Response to the neighbour inquiry

Stanisław Barszczak; Own sense isolation from my past! (response to the neighbour inquiry)
Joseph Conrad gave us the glorious text about “the Other”. I learnt it almost by heart. There is like my own experience. We let our imagination run away with us. It seemed I knew it. “We knew him in those unprotected days when we were content to hold in our hands our lives and our property. None of us, I believe, has any property now, and I hear that many, negligently, have lost their lives; but I am sure that the few who survive are not yet so dim-eyed as to miss in the befogged respectability of their newspapers the intelligence of various native risings in the Eastern Archipelago. Sunshine gleams between the lines of those short paragraphs–sunshine and the glitter of the sea. A strange name wakes up memories; the printed words scent the smoky atmosphere of to-day faintly, with the subtle and penetrating perfume as of land breezes breathing through the starlight of bygone nights; a signal fire gleams like a jewel on the high brow of a sombre cliff; great trees, the advanced sentries of immense forests, stand watchful and still over sleeping stretches of open water; a line of white surf thunders on an empty beach, the shallow water foams on the reefs; and green islets scattered through the calm of noonday lie upon the level of a polished sea, like a handful of emeralds on a buckler of steel…From the deck of our schooner, anchored in the middle of the bay, he indicated by a theatrical sweep of his arm along the jagged outline of the hills the whole of his domain; and the ample movement seemed to drive back its limits, augmenting it suddenly into something so immense and vague that for a moment it appeared to be bounded only by the sky. And really, looking at that place, landlocked from the sea and shut off from the land by the precipitous slopes of mountains, it was difficult to believe in the existence of any neighbourhood. It was still, complete, unknown, and full of a life that went on stealthily with a troubling effect of solitude; of a life that seemed unaccountably empty of anything that would stir the thought, touch the heart, give a hint of the ominous sequence of days. It appeared to us a land without memories, regrets, and hopes; a land where nothing could survive the coming of the night, and where each sunrise, like a dazzling act of special creation, was disconnected from the eve and the morrow…The bay was like a bottomless pit of intense light. The circular sheet of water reflected a luminous sky, and the shores enclosing it made an opaque ring of earth floating in an emptiness of transparent blue. The hills, purple and arid, stood out heavily on the sky: their summits seemed to fade into a coloured tremble as of ascending vapour; their steep sides were streaked with the green of narrow ravines; at their foot lay rice-fields, plantain-patches, yellow sands. A torrent wound about like a dropped thread. Clumps of fruit-trees marked the villages; slim palms put their nodding heads together above the low houses; dried palm-leaf roofs shone afar, like roofs of gold, behind the dark colonnades of tree-trunks; figures passed vivid and vanishing; the smoke of fires stood upright above the masses of flowering bushes; bamboo fences glittered, running away in broken lines between the fields. A sudden cry on the shore sounded plaintive in the distance, and ceased abruptly, as if stifled in the downpour of sunshine. A puff of breeze made a flash of darkness on the smooth water, touched our faces, and became forgotten. Nothing moved. The sun blazed down into a shadowless hollow of colours and stillness…In many successive visits we came to know his stage well–the purple semicircle of hills, the slim trees leaning over houses, the yellow sands, the streaming green of ravines. All that had the crude and blended colouring, the appropriateness almost excessive, the suspicious immobility of a painted scene; and it enclosed so perfectly the accomplished acting of his amazing pretences that the rest of the world seemed shut out forever from the gorgeous spectacle. There could be nothing outside. It was as if the earth had gone on spinning, and had left that crumb of its surface alone in space. He appeared utterly cut off from everything but the sunshine, and that even seemed to be made for him alone. Once when asked what was on the other side of the hills, he said, with a meaning smile, “Friends and enemies–many enemies; else why should I buy your rifles and powder?” He was always like this-word-perfect in his part, playing up faithfully to the mysteries and certitudes of his surroundings. “Friends and enemies”-nothing else. It was impalpable and vast. The earth had indeed rolled away from under his land, and he, with his handful of people, stood surrounded by a silent tumult as of contending shades. Certainly no sound came from outside. “Friends and enemies!” He might have added, “and memories,” at least as far as he himself was concerned; but he neglected to make that point then. It made itself later on, though; but it was after the daily performance- in the wings, so to speak, and with the lights out. Meantime he filled the stage with barbarous dignity. Some ten years ago he had led his people-a scratch lot of wandering Bugis-to the conquest of the bay, and now in his august care they had forgotten all the past, and had lost all concern for the future. He gave them wisdom, advice, reward, punishment, life or death, with the same serenity of attitude and voice. He understood irrigation and the art of war-the qualities of weapons and the craft of boat-building. He could conceal his heart; had more endurance; he could swim longer, and steer a canoe better than any of his people; he could shoot straighter, and negotiate more tortuously than any man of his race I knew. He was an adventurer of the sea, an outcast, a ruler-and my very good friend. I wish him a quick death in a stand-up fight, a death in sunshine; for he had known remorse and power, and no man can demand more from life. Day after day he appeared before us, incomparably faithful to the illusions of the stage, and at sunset the night descended upon him quickly, like a falling curtain. The seamed hills became black shadows towering high upon a clear sky; above them the glittering confusion of stars resembled a mad turmoil stilled by a gesture; sounds ceased, men slept, forms vanished–and the reality of the universe alone remained-a marvellous thing of darkness and glimmers…Before sunset he would take leave with ceremony, and go off sitting under a red umbrella, and escorted by a score of boats. All the paddles flashed and struck together with a mighty splash that reverberated loudly in the monumental amphitheatre of hills. A broad stream of dazzling foam trailed behind the flotilla. The canoes appeared very black on the white hiss of water; turbaned heads swayed back and forth; a multitude of arms in crimson and yellow rose and fell with one movement; the spearmen upright in the bows of canoes had variegated sarongs and gleaming shoulders like bronze statues; the muttered strophes of the paddlers’ song ended periodically in a plaintive shout. They diminished in the distance; the song ceased; they swarmed on the beach in the long shadows of the western hills. The sunlight lingered on the purple crests, and we could see him leading the way to his stockade, a burly bareheaded figure walking far in advance of a straggling cortege, and swinging regularly an ebony staff taller than himself. The darkness deepened fast; torches gleamed fitfully, passing behind bushes; a long hail or two trailed in the silence of the evening; and at last the night stretched its smooth veil over the shore, the lights, and the voices.”
