Before the Law

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Little parable within Kafka’s The Trial. Here is the link: kafka-online.info/before-the-law.html

It is still, in my opinion, the sign of his genius. It is meant as an explanation offered to K in the novel, who awaits his trial, but even by itself it is still a wonderful story. So what does it mean?

Perhaps that our condition always filters any objective reality, and thus that we merely deal with surfaces and never what lies behind. It could also be a re-statement of Gorgias who probably believed that true objectivity was impossible since there was no way to separate the mind from the observer.
1.Nothing exists;
2.Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and
3.Even if something can be known about it, knowledge about it can’t be communicated to others.
4.Even if it can be communicated, it cannot be understood.
Here there are only four. Each could stand, take the place of, Kafka’s gatekeepers.
The man in the parable never makes it past the first gatekeeper but the fact that he was set by the Law for him specifically may tell us about the issue of going past the gatekeeper. It was an issue of getting past himself. His opinion about the Law. There never was any Law, but the person creating The Law also creates the gatekeepers that are indeed undefeatable. But what is the Law? The Law is universality, it is objectivity, terms that our mind creates in language games, but whose meaning, its actuality, the experience of it, is impossible to the man from the country side. And that is the ultimate frustration to the man from the country. He believes that the Law should be accessible to anyone, but finds unsurmountable obstacles.
Of course we do have revelation. God appears to Abraham, Moses, Paul, among others. Moses demonstrates that the parable is not universal, for he comes back from his trip with The Law. But here is the thing: the man believes that The Law should be accessible to anyone and is frustrated. So, can we do without The Law? No. I think that the Law takes many guises and does not represent solely The Law of Moses, or religious canons in general. It is meaningful, as a parable, even when we change the Law to, say, scientific Law. It is still striving for something that cannot be contained by us. It is the finite striving after the infinite.
So what do we make of those that did find the infinite, The Law? What about those prophets? Well, the irony is that you could only know that they were right, rather than deceived, only if you had found access to The Law as well. If not, then you can only believe in what the say. Which brings me back to the choices before the man from the country. The man did not have to abandon his life and wait to be let in past the gatekeepers (for there were many). He wanted access, direct access, that is to know The Law. Why should one believe by faith when Moses knows God? So, one might demand an audience with Godot (another wonderful parable), or simply walk away and believe what you hear others tell you about The Law.

2

Nice read Omar (I have not seen this before for whatever reason).
Not sure if I personally take on the same slant as you but it follows a similar principal.

The irony of the entire the story is that the gatekeeper never once prevented the man from entering the law except with the distant concept that every gate keeper is more powerful than him (but at no point did the gatekeeper display even the smallest of powers).

We are our own worst enemies and we prevent ourselves from achieving our own deepest desires. We can pass unimpeded through the gates (the threshold between two worlds) but our own irrational-fear (gate keeper) prevents us. Ultimately, we become sick, we age and we die and that point we do not have the mental and physical capacity. Irrational-Fear (the gatekeeper) has become victorious and the door is closed (implying that it was always open up until the point of death.

“Here no one else can gain entry, since this entrance was assigned only to you. I’m going now to close it." This is a pivotal moment in the allegory/parable.

The question arises: What are our deepest desires? I guess that is up to each individual to contemplate; but I would imagine that since there are many gate keepers (one inside the other) then there must also be many desires (one inside the other) and each desire has its own corresponding irrational-fear. All of these irrational-fears (gates keepers) are powerless and we too become powerless in their presence. Irrational-fear (the gate keeper) always says “It is possible,”… “but not now" but eventually our own mortality says “It is now impossible and never again”.

3

People are there own gatekeepers because they like the joy of the chase, if they gain something to quickly then what then is their left?

Building games is more entertaining than playing them.

The “problem” is dealing with people so unconscious that they don’t even recognize their own idiocy and gatekeeping selfishness.

Usually when encounter such a person they will whine about the thing that they want, then you offer an easy painfree means to acquire said thing and then they act sheepish and make something up to avoid getting the thing they said they want. And Im not talking about sex.

4

More often than not G&WT, that is why I choose my friends wisely and they choose me wisely.
I neither enjoy building games nor playing games.
Games are for children.

5

Hello Jr

Well, he is warned by the gatekeeper that the gatekeeper is indeed powerful and even if the man from the country overwhelm him, there were other gatekeepers inside, each more powerful than the last. But I think that as a parable, the gatekeeper has an allegorical meaning. His position as an agent of The Law seems significant.
Someone pointed out that the attempt to understand the story might be assisted by understanding Kafka own situation at the time. He was a lawyer and so this might be what “The Law” meant for him, although The Law as such was left with an ambiguity befitting of a parable. In his particular situation he saw something of a universal calamity. The man was a bit depressed, according to his bio. (kafka-online.info/franz-kafka-biography.htm). But I agree with you in that this always comes to the existential situation of the man, although it is not a choice. He cannot enter anymore than, it seems, he could leave. He belongs to neither realm and that might be influenced by his experience in the Jewish diaspora.

