How many deaths? Auto-bio-graphy as death-writing

109 ŠTÚDIE / ARTICLES MIROSLAV KOTÁSEK How many dea hs? Au o-bio-g aphy as dea h-w i ing DOI: 10.31577/WLS.2024.16.1.8 © Ins i u e o Wo ld Li e a u e Slo ak Academy o Sciences © Mi osla Ko ásek 2024 Licensed unde CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 ŠTÚDIE / ARTICLES Wo ld Li e a u e S udies 1  ol. 16  2024 (109 – 119) Mi osla Ko ásek Depa men o Czech Li e a u e Facul y o A s Masa yk Uni e si y B no Czech Republic ko [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0002-0784-3153 How many dea hs? Au o-bio-g aphy as dea h-w i ing Au obiog aphy. Dea h. Jacques De ida. Media. Spec ali y. This a icle conce ns a ious aspec s o au obiog aphy as hey ha e been in o- duced by Jacques De ida, who himsel used he e m “au obiog aphical” o e e o his philosophical w i ing. Unlike mos schola s who s ess he link be ween au obiog aphy and philosophy in De ida’s w i ing he a icle a emp s o link i p ima ily o he “li e a y”. In his endea ou , mos a en ion is paid o he nume - ous me amo phoses in which “dea h” s uc u es and haun s (au o)biog aphies and ou hinking abou he gen e. He e, he g ea es in luence, apa om De - ida, was Mau ice Blancho . “Dea h” and nega i i y igu e a many le els o au o- biog aphy, whe e, unlike in a ic ional na a i e, hey canno be suspended easily: hey can be ound in he ques ion abou he e y usage o language and i s ela ion o he au obiog aphe , in he cons uc ion o he “I”, and in he medial si ua ion o he li e a y. The a icle concludes by sugges ing a po en ial ans o ma ion o he au obiog aphical p ac ice b ough abou by echno-cul u al changes and de elopmen s ega ding bo h he “a chi e” and “media”, which a e ans o ming he s a us o memo y, legacy, and he pas . Depa men o Fo eign Languages Facul y o Elec ical Enginee ing and Communica ion B no Uni e si y o Technology Czech Republic [email p o ec ed] 110 MIROSLAV KOTÁSEK […] we a e held, o e e , be ween li e and dea h, inas a e o non-exis ence and non-dea h, om which ou whole li e pe haps akes i s meaning and i s eali y. Mau ice Blancho ([1947] 1995a, 252) I emembe . I hink. I w i e. I w i e o emembe . Iw i e o( e)in en some los o non-exis ing memo ies. AsI emembe , as Iin en my memo ies, I hink. The e o e Iam. The e o e Idie. Ibecome amemo y. Th ough hese (mainly linguis ic) ac s which a e anindispensable pa o e e y au- obiog aphy, Iam going oou line hedis inc i eness o ace ain ou look on his ype o w i ing (na a i e) ac ha was mos impo an ly inspi ed by hewo k o Jacques De ida. Theopening sen ences should indica e, among o he hings, ha wha is ques ioned bylooking a au obiog aphy om his poin o  iew is he e y possi- bili y o subsuming au obiog aphy unde heca ego y o a“li e a y gen e”, while si- mul aneously ques ioning heca ego ies bo h o “li e a u e” and “gen e”. “Li e a u e” ge s p oblema ized inau obiog aphy bymaking i impossible osuspend he ension be ween “ ic ion” and “ eali y” (“na a i e” and “wha eally happened”), no e en in heac o  eading. Theon ology o au obiog aphy is uns able, osay heleas . The e a e ob iously di e en p ima y impulses ha ins iga e heau obiog aphical na a i e ac , which a e de ined by hei ela ion owa ds language ingene al and hep e-ex- is ing “biog aphy” ma e ial. A  hesame ime hey p e-de ine hena a i e p oce- du es used in hew i ing ac i sel : ona a e anau obiog aphy Ican use exclusi ely hose pa icula e en s I emembe , because Ijus passi ely desc ibe wha Iknow (assume oknow) has al eady happened; he e can be