It is necessary to defend any man, so a commander of tribe or a slave, against the technology of our century. We are no yet a master of ourselves. But we can be the master of our own fate. A man has arisen completely in recent years. In homogeneous space without a place. And the earth is a matter of course for itself. A man is a patron himself to serve all people. And what’s more a man did not stop to believe God. He trust to God ahead of oneself. I must say that according to Emmanuel Levinas the face of the Other, “expresses my moral impossibility of annihilating.” The thinker said: “in each case when somebody is dying all humanity is responsible to that.” Saint Father Pio said: “I can forget myself but not my spiritual children and assure you that when the Lord calls me, I will say to Him: Lord, I shall remain at the gates of Paradise: I shall enter only when I have seen the last of my spiritual children enter.” Then in the Bible is mentioned: “You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin; you shall reprove your neighbor, or you will incur guilt yourself. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord” (Leviticus, 19:17-18) “No one has grater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13) Levinas said: “Thou shalt not kill,” comes from elsewhere, from another shore. I am not the master of this original-originary and anarchical and therefore also not originary-speech. The other dictates the sense of my words, and I discover in my words my response. This is not a spontaneous, or free, speech. I do not project my meaning; I do not anticipate my response; I do not coincide with myself. I am not first of all an autonomous being. I find myself uprooted before the other’s command. I am powerless. The temptation of murder is also prohibited-elicited and prohibited in one movement.
To “love one’s neighbor” is for Levinas “to redeem the world” .It is also “to go to Eternity”, through a death also. For Levinas death, in essence, is evasion, otherness, ungraspable. It defies us. It is impossible. It comes to us as other, as mysterious, foreign. We are no longer master of ourselves. And a death ,Levinas says, presents itself as murder, it comes to us as if from another. Death is other. Death is not me. The shrill laughter of Shakespeare’s witches evoke the mood of Levinas’ meditations on death. Death is a ruse. It makes fun of us, ridicules us, makes of us fools. I am not master of my own death. Suicide provides a shallow reprieve–I reach for death, but my aim is mistaken. “To kill oneself,” says Blanchot, “is to mistake one death for the other”. For death is precisely that over which “I have no power” . To try to kill myself is to try to die for others–it is to have in mind the effect of my death on others, and not my death at all. Hence Blanchot speaks of the impossibility of suicide . Mortality is fundamental both for Heidegger and Levinas–but what is in question is what it means for death to be fundamental: is it my death or the other’s death that comes first? “Mortality,” says Levinas, “is the concrete and primary phenomenon. It forbids the positing of a for itself that would not already be delivered over to the Other and consequently be a thing” . Let me briefly outline four points which need to be understood, in order to grasp the significance of Levinas’ critique of the philosophy of contemporary. Why is murder at the origin of death, according to Levinas? Because in both killing and dying there is an effort to “escape from being, to go where freedom and negation operate.” Death approaches not as nothingness, but as fear–fear “for my being” ,”fear of violence”. Levinas says: “In death I am exposed to absolute violence, to murder in the night” . The formulation is telling. “Death threatens me from beyond”, The impossibility of death is an “impossibility of knowing” , “the impossibility of every possibility” .
Death here as the impossibility of possibility. For Levinas, the character of Self is not fundamentally possibility. I am not first of all a power or a freedom to be, whether or not this is cashed out in terms of potentiality-for-being. I am first of all sensibility, passivity, responsibility. As passivity and exposure to the other, I am not first of all a potentiality for anything, least of all death. My concern here has been not only with the shadow of Levinas’ death but also with the shadow cast over us by the Shoah-a shadow under which Levinas lived…Now better to ask how responsible my response will have been, not according to the realm of appearances or phenomena, but according to the other for whom I am responsible. Levinas-both as a philosopher, and as a survivor of the Shoah-has asked, perhaps more insistently than any other philosopher, after the meaning of ethics. Once day I have written the book titled “Another and he”. For the death is first, mortality is real phenomenon. It forbids the positing of a for itself that would not already be delivered over to the Other and consequently be a thing. In this way a death is appointing oneself over to the Other. I am powerless. So we can’t leave Other out of one’s will. We must do it, one way or another. Now to be answerable to Emmanuel Levinas, to his legacy is to see that ethics in our era can no longer be a call to responsibility, as if it were a duty abstractly outlined, a future possibility, yet to be realized. Ethics is a responsibility to which I, unique and irreplaceable, come always too late. Whether this means one should go out into the world, ethically, or stay close to God, is a matter of religion. But it is not merely a matter of arbitrary choice. I do not mean to end with a demand to be religious in any conventional sense. I recall religion as a dedication to Levinas’ insight that to testify is to bear witness to the infinite.

Leave a comment