There are a couple ways one could take this excerpt from Rosa. In essence, this is an anti-consumerist work: we are called, here, to shed a part of our manipulative and externalized approach to the world, so typical of modernity. In this pursuit, I am reminded of Isaiah Berlin’s interactions with the material he read (this is especially relevant given Berlin’s indirect mark on this work through his student, Charles Taylor), and in particular those of the Russian literary giants of the 19th century. His treatment of Tolstoy in his essay, “The Hedgehog and the Fox,” is of particular note: below is the final paragraph of that essay.
“Tolstoy’s sense of reality was until the end too devastating to be compatible with any moral ideal which he was able to construct out of the fragments into which his intellect shivered the world, and he dedicated all of his vast strength and will to the lifelong denial of this fact. At once insanely proud and filled with self-hatred, omniscient and doubting everything, cold and violently passionate, contemptuous and self-abasing, tormented and detached, surrounded by an adoring family, by devoted followers, by the admiration of the entire civilized world, and yet almost wholly isolated, he is the most tragic of the great writers, a desperate old man, beyond human aid, wandering self-blinded at Colonus.”
Hear Tolstoy’s call! For in the call Berlin heard from that venerable author, we hear it too, transformed as it is. Feel Tolstoy’s gaze! For by witnessing, personally, Berlin’s simultaneous exaltation and damning criticism, we see in his gaze the broken and contradictory image of ourselves and, through that, the prototype of such a bittersweet nature. Bear witness to the transfiguration of Berlin and of Tolstoy! For in such an analysis, Tolstoy becomes the most tragic figure, and in Berlin, we may infer the earlier transformation, one in youth, in which the seeds of his later pluralism were sown.
Such experiences, of course, are subjective. The reader of this post might not (indeed, will not) experience the same excitement from this double resonance in the same way as me. Indeed, such an experience only present in me the first time I read this extolling and condemning paragraph. Such experiences can only be given by approximation.
Needless to say, this excerpt from Rosa’s book resonates with me. This chapter approaches the core of the problem of modernity: its disenchanted nature. Yet, this excerpt does not yet break free from this modern condition; it represents an ambiguous (not completely secular) theosis. Neither is this ‘resonance’ quite so involuntary (in making ourselves available to God’s Grace, we may instigate this resonance on a level far deeper than one would otherwise achieve), nor are the mechanics of resonance described in sufficient detail (for, in its ideal state, it is nothing less than communion in the Trinity). This resonance described by Rosa is thus a lower state than that described by the Eastern Fathers. Yet, it does serve many venerable functions: in combatting the depoliticized, consumerist politics we in the modern world find ourselves pulled to, in encouraging a more ancestral way of interacting with the material world, and in discouraging the hammering-into-shape of ideas into false, idealized forms that modern men and women are so inclined to perform.
