Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

Hello a greeting from nowhere

Proposition 1
It is impossible to be everything we are supposed to be and to do everything we are ordered to, and
when we try the failure we are doomed to is neither interesting nor enjoyable. To take the path of
breaking with everything is the only worthwhile end, even if it is hopeless.
Everything is what is ordinary. It is hard to find a glimmer of anything alse in life, anything that
would suggest an Outside. Everything is the way that things are organized, but it is also a command.
An order to do and to be. Everything is ordinary in the sense that everything is ordered. And
Everything is ordinary in the sense that everything tends to act as an order.
The order is that you must be Everything. o you fail at everything. !ou endlessly wor" towards he
monstrous goal of accom#lishing everything.
!ou will never get there.
$e will never get there, and yet we are still here, still doing and being. till ordered% organized and
ordered around& organizing and ordering others around. That is all that Everything seemes to be.
Everything is the way we tal". Everything is the way we slee# and eat. It is the way we stand in
line, but also the way we confess our love. It is in our intimacies that we fail most des#arately, but
we also fail 'easily enough, brushing #ast each other every day and mumbling (hello() in our
attem#ts at the most basic forms of communication. *any have given u# on greeting others& many
others have gone for a s#eech so ritualized and regulated, so well ordered, that it says nothing at all
'and so, in some way, says everything to those who "now how to hear it).
Everything is waiting and being waited on. Everything is a##arent. Everything is visible, set in
bright relief against everything else. Everything is saturated with light, cameras, directed activity,
and sight without seing. In Everything we learn confusion we learn to be afraid of the dar".
In Everything, most of us e+#erience ourselves in a "ind of dar"ness. $andering alone, reaching out
for others who are ,ust out of reach, ,ust out of sight. This cinematic blur of countless frames #er
second, light and dar", confuses us. It casts a gloom onto our dee# #erce#tion, our ability to see
shade and nuance. It deceives our sense of sight and muddies our other senses.
One night you might find yourself s#ea"ing out loud. ou might hang out of a window or #eer down
a shoadowy alley, saying (hello-( to no one in #articular. This is an odd gesture. It is not the (hello(
you mumbled as you brushed #ast a stranger with everything there is to do on our mind& it is not a
bored (hello( to your bored friend... it is a "ind of cry. A .uestion/call. A .uestion/greeting/call.
$ithout "nowing it, you might be using the utterance (hello-( in an archaic sense. As if s#ea"ing
from an old #lace, an originary #lace that is no longer visible, its sound no longer audible. In the
#ast, in a #ast we are removed from by much more than the #assage of time, when one would meet
another #erson on the street, the #reo#er greeting in English was (0ood day( or (0ood evening(.
Our now familiar greeting (hello( was something else, a "ind of .uestion/call one might cast into
the woods, or a .uestion/greeting/call uttered in the direction of a noise in one1s home% (Hello- Is
there anybody there-( The inverntion of the tele#hone, its invasion and reconstitution of everyday
life, changed affairs. It was so unnatural to s#ea" into the machine that #eo#le were more inclined
to say (Hello-( than (0ood day(. ince the #resence of another could no longer be assumed, it
seemed a##ro#riate to call a .uestion into the void. And that .uestion/call is what we have
un"nowingly inherited.
The call into the void has since grown to inhabit all of social life. One inde+ of its s#read is the fact
that the .uestion/call (Hello( is now the most ordinary of greetings. It even has a cute form% (Hi2(
(Hello( is the cal into the void, the greeting of an era of tele#resence, of ghostly #seudo#resence.
Ordinary greetings for an ordered life of loneliness shared with other #eo#le.
$e said that everything is a##arent, and that in everything most of us e+#erience ourselves in
dar"ness. It is really a .uestion of the inter#lay between dar"ness and a terrible visibility. 3etter to
say the most of us e+oerience ourselves in a void. *ost of us wander and reach, and most of us call
out almost involuntarily, and not only at night. 4sually nothing ha##ens. 4sually you ,ust hear your
own voice and it is terrifying, or boring, or terrifyingly boring.
Obviously we no longer just tal"ing about the tele#hone but we are tal"ing about a world in
which #eo#le tal" at length about their tele#hones.
