Bryan Dewey Agambens Apocalypse Avital Ronells contention that Giorgio Agambens The Coming Community is an utterly revolutionary

text is perhaps the most accurate description of Agambens difficult and dense foray into a world of theory out of bounds. The English version of these essays, translated by Michael Hardt and published by the University of Minnesota Press, offers to the largely linguistically anglicized world a blueprint for the practical new heaven on earth dreamed of in St. Johns Revelation. While such an idea may seem utterly utopic in its reach, Agamben somehow manages in this text to push the readers intellectual intuition into an acceptance of the political possibility of such a coming community. This paper will attempt to bridge such an understanding to the listener, certainly a difficult task given Agambens authentic prose, which is perhaps best left to work on its own during multiple readings. The focus here in this essay will be Agambens conceptions of Whatever and Irreparable and the connections both inherent and incidental between Agambens text and the biblical apocalypse. It is my aim to show that the acceptance of whatever being is the same uncovering event that is the apocalypse. The opening essay in Agambens collection, entitled Whatever, details the importance of Agambens notion of whatever being. Whatever, for Agamben, is the quodlibet of the Scholastic enumeration of transcendentals (quodlibet ens est unum, verum, bonum, seu perfectum) (1). This recounting translates as whatever entity is one, true, good, or perfect (1). This qoudlibet, or whatever, is in Agambens eyes the key term in this phrase. This whatever conditions the meaning of all the other terms in this

series, and through this conditioning, whatever reveals the possibility of reclaiming being as belonging itself. Rather than conceiving of being as being a particular separate identity, whatever allows one to be as belonging. This reclamation occurs through Agambens acknowledgement that the whatever at hand in this enumeration of transcendentals relates to singularity only in its being such as it is (1). By being its whatever, its being-such, whatever singularity shuns all notions of individual identity and is freed from any objectifying identification. Whatever being simply is whatever it is. This freedom from the constraints of identification occurs through the rupture of the apparent but false dilemma between the ineffability of the individual and the intelligibility of the universal (1). As whatever being, the being-such of any entity, singularity presents itself as neither a universal nor an individual included in a series (1), and through this exposure of pure singularity, the concept of whatever works to show that belonging occurs as a condition for being itself. As Agamben writes, Thus beingsuchcomes to light itself. The singularity exposed as such is whatever you want, that is, lovable (2). This pure singularity that is whatever being is lovable through its exposure of all of its predicates (2). The lover, for Agamben, desires the loved one only in this way, as the loved one truly is. The importance of whatever being can be seen as a lesson in tolerance and love, the learning to accept any form, mode, and exposure of being, as part of the whatever that forms existence and is always transcendentally as well as immanently one, true, good, or perfect. Although this description may make Agamben seem as a prescriptive moralist attempting to command us into loving our neighbors, what is truly at stake in Agambens writing is an ontological shift in the understanding of

being itself. While the notion of being as belonging is not entirely a new possibility, Agambens theoretical and yet poetical language works dually in constructing a philosophical concept of being as belonging and an affect of love for whatever being. While the construction of such an affect is not usually the task for an academic essay such as this, Agambens theory out of bounds undermines the ordering rationality present within most cases of philosophy and the proliferation of knowledge. Though I would love to create such an affect of love for whatever being in this essay, the space and time and expected methodology present in this setting suggest adhering to the philosophical side of Agambens work and as such, defining whatever being more clearly becomes necessary. In order to more clearly define Whatever, Agamben turns to the philosophers crutch, the example. As the third essay in The Coming Community, Example places the singularity of whatever beside the singularity of any word within language. As Agamben notes that the antinomy of the individual and the universal has its origin in language (9), it becomes clear that this antinomy within language must fall away as easily as the ontological dilemma of individual against universal does when it brushes against the concept of whatever being. Language, through the designation of various attributes to singular objects, transforms singularities into members of a class, whose meaning is defined by a common property (9). This assignation of class onto a singularity enables one to construe an ordered reality only through the denial of singularity. Through the use of language, as Wallace Stevens notes all too often, Things as they are have been destroyed (21). No longer can the tree just be, but the tree must be as tree, exposing