anexcess o in o ma ion and Iwan ochoose only he ele an ones, hus gi ing my pe sonal a chi e adis inc s uc u e; o Ican be pu ing oge he hena a i e because Ido no know wha hap- pened, so Ineed o ab ica e amemo y o“make sense” o  hepas (and hep esen ) – he e is alack o in o ma ion and/o unde s anding and hena a i e is supposed o ill hese lacunae. Thein en io (na a i e in en ion) o  he“I” ( he ealm o “au o” inau o-bio-g aphy) is a  hesame ime hein en io o  heo he ( he ex ). Thebody o  he ex is co-ex ensi e wi h hebody o  heau obiog aphe ; he ab ic o  heau o- biog aphe ’s “I”is co-ex ensi e wi h he ab ic o  hena a i e. As o “gen e”, heun- ce ain y abou genealogy (Who amI? Whe e do Icome om?) no only e ymolog- ically, bu also p ac ically comp omises genology (Am Iusing heau obiog aphical gen e? Am Iusing i jus ly?). Unlike Robe Smi h (1995), who concen a es onDe ida dealing wi h and com- men ing on“philosophical” au obiog aphies, Iam in e es ed mo e in he ela ionship o au obiog aphical w i ing wi h he“li e a y”. I is inmany ways adelica e and dan- ge ous liaison – au obiog aphical w i ing is capable o  es ing hemu ual in e ela- ions o li e a u e, ic ion, u h, na a i e, and Sel . AsDe ida sugges s, o his lim- inal sphe e he e m “au obiog aphy” is “pe haps heleas inadequa e name” (De ida is e e ing he e ohis w i ing occupying hespace somewhe e be ween philosophy and li e a u e) “because i  emains o me hemos enigma ic, hemos open” (De - ida and A idge 1992, 34). “Philosophy” he e is no obe unde s ood p ima ily 111 How many dea hs? Au o-bio-g aphy as dea h-w i ing as heacademic ield o “his o y o philosophy”, bu ini s ela ion o“au o-bio-g a- phy” i mani es s i sel speci ically as he“a ” oli e and die p ope ly: “Lea ning oli e should mean lea ning odie […]. Tha ’s been heold philosophical injunc ion since Pla o: ophilosophize is olea n odie” (De ida [2005] 2007a, 24). Ip opose his “p oblem o li e and dea h” ( he ealm o “bio” inau o-bio-g aphy) obe cen al oau obiog aphy as well. He e he s a egic posi ion o au obiog aphy in ela ion o li e a u e can beglimpsed, as i he e y g ounds o li e a y heo y come obe dispu ed and laid ba e byau obiog aphy. One eason migh be ha au obiog aphy does no le he eade o ge “s a egically” abou heau ho and w i e o anau obiog aphical ex ( oa oid heli e a y- heo e ical he esy o psychologizing in e p e a ion), bu on hecon a y highligh s heposi ion o  hew i e and hesi ua ion o w i ing (na a ing), includ- ing hepsychological, cogni i e, sociological, o unconscious se up o  hew i e as hep i ileged s a ing poin o any in e p e a ion. Consequen ly, heques ion abou hes a us o  hew i ing subjec appea s undamen al since au obiog aphy is capa- ble o  e ealing hep eca iousness o  his posi ion as i always al eady inds i sel in he ension be ween he( ue) li e-s o y (li e ingene al) as opposed o“ ic ion” (o phan asm) o wha is obe o mula ed bylinguis ic means. Th ough heac o w i ing ( he ealm o “g aph” inau o-bio-g aphy) ha ension is supplemen ed by hein e - dependence o  hew i ing subjec and he esul ing ex ( hewo k). Tha is heway Iunde s and heinsigh o Paul de Man: The specula momen ha is pa o all unde s anding e eals he opological s uc u e ha unde lies all cogni ions, including knowledge o sel . Thein e es o au obiog aphy, hen, is no ha i  e eals eliable sel -knowledge – i does no – bu ha i demons a es ins iking way heimpossibili y o closu e and o  o aliza ion ( ha is heimpossibili y o coming in o being) o all ex ual sys ems made up o  opological subs i u