4sually you ,ust hear your own voice. 3ut sometimes another answers. $e are those who have
called (hello( and found others who answered. $e stillare not sure entirely what this means, but it
feels very im#ortant. The uncanny cries that have come in res#onse to our initial .uestion/greeting/
call are the only hints we have ever "nown that suggested an Outside. $e called bach and forth, we
shouted for real, and as we did so we drew closer to each other. 5lose enough to sense de#th and
That is the condition of our saying (we(.
$e re,ect everything together and call into the void.
$e would li"e to "now who else is out there.
omeone said that all friendshi# is #olitical, but in Everything friendshi# is im#ossible. !ou do not
have five hundred friends, almost certainly do not have a dozen, and chances are you don1t even
have one. If you have a lover, yours is #robably the "ind of #assion that is always sure to "ee# the
door closed. 6riendshi# isn1t having e+#eriences together or having things in common. The rare
moments are ,ust that and not #roof of anything.
To be s"e#tical about everything, even friendshi#, is to invite a "ind of ho#elessness. $e do not turn
away from such ho#elessness.
Indeed, our #ro,ect is difficult to the #oint of ho#elessness. This doesn1t mean it is without focus or
intensity .uite the o##osite. It means we will be agile. Agility is in the sto#s as well as the starts%
we claim as our own the ability to e+#erience failure without illusion and then to have the ca#acity
to move on or to remain motionless. As long as our ne+t ste# is ho#eless... To the e+tent to which
ends can be achieved they are li"ely to be disregarded or re,ected if they reflect the security of
Our ho#elessness is at once fleeting and urgent& ever #resent, it calls for great patience.
Proposition 2
verything is hopeless, and yet verything is always telling its story in a way that sounds
desperately hopeful. !any do the same with their stories of how we might change everything. To
shake off these stories and look hopelessness in the face, one comes to a real choice, maybe even
the only choice that really matters" wallow in despair or dare the leap for a vastly different life.
7et1s begin again. All we have are some stories& we don1t "now if we have friends, if we are
succeeding in being friends when we thin" ourselves sober or enthusiastic enough to do it. $e said
that in Everything friendshi# is im#ossible& and if there is an Outside, the way there remains
shrouded in confusion. Things are a mess. And in this mess, this ongoing crisis, sometimes we end
u# in a circle of #eo#le and someone tries to situate all of this, all of our diurnal and nocturnal
conversations. omeone starts to tell a story...
8ow and then someone invo"es history. It is always an instructive moment, when someone
addresses the circle and reminds the circle that it is a circle and as"s the individuals at its edges to
cede, to concede... To finally belong. 6or us this is a "ind of theater. Our first encounter with history
was #ure nationalist indoctrination. 7ater, we witnessed someone further from the center of the
circle turning towards the center and beginning to s#ea" of something less monumental% the history
of #eo#le li"e us, whoever they thin" we are. It is a smaller history in a smaller circle and #erha#s
with more audience #artici#ation. In the indoctrinating as well as the su##osedly radical sense,
history is Everything telling its story, telling itself, but in this it is a deceit.
7et1s admit it% for us these historical feel/good 'or feel/bad) tales do not have the great im#ortance
they claim. $e live in the now, today. Today is li"e yesterday and #robably li"e tomorrow. Time
goes on, history is said to go on.
This is the story of everything% Everything re#eats. This is the history of Everything% Everything
re#roduces itself. 8othing ha##ens.
$e live in the now. $e cannot get rid of the nagging sense that history is a deceit, and that the
stories we tell ourselves about what we are doing are ,ust little tales vying for the status of historical
truth. $hatever else this condition may be, it is disheartening. It has driven many of us to des#air.
Ho#elessness sha#es #ower and resistance laziness, lashing out, and loo"ing for love as acts of
In fact, is seems at first as though there are only two #aths o#en to us. One is des#air as madness%
not inction so much as hel#lessly random or automatic actions. The other is a false overcoming of
des#air, a return to ho#e, a reaffirmation of our small stories% not so much bold new actions as
ritualized re#etitions of something we believe wor"ed once u#on a time. The first leads to solitude,
sometimes to a frenzied #ublicity& the second is #ublic as well, but within the contours of
s#ectacular activism. This is why we don1t thin" we are doing something e+otic by having no ho#e.
