<p>“To be,” this little word at the root of western culture is generally underrated, ignored, and even forgotten in its use and its meaning. This causes uncertainty and drowsiness in our way of being, thinking and sharing. All the more so since we are enclosed in a totality of beings which has been composed by a part of humanity at a certain moment of history, and is thus partial, does not include all beings and, furthermore, combines beings which cannot form the same sort of whole such as living beings and fabricated beings. The question is then how to remain open to the cosmos as a gathering of living beings and not only to a totality composed by human beings. I came to know that after my exclusion from the sociocultural world following the publication of my book <i>Speculum</i>. There is no doubt that this exclusion repeated a more original one, this of my subjectivity as feminine. I, nevertheless, was left on my own, being out of the world in which I had grown, deprived of the historical shaping of my being. Fortunately, as a woman, I remained more faithful to the cosmos as my dwelling and to a sharing with other living beings. This has not suppressed pain but has safeguarded my life and avoided me being confronted with nothingness. Besides, this has compelled me to come into the world anew, to discover the potential of my original “to be” and the manner of developing it in its singularity. Sent back in the natural world, I have also been led to practice a sensitive transcendence towards other living beings respected in their difference and to long otherwise for the Absolute. All that results in the outline of a phenomenology of “to be” which is founded on life and relations between living beings prior to a human elaboration dependent on logos and peculiar space and time.</p>