Edited and Teansated With an Incroduction By Daniel Heller Roazen Seonfnd Wiser Pre Seanfind Calorie pl POTENTIALITIES Collected Esays in Philosophy Giorgio Agamben§ 15 Bartleby, or On Contingency (1993) ethene be cae is leo igs man could ale ‘be war mae aft wha pet oni we neo a Wi andi exer at ma cold nein ew ws of be pare igi. Ged upon he shai tins da ey ne nk posi nated a de Sve, aeingndllig Arte ne ee ht ect ib "SNE Gad sb ees pn oli hich wn olga ide an couldn mgt or wi fe aed ess Aer ving ps a ni oe Wha ‘Baek on," wl wey do dal oy ‘one Gol awe“ he ould bp woe The fie Lae shaper 30 ‘The Seribe, or On Creation, Ara svvenr, Barley belong to a teray collation, J polar aris Alay Abskievich for Bi the whole ward warn some cent contained Diop. ea bis evr les, and shen be get othe be ry ot Iii entre bythe ein star, Bawa ad Pouches Che 00d ido hat bth evey nourished copying) and in eber exo "i bythe whi lig of Simon Tenner Tam srbe i the oly ident ‘ne cis for Bie) aed Price Mythin sb con eer mpd ‘ndrting A lise further on les she aro bl of Kah courtroom ers Bus Barby ah blag a piloephicl smal, andi may le thas it aloe conains the fg merely ace by he Leary cmtelleion 19 which Barby blogs. 1. The late Byzantine leicon that goes under the name of Suda con- tains che flowing definition in he enuy “Arse Ari ts pate _grammatens Ent Kleen spabreth cs aun, “Atle was the seribe ‘of nature who dipped his pen in though.” Inthe "Notes to his ala tion of Sophocles, Holdelin cies this passage for no apparent censon, subverting itby means ofa minimal conection. Arsorle, hes, was the scribe of nature who dipped his benevolent pen (eunoun instead of es ‘hows, idore of Seville’ Exmolois records a different version of the 84 Contingency same phrase, which originates in Casiodonus Arszl, quando per Dermeneas src clansum in mente nob, "When he wrote De Lexprecations," one of the Fandameatal logical works of the Organon, “Arte dipped his pea in though" In cic case what is dese ls nt much the image ofthe scribe of rate (hich i alo to be found in Ate he fc ea nu, shot or minds comnpaed oan ik pot in which che philosopher dpshis pen, The nk he drop of dates with which che en wets, i ehoughe ile ‘Whats the orgin of chi definition, which prsens the fundamental figuc ofthe puloophical tation nthe humble garb feeb, liken ing:hought to nn et of writing, albec of 2 spacial kind? Thre i only fone text in che entire Artotlian cou sae contains a similar age, which may have arnshed Cassiodonus ofan unknown writer with the bass forbs meaphor This passage belongs not ro the logical Organ butte Acsole eatie onthe woul Irs the paige in books, in which Aritone compares nou the nelle or potential thought, roa writing tablec on which nothing is writen: “the now is ikea writing tablet, Lgrammtcon," we res, “on whic nothing actly writen (Dean Jina 4308 In Greece in he fourth ceneury®, nkand papyrus were not the oly means of writing. Iwas much more common, especially for private se, to write by engsvng ys in «wrtng ables cece with a thin ayer, ‘of wax Having reached a crucial poe im his teate, che pine a which he comider the nace of the pore inllect and the mode ofp sage 1 the act of inclection, Aste eee to an object of hi kinds ‘which was probably che very same writing ableton which he wa eeond ing hie houghes achat momene. Much ltr, once wstng with pen and ink had become the dominane practic and Aistol imge ed ap peataganiqusted, someone mexernied tin the sense ae seed by Suds 2. The image ad get foreune in he radon of Western plilosophy. “The Ltn transtor who rendered ramen by tabuds mse consigned ‘cto hitory that led to Locke's white sheet” Cletus suppose thats in ‘he beginning, the mind ie whats called white shox, witha any hae cet, without any ideas"), nd alto co the incongruous expresion, which sil exis in lian, of ‘making clean sweep” (far tabula rat) ‘The inage was ambiguour and shi ambiguity certsnly comtbuted 10 Beeb or On Contingency 5 its success. Alexander of Apbrodisus noted tht the philosopher should have spoken not ofa prommazion but, nore pei, of epider, thai he light layer of wax covering om which she styl incibes le ter inthe terms of the Latin cranslaors, nota tzbula re but a rar ‘taht. The obseration, which Alexander had special reasons to inet fon, was, however, exit. The dificulry that Aristotle seeks ro avoid rough the image ofthe writing able i tha of che pure porn of| thought and how ie posible o conceive ofits passage to actualy. Fr, 'Fehoughe in el ha a serine fut, fit were always lead sme ching sa wei able ia thing), would neesay appear in the in tele object and thus hinder aelecion. Tiss why Anite takes ‘ate ro specify chat news “has no other maacethaa that of being o> tential, and before thinking it is absolutely nothing” (De aim, 429 3 aca) ‘The mind is herefore nota thing bu being of pare porentaliy, and ‘she image of he writing tablet on which nothing wren fancions pre- cisely to represent the mode in which pure potentiality exis. For Ars- ‘ote all poem be orto do something is alway also potential 00 be oF not x do (aynamis me cna, mt enegen) without which poren- ‘ality would always already have pated int ataliny and would be in= distinguishable fom i according tothe Megaian ther, which Acs toile expiciyrefures in Book Theta ofthe Msgphic) The "potential not to is the atdina sccrer ofthe Aristotelian doctrine of potential, ‘which uansfomn every potential ia ie into an imporensaiy( sana kab 0 auto psa dares adynamia) (Metapc, 098 432). Justa the archiec etsins his potential ro build even when he doesnot cua iad just as he Kihara players a thar player because he an slso noc play the kithara, so though exe a pote thik and not (0 thinks a2 wax writing ables on which nothing i writen (the poten- ‘al intelec of medical phosopher) And jas a the layer of ese wns suddenly grazed by the scribe stylus, s0 the potently oF thoughe, which in self is nothing, allows for the at of intligence o take place 4. Tn Messina, beeveen 1380 and 1290, Abraham Abulafia composed the (Cabalsi reatses that remained in European liberir in manactipt