June 28, 2010 at 4:38 P.M. "Errors" in this text and others that had been left alone for a while have been reinserted. I will do my best to cope with the new harassments and violations of copyright. I suspect Cuban-American fanatics of this sabotage and other offenses. ("What is it like to be censored in America?" and "How censorship works in America.")
April 22, 2010 at 11:35 A.M. Spacing was affected and other "errors" were inserted in this text several times during the first day that the work was posted. I cannot say how many other essays have been vandalized or censored. I will make corrections as quickly as possible. ("How Censorship Works in America.")
This story is a birthday card for "M." Happy Birthday, May 24. Also for the Gentle Portia, February 27.
"At five o'clock in the afternoon, in the capital of the Province of Y____, a tall man with an umbrella was knocking at the door of the governor's residence."
K answered the door. His life would never be same after that day. K had been employed in the Department of Identity Assignment for twenty-one years. There had never before been a serious error made by anyone in his office. The section of the Ministry devoted to Identity Creation, Assignment, and Reassignment was unforgiving of errors. The only penalty for such a lapse would be death. A visit by an assistant to the Minister was a most distressing sign. The governor entrusted important matters to K because of his discretion and efficiency as well as absolute obedience. These were the primary duties of citizens in the Republic. Every schoolchild memorized these words from earliest childhood: "Discretion, Efficiency, Obedience."
K wore a gray pinstripe suit, white shirt, dark blue necktie. K owned thirty-five identical suits with matching shirts and blue ties. Men in the Ministry were permitted to wear red neckties. Women were excluded from the Ministry, of course, even secretarial and reception services were performed by men in gray suits. At the highest levels of power there were a few women among the Guardians whose exceptional intellectual merits made it impossible to exclude from authority. These female Guardians were known as "defective women." The officials in the Ministry of Freudian Repairs said these women were really "inadequate males." Only executive level officials were permitted to wear red neckties. All Guardians dressed in business suits and wore red ties.
K dreamed of wearing a red necktie by his fiftieth birthday. K was only weeks away from that special occasion. Until now, a promotion seemed likely. A single catastrophe in his office could destroy his career. Loss of his career objectives and prospects concerned K more than the possibility of death. Death was merely identity reassignment. Career reassignment could mean expulsion to sewage services and maintenance provision for city dwellers. Immigrants performed such tasks while wearing electronic monitoring headbands under twenty-four hour camera surveillance from the Ministry of Peace and Happiness. Anything would be preferable to such a demotion.
The gentleman from the Ministry's Chief Office was polite, but somewhat cold. He wore a good suit, red silk tie (this meant he was next in line for the highest office in the land), and provided a sealed envelope to K. He was a man of 35, born to the red tie class, a graduate of University 1 in law and politics. He began by introducing himself to K:
"I am very pleased to meet you, Mr. K."
His handshake was very firm. They sat in the library of K's section.
"My name is B. I am afraid that we have encountered a bit of a difficulty in the front office. We need your help. This assignment and great responsibility entrusted to you will allow us to determine whether you are the sort of man we want in the highest echelons of power, making difficult decisions."
K was disturbed and expectant, also pleased that the error had apparently not been made by himself or his subordinates.
"It appears that the Minister has issued a death certificate for a Miss M. As you know, this is a routine matter that is ordinarily handled by subordinates. However, it is reported -- confidentially, of course, and most inconveniently -- that Miss M has not, in fact, died."
K was stunned to absorb this piece of information. The Minister had never before made a mistake of this magnitude that anyone had recorded or known of in all of the history of the Republic.
"Naturally, the fact that this unruly and radical young woman is still alive must not be allowed to obscure the fact that she is, legally, quite dead."
"Naturally." K found this logic irrefutable. The official understanding of law in the Republic was positivistic and formalist. All persons trained in law were to become legal scientists applying the rules of the society in an impersonal, objective, and neutral manner regardless of outcome.
Legal officials must be regarded as social engineers who keep the pipes and plumbing of society functioning properly.
"We must instruct her -- this M person -- to adjust to her new status and serve the Republic. She must be ... persuaded to accept an identity reassignment."
"Of course, sir."
"This perverse young woman refuses to cooperate with our confidential requests -- none of which have been expressed in writing, needless to say, and they are not part of the official file, although a private record has been kept of these events. We must resolve this unpleasant inconvenience and remove the shadow of imperfection that has fallen upon our land before the Minister forms a new government in six months' time."
"I see, sir."
"Yes, now you seem to be an 'up and comer'! I know that we may place this matter safely in your hands. You need not distress the Minister with grimy details, obviously, while ensuring that legal order is restored. All rules must be obeyed, thus ensuring that perfect justice prevails in the Republic -- as it always has and always will."