$e believe many have no ho#e and don1t admit it to themselves, let alone to each other.
3ut ho#e and fear are ,ust different as#ects of the same submission to history. itting and istening to
the same story, one can ho#e for a ha##y ending while another fears a tragedy. 8either is free.
$e choose another way. $e act on our lac" of ho#e fearlessly though sometimes this means
refusing to do anything. Admitting you have lost everything means that you have the #ossibility of
somethig truly awesome in each new moment. Aware that you have something to obtain or to do,
you maneuver every situation towards your #articular end, your #ro,ect.
This allows us an insight% there are two senses to ho#elessness. One tends to #oint towards solving
the #roblem of ho#elessness through security solutions, 9: cam#aigns an self/hel# #rograms. This
is the terrorizing cynicism of #ower& and its fli#side, the terrorized motivation of the #olitical
sub,ect. 3oth des#air and its false overcoming 'ho#e) belong to this a##roach. The other a##roach
to ho#elessness, which is ours, is the relentlessness of finding the limitations of what we are ca#able
of and #ushing #ast them. $e do this with our #leasures, with our bodies, and,if we are luc"y, with
our friendshi#s.
The e+ce#tion tests the rule.
This means brushing aside what is im#ossible, ho#eless in the first sense, and gras#ing, even
en,oying, ho#elessness in the second sense. This is our power.
Our ho#elessness has this one great virtue% it is a marvelous #urgative. It will cleanse you of layer
u#on layer of everything #iled u#on you, everything you are coated with, all of these clumsy mas"s
stuc" to your face as history and stories. 9olitics, first of all% #olitical solutions to crises and
brea"downs too intimate to ever be addressed in a mass way. Ans as for that s#ecialized #olitics
crystallized around the intimate, the #olitics of identity, ho#elessness has nothing but a shrug and a
laugh% good luc with your history of defeats... 3ut #erha#s the strongest,the most needed #urgative
is the one that will forever cleanse you of the sense that it is #ossibleto e+#ress who you are without
$e could "ee# going, but let1s be clear% if we are against everything, we should say so. $e are the
only ones who say so, the ones who greet you in the nighttime, who cast you a win" in broad
daylight. $e are sta"ing our lives on this o#en confession of faithlessness... that we do it
anonymously and from behind a very different sort of mas" is ,ust evidence that we are not stu#id,
but seductive.
Proposotion #
$ecause everything is order and organi%ation, it is foolish to look to the order and organi%ation of
politics for ways out of our condition, out of verything.
:ecently there has been a moment of occu#ation. It has inhabited our minds, the media, and a few
town s.uares. This #olitical moment has been sur#rising because it has alluded to a .uestion rather
than assuming a set of answers.
4ntil it was decidedwhat this moment1s real intentions were in Everything, be it endless meetings,
street fighting, or a "ind of negotiation with ban"s, it was the freshest breath of air in a lost decade.
3ut once Everything1s web/s#inning began, the #rotagonists of the moment became tra##ed.
Tra##ed in old #atterns of #rotest #olitics, in negotiations that had been avoided heretofore, they
drifted further and further into Everything. The web/ma"ers, as necessary evils who enabled
visibility into certain recruiting moments,used the logic of recruiting as a frame, then shran" the
frame and #roceeded to eat the host.
$e are familiar with this digestive strategy. This is the o#eration of #olitics, the lack of
conversation necessary to manage bodies and stultify minds which amounts to #retty much
everything we "now. To esca#e #olitics isn1t #ossible, but it would be fantastic. As fantastic as a tri#
to the moon or a carnival ride. :ecent activities against #olitics as usual have lac"ed enough of a
fantastic orientation to esca#e gravity. They have crashed bac" to reality as more/of/the/same,
reflecting less truth about Everything than about their own fuel, which was far less corrosive than
7et1s return to the .uestion of #olitics. $e would li"e to have dismissed #olitics as ra#idly as we did
above, but we "now better. It is a malady of the soul, an addiction. It is our little #roblem. !ou .uit
one day and start again the ne+t. !ou abandon it one wee" and reinvent it the following. !ou do it in
denial of doing it. To return to #olitics and thoroughly cast it off is another way of saying (hello(, of
letting the greeting from nowhere find its way. 3ecause when we reach out, when we go for the
gesture of friendshi#, we end u# entangled in cli.ues, grou#s, scenes, milieus, subcutures... so many
so/called communities #o#ulated by the usual sus#ects.