fovm for centuries and that weze brought eo she arention of nonapsia Jncs only inthe twentieth century (thanks to Gershom Scholem andod Consingeney ‘Moshe Ml) In thee works divine creation i conceived aan aco wet. Ingin wich leer an be aid eo vepresent the marl vehicle erough vthich dhe creative word of God, bic likened ro scribe moving his ens inceraates lf in cea chins ‘Thescoeeat the orga ofall cata the eer ofthealphber and every loner i aig da refers cation. Just as the serie ols hs pen im ie aod snd we to craw eer drop of ie plring in is i he fo ‘hac he ean give to mates lar a are pf in he Riper slower selina af eet inal see gees, the ce and i ve ing orn moving che bara po wad a instrament o make ak ae font the pergaren, which repent he body the subj of rater and foun), This an ke understand by anyone with iin, tony mane is pied, ‘Alnlafia was a eacler of Aino and, ike vey cued Jew of hin age, ‘vas sequaoned wit the philosopher through Arabic translations and commenatis.The problem ofthe passive intel and ie relation to the setive or poi nelle hich Aristo, in De anima iguidats with Few enigmatic sentences) was tceated wich excepcionalsubcery bythe als (s the dsipes of Arisrle in lar were called). The prince of fifa himal. Avicenna, conceive af the ceaton of the work as an stn which the divine intelligence thinks ie Te creation of che ub Tuna world (which, inthe emanations proces that Avicenna had in sind, he work ofthe Int angr-nelgence, whois none ther chan Aviso’ agent intel) ws theefce also understood according tothe ‘model of hough thinking self nd in this way ling the mulepisiy oferearres be Every act of creacion {as was well know by the hineend Century love poets, who traslormed Avicenna angele into lis is an tof intelligences and iver, every at oF intlgenc isan act oft {on tha ts something be Buc presely in De ening, Arioe repte- ‘ented dhe potential inellc ar a weking table on which nothing is rt ten. Ara consequence, in the marvlous creative on the ol thatthe radials new a Liber VP natralism, Avicenna wes the image of wrt ing to illustrate che various kinds or lvels ofthe potential nul, There 164 poeatalie (hi he cals material) cha eeembles the condition of 2 child wito may cerily one day learn wo write but doesnot yet know fnything about wating Then there ina potently (which he call por sible ha belong othe chil who has hep ro write wih pea an inc and knows how 10 form the fists. Ad thei, ally complete Banseby 07 On Consingency a7 oe pfx potentiality tha belong othe scribe whois in fall possesion ofthe ar of wring in the moment in whic he does aot write (potenta Usps perf are rug, con non riper), Laven he Arabic tei ‘ition tation was dus likened to an act of writing he agent or poetic intellect, which illuminate the passive intellect an allows io pass ino actualy. i thesefore identified with an angel, those name is “Pen™ (alm "When, inthe bly cig the reat Andalusian Sufi tba Arabi drew up a plan ofthe work o which he would devore his ast year, The iomina~ tions of Moca, ic was therefore not an accident chat he decided to dedi- ‘ae itsecond chapter othe scence of leer (i alr), which on ‘emed the hierarchical levee of vowels and consonants aswell as cheir Correspondences with che divine names. In the process of acquiring Knowledge, the science of eres mas the canstion from the inexpees= ible othe expres; in dhe proces of cestion, indicates the passage From potently ro actualy: Fon Arabi defines existence, pure Being, ‘which forthe Scholastics ie imply inefible tale of which you are the mening” He gnphically epreseaes the pastage of eration from po- tenting to actuality as dct tha es de hee eerie ‘ogether in sng estate: J “The fist pat ofthis grapheme, the eer aif \ signifies the descen of pocnsal Being toward the atrbute. The see: ‘ond pat, in YO indicates the extention of the atte toward actualy. And the tir wane ° mark dhe dscea of acral toward manifestation. Here the equation of writing andthe proces of creation i absolute “The vibe who does not write (of whom Barley isthe lat exhausted Figure is peree potest, which a Nothing alone now separates rom the act of creation28 Comingeney 4 Who moves the sib and so that wl as tothe acl of vwating According to wha las das the easton from she posible so ‘he eal ake place? And if hee something ice possibly ot potential Sg hatin itor ouside it—cases itt ei! I sam these questions consiuted che subject ofthe rapture between dhe moteklloniy, ha i, ‘he Sunni theologians, ad the far. Fising their gare pon Ao: tes writing tablet the fda inguited neo the principles and lave by which the possible which exis inthe mind of Gad a theater, dos doesnot take place inthe creative act. Against them, the Ashattes, ‘who represen he dominant care of Sunnie ethodox) old an opin. io that nor only deseroys che very caneepes of eau, law and principle but also invalidates all dscourie on the posible andthe neces, hus undermining the very bass of the feats reseacch The Ashi: con- ceive of the act of cesdon aan incesane ad instantaneous production of miraculous accidents that caanor influence eachother and chat ae, therefore independent of ll ws sod causal relations, When che dyer soaks the white cath inthe indigo barel or when de Backmith hard «ens the Bde inthe ite, the dye doesnot penetrate he oth to coor it and che hac of their doesnot render the bade incandescent. Rath it is Go himself who esablser a coincidence, one tht is habia bt in isl purely miraculous by which oles preduced in the doth the mo sent iis immersed inthe adigo bre nd icandescence appears he ‘ade very dime ei placed in the fre When the sre mover his pent sh othe who move it this move men isonyan acide hat Ga eae inthe stb hand God a tablished abi thatthe ovement ofthe had oii wth hao che pen andl chet the moterent oe pen cncides with ce poston wit {ng bur the hand has no canal influence whatccves nthe prot ie ecient cannot a oon amuer acide Rr de manen ofe o {Goths creted for scien had noi any may eau cah thet Dut rely obs tga Theisen my wl to move ny pts he ‘i my otetal eo move the tid ithe wry moverent