K repeated this slogan, automatically, from memory: "As it always has and always will."
"Good. Well, then there is nothing more to say. This conversation never took place. I was never here. If you quote my remarks, naturally, I will deny having made them. I am sure that you appreciate that such transparency in our legal proceedings is a statutory requirement for a man in my position. I have always lived by the highest professional and personal ethical standards."
"I admire your integrity, sir."
The men shook hands as they parted. K opened the envelope from the Ministry. He discovered a list of required steps by which provision of proof of the death of experson "M" would be provided to the Republic by K's office which was "deemed" to have issued the original certificate of death for this unsavory person.
A meeting would be called after the receipt of such proof to determine promotions for employees and administrators. K was among the persons whose future would be considered at that meeting. An address for experson "M" was provided. This matter was to be kept in the strictest confidence. The letter was unsigned.
For the rest of the day K was unable to concentrate on his work. He ate very little, went home early, then sat alone reading reports and enjoying the 24 hour sports channel. There was a 24 hour cartoon channel. There was no news on television. The news was no longer reported after the attainment of perfection in the Republic when history had officially ended.
The next morning K dressed in a brand new gray suit, crisp white shirt with button down collar, dark blue tie. His shoes were polished to mirror-like perfection, a neatly folded handkerchief was placed in his jacket pocket. K lived alone. He was meticulous about such details of self-presentation. He drove a new E-car which had been recharged overnight. He listened to generic muzak on his car stereo. After providing the address to his vehicular computer, K sat in the back seat and studied the file which he had accessed from his home network:
" ... The object of this report is a female, 50 years of age, sandy blond hair cut short, green eyes, and approximately 5' 6" in height. The only name by which she is known to the Ministry is 'M.' Reports of controversial opinions, deliberate lack of docility when associating with males, and refusal of inclination for domestic duties has called this person to the attention of the authorities on several occasions. Her criminal dossier includes 'irreverence for authority' and 'free thinking.' The worst offenses are of a pathological sexual nature, including amorous relations outside of wedlock for which the penalty may be death -- except where a partner in the sexual act is a member of the Ministry, of course. Furthermore, M has been found in possession of contraband items, including books published before the Great Perfection."
K understood quickly why this person's life had been cut short by "natural causes" at the request of the Ministry.
M is the sort of offender whose very existence called into question the progress in official "niceness" achieved so painfully by the Republic's leaders. All books existing before the Great Perfection had been removed from the shelves at Barnes & Noble book centers. There were no other booksellers in the Republic. K brought a legally prescribed dosage of hemlock for M.
The address provided in the Ministry's file was an abandoned warehouse in the East Village section outside of the "nice" part of the city where "good and normal" persons (like K) live "nicely" while never interacting with their equally nice neighbors.
Criminals congregated in these East Village streets: sex offenders, artists -- including actors! -- radical philosophers and other unruly persons who refused the blessings of normality and "niceness." One should never associate with actors as they are transmitters of something called the "Show Business Bug."
M lived at 101 Robert Downey Boulevard, Apartment 5A. Upon arrival, K's vehicle parked itself. He looked nervously around him at the sketchy neighborhood, rang the bell which was broken, then knocked loudly on the door hoping to be buzzed into the lobby. Someone opened a window, then shouted a greeting:
"What do you want?"
A woman was staring down at him from a fifth floor window.
"I am from 'Identity Assignment,' and I have a matter of great importance to discuss with you ... if you will kindly buzz me in."
K held up his badge and identification for the woman to see. The window was shut. K stood at the door waiting. Minutes passed and nothing happened. Some dirty men and a ragged child seemed to gather at the opposite side of the street. K smiled politely, held his briefcase up to his chest, and stood very still.
One did not wish to encourage any form of conversation with such people. Many had Norwegian ancestry. It is common knowledge that persons of Northern European lineage are dangerous and unreliable. Many are habitually dirty and may be drug users.
Suddenly, the old door opened. A woman stood before him displaying an insolent smile. She wore an old man's hat on the back of her head, a sleeveless t-shirt that said: "Rolling Stones -- Some Girls!" This apparition had a cigarette tucked behind her left ear, wore baggy denims, red sneakers, and ancient-looking spectacles that she removed, slowly, while staring up and down at K.
"What are you dressed up for?"
"I am not sure that I understand your meaning. Are you Ms. M?"
"Never mind. Come on in. Yes, I'm M."
They entered a lobby that had been painted by different local artists featuring massive political murals and some obscene abstract images. K made an effort to shut his eyes to this obscene material. Abstract expressionism was among the styles of painting outlawed after the Great Perfection, when "capitalist realism" became the official style of the Republic's licensed artists, all of whom were nevertheless to be excluded from life within the Republic's borders because, obviously, artists distract citizens from contemplation of the great and eternal perfections -- like beauty, good, law, justice, and higher solvency.