Sometimes we have no choice. In The Hunger Artist, Kafka presents a story of a man who pursues fasting as an art. It would be impressive if it was the story of a man who “prevents” himself “from achieving” his own desires, in that case food, but it is not. Rather the man pursues fasting because he cannot find a food that he likes.
The conclusion reached by K is also telling. He concludes that The Law must be a lie. But Kafka did have an aphorism: “There is a goal, but no road. What we term ‘road’ is nothing but hesitating.” The entire parable could be said to represent this passivity before ready-made concepts, goals which we think ought to have a certain access and this opinion prevents us from seeing past the obstacle or to other possibilities.

I agree, and is also the most miserable moment one can imagine.

I think that doubts can cripple a person’s motivation. But the gatekeeper might represent obstacles that we set for ourselves to justify what it is we are entitled to find. Asceticism, fasting, denial of ones preferences to be objective, celibacy, these are all like gatekeepers, things we need to overcome. The path of the prophet, or the hero, what Campbell called crossing the threshold: “With the personifications of his destiny to guide and aid him, the hero goes forward in his adventure until he comes to the ‘threshold guardian’ at the entrance to the zone of magnified power. Such custodians bound the world in four directions — also up and down — standing for the limits of the hero’s present sphere, or life horizon. Beyond them is darkness, the unknown and danger; just as beyond the parental watch is danger to the infant and beyond the protection of his society danger to the members of the tribe. The usual person is more than content, he is even proud, to remain within the indicated bounds, and popular belief gives him every reason to fear so much as the first step into the unexplored. The adventure is always and everywhere a passage beyond the veil of the known into the unknown; the powers that watch at the boundary are dangerous; to deal with them is risky; yet for anyone with competence and courage the danger fades.” (Wiki, Monomyth).
The man from the country is in a similar path and The Law is the virtual unknown. Is it the meaning of life, is it the law of God, who knows! But the answer is very personal, thus the door is meant only for him, even if ignorance is a human trait. The power of the gatekeeper is relative, I guess, to the strength within us, the ability to create The Law. I think that the man finds what he expected to find- an object outside of himself that can be revealed to him. Kafka destroys this yearning.

6

Hello G&WT,

The joy of the chase? I think that the man in the parable was not feeling joy wasting away in front of the gatekeeper.

But he didn’t build anything while he was waiting. You could say that he was playing the game as he understood the game. The gatekeeper told him that he could not get in “yet”, leaving the implication that he might, at a later time, if he decided to wait, and that’s what he did.

I think there is a reason why Kafka is listed in the existentialist tradition. The Law represents an essence, but the man is frustrated because his existence, his choice, comes before any entry into any “essence”, which in the end is only a reflection of him.

So in other words the thing they want has to be hard to get. Make it easy and it looses its value as highest value. And you could have been talking about sex. The greatest joy is in the chase, the hunt and not in the payout.

7

New-age philosophy says that we subconsciously manifest gatekeepers, even if they are other persons.

Example. Why not walk around the gate?

Humans enjoy conflict and or social drama.

8

Hi Omar,

I would tend to think that even though the law is contextualised for Kafta, I do not think the intent was specific to his own life (but rather a reflective piece on human nature).
In a way it is very similar to Campbell’s Hero with a Thousand Faces but instead it is a failed hero (there was no resurrection). The rights of passage for the country man was placed before him but he (fear) denied himself and he failed to cross the threshold into the other world (and return as the hero). I do think the gatekeeper is an agent of the external law (obstacles); but a natural law (internal) that stands at the boundary of childhood (not responsible for ones own actions) and adulthood (responsible for ones own actions). Symbology often takes on multiple meaning and different depths of meanings. Ultimately, an “adult” is fearless and is always prepared to accept the consequences of ones own actions. Fearlessness in this context does not mean an absence of fear, but it represents a person who is prepared to stand up to fear and accept the consequences.

The country man, at no point entertained the idea of actually passing through the gates but I do not think this was through doubt (self or otherwise). He actually had no doubt whatsoever and this is where the problem lies for the country man (and us). Our surprising lack of self-doubt is what plunges us into the passivity of inaction, complacency and apathy. Once again, a lack of self-doubt is motivated by fear (of the hero’s journey). Self doubt can be crippling but it is only temporary; whereas an absence of self-doubt is a death sentence (which is what he suffered).

