The great souls—the exemplary lives that embodied meaning and made their lives an example—have given us a great gift: through the imitation of their behaviour we can communicate with what was revealed to them or that somehow they gained access to. But if we deify these people we remove them from this time and this space, which leaves them out of reach of our imitation and the demonstration effect that such behaviour is possible moves away from us. A rule or conduct that proposes a moral reference will be recognised as true if, as we implement it, we make contact with the meaning of life: without either feelings of guilt or threats and punishment. A moral reference is recognised because its imitation connects me with my own meaning. It communicates me with myself. The action I perform out of social obligation, because of what people may say, by peer pressure, isn’t a moral action. Such actions I perform bound by an abstract and external body are done only with the intention of recovering my lost freedom which was taken away from me by that abstract body. Here I’m a victim of violence and immorality. I’d like to do these actions quickly to get out of the situation and recover myself. Doing what must be done is experienced quite differently within me. It’s a mandate, almost a call, which comes from within. Moral action has a flavour that fills, it’s not in a hurry, meaning is being expressed and meaning is experienced.
It’s God looking at
himself. Morality is a teacher of actions and behaviour suggested from the world beyond time and space. We may speak of morality because there is meaning in life. Morality is a proposal of conduct which reflects meaning into the world. It’s a proposal and not an obligation. The imitation of behaviour or the implementation of a proposal has to be a free act, by choice and without obligation or pressure of any kind. Only then can we speak of a moral act. It’s freedom of choice, the very decision to act in one way rather than another that ennobles and endows an action with meaning.
It’s that freedom that makes the
imperative a moral one: we must do what must be done. Otherwise the imperative will provoke contradiction and internal violence. The moral act is possible only in a state of freedom. Why must the moral act be chosen among all possibilities? Because this action puts me in touch with the transcendental. The transcendental is the maximum freedom. It’s a break with the limitations imposed by time
88