oy han ‘he four inal isthe movement of my pea When man wan smmething fd does this hero mean ae hie wil weed Bi te Ifa fain ands is fae aon el “This oe simpy conception ofthe eetve ase ha fe fron che lone offced hy the philvophers. Wht the theslogans want so brea Aisle writing ble frees, co dive all experience of posi fom Bartel: oF On Coningny 10 the word But no sooner isthe problem of potentiality epee from the domain of human beings than i reappears a God, This is why Charl who as brillant profssor in the madras of Baghdad ha tenaciously maigtained the positon of the Asbarites in a book called The Seif Derracion ofthe Philp, was ford to reckon once agin with the figure ofthe scribe subsequead, during his wandering fiom the mosque ofthe Rock in Jerusalem othe eonazets of Damascus In ie Rese of ‘he Belg Scions, Ghazal thu composes a apalogue on divine po- ‘ental that bei a fllows ‘Aman elightenel bythe light of God asec pape dipped in Hack ink and asad i “How si chac you, who were once tuning whee tow covesed wih ack marks? Why did your fice sn ack as tu js with me the she answered, Yor war othe one whe blared my face, Ak the ink, ho for no ream moved ou ofthc pot pill onto ne Sothe man tuned othe jn lokng for eplinstions bathe ik answeed| lyfe him wo the pen, ic ad or it rom tog dee poe snd eile ono the sheet of paper When she man qucons! the py he Penta hi ora wo che hand who, fer sng ad cul reins ‘ip ppd tino che ink poe. The hand, wn chimed wo be ting mote than miserable es ad bone, then suggested a hem tra te ‘ently sae moved cB his Potent terol ehe man tthe Wil, andthe Wil fed bm to Sins, ut ving om exe to case. the tnliphtened one Filly reached the inpeneable ve of divine Doren fom which azerle vice thundered, “One dos no atk Gi fr retro forthat he der: bron or our stig wl be demanded" "slum faalism which sche origin of the darkest name forthe con- ‘entzation-amp inhabitant, the Maceimay is thus grounded notin 18 sstinude of resignation but, on the conta. in pid ath inch in ‘sant operation of vine mira, Ye ies cerain chat inthe world of "he role, the category of posbilry was wholly destoyed; hur ‘man potentiality was grounds. There war ony che inexplicable move tment ofthe divine hand, which could not be foreseen and which the ring able had no reason to expect. fn opposition ro this abel de ‘modaliation ofthe world, dhe faleferemined thf so Aristotle's legacy n is deepest intertion, philosophy isa firm accion of poten haley, the construction of an experience of the posible as such, Not though but the potential eo think, not weting but the whic shee i ‘what pilosopy ffs a al costco forge.250 Contngensy 5. Potemialiy; however, isthe hardest ching to consider For ifpoten- ‘aly ere always only the presi do a o be something we would never experience i as suche would exist ony ia the atuality in which itis raved, as the Megarian maining. An expetence of poentlicy 1 sch is possible onl if potentials abway also potent nor to (do fr shink something) the weting able i capable of nox beng writen ‘on, Buc precisely hee everything Becomes far more complicated, How is it possible o chink a poenal noe ro think? What does it mean or po ten not co think 1 pass neo acuity} And ifthe nase of thought is ‘be potential then wha wilt think? {mn Bok Lamina of the Metapgss (074 8 5-39, atthe point where he discusses the divine mind, Arode confronts preily these spor: “The question of hough mpl crtin apa, osc sens 1 be he sk Avie of phenomena, bai mede of Being appar pba If thought ‘hovghe thing (shat st hep oie potetal nao hi, woe ivbe venerable Ir would be Hea man who dlp, And i hough scaly though something. it would be subordinate oti thing ne Beng ‘woul enor ata but poses i would be dein by something lotr than ts own esence, which 0 be potential. And in eer cae thee acre peri hgh [nm or aul ought et) what oes think ihe el or omering ober hn val Ui thght se thing other shan sel, i would ithe abwys think of che sume hing oF sometimes of one thing and sometinesof mathe But doe teary i ference whether tnking ofthe which able ther thn someting scien? Would i wot be absurd ro berbinking of crashing? Clty ‘hen, i hias thee whic i most cine, mow honorable, and deer not ‘hang... -And if thought were ae tinking bt portale thik t would ello tat ee orn of chiki would et Monae is lear that inthis case, there woul be something mere honorable than thovght samelsdheabjese of hough indo thinking and seal houge bchng evento tht which shir be wont objet, Ia oo be soil fo there teins which ee Bc oe thn oe) seal ought ‘ant be he hes of hing. Therefore thought ink ahi the mest ‘clon of ll sings. and thought the thinking of thinking The aporia here is that she highes thought can neither chink noching noc think something. neither temsin potential not become actal ne ther write nor not wit. And tito eseape fom this poria that Arle rmalaes is famous idea of hough sinking itl, which sa kind of Bartle or On Contngeny ast ican beeveen thinking nothing and ehinking something, beoween por ‘ently and acuity. Thought that chinks lf ier thinks an ob ject noc chinks nothing, Ie hinks a pure potential (to think and not thinks and whae thinks is ow potentials ir what ie mos divine and bene Dut the apora returns as soon as its doled. What docs it anca for 4 potential to think co think itsel? Hove et posible, in acalie ‘hink a pure poceniy? How can a writiag ble on which nothing is winen sur back upos ise, gree Reflecting onthe enigma of thought chisking el and he table nse 'm his commentary oa De enim, Alber the Gree pas to consider pre- ‘sey these questions. Albert declares himself o be in complete agtee- ment” with Avctoes, who had given the grates privilege to the poten tal inl, making cinco single entity common to ll himan beings, yet Averoes had tented this deisivepoine quite hastily. Aristotle state- ‘ment tha the nelle itl isintligbe ened not be nderscod in the same sense in which one says chat any objec whatever intelligible ‘The poten inelectis not thing. Is nothing other than the intro rough which aching i understood ici ora known object but imply 1 pare knowabiliey and receptivity (pars reprbilita). Anticipating Witsgenstin's tess on the impossibility of metalanguage, Alber sces eal that ro say that an itelligibiiy gerp tl ans bec ely it by dividing cinco 2 mets intelligence and an objece-intligence, Phe ‘writing of ehought isnot che writing of a foreign hand which movers styl fo graze the soft was rather, the pone at which the poceniliey of shoughr turns back on itself and pure recepiiy soo speak fee is feling, precisely chen, Abert writes itis asthe letters, on chit ‘own, wrote themselves on the writing table ler be simile teu ieremas quod lier seibret pis abl). 