The Other Is Beyond The Law

I think we can all agree that the individual is, by nature, ego-tistical. He lives for his pleasure and happiness. He organizes the world to understand it and then eventually to manipulate it. As he gains mastery over the world, his individuality arises - that is, the 'me', 'myself', and 'I'. Feeding on the world is necessary for the 'anonymous' to become an individual.

The baby, unware of itself as an individual, has no sense of individual. Strictly speaking, it is anonymous, lacking independence. So, it feeds on the world. It gets its nourishment from the milk of its mother. As it grows, it becomes more independent. It requires gravity for it acquire balance. It depends on people to gain knowledge of his surroundings. Independence arises, gradually, from being dependent. This is all a natural development. The individual, by its very nature, is ego-tistical.

To make sense of the world, the individual has to comprehend it. It comprehends by disfiguring the world, to bring a sense of order out of chaos. Its sense of ordering is its way of comprehending, of making sense of the things that are, in themselves, in a state of chaos - as perceived by the individual.

Now, in comprehending, it orders, organizes. Through organization, the world is transfigured; or, rather disfigured. From the stance of things, they have been disfigured. From the perspective of the indivdual, the world has been figured, organized, has been imposed an order. The world arises in the light of the individual. Darkness has been dispersed. This is a necessary act of violence on the otherness of the other in order for individuality to rise up and to be counted.

So, what is it like to 'see' the other as an other? Since the other, when forced to fit into the self's understanding, is comprehensibly satisfying, then outside of the self's domain of comprehension, the other as an other appears to be ncomprehensibly irritating. To the self, the other as an other must be unnerving, annoying, powerful in that it has not been over powered. Or another way of putting it, the power of the other, as an other, lies in his powerlessness.

The self, has no choice, but to respond (his ability to respond, or response-ability) when face by the other in his otherness. I can either acknowledge his presence as an independent existence with all the right to exist as an other; or, I can respond to ignore him, or worse, make sense of him, that is, to force him to fit into my domain of comprhensions. In which case, I have responded negatively by 'murdering him', de-facing him, usurping him, robbing him of his full right to exist as an independent entity like me.

This immediate encounter with the other as an other is the beginning of ethics. In other words, my relationship with him is an ethical one that exists before the laws of the land, before the attempt and process of abstraction. Peter is Peter. But, when I categorized him, I kill him, murder him, silencing him as a result. I, in other words, responded to him irresponsibly, unethically. So, when I put him on categories with the rest, then I treat him like the rest.

Laws may be legal, but they're not necessarily ethical.

(This piece is inspired by the philosophy of Emmauel Levinas)