ions. (1979, 922) E en hough I end o ag ee wi h de Man, i has obe poin ed ou ha especially au obiog aphical w i ing p ac ice (bu hesubsequen eading ac s as well) is subjec o hepsychic, exis en ial, and ma e ial (biological) economy o human li e, which means ha no all sel -knowledge has obe opological: cogni ion migh be unde - lain by opology bu his opology s ems om and inhabi s hema e ial co po eal being. Meaning is opological and embodied a  hesame ime. Thepsychic economy can also po en ially suspend hedis inc ion be ween an asy and eali y ( ic ion and knowledge), which become indis inguishable, depending on heac ion o  hepsy- chic appa a us (Sigmund F eud s esses ha i is no hegoal o psychoanaly ic p ac- ice o ein oduce hedis inc ion; see [1916] 1924, 382–383). In ying o answe he ques ion o he ela ionship be ween w i e and wo k (al- bei inmo e gene al e ms, no limi ed by“au obiog aphy”), Mau ice Blancho iews i as one ha is buil upon aspeci ic nega i i y (Blancho is making epea ed e e - ences oHegel): “be o e his wo k exis s, no only does he [ hew i e ] no know who heis, bu heis no hing. Heexis s only as a unc ion o  hewo k” ([1948] 1995b, 303). Acco ding oBlancho he“w i e ” acqui es his/he s a us only h ough w i ing he ex . Upon inishing hewo k, he/she as aw i e ceases oexis . Thesugges - 112 MIROSLAV KOTÁSEK ed dependence o  heau ho ial being upon hew i ing p ocess is close o heou - look onau obiog aphy Iam p oposing. Bu au obiog aphical wo k no only lea es hew i e dead behind, i also allows him/he o“li e on” o “su i e”. O cou se, inau obiog aphy i is no so much hep oblem o “w i e ” and “wo k”, bu o  he“I” and “myli e s o y”. Ye , as au obiog aphical w i ing ne e le s me (bo h as eade and au obiog aphe ) o ge abou his subs an ial link, unlike ic ional li e a u e, “ hebiog aphical, inso a as i is au obiog aphical, cu s ac oss bo h ields inques ion: hebody o  hewo k and hebody o  he eal subjec . Thebiog aphical is hus ha in e nal bo de o wo k and li e, abo de onwhich ex s a e engende ed. Thes a us o  he ex – i i has one – is such ha i de i es om nei he heone no heo he , om nei he heinside no heou side” (Gasché [1982] 1985, 41). (Au o)biog aphi- cal ex hen decons uc s heinside–ou side/subjec –objec dicho omies as i cons i- u es hew i e who is simul aneously p oducing he ex . The ine i abili y o “dea h” (in he o m o a“na u al law” posing alimi o“li e” and any “li e-s o y”) posi ions heau obiog aphical endea ou , which “isno obe inany way con used wi h heso-called li e o  heau ho , wi h heco pus o empi - ical acciden s making up heli e o anempi ically eal pe son” (41) wi hin aho i- zon ha , pa adoxically, can ne e acqui e hes a us o ap ope “ho izon”, being a  hesame ime ine i able and inaccessible, ollowing hesame decons uc i e log- ic Gasché inds in heinside – ou side dicho omy. I au obiog aphy na a es ali e s o y, hen e en be o e Ibegin ow i e, dea h lu ks in hedis ance, because “ oli e, byde ini ion, is no some hing one lea ns. No om onesel , i is no lea ned om li e, augh byli e. Only om heo he and bydea h. Inany case om heo he a  heedge o li e. A  hein e nal bo de o heex e nal bo de , i is ahe e odi- dac ics be ween li e and dea h” (De ida [1993] 2006, x ii). Inanau obiog aphy, mo e impo an ly, his he e ology p oblema izes hes a us o  he“I” and he“o h- e ”, because au obiog aphical w i ing is buil upon anin e nalized ans o ma ion o  he“I” in o he“o he ”: heobjec obe desc ibed, unde s ood, analyzed, and emembe ed. Hence, hehe e ological si ua ion o au