6 Ie isa commonplace chat che thee great monotheistic religions ae ‘in accor on che creation ofthe world from nothing. Christan theolo- fans chus oppose eration, whichis an pear ex nl, the arc ofthe stuices, which s instead alvays fee de materia. Aa equally dive argument iso be fouad in the polemic ofthe rabbis and che morta ‘onic againse she view, whichis stsibuted tthe philosophers has eis imposible for God to have rated the world fom nothing since mid ‘emi fin each case, what sessed isthe refation ofthe vey idenaa Contingene ‘hat something such ae matter (that i, potential Being) could preexst, Gog. Bur what doesit mean “to crate tom nothing”? As oon a8 one amines the problem closely, everything i complicated more and more the Nothing begins to resemble something, albeit something ofa special Kind ‘Maltoniles, who argue fr the wth af creation From nothing in his Guide forthe Perplesd was everclear with page ofthe au ‘horitve meas known as Pike Rabb Eecer "tt song sakes the Iai ofthe theologian andthe man of science” by saggesting the exs- tence of something ikea mater of ccation. “Of what one eas inthis ‘exe, wee dhe heavens created? God took he light fom his garments and spread it ou like a sheer. Thus the heavens were made, ai is write ‘He wraps hmsl in light asim a gxtment, an spd the heivens ug" Moreover, according to the Suis the ves i she Koran in which God adress the cau, saying "We crested you when you wet oth ing wereanonthing,” proved that this santhig was nt a pure Noth ing, since God had aleady turned co she Nothing inthe act oF cretion, ying Ber" The face cha by therm Jewish, lam, and Chan theologians Foxmolted she ide of eration fom nothing, Neoplaroiea bad leady conceived of highest principle as a Noching fom which all things pro cred, Juscas the Neoplatoniss had distinguished ro Nothings, one tha, Soto speak, anucends binge fom above and a dat exces them rom bxiow, so they distinguished we mate, one corporeal and the other ia cospored, the dark and eternal background of intl beings, Cabal- iss and ysis brought this thesis tos iit and, ith hie chracer- isi radial, cleat tated that che Nothing from which ll eetion proceeds God himself. Divine Being (or ether hyper Being) ithe Nothing of beings, and only by, 0 to speak, sinking into sis Nothing ‘was God able to create the Wesld In his De drsone nun, counnente ing onthe vere “and che earth wit withou form and vi and darknes sas upon the face ofthe dep” er see nti eo eb ‘rant spe fain aby oh Sco Eriuge refs he biblical text to ‘he primordial ideas or causes of beings eat are eternally made in the rid of God. Only in descending stash darkness and this abyss did God crete the word and, at che same time, himself eendent beri principio wb ei ean aligua inca) Bard or On Comtingeny “The problem cae i at sue ete neath, har of the existence ia God of possiblity ar potentiality, Since Aristotle stated that ll poten silty aso potenealty not (theo do), thecheologians were forced ‘0 stip God ofl potential to bean will at he sane time tha sey sired his omnipotence. IF God had the potential be, he could also rot be, which would contadier hi trie. On the aber hand, if God were capable of ne wanting what he wan, he would be capable of want ing non-Being and evi which s equivalent oinroducing principle of nism into Gd, The theologians thu conclude that, while he contains unlimited potentaliry in himself, God is nevertheless bound ta his will and cannot do or wane anything other than what he ha willed, Gods wil Hie is Being, is absoluey without potential ‘According to che mystics and Cabal by contrat the obscure macer sac eration presupposes is noching other shan divine pote. The ‘act of cteation is Gods descent neo an aby tha is simply is own po= ‘ently and impotent, his capaci to and capacity noe wo, In David ‘of Dinane’ radial formulation, which was condemned as heretical in 1210, Ga thought, are mater te thus one and the sume an this n= dlfereniaed abyss isthe Nothing Eom which the world proceeds and ‘on which ic teal rests In chis content, “abyss nota metaphor As Jakob Bohm clearly states, i is the ile oF darknesin God, the divine ‘or of Hell in which che Nochng is really produced. Only when we suceedin sinking into this Tararas and experiencing our aa ipo Lilty do we become eapabl of eating, erly becoming poe A the Fates hing inthis experience is noe the Nothing ots darkness in which many nevertheless remain imprisoned; the hardest thing ir bing ‘opal of anniilting this Nothing and letsng something, fom Not ing be. “Praises due to God" Thm Arabi wries atthe beginning of kis ‘beinacons, for He has made tings exst frown the Nothing ane Taxing ie” “The Formula, or On Potentialisy 1. This isthe philosophical consllation to which Base she stv ‘ner belongs. Asa scribe whe has topped writing, Bartleby isthe ex treme figure of che Nothing fom whith al creation dives, and a he ‘same time, he constcues the most implacable vindication of cis Not24 Contingony Inga pure, absolue potenti The stivenes fas become the writing ‘able he new nothing other dan his white shee. lis aoe surprising theteore, thar he dlls so cbsisaely in the abyss of potentiality and oes nor seem to have the slightest intention of leaving ie Our etic tradition has often sought o avid he problem of potentiality by red ing cto the terms of wll and neceaiys Not what yu cam do, bu what you mon todo oF mus dos its dominant theme, Ths is whae the man ofthe lw sepeats o Bardleby. When he ar him 0 go othe post office (just ep around co he Pst fice, wos you”), and Bareby opposes im wich his usual I would peefer mort,” the aon ofthe law hastily ‘eanlatesBureby answer io “You will nor” But Barby, with hit sof: but firm voice. pecs. I prfr not (I prefr nan” which peas three times, is che only variation of Batley usual phrase: and if Bane then renounce the condition, thie only boat dong oa lows him neiminatalf acer of he verb “wil even in is modal use) ‘When the man ofthe iw hones, i his ow way eo udesand he sctivenes, the readings to whic he dedicates biel leave no doubts 36 tw the categories he intend o use: “Edwards on che Willan Priestly ‘on Necessi.”