In a way, Kafta has told the untold story. We always hear of the heroic survivor (the child who crossed the threshold, experienced the trauma of growth, and emerged as the adult). The Hero always returns home but now as the adult with greater insight and wisdom (the child dies in the journey and the adult is born). Unfortunately, the country man never returned home to the country to tell of his heroic journey and to share his wisdom. He dies as a child; without courage, self-doubt, responsibility, or wisdom. Possibly the only wisdom he gained was in the last words spoken to him and this serves as the warning (to us). He is the dead corpse on the road that is left there as a reminder (keep moving as the danger of complacency is greater than the danger of the unknown).

As you say, there is a goal and no road. The goal is the hero’s journey to adulthood and the road is childhood (fear, hesitation, ignorance, lack of self-doubt, etc).

It reminds me of the Truman Show if he never drove and broke the “Law”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUKCW08_8Og
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUKCW08_8Og[/youtube]

A somewhat different ending.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZMZYrdXtP0
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZMZYrdXtP0[/youtube]

9

I don’t think there is anything new age about it.
The concept has been present in every culture and in every myth known.
Not all humans enjoy conflict and/or social drama; but I would tend to think most children do.
A child is not bound by their age but is bound by how they conduct themselves.

10

Don’t claim to understand this, but seems to be a clear reference to Eden, which has a gatekeeper set upon Adam and Eve’s expulsion.

This guy, the new Adam, clearly wants back in.

You also have the gatekeeper (i.e., God, or some lower being in the hierarchy) setting a prohibition to him: “Do not go in there or you will surely die!”

But do Adam and Eve die when they gain knowledge of good and evil? (The law?) No… God only says that because God knows they aren’t yet ready to handle the knowledge. They are too ‘young’ still and need to mature (like children growing into adults, you don’t share everything with them until they reach a certain maturity).

Interesting reversal here though. 1) Adam and Eve are already ‘in’ and get kicked out (versus being out and wanting back in) and 2) Adam and Eve need to mature in order to be given access, whereas this new Adam needs to im-mature, or transition from old to young…

The new Adam needs to give up all his worldly possessions and, granted, physically age, but in the process: become more childlike. It’s with this childlike perspective that he actually starts to get somewhere (ironically too late).

But the question remains: why did he fail?

Maybe it’s the striving. Striving after the law is not the point. Giving away possessions, waiting patiently for years… These may sound virtuous activities, but they were all done for the sake of ‘getting in’. Giving away possessions to get in, versus, say, to help someone in need, well, that is precisely why he remained outside the law!

(Could we say that with the original Adam and Eve, that it was their selfish striving after the law, that got them kicked out of its bounds?)

11

I take it as symbolic of the individual person’s isolation and sisyphusian goal, if the individual even has such, of reaching any absolute…(knowledge, love, justice, connection, freedom…and likely other possible states or abilities). That something is in the way, to quote Cobain, and one does not seem to come to it. Despite any feeling that it would be fair or that their might be a ‘key’ for the gate. No nice satisfying story with a hero answering the riddles of the Sphinx, etc. For Kafka this may have started around what he felt was an impossible relation to his father.

If we take the parable as sybolizing the obstacle(s) to a wider range of objective knowledge/intimacy, then one is pretty much forced to take some people at their word, especially if doing this seems to work. If the golf pro tells you that imagining the follow-through is good, but refuses to explain why - perhaps she does not even know herself - and yet one finds that this heuristic works - one plays golf better, then one might prioritize and decide NOT to seek out scientific explanations and research explaining why or even checking to see how good the record of this golf pro is. We are not going to acheive total knowledge any time soon. Of course it would be nice to get direkt knowing on certain issues and which ones may vary person to person. But sure, if someone is directly communicating with God, I, for example, am going to want to have at least some form of this, a convincing form, for myself. Often their are practices to achieve expertise, and these often also come from experts. So ‘why should one believe on faith?’ one answer would be that if it seems to work to accept an expert’s ideas - whatever one’s criteria are for ‘working’ - then why not? NOtice this is not an argument that everyone should believe in all experts. Or that revealed knowledge must be in fact knowledge. I am trying to point out that none of us avoid faith - really, I would prefer the term intuition as this implies that there is some kind of expertise and insight on my part, even if this is not at the kind of specific ‘God says this’ level - and further that I see no reason to take this as bad.

YOu wake up in the morning. You have memory and habit of trusting some experts or information. You could question all of this and do this keeping in mind that memory is fallible and notice that much of your decision making - at least if memory is correct - involved intuition
and so begin again from zero and demand empirical research or new utterances from an oracle for everything you decided before. Or you could move forward, keeping open, but continuing with ideas based on what might be hallucinated expertise on your own part - how you decided in the days before what was knowledge and what was not - and what might be poor intuition regarding those experts you trust to whatever degree or on whichever issues. Some things, you might, if you are brave, do a start from zero on that day. Or you might evaluate in terms of how memory indicates the ideas are working for you.