obiog aphy makes unsu e no only hedi ision be ween ic ion and eali y, inside and ou side, bu also be ween heau ho ial con ol and ha which can becalled “mysel ”, poin ing ou hena a- i e p ocedu es p esen in hecons uc ion o  he“I” and hei in insically p ob- lema ic na u e. Re u ning o Gasché’s ema k on he body o  he ex and hebody o  hew i e and hei ela ionship o(au o)biog aphy, some hing needs obe added. Wewill eadily accep heaxiom o claim ha e e y human (and animal) li e is singula , de- spi e i s seemingly uni e sal g ounding in hebiological ha isinsc ibed in he“uni- e sal” language o DNA code. This common g ound could hen be e e ed oas bio-g aphical. InLi e Dea h De ida ies op oblema ize his seemingly unp ob- lema ic sphe e o mode n na u al sciences, “ his g aphics o li e, his non-phone ic w i ing ha [Geo ges Canguilhem and F ançois Jacob] claim obe ‘wi hou w i ing’ and ha hey a e eady o ein es wi h all he alues linked ologos ini s mos endu ing Pla onic-A is o elian-Hegelian adi ion” ([2019] 2020, 23]). The e m “au o” does no necessa ily e e o ha which is mine, i.e. “singula ”, as his chance 113 How many dea hs? Au o-bio-g aphy as dea h-w i ing o singula i y is gua an eed exclusi ely byi s g ounding in epea abili y (hence: uni e sali y), ha which can beiden i ied, looked back upon, u ned in o signs: “Theiden i y o  hesame […] known as heau o, is gene a ed by he e y hing – i e abili y, hepowe - o-be- epea ed – which p ohibi s i s s abili y and au ono- my” (Smi h 1995, 100). The“p ohibi ion” Smi h men ions is no so much anac ion o legal au ho i y (like ha o aposi i e “na u al law”). Ra he , heguiding p inciple ecognized he e bySmi h is hedi e en ial s uc u e o  heau o. I s imp isonmen wi hin helinguis ic s uc u es employed leads o he eeling o en apmen in his di e en ial s uc u e ha does no belong olanguage (as ha which is “ou side”) bu spli ing he “I” as ha which gi es i i s/his/he iden i y. He e s ems heu ge (and possibili y) one e s op na a ing while simul aneously deepening hegap be ween he ime o na a ing and hena a ed ime ( heexample o T is am Shandy is illus- a i e he e). The“I”, as heau ho o “mysel ” iscon on ed wi h hep o isionali y o  heexis ing linguis ic cons uc ion, amoun ing o hep o isionali y o i s “li e”, i s inabili y o ind i s dwelling wi hin heal eady exis ing na a i e and linguis ic s uc u es. “I”is hen no obe iden i ied wi h “ipsei y”, as De ida clea ly s a es, “bu in heuniqueness o singula i y o aga he ing oge he o i s di e ence oi sel ” (De ida [1996] 1998, 68). Ra he han p ohibi ing, i e abili y gua an ees iden i y as ha which is changing (because i always mani es s i sel anew h ough singula e en s: ha which canno becalcula ed), opened owa ds hepas ho izon o mem- o y and he u u e ho izon o dea h, “De ida pe cei es au obiog aphy as ap ac ice aligned wi h w i ing indi é ance, heno -he e and no -now. […] Simul aneously gazing obo h pas and u u e, De ida loca es heau obiog aphe ina empo al en anglemen ha suspends hebo de s be ween li e and dea h” (E gin 2017, 347). Thep oblem is, o cou se, wi h Meliz E gin using he isual me apho o “gazing”, as human ision is unidi ec ional (unlike hea ing). Inme apho ical e ms, Iwould say ha he“p esence” o human being, as modelled byau obiog aphical p ac ice, is leaning ou owa ds hepas and he u u e. Mo e p oduc i e han iden i ying he “uni e sali y” o  hehuman si ua ion wi h hebio-g aphy o DNA coding would beanalyzing he(biological) body in ol ed inw i ing, hebody in es ed in he ex , and hebody as ama e ial