They entered a small apartment on the fifth floor after climbing the stairs. There were few pieces of furniture in a large central room, some original and fascinating artwork on the walls such as K had never seen before, the antique and fully restored furniture was complimented by fresh flowers.
There were several well-stocked bookshelves that had not been hidden before his arrival.
"Most of these books are prohibited because they cause cancer, you know."
K tried to sound reasonable and patient with this experson.
M responded: "I don't believe that books cause cancer."
K was shocked. "I am sure that the correlation is scientifically certain."
There was something very disturbing about her smile.
"Have a seat. Take a load off your feet." M sat on the floor.
"It is illegal not to own a television set. I do not see your t.v."
M smiled, wickedly: "I don't like t.v."
"I am not in law enforcement," K said, "You can be arrested for removing your television. Do you realize that? Anyway, I am here for a different reason. I do not wish to detain you any longer than necessary."
"Would you like a glass of water? You look kind of nervous."
"No, thank you. You see, the Guardians of the Republic -- through their servants in the Ministry of Identity, Goodness and Justice -- have determined that you are dead. You died after a long and painful illness which first produced a mental crisis causing delusions of a vile and detestable political nature. As a result of this determination by the Ministry, which has been officially certified in triplicate -- I have a copy of the decision here for you -- your continued living and political activism is highly upsetting because it may alter the perfection of our flawless society. I am sure that you will understand the necessity to comply with this decision applying the provisions of Rule 101, subsection 10 (b), 1. I have a copy here of the relevant Rules of the Republic."
"Are you telling me that I should kill myself because one of you morons made a mistake by listing me as dead when I am indisputably alive?"
"You don't really appreciate the complexity of the situation. You're looking at this in a very selfish way. You should try to think of it as your civic duty to kill yourself -- 'giving back' to our wonderful society -- by complying with all laws even if the laws are unfair or unjust. If the Laws themselves were to enter this room, and say to you that, 'because you have lived in the Republic and enjoyed the benefits of society, you have bound yourself to abide by the laws whatever you may think of them.' You would have to agree with that statement and accept their determination."
"What laws? The Republic promises justice, freedom, equality. Officially, no rule that violates those fundamental values has validity of any kind. I am not required to obey idiotic, false or absurd and self-contradictory laws because they are not really laws."
K had never encountered these arguments before, nor had he met a woman who refused to be deferential to his official pronouncements. This was heresy. Much of what M said was offensive to the principles of the Republic. K was rendered speechless by these pronouncements.
"You just have to comply with this determination because it is an official command with the right pedigree carrying a sanction that has been handed down to us by the legitimate body entrusted with law-making power in our society for execution."
This was the language in the official decision concerning legitimacy handed down by the Supreme Tribunal, unanimously. Justices Holmes, Hobbes, Bentham, Hart, and Posner "concurred in part and dissented in part." These justices always "concurred in part and dissented in part."
All decisions of the Supreme Tribunal were deemed unanimous because dissenters were not counted since they were immediately replaced with newly appointed justices -- after being executed, naturally.
"Did you memorize all of that? Or did you just come up with that by yourself?" That infuriating smile. M seemed to think carefully about this pronouncement by K. She rose from her seated position and walked around the room, slowly, then she opened the door to her apartment and shouted down to the others in the building. Crito lived downstairs. He worked off the books as a composer and musician. Diotima is a poet who lives on M's floor and does translations on the side. She loved these discussions. Several dancers who live in one apartment upstairs also enjoy these arguments and decided to join in: Agathon, Polus, Thrasymachus (who sells real estate), together with a graduate student in philosophy and mathematics, Plato.
"I hope you don't mind if some my friends join our chat. We like this better than t.v." That impertinent smile seemed to linger, disturbingly, on her lips.
"Are any of them ... contagious?" K held his briefcase to his chest.
"No," M said with a chuckle, "but the talk becomes very addictive and seductive. Does the word 'seductive' disturb you?"
K turned his head and coughed. "No."
"Now then," M said. "I am puzzled by this idea of law and rules. You seem to regard these terms as interchangeable. I am also concerned to examine the idea of justice as having something to do with all of this nonsense."
She motioned for K to sit, which he did: "You have been informed of an official determination that I have died. Is that correct?"
K said: "Yes."
"Very well. Would you agree that persons who are dead rarely engage in philosophical discussions?"
"Yes."