There is terror in discovering that we, too, are the usual sus#ects for others. 6riendshi# is
$e begin by setting aside any sort of #artici#ation in re#resentative, #arliamentary, democratic
#olitics. $e are all familiar enough with those meetings where we tal" about Everything. $e are
concerned rather with the way in which everything tends to reflect that sort of #olitics, es#ecially
when Everything claims to o##ose itself. the eternal return of re#resentation, the thousand and one
names for what always amounts to s#ea"ing for the others.
$e wrote% when Everything claims to o##ose itself. There is a limited range to any discussion of
e+tra/#arliamentary #ower% from desire to #artici#ate in near/#arliamentary formations li"e
committees or collectives to the re,ection of anything short of tem#orary ad hoc grou#s. On this
s#ectrum, to do/the/good means to ma"e a better and more sincere effort towards more democracy
and more #artici#ation by a broader and broader section of the #o#ulation. This oath is guided by a
belief in who we want to be as a #eo#le. It re#laces the utter lac" of trans#arency and accountability
in normative #olitics with a watered down clear slurry of to+icity. Everything is made trans#arently
and res#onsibly mediocre.
The desire to create our own societies is #erfectly com#rehensible. $e create something that fills
the role that ife used to fill. History never ceases to remind us that community was once #ossible,
and #olitics never ceases to #roduce increasingly artificial recreations of community. 6or most of us
this means consuming an ideal that we believe we can be #art of, enlarging the sense of belonging
that we get from history and stories into a semblance of life. Tele#resence, ghostly #resence. $e
#artici#ate in the creation of e+actly the e+#eriences that we desire and the ideal sort of #eo#le who
conform to our desires and e+#ectations. $e choose the style, color, .uantity, and definitional
characteristics of our category& then we clic" 34!.
$e said that we found each other, but we still have no idea as to the way Outside& we are in the
brea"down, in the crisis. 3ut we "now that to turn against everything, to thin" ourselves against
Everything and live accordingly, we must embody the most corrosive s"e#ticism towards any
#olitical formation, and #erha#s the most where it is most li"ely we outcasts are being managed in
our discontent 'or worse, managing it ourselves)% the s#here of so/called radical #olitics.
9olitics always o#a.uely drags us bac" to com#romises with everything. Ho#elessness is
trans#arently anti#olitical.
Proposition &
If we try to get out of the grips of what we are ordered to do a be, we are defeated before we begin
unless we do away with everything we believe about good and evil. To push beyond history,
politics,and the oralism that subtends verything, we will commit to commitment itself.
Everything is coated in moral colorations, usually with very little fine shading. The order to do is
the order to do it right& the order to be is the order to be good. $hen we say (hello( we are greeting
those who have begun to ste# away from the cruel moralism that characterizes everything about our
culture and its subcultures.
Our rigor, our guilt, our fear all have their origins in the great monotheistic religions. !es, let1s cast
the net wide on this one. If living in 8orth America means anything these days, it means living in
s#aces defined by a 5hristianity more cultural than faith/based. *aybe, as 5hristianity fades,
5hristendom is strengthened in any case, we call its #ervasiv influence moralism. This moralism
is the very fabric of Everything, believe it or not. Thin" of it as an emotional form of surveillance, a
camera in your head.
There never was an angel or devil on your shoulder, a voice of conscience telling you what1s right
and wrong, or a ser#ent of tem#tation hissing in your ear. 3ut their was a reason someone would
have you believe they were real.
we have good reason to feel undermined by our leader/#riests. At least #riests have the minimal
good taste of being trans#arent about what they thin" they are doing.