* But potential is nos wil and impotenialiy isnot ne ‘sng despite che salutary impression that he books iv hit, the exe ‘egoies of the man of the law have no power over Barley. To believe thar will has power over potential thatthe passage to actual is the resule of deciion char puts an end co the ambiguity of potentiality (whic always potently ado and not to de)shis isthe perpecil hain of moray. Mesicral theologians dicinguish berween potenti abot, an ab solute pocencalty by which God can do anything according to some, ‘¥en evil even acting such tat che world never exited, or restoring ls lst virginiey). and ports ordinata, an “osdered potently: by vehi God can do only whats in accord with his wil Wil he prin. ipl that makes posible order she undifferentiated chaos of poten “aly. ics rue dat Gd could have bed, broken hots, incarnated himseiin 2 woman oe a animal isread fin the Son, he thus did mo want todo so and he could not have wanted todo so, and a potentiality without wil is aleogetheruarediable and cannor pass into acca. Brey casio question precisely this supremacy ofthe wll over po ‘eating God (a leas de porns erdinats) eal capable oaly of ovhat he wan, Busey is capable eal without wanting he is caable Bare oF On Contingency as ‘only ae ptesa ables. Ba his potential eno, therfore, wnelize itdoes no ein unactslzed on account of lack of wil On the con: teary itexceds will (his own and that of others) a every poin.Inveet- ing Kal Valencns wii “I waned eo wai, but did fel abe to ‘vant i” one could say of Barby ehat he succeed in being ble (and sot being able) abslucelywidhour wanting it, Hence the imeducibily of his" would prefer noe.” leis ne thst he dee not want o copy oc tae he does not wnt to eave the office e imply would prefer nat, The Formula that he so obstinately zepeats destroys all posibility of con structing a relaion berween being abl ad willing, beowen pei ab ‘ola ad pene ordinate the forma of potential. 2. Gills Deleuze has analyed the particular suctue of Bardeby for ‘oul ining it 0 cxpresons that nguists define a agrammatil, sach 4s Cummings "he danced his did” or “jen ai un de pas avex” Deleuse argues that th desuctve fore of Barley’ forma consis init = et agrammutiai, the formula ‘sconnect’ word nd tings, words and ations, bur alo speech acts and words ever language for ll ‘reference in accordance with Barsbysabolute vocation, td mar without efeences someone who appears suddenly and then dsappeas, ‘without reference himself of anything else Philippe wars for his pars has observed that Bardeby’ Forma ie nether alcmatie nor neg. sive and thr Baby nether acceps nor refuses, seppig forwsd and stepping backward at che same time. Ae Deleuze suggests he formula thus opens one of indsinetion bersen yes and n, the preferable and ‘he nonpeferabe, But aso—in the content chat interest us~—berween the potential ro be (or do) and the potential nots be for do}. The Bat “chat ends Bartleby’ phase hasan anaphori charts, fit doesnot tcf dicey toa segment of ely but, rates, a preceding tem om ‘wich is draws its only mesnng. Buc here i is asi this anaphora were absolczed co she poine of losing all ference, now easing, sot speak, back toward the phase sean absolute anaphora, spinniag on tac fo longe refering ether to a eal object or an anaphoized tevin: woul per nee per nto ‘Whacis the origin of his formula? Critics have cited one of Metilles lets to Hawthorne, in which he prises “as” over "yes" ass pase pre cessor co Barleby's phrase ("For all men who say yes lc nd all men ‘sho say n0—why, they ate in te happy condition of judicious, une. ‘ubered traveler in Europe; they ern the fonts ato Eternity wich26 Consingency oching but a caspechag-—tha sts, she Ego”). The reference could not be more out of place. Bartley doer not consent, but neither does he simply refuse co do what is asked of bis nohing is Farther fom him than dhe hezoie pathos of neption. In he history of Western ealure, ‘here isonly one frmila that hovers so decidedly between affirmation and negation, acepsance and tejecton, giving and taking. The formala, svhich s morphologically and semansially ilar othe eine any, Is recordd, among other places, ina cext that ws fala co every ea cred man ofthe ninereeathezatary: Diogenes Laertuds Lites of Em rent Plrpher oe ate refering tthe expesion ot malo, "na mote than.” the technical term with which ee Skeptics denoted their most character experience: gob, suspension “The Skpsis” Diogenes write in is ile of Prtho, “use this expe sion neither positively eh] nor negatively (entre) as when they reface an argument by saying ‘Seylla exists no more than [ow onal] 2 hiner” The ter, however ie neers not wo be uaderstod aie Aiating a genuine compatisoo: "Bat the Skeptics refute even the "no ‘more than Fo jst providence exis no more than it doesnot exit 50 the no more than! is no more than iis noe” Sextus Empircue reali the self-referential satus ofo milo usta decisively: "Even atthe proposition every discourse i ils" says that ito, ike ll propasons is file, so he ormula'no more thas says tha esl no more than i isnot... And evenifhisexprenion appear as an afimation oe «neg in, sil his sno he sens in which we use ib rather an inferene Ludi) and legit sense asain.” The way in which the scrvener makes use of hs obstinate Formula could not be characterized more prec Bus the analogy cn ao be fl lowed up in another decion. ln his Ousines of