"Fine. Now I have verified -- by examining them from this distance -- the documents in your hands, in triplicate copies, suggesting that the birth date of 'M' is my birth date. Let us assume that this 'death certificate' refers -- or seeks to refer -- to me, M."
"All right."
"We can take it as a starting point for our discussion that the following propositions are true: 1) I am 'M'; 2) I am, in fact, very much alive, biologically, and (perhaps) legally; 3) a certificate ostensibly meeting all of the official requirements of legal validity establishes, according to the state, that I am dead; 4) there is an a priori obligation to obey all laws meeting the minimum conditions of legal validity for all citizens of the Republic, and I am a citizen of the Republic; 5) this raises the question of whether this certificate of death for 'M' satisfies those minimum conditions in order to require my obedience or acceptance of its provisions. Would you agree, Mr. K, that this states the issue before us?"
K was stunned: "Yes, roughly."
"Mr. K, have you been a party to the issuance of certificates of death for other persons in the past?"
"Yes."
"Is it true that there are criteria established and defined in the law to determine when a person has died?"
"Yes, very specific criteria. We try to be highly precise and accurate, neutral and objective at all times. Nothing is ever personal for us. Please believe that."
"I assure you that I fully believe in your 'impersonality.' Can you say what are the criteria for establishing, legally speaking, when a person has died?"
K coughed, again, and seemed baffled. He was familiar with the applicable laws, but he had never been required to engage in original thinking or to explain the laws.
"Well, medical experts have provided a set of objective and neutral criteria that say, exactly, when someone is dead. For example, coronary failure may produce a kind of death, although other bodily organs may continue to function and a patient may be kept artificially ... 'operational.' ... I guess that's the word."
"I see. If you recall, our focus was upon the death of 'persons.' We will deal with this troublesome term, 'person,' later. For now, please understand that my question refers not to the functioning of a body or its organs, but to the living person. Notice that I am insisting on a distinction between a human body and a person. When is a person dead, Mr. K?"
"According to the latest promulgated rules -- I have copies in triplicate here of the latest updates and pocket parts for the law books -- 'brain death' is the criteria for the death of a person."
"What is brain death?" M seemed to smile directly at Mr. K in a most disturbing and annoying way. "Does it usually coincide with mental death?"
"Brain death means that a person's mind is shut off, like a t.v. set that no longer works, or a light that goes dark."
"Do you mean, Mr. K, that a person stops reading and thinking, holding and expressing opinions, experiencing things?"
"Yes, among other things."
"Is it possible for cerebral functions to remain operative in a person with limited or no mental capacity or ability?"
"Yes. I guess so."
"The criteria in the laws seems to concern the cessation of ALL brain function?"
"Yes."
"Accordingly, if the brain of a person 'functions,' at all, then that person must be alive -- is that right?"
"Yes."
"We can tell that a brain functions from mental activities as well as physical criteria, such as movement or breathing, correct?"
"Yes."
M took in a deep breath. Strolled around the room, slowly, never taking her eyes from Mr. K.
"Would you agree, Mr. K, that I am speaking with you?"
"Yes."
"Do you observe that I am walking around my room?"
There was laughter from the other persons in the room.
"Yes."
"Do you deny that cerebral operations must be taking place in my body in order for me to be performing these elaborate physical operations that you seem to observe?"
"Yes, I suppose so. I mean, no, I don't deny that you're doing the things I see you doing. At least, I must believe that you are doing these things."
"If the criteria of death in accordance with the laws is cessation of all cerebral operations, and if it is clear that, as to my own cerebral operations (poor things, surely), that at least some 'functions' still seem to be taking place, then would you say that it appears reasonably certain that I do not meet the legal criteria of death under the laws?"
"This is very troubling. However, I must admit that you are logically correct. You are not legally dead."
"If I do not meet these legal criteria concerning the death of persons, then it must be the case that the certificate of my death was issued in error. Being false or an error, this certificate cannot be binding on me, nor upon the institutions of society, would you agree?"
"Yes."
"Furthermore, a certificate based on fraud or error, or a self-contradictory law, is void ab initio, is that right?"
"Yes, that's right."
"And even if you wonder whether your sense faculties are altered -- or whether you are under the illusion that I am walking around this room even if I am actually dead -- this wondering would not alter the logical operation involved since your impression of the death certificate and of your task must also be based on the information in your mind, derived from your senses, as regards the material world, and you are relying upon that information (and your mind) to discuss the matter with me. Hence, you must rely on the reports of your mind, to the same extent, when that initial 'knowledge' of my death is challenged by me. You are using and relying upon your fallible senses to determine whether I am dead or alive, whether you are holding a death certificate in your hands and what it says. Do you understand?"
"Yes. I am afraid so."