ca ie o li e. Tha is why De ida showed such ap o ound in e es inAn onin A aud, who inhis poe y, ic ion, dia ies, and le e s, as well as inhis “ heo e ical” wo k (TheThea e and i s Double, 1938) was es ing p ecisely his co po eal sphe e o iden i y ini s ela ion o“li e” and “language” (see De ida [1969] 1978). De ida “s ips naked” heco po eal dimension om adi e en poin o  iew inThe Animal Tha The e o e IAm. Wha especially should no bea oided is he“a ec i e” body oge he wi h heques ion o wha he(physiological) a ec is able o ell. A hu W.F ank s a es ha “ hebody is no mu e, bu i is ina icula e; i does no use speech, ye bege si ” (1995, 27). Inau obiog aphies hemos acu e memo ies (i  hey a e no ep essed) a e o en hose ha a e ina icula e and/o ina iculable because hey a e connec ed oaspeci ic, o en auma ic si ua ion, whe e heonly a ailable esponse migh be hep ima ily bodily a ec ha is no , as De ida sugges s, necessa ily unde s and- able o meaning ul: 114 MIROSLAV KOTÁSEK We would need o make new in oads in o hinking conce ning hebody […] ino de oone day come close owha makes us emble o wha makes us c y, o ha cause which is no he inal cause ha can becalled God o dea h […]. Wha does hebody mean osay by embling o c ying, p esuming one can speak he e o  hebody, o o saying, o mean- ing, and o  he o ic? ([1992] 1995, 55) My mu e body alks o me, e.g. h ough “bu e lies inmy s omach”, as i is punc- u ed by hea ec i e “punc um”. Ye hea ec is no necessa ily an“e ec ” o wha has happened, no necessa ily a “ e-ac ion”, i  can also be o ien ed owa ds ha which is abou ohappen inhowe e dis an a u u e. The embling De ida alks abou does no ha e obe connec ed oapa icula e en in heau obiog aphe ’s li e ( o he“sou ce” o “o igin” o  hea ec ). Thea ec can speak also o  ha which is no ye he e, inan icipa ion o  he u u e De ida calls l’a eni (as opposed ole u u ): ha which a i es unannounced, canno be calcula ed, o p edic ed using causali y, he u u e which bea s wi ness o heabsence o any s uc u e o  he u u e. Ano he name i can me onymically bea is, o cou se, “dea h”: We emble in ha s ange epe i ion ha ies ani e u able pas (ashock has been el , a auma ism has al eady a ec ed us) oa u u e ha canno bean icipa ed; an icipa ed bu unp edic able; app ehended, bu , and his is why he e is a u u e, app ehended p e- cisely as un o eseeable, unp edic able; app oached as unapp oachable. (54) Re u ning o he pa adox o he ( epea able) so e eign au o, and o  cou se o hemu eness, and inaccessibili y o  he(biological, physiological body): au obiog- aphy p omises o u n his uni e sali y in o singula i y by heusage o (byp inciple epea able, gene al, di e en ial) signs o alinguis ic code. De ida desc ibes hepa - adox common oall g aphic signs illus a i ely: To be a ma k and o ma k i s ma king e ec , ama k mus becapable o being iden i ied, ecognized as hesame, being p ecisely e-ma kable o m one con ex oano he . I mus becapable o being epea ed, e-ma ked ini s essen ial ai as hesame. […] Theideal i - e abili y ha o ms hes uc u e o all ma ks is ha which undoub edly allows hem obe eleased om any con ex , obe eed om all de e mined bonds oi s o igin, i s meaning, o i s e e en . (1984, 16) In au obiog aphy (and in e e yday discou se as well) Ican speak o w i e abou wha happened ome in hepas , Ican commen on hep esen and e en specu- la e abou he u u e o “in en ” i . I  he e was only posi i e meaning inlanguage and i ha posi i e meaning was wha ge s epea ed, hen ou li es would no be dis inguishable. Ra he , so ha