Blog #4 p. 48-50 TT

Wow. I had to re-read the information earlier in the chapter a few times over to really get this story. This is the way that I see it. This story illustrates that there really is no "self." I felt that the countryman was representative of the cultural "subject" always responding to the dictates of the Law. Earlier in the chapter, it mentioned that "The authority of the police calls upon you to stop and respond, to identify yourself before the law," also mentioning that people willfully surrender--I thought this was mirrored when the countryman always surrendered himself to the doorkeeper, thus never proceeding into the gates. He could have easily ignored the guy and walked right in. He later finds that these gates were just for him, which symbolized the whole idea of "self" and every person's desire to be unique. I don't think that the other scenario fit quite as well, mostly because the countryman wanted to go through the gates, when the scenario suggested that the unique person avoids the Law, and think he is untouched. It cost the countryman everything he had to keep safe from the influence of the Law, and I think that was symbolic of the idea the chapter was trying to get across--That if we were completely untouched by the law and our culture, what would we be? We would have nothing to ourselves. We would lose all of the events, the memories, the history, the people and so much more that shape the person that we are.
Also, the countryman is still determined by the law because he avoids it- he is still controlled by it, to not challenge it because of his fear of what might happen. Of the "unique" and "untouched" self, this says that it is impossible because the Law is unavoidable. I don't think he is suggesting that such a self is necessary or even dangerous, I think he's saying that all people view themselves as unique and untouched when in all actuality, they are not. I don't know--that part of the question was something I wasn't so sure about.