only the predicates that belong to the word tree, which prevent it from being seen as bush, branch, trunk, earth, or else. Ironically, in searching for an example of the pure singularity of whatever being, it is the concept of the example that best displays this pure singularity by escaping the antinomy of the universal and the particular (9). Examples as such, then, become exemplary of whatever being. An example, as one singularity among others, which, however, stands for each of them and serves for all, manages to remain neither particular nor universal and is able to show itself as such and in this way present its pure singularity (10). An example, as a unique member of a set, retains its individuality while signifying the greater whole. This understanding of example does not entirely fulfill the conceptual understanding needed for whatever being though. It is only by examining the relationship between example as such and language as such that the true nature of whatever can be seen. By examining the Greek term para-deigma (that which is shown alongside) and the German Bei-spiel (that which plays alongside), Agamben comes to find that the proper place of the example is always beside itself, in the empty space in which its undefineable and unforgettable life unfolds (10). This space, and this life, for Agamben, is purely linguistic, and exemplary being is purely linguistic being (10). The being-called of language that is at the same time that which cuts off the tree from being its whatever self is also responsible for the space in which the tree can be seen as separate from language in its singularity, the space in which the tree can be undefineable and unforgettable (10). Language then becomes the Most Common that cuts off any real community (10). This is the impotent omnivalence, the helpless strength, of whatever being. Whatever being is only revealed through the failure of

language, while at the same time whatever being is constrained to always be working against the dominating attempts of identification present in the ordering of language. The pure singularities of whatever being, the coming being of the coming community, expropriate all identity so as to appropriate belonging itself (11). The belongingness of language then is perhaps simply another way of viewing the condition of belonging itself, which is precisely that which whatever being wishes to reclaim. Though the concept of example and its relationship to the being-called of language serves as one particular example of whatever being, it may be beneficial to relate whatever being to another singularity that is also on its way, the singularity of the individual present within Antonio Negri and Michael Hardts concept of the Multitude. Negri and Hardts multitude, a multitude of singularities (138), is a multiplicity of singular forms of life [that] at the same time shares a common global existence (127). The multitude is an open network of singularities that links together on the basis of the common they share and the common they produce (129). Though Negri and Hardt view the pure singularity present within multitude in light of the socio-economic biopolitical production of the current global situation, the individual member of the multitude remains a pure singularity similar to Agambens pure singularity of whatever being. The social subject of the multitude is one whose difference cannot be reduced to sameness, a difference that remains different (99). This social subject, who acts in common and produces the common with all others, can be seen as the same social subject of Agamben that exposes its being-such of whatever while recognizing belonging as the condition of its being. Similarly, the multitude is, in Negri and Hardts thesis, the coming community

that will eventually overthrow Empire and lead to global democracy, the true rule of all by all through the recognition of the sovereignty of each unique individual. Defining Agambens concept of the irreparable appears to be an easier task than defining whatever as Agamben summarizes in one sentence what irreparable means. He writes, Irreparable means that these things are consigned without remedy to their being-thus but irreparable also means that for them there is literally no shelter possible, that in their being-thus they are absolutely exposed, absolutely abandoned (39). Whatever being is irreparable in its absolute exposure as pure singularity. The recognition that there is no way of being other than the being-thus of the coming community leaves one without any shelter, but the recognition of irreparability also affords one the home of belonging. Irreparability becomes in many ways a stronger focus for Agamben within The Coming Community than whatever. An appendix to the text that is quite lengthy relative to the larger body is concerned solely with the irreparable. The appendix clarifies the power of the irreparable and begins with the overwhelmingly obvious reminder from Agamben that The Irreparable is that things are just as they are, in this or that mode How you are, how the world is this is the Irreparable (90). The aim of Agambens theory is not to change the way things are, but as can be seen with the blessing of whatever, his desire is for the world to recognize the divinity of the irreparable nature of the way things are. My aim, which I believe may also be a part of Agambens goal as well, is to build the conceptual bridge between this irreparable whatever and apocalypse. Apocalypse, as the Revelation of the New Testament, does serve a particular role within Agambens text. The beginning of Agambens brief section Irreparable