language can wo k as heca ie o indi idualized meaning, he e a e always al eady ce ain o ms o nega i i y a play. The e is li le posi i e inlanguage, heposi i e a ises despi e language and no hanks oi . Saying “I” does no amoun oancho ing my whole being a ound a i m cen e o cogni ion. The e is p obably no e en an“I” be o e i ge s p onounced: i is heac o u e ing (inau obiog aphy, a apsychoanaly ic si ing, inasoliloquy) ha makes heabsen (in isible, unhea d) language simul aneously wi h heabsen “I”appa en h ough pa ole, h ough anu e ance. Thew i en u e ance and heusage o  oice isibly/ audibly ma ks language (langage) as absen , as nega i e: 115 How many dea hs? Au o-bio-g aphy as dea h-w i ing The Voice, as he sup eme shi e ha allows us og asp he aking place o language, ap- pea s hus as henega i e g ound onwhich all on ology es s, heo igina y nega i i y sus- aining e e y nega ion. Fo his eason, hedisclosu e o  hedimension o being is always al eady h ea ened bynulli y: […] he ield o meaning o being is o iginally disclosed only in hepu ely nega i e a icula ion o aVoice. (Agamben [1982] 2006, 36) The s uc u e o he p esen in which Iuse my oice is no anunp oblema ic (phe- nomenological) “now”, bu i is di e en ially and de e en ially cons i u ed by hepas and he u u e. I is g ounded in henulli y Gio gio Agamben e e s o( ha gua an- ees i e abili y). I is no ha Ican speak despi e his no hingness, i is his nulli y ha allows me ospeak. As hemu e body eaches me olis en onon-linguis ic signs, as Ispeak hanks o heabsence o  helanguage, my p esen sel is a ec ed byi s u u e dea h ha ma ks i “ali e”. In au obiog aphy “ he Voice” is mos p ominen ly ep esen ed by hep onoun“I”. Thea icula ion o  hep onominal shi e no only g ounds meaning in hep esen (pe o ms he“p esence” o meaning), bu i is also hespace- ime whe e henega- i i y o language makes i sel audible/ isible: anyone can e e ohimsel o he sel h ough hepe sonal p onoun“I”, ye by he e y u e ance his possibili y anishes: I o ce helinguis ic means. I iola e hem omean only “me”: he “I” is always posed au obiog aphically. I  e e s oi sel . […] Theau o-biog aphical does no ha e ooccu oan“I,” li ing o dead, ha would come ospeak o i sel . Theau- o-bio-g aphical de i es om he ac ha hesimple ins ance o  he“I” o o  heau os can beposed as such only o heex en ha i is asign o li e, o li e inp esence, hemani es- a ion o li e inp esence, e en i hewha , o who, male o emale, ha he eby gi es his sign o li e inds i sel oha e passed o e o heside o dea h. (De ida [2006] 2008, 56) I can be obse ed ha he ela ionship Blancho asc ibed o he“w i e ” and “wo k” mi o s he ela ion be ween“I” and i s “u e ance”. I  his ela ion condi ions he“au obiog aphical”, as De ida sugges s, i means ha i canno be o go en, un- like ina ic ional na a i e, hus p esen ing ap oblem as oi s “li e a y” s a us. Ye hings do no s op he e. I Ipoin my u e ance a  hewo ld, a objec s in hewo ld, ano he side o  his nega ing powe o language mani es s i sel . Blancho s a es inhis “Li e a u e and heRigh oDea h”: when I say “This woman,” eal dea h has been announced and is al eady p esen inmy language; my language means ha his pe son, who is he e igh now, can bede ached om he sel , emo ed om he exis ence and he p esence, and suddenly plunged in o no hingness inwhich he e is no exis ence o p esence; […] ha de e ed assassina ion which […] my language is. ([1948] 1995b, 323) This is he p ice ha ough o be paid o he “ideal i e abili y” o linguis ic signs and he eason De ida is so a ac ed oBlancho . Blancho asc ibes ablood-sucking, ampi e-like quali y owo ds. They seem op o ide us wi h aphan asm o “e e nal li e”, o p o iding hepowe ospeak oina icula e mu e objec s, bu hey do i a  hecos o deadening heobjec s hey aim hei powe a : “Thewo d gi es me hebeing, bu i gi es i ome dep i ed o being. Thewo d is heabsence o  ha being, i s no hingness” (322). I is he e, in heseemingly unp oblema ic e e yday 116 MIROSLAV KOTÁSEK language use, ha hee hical dimension o being opens up. Inau obiog aphy, e- ga ding my a emp ou e my “being”, my “li e”, heconsequences a e simila : in me, he powe o speak is also linked o my absence om being. Isay my name, and i is as hough Iwe e chan ing my own di ge: Isepa a e mysel om mysel , Iam no longe my p esence o my eali y, bu anobjec i e, impe sonal p esence, hep esence o my name, which goes beyond me and whose s onelike immobili y pe o ms hesame unc ion o me as a ombs one weighing on he oid. When Ispeak, Ideny heexis ence o wha Iam saying, bu Ialso deny heexis ence o  hepe son who is saying i . (324) In au obiog aphy I make mysel asepulche inside my Sel , inexac ly hemanne F eud alks abou hewo k o mou ning. Imake mysel in o aninanima e objec ha can be desc ibed and an asized abou , so ha Ican see mysel and alk abou mysel as abou “ ha man”. Iam no ac ing as anunde s anding, compassiona e subjec e en hough Ikilled, bu ied, and mo i ied mysel , bu hanks o ha e y ac . I is in his sense ha Iunde s and Joseph K onick’s ema k ha “E e y ime ‘I’begin ow i e ( heli e o ) mysel , dea h in e poses. E e y au obiog aphy is anallego y o  hew i - e ’s dea h, anau obio hana og aphy” (2000, 1014). The undamen al spli (which is no only “au obiog aphical”, bu also “psychoanaly ic”) be ween hena a ing/ elling “I”and heobjec i ied, immobile “I”as ap o agonis o “my” s o y in oduces in o my unde s anding hespli be ween henon- ic ional (me elling hes o y) and he ic- ional (me as heone being na a ed). Au obiog aphy ins uc s me abou hepsycho- logical basis o my unde s anding o “ ic ion”. I makes i  isible inasel - e e en ial, specula manne , whe e “ hepossibili y o  ic ion has s uc u ed – bu wi h a ac u e – wha is called expe ience. This cons i u ing s uc u e is des uc u ing ac u e. I is hecondi ion ha is common oli e a u e and non-li e a u e, o hepassion o li e - a u e as well as o his passion ou cou owhich li e a u e canno no e e . He e, inany case, hebo de be ween li e a u e and i s o he becomes undecidable” (De - ida [1996] 2000, 92). And again, i is also he e, in his p ima ily na cissis ic iden- i ica ion, whe e hee hical dimension o  he“o he ” akes i s o m, opening hedi- mensions o  esponsibili y owa ds heo he and owa ds s o ies. And i , as De ida claims, his is hesphe e o  heundecidabili y be ween li e a u e and non-li e a u e, hen i is also he e whe e hepoli ical dimension o  esponsibili y and deb ins iga ed by hepossibili y o“say any hing” opens: A pa o us is wounded and i is wi h ou sel es ha we a e con e sing in hewo k o mou ning and o E inne ung. E en i his me onymy o  heo he inou sel es al eady cons i u ed he u h and hepossibili y o ou ela ion o heli ing o he , dea h b ings i ou in o mo e abundan ligh . […] Thena cissis ic wound enla ges in ini ely o wan o being able obe na cissis ic any longe , o no longe e en inding appeasemen in ha E inne ung we call hewo k o mou ning. Beyond in e nalizing memo y, i is hen neces- sa y o hink, which is ano he way o  emembe ing. (De ida [1987] 2007b, 9) In au obiog aphy I u n he opposi ions on hei