Porborrm, having com mented onthe meaning of the expression ou malo, Sexus as "the ‘moss importa: thing hat uttering this expen, the Sepei sys the phenomenon and anaousces the affect withoue any pinion Lepage to pater adowat”" Although tis aoe exsally recorded at Such this ast expresion (para gagell) loa technic tenn of the ‘Skepcic lexis, We nd it once agai inthe same sent, in another pas sage of Seuss Outings "When we say everything is incomprehensible swede not mean to seat that what the dogmatis sek iby mature in comprehensible; we lic ourselves to anaouncing the passion (or ect. 1 baz pasha pagent Burd or On Contngesy ar Agel and epagel ace vets that expres the fonction of che agelon, themessenget who simply cares a message without adding anything or vwho performaiely announces an even (peloman apelin meas Xo declare wat"). The Skeptic doesnot simply oppose aphasia to pha, si Fence to discourse; ater, he displaces language fom the reser of the proposition, which predicates somebing of something (ein 1 haze tina), co thas ofthe announcement, which predicates nothing of eth- ing, Maintaining ise in the gobi of ee "no more shan” language i ‘tansformed ino the ange ofthe phenomenon. the pute announcement ofits pasion. As che adver adeestr pecs, “pasion” here indicates nothing subjective; paris puri ofall din, al sbjectve appearance, and becomes the pure announcement of appearance, the intimation of Being withow any predicate In this light, Bareby’s fom shows is Full sense. Ie inscxbes ‘whomever utr it in the line of eget, messengers. One ofthese mes Seager s Kalkss Barnaby, who, we tead, "was perhaps simply messer fet, one who knew nothing ofthe content ofthe levers entrusted to Ih" one whore gas, sile, and walk seemed tobe those of mesen fs; altbough he himself was no aware of i" Ava messenger Barteby ‘wis sent “or some mysterious purpose ofan allowise Providence, which itwas noc fora single mora. 20 futhorn.™ Bu if he formal hee: peas hover so obstinatelybeswecn aceprance and refusal, aeqation and positon, fe predicates nothing and in the end, even efits ic what fee messge he has come co ell us, what docs his formu announce? >. "The epi undetsand potenti possi lbs any npsion between sense and ings, By vir ofthe eu lence found in de opposition berween words and Using, we this each the cathe the naspenion, which sa condition in which ve an neler post noc gate, accep nt tefs" According this stking text of Sex tus he Skeptics viewed suspension no simply se indifeencebue ae an ‘experience of possibly or potential. What shows ion the tes ‘ld between Being and non-Being, Between sensible and itll, be- tween word and thing, i not the colores ayes of the Nodhing bat the Iuinous spi ofthe posse. Ta beable i ihr pri nore) negate Bur in what way doer what no-morethanieie-no al preserve in ell something ike potently? Laibnie once expressed the oignary potency of Being in the form ofa principle usualy deine as the “pipe of slicient reacon "Thisa8 Gonsingcy Principle has the elowing forms rai car alias porie quam non St “here isa eason for which something does rather han doesnot ex: isc” last ast cannot be reed cierto the pole of Being oo the pole ofthe Nothin. Barlchy’ formula (ike ts Skeptic archery) calls ino question the “stooges ofl principles,” appealing precisely othe pris the “xher” hat articulates its scansion. Foreibly tearing it from its context the formula emancipats poretialty (pti, from poi, hich means “more powecfu" from both ts connection toa "reso (rst) and insubordination to Beng. Commenting om she principe of rulfcent ron, which his eacher Lsbni had ef unproven, Chestian Wolf explains tha or reasons di sted by the idea of something taking pice without a ston [Fane takes away his pncipl, he writes, "he ue world becomes iry-tale ‘wold in which che wll of men ees the place of ressns for what hap ens (anda wera him muni fabian in gud talus hominis Ss pro ration orm uate Fst). The mama fibula ase hee is tharof he absurd ay tae od by od women an tain oa vera ialled ‘Sihlarafalnd the Land af Pen... You wold likes chery and, at your comand, thee appeats 2 cherry we al fie Fa Aczording te our woh te Fi ier oad our mouth ad you vo ml, dedi alin id ar ting the ian he bd pant lhe round wo tha ou ko no: have pit thm one Pgeos rated on spe il om sh sky nd ‘pontnouly eter de mous of whore bung ‘What is rly disgusting co te philosopher's eyes, however, not that willand caprice take the place of eavon inthe domain of things bu chat ratio is us als excingushed inthe domain of will and potentiality "Noc only ae cherenaw no principles of posblisy and no principles of actuality external to man; whats more, not eve she wll ab a principe forits willing, buinsteadindifererly wll anything Hence das not ‘ever want what it dss [dt ni ode, quia let; there wa Son fori co wane one thing eather than another” Tis nt ru, there= Fore, tha once the principle of reason is removed, human wl ake the Pace of mao, eensforming te te world io a Fable, Preciely the con teary is cue, namely that once rata is removed dhe wil ruined to ether with i Ts thesretc Schlerafiland in which Barley iat home, thee is Bare oF On Contngesy a9 only 2 rather” fully eu ofall asi, preference and a pote tha so longer function co assure che supremacy of Being over Nothing but est, without reason, in she indifference berween Being and Nothing, The inference of Being and Nothing snot, however an equivalence between evo opposite principles: rahe, tis che made of Being of po- ‘ently thats purified ofall easton. Leiba didnot allow he possible to have any autonomous potential to make el ex (tance pour fe exter, which he argued was tobe fund outside the possible, ‘God, insofar as he isa necestary being, that, exsenying” (Ei ere tu ur extent praealee! nomex, sue ncaa ee ‘entfeen), Now wholly subverted, the Lebnisian principle stead aes, co che Badeby-lke Form ofthe follwing atemens: the fc tha there |i no reason for something 0 eas rather than tc eit is the ease of something no more than nothing” Inthe place of the Prince of Dene mat butade, which reduces every peoblem to