"Notice that these observations are independent of the reality or truth of propositions -- propositions, as distinct from sentences, that exist entirely apart from individual sense knowledge -- in logic. It will always be 'true' that 2 + 2 = 4, even for the person who has not yet made this discovery. This proposition simply communicates a truth that is unperceived by, or unknown to, that non-mathematical person."
Mr. K was about to say more when one of the guests in the room seemed to lift himself from his chair with emotion and disdain for the proceedings.
"Before we turn to the certificate of death that has been issued by the Minister -- I know him, by the way -- and why it is legally invalid or a nullity, I see that Thrasymachus is anxious to interrupt. Do you wish to say something Thrasymachus?"
Thrasymachus was a large, cigar munching, Guayavera-wearing person of indeterminate gender from New Jersey or Miami Beach, who spoke very loudly and was obnoxious to the participants in these discussions:
"That's all bullshit!' It's all about power. You're dead if they say you're dead."
Thrasymachus walked to the center of the room and uttered his remarks in a booming baritone voice: "Besides, you are asking K to rely on his senses. Everybody knows that observations and sense data -- that's all uncertain stuff. He could be delusional, like the Communists! Everything's relative!"
"Well, thank you for that disturbing pronouncement." M smiled at Thrasymachus. She gestured for Thrasymachus to sit and try a piece of cheese cake. Thrasymachus enjoyed altering the spacing or otherwise defacing the writings of his "intellectual superiors" -- by removing a single letter from a word, perhaps, or turning off the computer of an envied rival.
"We seem to have discovered something that is not relative. Your principle that everything is relative, Thrasymachus, is held by you as a general objective and universal maxim, right?"
Thrasymachus nodded while munching on a piece of cheese cake.
"Well, in that case, it would be a non-relative truth for the proponent of a relativist claim that 'everything is relative.' And this would be a self-contradictory claim, an absurdity -- like a living person's argument that he or she is alive despite an official pronouncement of that person's demise. Isn't that true?"
Silence. Thrasymachus gets up to leave in anger. M reaches out to him and smiles:
"Join us. Stay with us. Let us examine these objections. We are engaged in a very important activity, Thrasymachus. We need your contribution to the discussion. Incidentally, Thrasymachus, if you say that this claim by you is also 'relative,' then it is not binding on others and we may ignore it. In either case, there appears to be a slight difficulty for you as an 'absolute relativist,' would you agree?"
Thrasymachus only made a lewd gesture and threatened to "assassinate" everyone, after inserting new "errors" in everyone's writings. Thrasymachus said: "I am going to kill you!"
M was undisturbed: "Sense data is a troubling concept. Are concepts mere sense data?"
"I don't know." K was baffled.
"Mr. K may certainly be mistaken in his sense perceptions when he observes me. Although, I am sure that K is in no doubts concerning at least some of the information that his senses are supplying to him about me at this very instant. Let us ponder this dilemma."
"Our senses seem to provide information concerning 'appearances,' would you agree?"
K nodded.
"We use our eyes to see, fingers to touch objects, or other beings in the world -- isn't that so?"
"Yes."
"After all, these faculties for perceiving the world or gathering the data of our senses are fallible, aren't they?"
"What do you mean?"
"Our eyes may be defective. We may see a blurry universe, one without colors, or we may be blind."
"I agree."
"Besides, the world that we perceive with the senses comes to us dripping with the categories of our faculties for sense perception. The world that we know with the senses reeks of ourselves, don't you agree?"
"How do you mean?"
"Well, taste, vision, touch and so on are qualities of ourselves and not of the world. The world disclosed by the senses is in 'flux,' changing all the time, uncertain, blurry, mixed with our emotions and distorting perspectives. Hence, it cannot yield certainty or eternal and objective knowledge, isn't that true?"
"I suppose so."
"On the other hand, mathematics does seem to provide necessary truth that is not dependent on our flawed senses for it is approached via the rational faculty only."
"What do you mean by 'independent of our senses'?"
"For example, the proposition 2 + 2 = 4 is true, necessarily, given the definition of the concepts being used -- concepts of number -- and must always be true, everywhere, regardless of anyone's perspective, isn't that so?"
"But don't numbers come from us? Aren't they based on sense data?"
"What the numbers describe or relations of logical necessity are 'real' -- indeed, necessarily real -- even if we use different symbols to describe these relations that some of us 'discover' in reason and do not merely 'invent.' They seem to have a fundamental connection with the human linguistic capacity that allows for intellection. There is something objectively 'correct' about these mathematical propositions that does not depend on sense data or even upon their discovery by all of us. Do you agree?"
"I am not sure."