If you want to gras# moralism in #olitics, when you see a leader s#ea"ing imagine him wearing
#riestly robes, and when you see one of the leaders who say they are not leaders, imagine her as the
#reacher on the street corner or bus. And conversly, if you want to gras# the #olitics in moralism,
observe as those who would set u# themselves u# as moral and religious leaders, advisors of every
sort, cynically ma"e it their business to cut corners and conceal their infinite hy#ocracies.
7iars in everything.
This motley array of characters each has their own way of draining our vitality. They wea"en our
flesh by managing our #leasures, so we are lost in our own bodies. They train our souls as well, but
believing in salvation or redem#tion does not lead to either.
; ; ;
In Everything community means that our behavior is not our own. 3ut neither are our actions and
beliefs merely #rescribed by figureheads. They are ordered by anonymous agents of a secular
culture that grows intertwined with them all. Everything is not a religion, but it can wear religion as
its mas", and most relate to everything religiously. This is what we mean by moralism. *ost of us
carve it into our own bodies. $e #ride ourselves on the scars that show how much we have suffered
how good we are.
It is at this #ersonal and intimate scale that one can gras# the cruelty at wor" in moralism. It is the
guilt/before/guilt of being oredered to be everything, and always failing. *oralism is the monstrous
guarantee that we each lay our life bare before some god in all of our activity. In e+change, we are
offered a story according to which we are redeemed through #ain. *ost #eo#le1s self/understanding
begins here. And most so/called communities are ordered around the re#etition of some minor
variant of this story which they call their history, radical or otherwise.
3eyond these stories of redem#tion through #ain, no other "ind of salvation is #ossible. 8o one else
can save you, and you can1t save yourself.
In Everything, our #athetic desires to do good for others, be saved from our mista"es, and achieve
our ends are ordered into monstrous rituals. $ith enough re#etition of these rituals, ordered desires
secrete stories and beliefs. History is built on these stories when they graduate and become myths,
s#o"en in e#ic, im#ortant tones.
3ut belief is more about who we are than about what we do.
Everything binds us to it through our belief in the way everything wor"s. o, in Everything, our
belief comes to sha#e what we are able to do. This is belief as the realistic, sim#le faith in god, in
the $orld, in Everything. 6or us, on the other hand, belief is a test, a matter of going beyond the
ho#e/and/fear matri+. 0oing Outside everything.
That is why we no longer believe in anything in everything, that is. This is how we discovered
that we never really believed in god, in the $orld, in Everything. $e "now all of the e+its are
bloc"ed by our age/old fallibility and by the crises of our time. The result% our endlessly re#eated
confusion about the connection between means and ends.
In the forms of history, #olitics, and moralism, the confusion will re#eat. 3ut we sus#ect we have
found a way to thin" more clearly. *ore im#ortantly, we thin" we have a way to say of a feeling or
a #assion that it is our own. In this way the disconnection between means and ends is momentarily
unbound. And our game is to chain such unbinding moments together, to destroy the se#aration
between means and ends every time we "now how.
$e said that Everything re#eats, that nothing ha##ens. $hat would it ta"e for something to ha##en-
That the hints or secret glim#ses of an Outside would e+#and li"e holes in a deteriorating reel of
film, would ta"e on nuance and de#th, and grow to become #anoramic. That is what it would mean
for something to ha##en beyond history. Outside everything.
Our name for what it would ta"e for something to ha##en is commitment. 5ommitment has long
been out of style& li"e loyalty, and honor, it is one of those values of the #ast that lost most of its
meaning in its incor#oration into Everything. It was, it still might be, a way of selecting those
#assions and relations that are e+cluded in Everything. A way of "nowing who and what is ours
beyond of the #re,udices of moralism and #olitics.
5ommitment is what there is to do and what there is to thin" about. To be realized, it must be torn
from Everything. And when we say that our game is to chain unbinding moments, ho#eless
moments together, what we are calling for is in fact a commitment to commitment.