references back to Aquinas and asks the question of what the universe will look like postjudgment and post-apocalypse, how nature can survive the accomplishment of its final cause (38). It is Agambens idea, along with Robert Walser, that after the judgment of the last day, all will be just as it is, irreparably, but precisely this will be its novelty (39). Agamben more clearly relates apocalypse with the irreparable in his appendix, and he arrives at the revolutionary recognition that revelation does not mean revelation of the sacredness of the world, but only revelation of its irreparably profane character (90). In this statement, Agamben situates the text of revelation and the uncovering essence of apocalypse within his rubric of whatever. The uncovering of the coming community of whatever is the apocalypse by its very nature. By allowing all that is to come forth and reveal its own being-thus, the apocalyptic conquering and uncovering of Revelation occurs. The removal of cover and shelter that is the status of the irreparable is the Greek apocalypse, the apo, the from, or the movement away from, the to cover of kalyptein; thus the disclosure of the pure singularity of whatever being enables everything to shine forth in pure uncovering. Through whatever, the uncovering truth of aletheia will simply always occur and lead to the new heaven on earth of revelation. In this earthly life that acknowledges the belongingness and worthiness of every aspect of being, the truth does seem to be that The world - insofar as it is absolutely, irreparably profane - is God (90). This profanity of God leads to a profane ethics for Agamben as well. Ethics, the brief section of Agambens book that immediately follows the section on the irreparable, presents an ethic of possibility and potentiality, and therefore is an apocalyptic ethics of uncovering. All will flourish as whatever. Agamben notes at the beginning of this section the fact that must constitute the point of departure for any

discourse on ethics is that there is no essence, no historical, or spiritual vocation, no biological destiny that humans must enact or realize (43). The only ethical experience possible for Agamben is one of potentiality and possibility. This thought is opposed directly to morality as it has been conceived throughout recent history; the destiny of morality is shown by Agamben to be nothing more than viewing potentiality as a fault that must always be repressed (44). This repression of possible actions and exposures of being prevents apocalypse from occurring but should fade in favor of a profane view of ethics, one that recognizes that the being-worm of the worm, the being-stone of the stone, is divine (15). The only thing that could possibly be seen as evil in such a world is the reduction of the taking-place of things to a fact like others, the forgetting of the transcendence inherent in the very taking-place of things (15). No moral crimes can be evil or wrong, for they are all potential beings of whatever and simply aspects of existence. The being-murderer of murderer must be conceived as containing as much divinity as the being-priest of priest. Redefining and redivining the human is thus the task at hand presented by uncovering of all potentialities. That which has not been seen as divine, Satan, demons, any action deemed morally wrong, must be recognized as divine in order for the coming community to arrive. Aligning himself with Spinoza, Agamben agrees the devil is only the weakest of creatures and the most distant from God; as such it is what most needs our help and our prayers (31). The psychological task of healing the deficiencies of all and the weaknesses of the self, that evil within all of us which Agamben sees as the possibility of not-being that silently calls for our help (31), is and has been the apocalyptic task of uncovering and understanding and learning to love and care for all

ways of being. It is only when psychology, often behind the weight of morality, attempts to order, construct and force a subject into a certain way of being by repressing free individuality and potentiality, that the psychological project can be seen as a failure. The new knowledge of infinite ways of constructing reality and being human is helping to drive the creation of the coming community. Globalization, and essentially, the diversification of the divine through the recognition that the world is God and one, true, perfect, or good, enables one to love the murderer and thief as God and understand their actions as merely one manifestation of the beautiful divine irreparable. It is in this conflict between morality and the divinity of the immoral that the cryptic crux of St. Johns Revelation comes to light. The kingdom of heaven on earth is only available to those who conquer, those who are not fornicators, sorcerers, prostitutes, thieves, and murderers. These represent the archetype of the biblical other that is excluded through the imposed subjectifications of morality and law. This exclusion in turn leads to a lack of love, the true nature of evil in Agambens eyes. The failure to recognize the transcendent divine nature of the taking place of murder, prostitution, and sorcery, is in actuality our own possibility of not-being announcing itself within through the separating act of failure to love. Now, while I certainly do not advocate murder, I do advocate that it be recognized as part of our beautiful irreparability and in that sense Johns Revelation serves as a last testament to the negatively totalitizing nature of the New Testament. It is necessary now to think the transcendent within the immanent and this is precisely what Agamben does through his conception of whatever and though the recognition that whatever one might ascribe to the term God is an aspect of every matter of existence.

