Bryan Dewey“Agamben’s Apocalypse”

Avital Ronell’s contention that Giorgio Agamben’s The Coming Community is an

“utterly revolutionary” text is perhaps the most accurate description of Agamben’s

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. John’s “Revelation”. While such an idea may seem

utterly utopic in its reach, Agamben somehow manages in this text to push the reader’s

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 Agamben’s authentic prose, which is perhaps best left to

work on its own during multiple readings. The focus here in this essay will be

Agamben’s conceptions of Whatever and Irreparable and the connections both inherent

and incidental between Agamben’s 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 Agamben’s collection, entitled “Whatever”, details the

importance of Agamben’s 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 Agamben’s 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

Agamben’s 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 being-

such…comes 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 Agamben’s writing is an ontological shift in the understanding of

being itself. While the notion of being as belonging is not entirely a new possibility,

Agamben’s 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, Agamben’s 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 Agamben’s work and as such, defining “whatever being” more clearly becomes

necessary.

In order to more clearly define “Whatever”, Agamben turns to the philosopher’s

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 Hardt’s concept of the Multitude.

Negri and Hardt’s 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 Agamben’s 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 Hardt’s 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 Agamben’s 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 Agamben’s

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 Agamben’s 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 Agamben’s text. The beginning of Agamben’s brief section “Irreparable”

references back to Aquinas and asks the question of what the universe will look like post-

judgment and post-apocalypse, how nature “can survive the accomplishment of its final

cause” (38). It is Agamben’s 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 Agamben’s 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. John’s 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 Agamben’s 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 John’s 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 Agamben’s 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 wasn’t 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.