Proposition '
In a world of motivational posters and self(help books encouraging us to strive, e)cel, and be
ourselves, we still want to speak of a kind of striving for e)cellence that lies *utside all that. This
commitment is what is lacking in verything and in its opposition. +ithout it, any supposedly
radical rejection of the world we know ends up, whether by compromise, repetance or surrender,
arriving back in the huge and welcoming arms of social participation, the suffocating embrace of
the all.
A world of half measures and moral relativism haven1t #roven more sensitive to #eo#le1s different
e+#eriences, values, or beliefs, nor has it transformed us into more than nervous calculators of
demogra#hics and feelings. *ore and more tolerance has #acified our manner of disagreement& but
what is even more disastrous is that it has #acified our dis#osition to friendshi# and love, rendering
them im#ossible.
In many #laces everything de#ends on being nice. Everything is everyone coming together to
suffocate each other. 8o one may esca#e the grou# hug.
*any beg for the crushing embrace to cease, but everyone hears this as a #lea for a more com#lete
hug. omeone is always willing to listen, listen, nod, and #erha#s give you some #ills. In the end,
most sim#ly succumb. After all, it is said that suffocation is a #eaceful and #leasant way to die.
o when we call (hello( is there anybody out there- / we do in the midst of a crushing mass of
bodies. $e do so with what little breath has not been s.ueezed out. If the cry is wea", it is because
everything muffles it.
!ou can1t be friends with everyone. To be true to another is to be an enemy of the grou#. To have
s#ace to breathe, to thin" clearly, to have solitude and silence, one must ma"e s#ace. And to ma"e
s#ace one must destroy what ta"es it u#. Only then there is anything worthwhile to occu#y by
oneself or with a friend.
0ras#ed beyond moralism, violence, li"e love and sorrow, is ultimately a #assion suffocated by the
demand for mediation and #leasantries.
; ; ;
There are all sorts of commitments that we are uninterested in. Every worthless cause congeals
around its commited #eo#le. T< shows, idiotic #o# stars, obscure musicians, middlebrow
intellectuals, all of the social, cultural, and #olitical garbage of Everything finds its adherents. And
in their arbitrary commitment the adherents mista"e their act of consum#tion for a self/defining,
self/asserting, and #erha#s even liberatory act.
'3ut let us not be so naive as to thin" that the idea of liberation enters the consciousness of most.)
If it is to be anything but ,oining in the big hug, commitment itself re.uires commitment. It re.uires
attention and care on one hand, and corrosive s"e#ticism on the other. $e said that our #ro,ect is
difficult to the #oint of ho#elessness. $e also said that everything involves an order to do and to be&
we should add that Everything se#arated everything into two orders the order of thought and the
order of life and the only #oint at which they are legitimately to meet in a society such as this one
is in an e+#ressive act of consum#tion. ,et yourself something nice.
To violate this order to do and to be is #robably to face misery, #overty or #rison time.
And yet that is what we are committed to ris"ing, because we crave the intensification of the lin"
between life and thought. 3etween what we say we do, and what we do& between what we say we
are, and what we are. 5ommitment is that lin"& the commitment to commitment is its
$e could go even farther and say that what we are committed to is the annihilation of the se#aration
between thought ad life. And this is necessarily to say we are committed to the annihilation of
Proposition -
+hen we invoke commitment to commitment, we are speaking of a form of organi%ation that is far
from all the boring clubs and pseudo(military formations. The strength of this form is entirely
dependent on the intensity with which one enters into it and how well it shrouds itself. .ou do not
have to believe that you are doing something more serious than playing a game to play it seriously,
to win.
Another way to a##roach commitment to commitment is to as" ourselves why #ro,ects fail, why
#eo#le sell out or give u#, or why movements either go mainstream or im#lode.
$e res#ond that Everything ma"es it im#ossible to "ee# #romises. There is a "ind of built/in
dishonesty or hy#ocrisy to everything we do. It seems to us that Everything1s order interferes
#recisely where one might, on one1s own terms, "ee# a #romise, swear an oath, or be trans#arent
with a friend. $e only understand swearing an oath, for e+am#le, in terms of loyalty to an
institution% the court, the army, marriage... $e only understand "ee#ing #romises or being honest in
terms of morality.
