based on the eternal meaning of existence, without any other motive, not even History.

In Layer 12, the individual’s actions seem overly complex and enigmatic. To understand the actions of a saint, one must believe in them. Then everything falls into place, and we begin to perceive a coherence, an explanatory principle of their actions. This occurs independently of vocational motivations that may have emerged during the course of their biography, related to the previous layers, which may have contributed to setting the subject on a certain path but are not sufficient to clarify the unfolding of their story.

We can only speak of holiness when an individual’s every act is motivated by their relationship with an eternal God. Not just incidental acts, but every single one, and there is not a single act that can be explained outside of this dialogue. With whom is the subject conversing? To whom are they responding? If we erase this connection, their life becomes a collection of meaningless acts. There are individuals who are born into Layer 12, to the extent that as they go through the preceding layers, they are quickly absorbed.

Recognition Criteria

The layers flow successively as the individual evolves, absorbing the elements contained in the previous layer and directing them according to another unifying principle that indicates a new source of motivations, a new key to explaining their actions. For example, the defense, preservation, acquisition, or abandonment of a social role implies motivations different from those that arise from the preceding layers up to the seventh.

Layers are never skipped, but it is possible to pseudo-transition from one layer to another when the individual is already preoccupied with matters of the next layer, but their suffering is still related to the previous layer. There has not been an effective conquest, only a false extension because the key to their behavior has not changed. An individual only leaves a layer when it is no longer a problem, that is, when they face a worse problem and their suffering has another cause. This cannot be evaluated externally; only the individual themselves or someone who observes them over a long period of time knows.

The mismatch of motivation becomes evident when, in one layer, we continue to act based on motives relevant to the previous layers. This would be the case of a subject performing a social role, which represents the seventh layer, solely based on their organic economy, which is a motive from the sixth layer. In this way, they have no social role or are in the wrong role.

There is no regression to a previous layer, except in pathological cases such as senile dementia, brain injury, etc. If a person regresses, it is because they were never actually in that layer. It is a pseudo-occupation of a layer, involvement with matters of the next layer when the key to behavior is in the previous layer. It is performative, an inflation: the individual has swelled but has not truly occupied the space. They are like an empty balloon.

It is important to understand that for an individual situated in a particular layer, the motivations of the subsequent layers may seem abstract and implausible. How could a child, who strives to attract the attention and affection of their father and mother, imagine that someone would desire the opposite, to be alone and abandon their parents? A child knows that adolescents possess something they do not have but does not fully grasp what it is. Similarly, an individual who is testing themselves and needs to assess their own worth and extent of their power cannot conceive that someone would dedicate themselves to something without any interest in subjective rewards.

We can only comprehend those who are in the same layer as us or in lower layers. It is better not to try to explain others. In the higher layers, the motivations of the subject are very complex because they are living on a plane where what is decisive for us simply does not exist. An individual whose personality is still being defined according to the mold of the social role will hardly understand the purely personal concerns of someone who is reviewing their own life, questioning their work, their social role, etc.

To determine which layer an individual is in, we must identify the real source of their suffering, what truly represents a problem for them. At any stage, we may encounter a blockage or even the impossibility of moving from one layer to the next. Each layer expresses a principle of organizing life as a whole, absorbing the elements from the previous layer and giving them a new form and direction.

The decisive question is: where does it hurt? It hurts in the layer where one is situated. Here, we refer to psychological suffering. However, there can also be objective suffering, such as when an individual experiences a narrowing of their living space from external circumstances. In a society that does not allow freedom of expression, this narrowing is external and will cause the individual to suffer due to a legitimate demand from their fifth layer, even if they are in the tenth layer.

We can suffer in any layer, even in the lower ones, without being bound to them. It all depends on whether there is a real external impediment. For a forty-year-old man to suffer in the fifth layer, although they are in the seventh or eighth, it is only possible if it is a very severe suffering because usually, if we cannot expand our living space in one direction, we expand it in another.

What one wants to do but is not objectively viable represents a conflict with the world, and that is not psychological. When an individual is not recognized in the social role they play, it is a cause of suffering but not a psychological cause.

External deprivation of basic needs can also occur. An exceptionally hated person will suffer in the fourth layer even if they are not actually in it. A person who works and does not earn enough suffers from a lack of means, and this is a matter of the sixth layer. In both cases, changing the external situation would resolve the problem. When a subject exhibits inhibition (fifth layer), such as shame or fear, it stems from within themselves, which is different from external impediment. On the other hand, there are people who never find a chance to showcase their abilities, even though they are capable enough in the profession they have chosen. This is not an internal incapacity but simply a lack of opportunity.

Although there are cases of concrete external limitations, in almost all situations, what is observed are internal impediments that the individual cannot overcome. For example, the need for affection is usually an internalized need that comes from another time. However, the individual continues to act with reference to the past, even though that need no longer exists in reality, so attempting to retroactively satisfy it is futile. This is precisely why psychotherapy exists, as it simulates a situation where pseudo-needs are pseudo-fulfilled.

The need to express aggression from twenty years ago towards a person who is no longer present cannot be accepted as an actual need; it is merely symbolic. It is necessary to stage a psychodrama, a theater that satisfies the imagination. This cannot be done in everyday life, although we frequently observe people behaving as if they were in a psychotherapeutic setting.

Since psychology was created to meet symbolic needs, it is the only solution for those who remain stuck in the fourth layer. In the fifth layer, doubts about personal power can be addressed by reconstructing a circumstance, even if much time has passed.

The difference between a personality layer and an astrological house is this: the subject experiences matters from various houses but is located in a specific layer. For example, a subject may be in the fourth layer but concerned with making money, defining a profession, etc.

at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)