"Part of what we mean by a person has to do with possessing this a priori capacity to establish such 'trascendental and/or logical connections.' Among the persons outlawed in the Republic are philosophers -- like Noam Chomsky and scientist Roger Penrose, thinkers like Christopher Peacocke and others exploring these issues for the Resistance. Did you know that?"
"No."
"It was, is, and will always be true that 2 + 2 = 4. This was true before we possessed these symbols, or were even aware of these relations, given the meaning of the concepts deployed in this proposition. Hence, there is a demonstrable truth revealed by such numerical relations that is not dependent on our flawed human intellects and perceptual capacities. This is a truth in which we may participate. This is a kind of truth that is instantiated in us through our participation in mathematical reasoning -- would you agree, Mr. K?"
"I suppose I must agree to that. It doesn't seem right."
"Why does it not seem right?"
"I guess because you can't just 'go and look' to determine mathematical truths. Like, if I wanted to grasp this truth in my hand, I could not do so. I want to 'touch' truth. I want to find it in my backyard, or see it under a microscope. I wonder whether sense data comes first and then the concepts are formulated from that sense data? I mean, can't we just go and look for truth?"
"Why would we need and reach for concepts in order to understand the world or ourselves?"
"I do not know."
"Why are we predisposed to need, seek, and deploy these abstract concepts in order to experience certainty or any unified knowledge? Are there many ways of 'looking' for truth? The connective tissues of the mental world that make meaningful experience possible are not 'in' the empirical world and they cannot be exclusively 'in' us or they would fail to establish necessary connections that allow us to explain and predict trajectories or natural phenomena, that is, not only how things are but how they must be in the future. These connective meanings are like an ocean in which we dip our buckets of truth."
"I see what you mean."
"Why is such conceptual knowledge and communication essential to what we are? A moose feels no need to develop the concept of number or space, time, or category, but a moose may have the same sense data that we do, feels the cold and heat, hunger or thirst. I wonder why that is true?"
"I do not know."
"It must be something about our 'natures' or essences, as persons, that makes us crave understanding because we are capable of achieving it. We need to understand and know the world as well as ourselves. Suppose that I take two coins from my pocket and place them on the floor before you. I take another two coins and also place them on the floor. If I then ask you to count the total number of coins on the floor. What is the total number of coins on the floor before you?"
"Four."
"Does the mental operation or logical process of deduction that you have performed seem compelling?"
"Yes."
"Are you in any doubt concerning this conclusion?"
"No. But doesn't this calculation also involve my imperfect mind?"
"The calculation -- as performed by you -- involves your mental faculties and intellect. However, the relation disclosed by your intellect, based on the concepts applied, comes before your use of intelligence in the effort. What is more, you are involved in an act of 'recollection' as you engage in this effort, since what is disclosed seems (and must be) inescapably true, again, as a matter of the meaning of the concepts involved in this effort. It is as if you have always known this logical calculation to be true -- and must have known it to be true -- once it is clearly demonstrated to be the case that 2 + 2 = 4. Isn't that so, Mr. K?"
"I do not see any way around what you say."
"It appears that the truth of this proposition is not relative. It must be the case that 2 + 2 = 4. Do you deny this?"
"No."
"Furthermore, this truth is a priori. This is not a truth revealed by our senses a posteriori. We do not derive this truth inductively, from perusing the empirical world, but rather we apply our intellects to 'calculations of necessity' -- calculations yielding certainty by definition based on concepts inherent in us that we apply to the world, deductively, just as we communicate based on a linguistic capacity that is natural for persons and that is developed in languages. Again, this may be the same natural capacity for connectedness with others and the world. Does this seem rational to you?"
"Yes."
"For the present you may disregard the recently challenged doubts concerning the a priori/a posteriori distinction laid down by W.V. Quine. My friend Jacques Derrida 'rejects the idea (the empiricist confusion, as he would call it) that we could ever claim rational warrant for suspending the ground rules of bivalent logic in response to some anomaly turned up in the course of scientific investigation, or some conflict between a well-entrenched theory and a discrepant empirical finding. Still less would he accept the Quinian dictum that changes in our logic should best be viewed as a matter of pragmatic convenience, or of working an intelligible structure into the chaos of sensory stimuli while seeking to avoid such conflicts by making adjustments where needed and thereby conserving maximum coherence across the entire fabric of beliefs-held-true.' Do you see Derrida's point?"
Christopher Norris, Fiction, Philosophy and Literary Theory: Will the Real Saul Kripke Please Stand Up? (New York & London: Continuum, 2007), p. 16.
"I guess so." K said.