heads: Ican make “mysel ” in o asubjec by u ning “mysel ” in o anobjec obe s udied, desc ibed, analyzed, and dissec ed. Based on his e e sal Ican emembe ( hose pas , dead memo ies), Ican hink, Ican w i e o( e)in en los o non-exis ing memo ies ( o him/i ). This ai , his ace, his b each announces inme heimpossibili y o he ace o w i ing obe 117 How many dea hs? Au o-bio-g aphy as dea h-w i ing posi i e: i announces heimpossibili y o  ace, o w i ing. And so, heau obiog aph- ical ac ( hana og aphical ac ) becomes hemodel o “unde s anding” sel . Bybu y- ing mysel , I ee mysel om genealogy: “Li e, as s uc u ally indis inguishable om dea h, may be conside ed ou side o genealogy and gene a ion. Ino he wo ds, li e dea h can pass wi hou ela ion, wi hou ap io i submission oalaw o genealogical belonging” (Smi h 1995, 150). Li e becomes s ill li e. Ye wha happens o his “s ill li e”, his pic u e, his memo y o me? Is he e an- o he dea h ela ing o his ma e iali y o “mediali y” o  he “I”? De ida does no hesi a e: “Ilea e apiece o pape behind, Igo away, Idie: i is impossible oescape his s uc u e, i is heunchanging o m o my li e. Each ime Ile some hing go, each ime some ace lea es me, ‘p oceeds’ om me, unable obe eapp op ia ed, Ili e my dea h inw i ing” (2007a, 32–33). I is his dea h inw i ing, his o e ing ha allows heDe idean ace/ ace o De ida/De ida’s ace o“li e on”, o“su i e”. This answe is made possible byunde s anding w i ing as alinguis ic pe o ma i e ac (pe o ming simul aneously he“sel ” and “ u h”) esul ing inasingula ex , ex conside ed as ane en . Ido no hink we can s ess his way o looking a w i ing (as sugges ed by Culle 2008) wi hou placing i wi hin hemo e gene al logic o media. P eceding hepassage Iha e jus quo ed you can ead: “A  hemomen Ilea e ‘my’ book […] Ibecome, appea ing-disappea ing, like ha uneducable spec e who will ha e ne e lea ned how oli e. The ace Ilea e signi ies a once my dea h, ei he ocome o al eady come upon me, and hehope ha his ace su i es me” (De ida 2007a, 32). De ida accep s hespec al logic o e ed ohim by hemedium i sel , hespec al logic ha is no exclusi e ow i ing o li e a u e bu applies omemo y media ingene al. Thespec al logic is de ac o adecons uc i e logic. I is in heelemen o haun ing ha decons uc ion inds heplace mos hospi able oi , a  hehea o  heli ing p esen , in hequickes hea bea o  hephilosophical. Like hewo k o mou ning, inasense, which p oduces spec ali y, and like all wo k p oduces spec ali y. (De ida and S iegle [1996] 2002, 117) A “s ill li e” can be hung inagalle y, placed inabank sa e, o hung onawall in hein e io o in heex e io . Ino he wo ds, i  equi es aplace o“s o e” i and make i accessible (in his espec “bank sa e” is no hemos app op ia e place). Thep oblem o  hea chi e, i s accessibili y and changes ins iga ed bydigi iza ion and digi aliza ion o a chi ed con en ans o m hedu a ion and ele ance o  he“su - i ing ace”: The echnical s uc u e o  hea chi ing a chi e also de e mines hes uc u e o  hea - chi able con en e en ini s e y coming in o exis ence and ini s ela ionship o he u u e. Thea chi iza ion p oduces as much as i  eco ds hee en . This is also ou poli ical expe- ience o  heso-called news media. (De ida [1995] 1996, 17) Today he e is he possibili y o eco d, simul aneously s eam, and s o e “e e y- hing” down o hemos edious de ails. And he e hep oblem a ises: i no hing can be o go en, as i is s o ed jus aclick away, hen no hing mus be emem- be ed. The heo e ical possibili y o eco d e e y hing is, o cou se, p oblema ic,