Our sense of the oath is not so much the moral .uestion of telling the truth, but the .uestion of true
,oy, the ho#eless #ossibility of achieving an ecstatic bond between thought and life. Or, in another
register, true friendshi#.
A ho#eless affair.
$e might even invo"e that archaic sense of being true to another, where to be true meant to be
intertwined. The intensity of a friendshi# understood as an immanent .uality rather than something
referred to a command from on high.
$e are writing about friendshi#, again. $e are still and #erha#s only writing about friendshi#. $e
are writing about a ru#ture, a lea# from commitment to commitment/to/commitment. This is not
something that ha##ens in #rivate, but neither it is something that ha##ens in #ublic. It does not
ha##en in or as Everything and so it is hidden in #lain sight. If you are doing it right, you and yours
will be illegible in Everything.
About the ru#ture as it ha##ened as it ha##ens in our lives, we can re#ort two things. It
ha##ened once 'we cried out (hello-( into the void) and it is endlessly re#eated 'it began when
someone res#onded in the dar"). Every conversation, all our intercourse, is a re#etition of this first
and originary event.
Every time we see a #ro,ect fail, hear of another betrayal, thin" of a movement im#loding, we are
bac" in the original void, saying (hello-(, wondering who is there. $e will never abandon the
#sychic distance that our first awareness of se#aration, of everything brought us. $e are familiar
with im#ossibility.
The fact of the ru#ture, our en,oyment of its accident and of its less than accidental re#etition
affords us this insight% your sense of belonging to a grou# or a #arty, to a team or a crew, can drift
off into belonging to everything. 8othing is easier, nothing is more available, more #ossible, than
this resuturing to things as all recognize them and "now them to be. 8o one can successfully be
something claim some identity and not have that identity e.ual its assigned #lace in Everything.
The Outside is not the inside1s outside. It is another side. The chain lin"s together accidents, non/
accidentally& it is a series of moments of attention and #assion, and of lessons learned with no
confidence that our fallibility has been overcome. 5ommitment to commitment is the will to ma"e
the ne+t lin", ho#elessly. $e are free to #artici#ate in countless activities, and withdraw from
countless more, insofar as some true res#onse issues forth there.
Proposition /
0aving abandoned history, we have no interest in waiting for the end of the world. +e have reali%ed
we cannot live our lives e)cept by being the world1s undoing. In the end, there is nothing to wait for
and nothing to fear. +hat1s more, we have all the time in the world to undo it.
$e who would li"e to not be deluded,who hold a certain dis(illusion as a criterion of life, "now that
everything comes to an end. At least we "now it sometimes. ometimes it is as sim#le as "nowing
our friend will die, or that we will die for them.
!ou "now about death because you are surrounded by it. 3ut, even as Everything manages and
orders the death that surrounds, it conceals death. It has to do so constantly, and cannot ever do so
entirely. And when it fails, you see that you are surrounded by death.
$hen we s#o"e of ho#elessness, we meant a disregard for everything, but also an attitude toward
the certainty of death. $hen we s#o"e of fearlessness, it was to distinguish ourselves from
everything that lives as though it should not die. o, without fear, without ho#e, we are #laying a
game with time and death. Our #ro,ect, to which we will have been true, will come to an end as
well. The game, which comes in several variants, is to "now this and remain committed without
5ommitment to commitment is to "now how to communicate the dis(illusion and the game. This is
what we are doing when we say% (hello.(
; ; ;
The world too will end& this is certainty and not ho#e. In fact, countless worlds already have ended,
are ending as we s#ea".
$e are committed to the annihilation of everything and so to the end of the world.
omeone said than many worlds are #ossible, as if we could save the ones that are ending, or as if
we could resuscitate all of the ones already e+tinguished, restoring traditions, cultures, and
languages bac" to life. $e thin" not even one of these worlds is inhabitable. Everything is the
single, colossal $orld that orders every subordinate world. There is room in everything for your
#rivate world, for your #articular culture, and your commitment to it behind closed doors or in the
#olitical s#here. There is no room for commitment to commitment, the unbinding of our faith in the
The end of the $orld de#ends on us.
True friendshi# is the end of the $orld, the beginning of our #lay together.
The secret is to begin at the end.