"What is even more mysterious is that these mathematical truths turn out to describe the workings of the 'real' universe, again, or the language of nature, so that on the basis of this mathematical truth we can describe the trajectory of a star or make calculations in physics that will measure the workings of natural forces in the past or future. Hence, they seem to say something 'real' and 'true' about the elegant order in the universe of everyday life as well as within ourselves. We are mysteriously 'fitted' to understand the order underlying all things. Nature shares in these concepts with us. Moreover, we are a part of the order disclosed in nature. This 'disclosing' is, indeed, part of what is ordered by (or in) nature. Are you astonished, Mr. K?"
Ian Stewart, Nature's Numbers: The Unreal Reality of Mathematics (New York: Basic Books, 1995), pp. 107-127.
"I never thought of knowledge that way."
"I am sure of that. What is even more amazing is that this mathematical knowledge -- like yourself, Mr. K! -- is very 'impersonal' for all rational agents. This knowledge applies everywhere, reflecting a beauty in the universal order that seems overwhelming. Yet we discover this beauty and elegance also in ourselves, as each of us is a part of the universe. Would you agree?"
"But isn't this elegance and beauty in us, not in the universe?"
"Well, if we are in the universe, and if the natural order, intelligence and beauty that I describe is in us, then it must also be 'in' the universe. You see, the spacial metaphors break down, at this point, because we are describing the networks of meanings that make ourselves and all reasoning possible. Do you understand?"
"I think so."
"Just as the breakdown of our physics and equations projected on to thought experiments concerning the big bang and the instants immediately after that event is also a truth-claim based on mathematical knowledge, even the denials of particular truth-claims contain this truth-capacity -- i.e., bivalent logic and must do so, as we have learned from Kant -- making the concept of truth much more pervasive as well as problematic than we once thought. Do you follow this reasoning?"
"Yes."
Plato rises from his seat and walks to the window. M catches his eye. There is a secret smile on both their lips, a special intimacy that they share. M lifts an eyebrow, offering an invitation. Plato shakes his head, smiles, saying (silently) "no." M understands and turns, again, to Mr. K:
"And you approve of 'impersonality' in legal affairs and the operations of state power, don't you?"
"Yes. Law is a science."
"Then you must approve of impersonality, objectivity, and universality in our knowledge claims, don't you?"
"I guess so."
"We have determined, however, that I do not seem to meet the objective and impersonal criteria of death under the relevant laws, which is brain death. But then, the death certificate issued concerning me must be inaccurate, factually, so as to fall short of legal validity. Do you agree, Mr. K?"
"I guess I must accept that."
"If the death certificate is invalid -- void ab initio -- if it is false, then you cannot enforce it. I have no obligation to abide by this certificate of death. Legally, it is nothing. Is that correct?"
"I guess so."
Do you, Mr. K, have an obligation to obey the laws?"
"Yes, of course."
"Do you think of yourself as a 'person,' despite your admiration for impersonality?"
"Yes, I do."
"But we have learned something concerning persons during the course of our discussion that may now allow us to attempt a definition of this troublesome concept, 'person.' What is a person?"
"What do you mean that we have learned something concerning persons?"
M walked over to Mr. K, sat on the arm of his chair, and whispered: "Persons need to make connections with one another and to find overarching meanings. Relationships between, say, 2 + 2 that equals 4 must be discovered (or constructed) if they are to be known by us. Relationships between men and women, all persons, must also be constructed and discovered, necessarily, as a matter of the sociability that we take for granted in our 'societies.' Perhaps there are constitutive relations that are even more essential to human nature? We need others to 'become the persons we are,' Mr. K. Persons are other-regarding and -defined beings."
At this point, Diotima, a husky and dark-hued brunette stepped forward: "There is something about persons that requires them to 'connect.' This is above and beyond the level of rights and duties to which M refers. This means ethical life and love -- Eros -- must be fundamental to persons. Would you agree, Mr. K?"
Diotima sat on the other side of Mr. K causing him to look at one woman, then the other. Mr. K began to perspire: "I suppose that's true. I ... I like people."
"I am sure that you do." Diotima said. "But do you 'like' loving, Mr. K?"
"I am not sure that this is a proper question for a civil servant to answer while on duty."
M drew very close to poor Mr. K and whispered: "Are there obligations beyond political or ethical duties, Mr.K? Intimate obligations?"
Agathon thought not. He objected that the state has no claim on my inner life and cannot tell me to be (or do) "good," only "right action" is enjoined by the government. As long as I abide by the law, I may "feel" what I like. Agathon owned his own business from an early age.
Young Polus, on his way to a university to study, secretly, with sinister philosophers -- like M and Diotima -- thought otherwise.