The negative totalizing of any conception of good and divine that separates any aspect from its understanding is the same negative totalizing that occurs always within language. The escape that occurs within the coming community is the escape from language to language. Agamben summarizes the conquering of the apocalypse that enables transcendence within immanence near the end of his Shekinah section. The experience of language itself, which only apparently now within our global era for the first time appears possible for Agamben, can only occur without allowing what reveals to remain veiled in the nothingness that reveals which occurs by bringing language itself to language (83). It is the removal of the veil of maya, the removal of any form of separation of the irreparable whatever, that will lead to a community with neither presuppositions nor a State, where the nullifying and determining power of what is common will be pacified and where the Shekinah have stopped sucking the evil milk of its own separation (83). An understanding that all potential beings are lovable as they are is the only one in which the prostitutes, murderers, and thieves can achieve the new heaven on earth. It is also the only way of conquering for those who presently fail to see the heaven on earth now, through the exclusion of these aspects that are unworthy only linguistically, of this heaven and earth that is one, true, perfect, and good.

Language and totality quote at end of Shekimah Scrap mention of aletheia/truth Judgment on thieves, prostitutes, etc.

Outline: 1.) Whatever Being (2-3) A.) Example and relation to language example is exemplary of whatever being. B.) relation to Multitude 2.) Irreparable (2-3) - Basically, viewing beings in this way causes us to redefine divinity and recognize the divinity of irreparability. The key ideas here are Agambens arrival through Aquinas that the life that beings on earth after the last day is simply human life and that The Irrepable is that things are just as they are, in this or that mode, consigned without remedy to their way of being how you are, how the world is this is the Irreperable 3.) What this means for Apocalypse (2-3) A.) Taking-place the pure transcendent is the taking-place of every thing, the being-worm of the worm, the being-stone of the stone, is divine B.) Revelation does not mean revelation of the sacredness of the world, but only revelation of its irrepably profane character (One is remind of Heraclitus Homer was wrong in wishing that strife and war would pass from existence, this would mean the perishing of existence) C.) Apocalypse and whatever are essentially uncoverings/unveilings of all that is. Other issues I might address: language, exteriority (extension), love, judgment of the last day (Levinas), morality, evil (14.5) Abstract: This essay will contend that Giorgio Agamben's coming community and the coming apocalypse clearly desired by conscious and unconsciously creating artists reveal in essence the same desires. As such a desired apocalypse, which reveals itself through a Jungian analysis of apocalyptic art, requires a revealing and uncovering; the coming community of whatever being entails also a metamorphosis towards a humanity removed from hidden and concealed qualities. Rather than aligning oneself as a subject within an identity or myriad of identities, whatever being, presented by Agamben as the quodlibet that is one, true, good, or perfect, "is reclaimed for its being-such, for belonging itself." Through this allowance of being as such within this world of whatever being, one that Agamben also professes along with Franz Kafka and Robert Walsers to be a world "that demands the ultimate salvation of Satan", all that has been hidden and concealed will now be revealed and allowed to come forth to light. This apocalyptic community arises once one comes to see beyond a presupposed hidden essence and learns to expose one's essence in one's own thusness of whatever qualification. The revelation the practical political world seems to be waiting for in Negri and Hardt's Multitude, as well as Agamben's The Coming Community, is the revelation of the reclamation of belonging as the condition of being itself. The desired revelation of all that is common comes to light through whatever being in the recognition

that all that is human is thus and not hidden, and belongs to a "community without presuppositions and without subjects, [one where exists a relationship of] communication without the incommunicable." This destruction of any hidden presuppositions and any acknowledgement of the incommunicable is an apocalypse that leads to a new earth and a new type of community/communication that may be on its way.

Awareness of unconscious Freud, where id is, ego will be Unconscious drives as that which makes beings be?/Universal entity objectified through speech Insight of the self truly grasping itself extinguishing all objectiveness Must be base consciousness in giving out individuality in order to preserve it. What is base has become noble and what is noble has become base Infinite improvisation.. Diderot, speech that perverts and inverts everything individual still effected Spirit of absolute frankness and absolute shamelessness essential reality is distant from itself? Self-disintegration repudiation of repudiation of self = language of rebellion.. Muteness lack of acceptance surrender Jessie Learned = close-minded

Deleuze on Nietzsche rejection of Hegel My paper as discourse on truth?

Tribulation

Foucault Eventalization (coaxing out of singularity) (although with recognition that event/singularity wasnt that important) Labor power reproduced in private life of workers themselves Fear of chaotic and exponential encounters Political and juridical constitution of labor power as commodity Capital can multiply itself only by calling into place wage labor, increase of capital = increase of proletariat / working class Commons as potential. The secret of profit-making History = unbound field of power Surplus, Spinoza, and Lacan Take what you need, enjoy it and realize the abundance that's happening in your life. Make sure that what you get is good quality as many things are not.