che opposition between to be and not tobe, Being and non-Being the seiner formal sug gests. cd erm that tanscends both: the “ether” or he "no more than’), Tis is the one lesan co which Barby always hold And, a he rman ofthe aw seems eo intuit ata certain poi, she serivene® i the mos exceme ial a catue can undergo Fr to bold eo the Noth: ing non-Being certainly difcule; butt is the character experience ofthe ungracehl guest—aihism—with whom we ae ll to fla to- «ay. And o hold simply co Being and is nacesary pes ie lo i cals huts his nt precisely the see ofthe complicred Westen ono theo ogi ceremoay whose morals iin secret soldaiy with the ust it woul like to deve away? To be espabl, in pare potency, eo bear the "no more than” beyond Being and Nothing, fll experiencing the Jmpotene posible hac exceeds both—this the leas Batley an- ounces The glen sree that inlates his dese aces the borders oF experimental aboratory in which potentiality tree decades before Nict- zeche and in sense thai altogether different fog is, fies elf ofthe principle of reason. Emancipaiag isl from Being and non Being lke, potentilcy hus ereser ie own ontology. ‘The Experiment, or On Decteation 1. Ine work on Rabere Wales, Waker Lust invented the concep of an cxperimenc without tat, that, am experience chartctrined by the di-260 Coningensy appearance ofl relation to wut Walser wing pute poey” (ne Dishronp because ic “efuses,n the widest sense co recogie the Being, ‘of something at something,” This concep shuld be tensformed into a paradigm for literary wecing. Nor only scence but lio poetry and hike ing conduct experiments, These experiments da not simply concen the ‘author Elsi of hypotheses, the occurence oF nonoceutrence of some: ‘hing, asin Slendic experiments rather thy cll nc question Being t= sel before or beyond its determination asec a false. These experi= rents are without tra, fr tthe wha at se in them ‘When Avicenna, proposing the experience of che fying man, imagines 2 dimembered and duorganized human bod, showing that, hus fag ‘mented and suspended inthe at, man can el ap" a,” aed that che pure en isthe experience ofa body without either parts or organs when Caalant describes the poetic experience athe wausformation of the lving boy inoa mechani! automaton (1 walk ke a man outside lief who seems 1 those who see him, 2 man J made of branches oF rocks or wood / who ised alongby ace”) when Conc introduces his marble acu wo che sense of nell such chat the statues no mone ‘han the scent of arses when Dante desubjecties the I” ofthe poet, {no third pesson (mi son wn, 2 generic, homonymous being who fancsions only asa serie inthe dcation oF lve when Rimi sys" isanother; when Klis ewes the peice body of the marionete 3-4 paraligm of the absolute; and whea Heidegger replaces the physical” With an empey and inesenil being that oly its own ways of Being, and has posbilty only in che impouble— cach time we mast considet ‘hee “experiments wichout ru withthe gets seriousness, Whocver sufi himself these expciments jeopardizes not eo mus the each of his own statements as che very mode of hi existences e undergoes a snthropoogia change chat is just as decisive in the conte ofthe indi= ‘iu’ nar history ste beraton ofthe hand by the erect psion wea forthe primate ors wa, forthe cept she ranformation ef thac changed into aid ‘The experiment that Melville entrust to Berleby is ofthis kind. IF what is aise in scientific experiment canbe defined by dhe question “Under nhac conditions can soreting occur or not aces be tor be fae” what aise in Melville’ story ean neta be Fvrulte ina |qesion ofthe following for: "Under what condiions en something occur and hati, a ce me time) aot ose be ae me more tha not Barely, or On Contingency 26 be true Only inside an experience that has chs rettated fom al rk tion to ruth, co the subsistence or nonsubsistence of things does Barlebys “would prefer not co acquire ie ill sense (or, alternatively iss nonsense), The formula cannot but bing to mind the propositions ith which Witgensein, i his leet on ethis, expres i tical ex petence par excellence: " marvel tthe sky because exists" and "Tam sal, whatever happens.”"The experience ofa autlogy—tha i propo ‘icon that is impenceable wo eu conditions on account of aways be- ing tue "The sky is blue or the skyis nor blue") —has its cortlate in Burley inthe expetence of ching pacity co he ee ad at the same time, noc o be ue. Ino ane dream of welyng the scrivene’ Frm, this is because experiments withouc th concer noe the actual existence foe aonexisence ofa thing but exclusively its poentilty, And potential ig insofar ai can be of not be, is by definition withdrawn fom both ‘euth condicons and, prior othe action of "the strongest of al prnci- ples,” the principle of contadction In is philosophy, 2 being that can bot be and not bei sald 1 be ‘contingent. The experiment with which Barley cheatens sis an ex- periment de coningnte abt, 2 Inis "Element of marr rght Lebnis summarizes the gute of modality s follows pete pee {pombe feat poe son pet Cpl) | guigad (anos) — | fie erm ex) (someting ha) {do for been esr on pte noe (ocean) (oe ne cong pu nom (coming) (cannes ‘The four figure, de contingent, which can be o nor be and which co inde withthe domain of human feedom init opposition to neces has given rise othe greatest numberof difelkies, IF Being all sires and places preserved is potential noe tbe, the pat itself could in some ‘sense be called into question, and moreover no possibilty would ever as into aesualyo¢ remain in acuity. The pore of contingency ate, as result, adtionallyeempored by ewe principles.62 Consingeny ‘The fe, which could be defined at the principle af thie of the par (or ofthe unvelzabilty of poremality in the pass aibuted by Asisotle to the tage poet Agathon: “Thetis no ll with regard ro the past. Thisis why noone wane: Toy ave ben stcked, since no one slecides what happened but onl what will be an is posible; what has happened cannot not have heen. This is why Agithoa i igh ia saying “This only is denied even vo God, ! The power o ndo what has been done