Polus suggested -- after removing his earpiece from a portable music device and ceasing his constant "texting" -- that "nothing is a greater calling than love for persons. Hence, no public laws could violate the strictures of love. Or whatever ... "
Diotima then took center stage. "We must consider the possibility of a morality of love, in which law or ethical duty -- as defended by M -- and Erotic inclination, whether for the other or wisdom, as in this very dialectic that is defended by me, can be reconciled. We must resolve, Mr. K, the opposition between objective and subjective, universal and particular. This is to trace a movement in thought from, let us say, the Socratic elenchus, to the Critical theory of Kant, then to the youthful writings of Hegel and his progeny, like Marx."
Diotima and M placed their hands on their hips. BOTH women looked directly at Mr. K and asked: "What do you say to that?"
"I could not agree more!" Mr. K said.
Diotima explained: "True union, or love proper exists only between living beings who are alike in power (equals) and thus in one another's eyes living beings from every point of view; in no respect is either dead for the other. This genuine love excludes all oppositions. Love neither restricts nor is restricted; it is not finite at all. It is a feeling, yet not a single feeling. In love, life is present as a duplicate of itself, a mirror-image -- a partner in dialectic -- also as a single unified and shared self. From the contemplation of this mortal subject one is elevated to the contemplation of the goddess -- Eros -- herself."
Diotima insisted: Love 'deconstructs' the death principle by attaching us to life even when we are required to surrender life."
M explained: "Through loving, life is present as a 'duplicate of itself,' the beloved is another self, because love is a sort of analogon of reason -- as Diotima is an analogon of M! -- of THE reason. In contemplating these mysteries, Mr. K., you come to appreciate the ways in which you may be dead without knowing it, even as life calls you to love. Do you understand, Mr. K?"
"I think so. To be a living being is to be a lover. All love must be a love of beauty, therefore, the beauty revealed by love is an interpretation of life. To see anyone or any thing truly it is necessary to feel a kind of love for that person or thing. Maybe this is love's wisdom? This power of unveiling the self-as-other and other-as-self is the greatest gift revealed by the lover's art and wisdom. Love always elevates us to the contemplation of things in the scope of eternity -- we see the good, justice, identity in which we participate. Love is the opposite of death. Love is a 'certificate of life,' a reminder of all the ways in which we may be dead without knowing it. St. Augustine says that 'to love is to be.' I hope that you will be."
Six months after this conversation, Mr. J was asked to explain the facts of Mr. K's demise. Unfortunately, all efforts to obtain Mr. K's acceptance of the official determination concerning his own death were unsuccessful. Several officials from the Ministry failed to persuade Mr. K to drink hemlock.
Mr. K -- shockingly! -- had taken to painting. Mr. K discussed questions of beauty and goodness with strangers in subway platforms. Mr. K refused all medications, would not accept the assistance of the best accountants in the Republic. He was a sad case of "abnormality." Mr. K refused to adjust. Mr. K would not "cooperate" with power. A promotion was impossible. Mr. K, somehow, scraped together a meager subsistence from selling his paintings, shared living expenses with two women -- M and Diotima -- both of these women were officially "abnormal" as well.
This was a very sad case for the Ministry. Mr. K must be banished from the Republic. A "certificate of death" was issued for Mr. K by the Minister himself. Weeks ago, Mr. J was ordered to deliver that certificate of death, along with a legally prescribed potion of hemlock, to the unspeakable exile.
Mysteriously, Mr. J never returned to his office.
" ... the question is not what people see in each other, but what they come to see in themselves. After all the years of silence, suddenly you're face to face with someone who has to be told about your life, and, as you tell it, as your listener listens, as he smiles and nods and exclaims upon the similarities and differences in his own life, you begin to hear the story yourself, you begin to glimpse your own shape and nature."
Michael Frayn, A Landing on the Sun (London: Penguin, 1991), p. 152.
Supplemental Sources not in alphabetical order:
Mary McCarthy, "The Fact in Fiction," in A Bolt From the Blue and Other Essays (New York: Perseus, 2002), p. 203. (Edited with selections by A.O. Scott, before Ms. Scott's unfortunate association with "Manohla Dargis.")
Franz Kafka, The Basic Kafka (New York: Washington Square Books, 1979), the introduction by Eric Heller is outstanding. Kafka's nightmare was summarized in a sentence: "Guilt is never to be doubted." (See Franz Kafka's short story, "Before the Law.")
Plato, The Symposium (London & New York: Penguin, 1951), Introduction and translation by Walter Hamilton.
Plato, Symposium (Cambridge & Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 1989), Alexander Nehamas & Paul Woodruff, translation with Introduction and notes.
Stephen E. Lewis, trans., Jean-Luc Marion, The Erotic Phenomenon (London & Chicago: University of Chicago, 2003).
Martha C. Nussbaum, Love's Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).
