Approaching the Kafka text in 3 circles. The introduction to Das Schloss has a transition from dark to light (which is typical to Jewish philosophy in general).
Vor dem Gesetz is apparently a parable for the guy in Das Schloss. What the person is accessing in VdG is possibly an edifice, codex, Thora, or Kafka’s secret (in his past relationship with his father, his present illness, and his (lack of) a future wife).
It is worth remarking that the guard does not simply forbid entrance to the man. Rather, he, Kafka says he cannot let him into the law now.
The doorkeeper always uses direct speech; except this single time.
The man from the country always speaks in indirect speech, except for his very last line.
The story is blocked; to resolve this, one could try to switch
”says he can’t let him in the law right now” → “says ‘I can not let you into the law right now.‘”
When we switch indirect → direct speech, we go from objective to subjective speech.
The “I” becomes itself in contrast with another, “you.”
Franz Rosenzweig → Die Erlozung (revelation of all secrets) entsteht wenn Ich zum Er, Du sagen lerne.
The event of the Erlozung happens, when I, to him, learn to say you.
Kafka uses indirect speech because it allows him to indicate the relation between the doorkeeper and the man from the countryside as objective.
The first form of deception was the man asking for entry; the second deception is the man seeing the door as an obstacle.
The story can be unlocked with the change of indirect to direct speech. But what about the interpretation of the man from the country?
The man then asks “can I enter later, then?” ← the other way to unlock the story; it is the topic time which was indicated […]. The procrastination in the search for the law: if it is not possible now, because there is an obstacle, then the moment of now will be postponed into the unending future.
Prof. talked about Borges, who compared Kafka with Zeno, much like the latter’s paradoxes, Kafka postpones things into the unending future.
The doorkeeper answers, in direct speech, saying that entry is possible, but not now: the doorkeeper becomes an obstacle in the eyes of the man from the country. The gateway to the law is open as it always is. And the doorkeeper has stepped to one side, so the man bends over to try and see in. The doorkeeper is not standing as a prohibition, but takes a step to the side.
The man bends over to try to see into the law. Who the hell has to bend over to see into an enormous gate? [rhetorical question from prof.]
Two elements are important here: seeing, and becoming little. In Western tradition, the metaphor of seeing is very important. The ideas of Plato have to do with seeing. Aristotle speaks in his first philosophy, about the theore[…], which is a way of seeing. And as philosophers, we have to get inside it. Once we are inside, we think we understand it.
Deleuze speaks of this in Difference et Repetition; Levinas speaks of a synoptic gaze: a word borrowed/taken from synopsis, the book format where all the gospels are printed in parallel so you can see the words of all of them at once. It is a totalizing gaze.
In Western philosophy, seeing is a metaphor for power; knowledge is power; Foucault’s Discipline and Punish: he speaks of the problem of the synopticon [professor probably misnamed it, panopticon]. You can see into a room when there is another window in the room letting in light. The prison guard sees the prisoners, the prisoners don’t know they are seen; by seeing, the guard exercises a kind of power on the bodies of the prisoners. Everyone knowing they can be seen at every moment means there is no need for the prison guard, even.
The metaphor of the eye is linked with knowledge, getting inside, power that can be exercised with this relation of objective seeing. In the Jewish tradition, the metaphor of seeing is not so important; it is not the eye that is important, but the ear.
The fundamental prayer for the jews is “hear, shomah, israel.”
In seeing, you are representing the alterity of the other to a present now.
In hearing, you are depending on the words of the other.
^ the relation with alterity is different between eye/ear
Secondly, the time dimension is different in listening. When hearing another’s word, there is no repetition possible, it happens now, when the word is said, it is gone. In seeing, you can always look for a second time, repetition is possible.
In the Jewish tradition, you can go back in the book and read it again until you understand it. In hearing, you hear and it’s gone. The experience of time is completely different in hearing.
The material aspect is different: in hearing you have only the word that is spoken, it is air affected in a certain way; in looking, it’s a certain objectivity, in hearing it just flows over. In hearing we are dependent on the alter. It is possible even that the other says nothing.
Maybe this is one of the reasons why Freud introduced the ‘talking cure.’ ← psychoanalysis. The analysandus, Freud, sits out of sight. [Is psychoanalysis fundamentally jewish?]
The gateway to the law is open as it always is, and the doorkeeper steps to the side, so the man bends over to see inside the law.
Third deception, instead of hearing from the doorkeeper in a personal relation, he wants to see, an objective relation.
In bending over he becomes little: his humanity shrinks. In seeing the doorkeeper as an objective obstacle, his humanity shrinks. In the end the man becomes a dwarf.
When the doorkeeper sees this, he says (in direct speech): “If you’re tempted, try, try to go in even though I say you can’t. Careful, though, I am powerful, and I am the lowest of the doorkeepers. [… not transcribing this]”
The law was supposed to be accessible for anyone at any time they think. The law is in the eyes of the man who is looking, or trying to look into the law. In his eyes it becomes objective to everyone who is trying to do the same. That is what the man, thinks, the act of seeing. The law has to be accessible to each and everyone, a theoretical insight which everyone should be able to access to all times. The secret is the same for everyone in a synoptic look.
The doorkeeper gives the man a stool - the German word indicating a little stool that is used by a farmer when they want to milk cows - prof. can’t imagine there is a stool smaller than that.
Tauschung (lie) is taken up once in this text: whether it is really getting darker or it is merely the man’s eyes deceiving him. But he now sees an inextinguishable light from behind the door. The man has a classifying, theoretical view of the law (beobachten is ‘to spectate’). He asks himself, am I tauschen (deceiving) myself, or is it light?
There is subtle play between light and darkness here.
The play between Vor seinem Tode & Vor dem Gesetz (fore his death, fore the law).
Only the death of another can be seen as an objective fact. Death is a particular aspect of one’s own existence. Death is not accessible at any time for everyone [see comparison with earlier accessibility of law].
Near death, the man finally uses direct speech, speaks in his own name; the theme of shrinking, “game of being big and little” [prof. says] is taken up again; Vor seinem Tode he brings his whole experience into one question. “Everyone wants access to the law; how come over all these years, nobody but me has asked to be let in?” If the law is a universal truth, is the secret ot life is universal and the same for everyone, how come I am the only one sitting here before the door?
The doorkeeper knows the man’s life is about to die; his hearing has faded. And so the doorkeeper can make himself heard, he shouts: “nobody else could have come through this entrance, as it was meant only for you. I will now go and close it.” And you were deceived by the fact that you thought that in the kairos (as opposed to the chronos) the law was universal.
The door is open for each of us; we must not let the doorkeeper keep growing: we must discover this Geheimnis, and if we do not notice it we are reduced to animals and stabbed in the heart wie ein Hund (like a dog).