Thisis the principle thar the Latins expres in the formu f= rum infec fer neg, and tha Ace, in De ses, rate in ttm ofan impos of realising the poresilty of the pas there sno potentiality of whar was but only of Being and Becoming.” “The second principle, whichis closely ted to the Rt chat of con sbrioned neces which Line the force of contingency with respec 10 cua, Aristotle express ia fllows: “what i necesarya long a itis and what sno is necesiry as Long aie now (De interpretations, 1912), Wali, who surmarncit inthe fcmula quod, dno ne taro e, defines this principle 363 canon rtm in pisphia ad founds, noe without reso, on the principle of nancontaditon Cle is imposible that A is and, a the same time, isnot). The logical strength of this second principle with spec o potently however, is far fom cern. Aristotle himself ems o belie it for he writes inthe ‘Mesaphyics chat “ll poten ia the same se ars), potenil- li forthe opposite and reaches the cnclason that "he who walks has ‘he porental otto walk, and he who does not wal has the potential seal (0473. As Dans Sant makes lear he Fact shat thet is a contradiction herween so acl opposed rls (ing P and not-beingP), nothing beeps thing fom being aes and t these i, ning por tential not to be oro be otherwise. "By contingent.” he writes, mean hot something thats not necestary or eternal, hut something whose op- poste ould have happened in che very moment in which i happened ‘Ac che same instant I can thus act in one wy and beable toa ather- ‘wise (or aa to act all). Sent gies the name wil” not don but ro the experience ofthe consistive and ieredcibleco-belonging of ex pacity wand capacity nev the wilt andthe wil aot ro. Acconing 2 the pian formula wth which he expe he only pow mane ing of human Reem, “he who wl experiences his capacity no owl (esprit gud onl pose non vel). The wil ike the Freudian uncon- erty or On Contngeny 263 ‘ious, with its consecutive ambivalence is theanly domain thats with: Arava fom che principle of noncontadiron; “only the wil sindife. ‘ent contaris” (lens sal habe indifirentian ad entra since “with respect to the sume objec, its capable both of willing and no wil ing, which ae nevertheless coneeatie” Wichout retreating before the consequences ofthis thesis, Scotus extends the cootingentcharcter of willing eves ito divine wll and che sc of cretion: Inthe same ct of wil, God wl conus: be dee nor wil th hey xt ‘ogee nce hs mpl, but he nevertses wl them the sane tine nthe same aye sro single nston or single sence hat Ieleoms thar conrad aor ei eget ad that, neve thy ae known roger io thesune egal act which rome sng ct, And, with Frocious irom Seats proposes that those who doe con- ‘ingency be submited to the experitneat already suggested by Avicenna "ose who deny contingency shouldbe eontured uni hey ada chat they col lio hive nor ben tree.” 4 Contingency is theatene by anathe objection, namely thatthe necessary occurrence or nonoscurence of a ftre event etzoatvely n= fluences the moment of its prediction, cancling its contingency. This i the peablem of haute contingents” which Libis summarizes in the ‘Theadcy once again under che sign of writing: "Te was tue a bunded. years ago that {vould write roday, just 2 thre hundred years fom now ‘ew be rue that [wroe today" Let ws suppor chat someone sys tht ‘omoerow cere wl be or will oe be abate asc. the bare occurs tomorrows then it wa aleay te the day before dat it would ake place which means that eould noe noe eke ple if inser che atl dvs not occu, then ie was abways already rue eo say chat i would no ake place, which means that i was imposible frit eo take place. In box ses, contingency i replaced by nevi and impos. In medieval theology. che problem of ature contingent dramatically linked to thac of divine prescence, which either cals ato question the freedom of human will or destoys che very possibly ofthe revelation of divine will On the one hand, once she fare i nocesiy, he mont rig necesity deprives decision of ll meaning on the other hand, con singency and absolute uncerainy involve the angele and Chis isl Richard Finralph, professor at Ouford at the begining of he fouresach century, chs argues ad abrurdm in his quasi bblica that “oweatng26s Connery blood ax Gethesmene, Chis ore ie death no more than the coon sation of fe and he angels inthe Beaens didnot focse thet eter ral beatcude more than dhep imagined thee eternal misery. since che ew ths iF God weaned ity they el be foterer itera ow ea one impede she argument de pane ad precede ri ins the contingency ofthe future withour thereby depriving sextemenss slboue the utue of all ceainy?Arisol saltion ro the problem cyan itisneesar:” he writes in De irpetarone, tha every ching, bbe or not bas well as hat wil be will ot bes but it rea all he case tha one then say ha one sing or the other, once isolated nee sss. For example [ay et tomorow there wll or will not be abate set and yeivis noe necenay fora atl at eat oe nore it aee ) Necessity thus concens nor the oeurtence or nonoscurence ofthe particular evene bus rather the lrrmative ‘ceut” as whole, Inodher words, aly the tautology in Wingenstsins sense) "Yomartow there wil wil aot be abate a ss accel le ‘vay rue, whereas each ofthe to members of he alematv is eurned to consingeey its pose tobe or not tbe, this context, feisall he mote cule uphold the principle of on Aine seeing This is why Artoce must define dhe posible potential {cynton in ee following terms: "A thingie said be potential if when the act of whith ts sd be poten elzed, these wll be nothing impotent” (ride dyn tus, can Inpare nega ov leah ‘bein ten dynamen,ouden etl edynaton (Mecaphc t47 424-36) “Thelat hte words ofthe definition (ouden et adjmaten) do not mea, 2 he usual and completly rivlizng reading mini, “thee wil be nothing impossible” (that, what is not inspossible is posible. They specify er the condition in which poresaliy—which can both be and not be— ago S95 8507. ‘dr Galan yn Bren oi 5 Busy Kl 37 Behe Ca p90 Bale Vr Sh 7h Soon ere 2%, Benveise,Emile 21, 9, 00-27, Bema Cad 3 Berea, Eb ‘Ge 95.2878 Breage aig 2958 wi