And of course if one decides that this story of Kafka’s is a true explanation of the human situation, then this is likely also putting faith in an expert, Kafka, and his experiences and insight. Maybe that is a good idea, maybe not.

12

Its not as simple as that, it is such an over simplification.

Really would anyone give themselves a genie with infinite wishes? Noone plays a videogame in godmode and enjoys it.
Would you get bored having no problems, and every fantasy manifests instantly? You’d go insane.

It’s really all inside this episode right here. youtube.com/watch?v=6zuVGGli6vw

Child adult, mature immature, all imaginary lines, binary playing, categorizing labeling meaning making. We are all children and adults all at the same time.

Fact is neither Human nor Pony DNA can withstand a life of luxury, getting all of it’s wishes fulfilled, deep down it knows it wants to suffer on some level. Unknown to itself because of it’s DNA it engineers situations to perpetuate its own suffering and for others around it, because suffering is all it can understand, and pleasure and reward would turn into insanity and suffering. Some spiritual persons can make peace with suffering but could Buddha withstand his life of luxury? No he ran into the woods from it! Humans cannot stand bliss, not on this Earth anyway with their current DNA makeup. They can come to terms with suffering but theyll never learn how to handle bliss without cheating through medication, DnA alteration or years of meditation. This is what I have been saying for ages but nopony has been listening. Its not so much that Heaven on Earth is unattainable, its attainable but there needs to be some sort of cheating, such as perfect chemical harmony, being born into a happy family or DnA alteration, it’s a rare state to come by. Most of the people who say they have it are liars, but some do. They of course will perish though, making it not a true Heaven, because Heaven is no so transient. Death is a gamble and DNA is only the first step. Baby steps.

13

If problems are what you find entertaining… then yes, you would get bored without problems (a natural consequence).
If you find an absence of problems entertaining… then you would get bored without an absence of problems (a natural consequence).

Luxury and an absence of problems are not synonyms.
Luxury is not a cause of pleasure, happiness, joy, bliss, contentment, or any other label that may be applied (neither is poverty a cause of those things).

Life is simple and overcomplicating it does it injustice… but what others do is their own business.

14

It’s not their business, most people are “cursed” with unconsciousness so they don’t even realize what they do. They would swear to you that they don’t enjoy problems but if you analyze their behavoirs over the long run you’ll see that they do.

15

Trixie, I have no interest in making 1 equal 2 (or 7,000,000,000 equal 7,000,000,001).

Best of luck to you if you think you can determine another’s intentions from their behaviour (where behaviour is anything that can be observed through the senses).
I do not even know my wife’s intentions and do not even know if she loves me.
If I benefit from another’s behaviours then that is all that matters (I have no interest in determining their intentions).

I can only know my own intentions but even this is not guaranteed (as illustrated in Kafta’s allegory/parable).

For some… enjoying an absence of problems does not equate to an absence of problems.
For others… different laws apply.
For myself… all I can do is to find out what laws apply to me and then go through the slow process of change (if that is what is required).

I do not wish to be the country man in Kafta’s story and die at the hand of my own self imposed law.

16

It’s unconscious behavoir, a series of micro actions that are only visible on the larger scale. They arent aware of their large scale intentions by definition, they are unconscious of it. Scattered throughout youll find rather trite concious goals in their rather hollow lives.

17

Trixie, I do not care what another persons goals or intentions are or if they are conscious of them or not. I do not have supernatural powers and cannot read their minds. I become more unconscious and unnecessarily complicate my own life every time I focus on another’s intentions/goals. The ultimate game play is to fabricate that which I have no possible way of gaining insight into - and then believing that my own fabricated supernatural powers are authentic, accurate and truthful. All I can focus on is whether their behaviour directly impacts upon me in a positive or negative or neutral manner.

In a similar fashion, all I can do is examine the consequences of my own actions and determine if those actions benefit me or harm me or have no effect/affect on me. Ultimately, even my own intentions are irrelevant.

It is nonsense for me to talk about that which is unseeable (either within myself or within others). I can only examine what I am conscious of. Speculating about what I am unconscious of is unnecessarily complicating my life. Over the course of my entire life, I focus on my conscious behaviours and if they cause me harm, I try to stop doing them. If they benefit me or have a neutral effect/affect on me then I continue doing them but am cautious and continue to examine how they impact upon my life. And that is all I can do (nothing more and nothing less).

18

Its very easy to perform telepathy on humans, and nine times out of ten your gut instinct about someone is right. Trouble is humans have a defense mechanism called words in which they lie to confuse you from your instincts. They made a system of it called “religion”

19

Not a single person on earth is responsible for my own confusion.
I take full responsibility for my own confusion.
I do not take responsibility for the confusion of others.

I am not going to try to speculate about or unblock telepathic defence mechanisms.
… Kafta’s parable shows me that this is unwise.