Derrida's Revenant and Ashes!

 This manuscript do re-calling something ever attentioned by Jacques Derrida spookily or eerily,the monologue and ventriloquism got heard,of in-flame and the palest white it consumed,the un-born stranger who come before the matutinal dawn,some conflagration he lighted,his identity whether as a philosopher or a wizard,or an Uncanny Philosopher,some obsessing topics on archeological and psychological traces about metamorphosis transformation togethor with structural evil,and some others from the alchemical theater he opened,as the question he ever asked when still alive(or when not absent?):"what does it mean to follow a ghost?",As somewhere in the Politics of Friendship,Jacques Derrida claims "philia begins with the possibility of survival and that surviving is the other name of the mourning whose possibility is never to be awaited.",this is a memorial start for him:this praised(and maligned) Great Ghost(s)!

A Memorial

...to inherit is not essentially to receive something,a given that one could then have.It is an active affirmation......One makes selections,one filters,one sifts through the ghosts or through the injunctions of each spirit....Being is thus 'auto-immune,'"....Insofar as it does the work of inheritance,then,identity-as-auto-immune is haunted:"I am would mean I am haunted...Where there is Ego,es spukt."([21])

Jacques Derrida.

 Somewhere sometime,Jacques Derrida voiced out or wrote down above sentences about inheritance and auto-immunity,with his characteristic positions and spookily posture,as impressively imaginable a wizard gesture sitting in the luna site or corner with his pipe,that is an impressive magical gesture he left.

 As in most cases(in those cases when remembering this Great Ghost,or remembering the incorporated dead),"i" just dared not speak! since then and from now "i" am trying to recall something in silence and some uncanny topics got seen and attentioned by him,and trying an imitation of some "posture" or "gesture",a "gesture" can be understood and synomy with "sign" or "signal",or a rebus,and this also brought into question of an "identity"?or suspection about the border of one identity,of one identity of one subject,although he is charged by many academic fellows for "absurd writings" and obscurity,completely "ignoring" the readability of his writings complaint by some many readers,actually he knew and foreseen what will be heard(?yes,"heard",and with ear) only to some survivals,or another word,some executors of his testament(or inheritance).as Jacques Derrida said at somewhere,that "writing's case is 'grave'",to write something memorial for him was as ever one of my plans,or one dreams,in such a dream or the sense of what Dr.Cixous suggested,guess "i" was asking this self (this ego),this presentation and the being(s) called here at present what am "i" when writing and caught by such a dream simutaneously?This is firstly and finally,my thesis,and i have no any reason to deny its presentation in such a structure:if i was being asked,if asked out of the reflective reason and beyond the ontological security and border of this subject and ego,and then by who?or by what?and as the addressed of these questions(and the beings),at somewhere in a self,or at such an uncanny spacing,through the "I",the first personal pronoun,or the first personal plural,that immediately turned and started the question as something ventriloquism.Until later when requestion this conditon which can be called such an "imitate",this "mime",or this "simulate","i" do recognize some Thing of me with eeriness,or some simulacrum,as remembered Derrida ever mentioned such a conditions when mentioned Marx and St.Max,that "since the simulacrum consists precisely in miming the phantom or in simulating the phantasm of the other,that the 'striking' difference strikes,precisely,at the origin,and leaps into view only in order to jump up and down before your eyes."([32]).

 In this thesis,Jacques Derrida is a master of ventriloquism,another word,a wiz,a ventriloquism master,a wizard rather than a "philosopher" in the modern senses,or in the sense of philosophy to its apocalypse sense,and to its manuscript style,this is never a complete one,or rather to say this would be a gathering start of the questions,a gathering of some questions as the remains or legacies of him,or a contract forming here with him,and a debt with/to him,as all these years ever since being talked with and watched by him,"i" always feel owe something to him,this is it,a return and a returning....and a resurrection ritual of his lasting wills,and a memorial,and as a writing,it performs the fantasy of an incorporation,with its own peristaltic movement(indigestion and vomiting to the inside),a psychic process which responsible for the formation of a/the "crypt",and what returning here,what returning so oddly with uncanny must be another ventrilocate,in the manner of a ventriloquist,in the space the returning ventri-Locate the "I",focused on such a question:How to talk and write with Ghost? or a possibility about writing posthumously of the departed one...and a thesis about one(s) of his testaments...

 "Derrida's Death"?

 Jacques Derrida,"died" at October the 9th, year 2004,a friday night,a pancreatic cancer.The message voiced and heard,spread through announces,messages,texts,medias.

 That was an accident,an accident got heard through my ear,and via many other ears.

 Thas was an accident ever shocked me at that year,nostalgia was rising ever since the seperation.

 A voice:"Derrida is dead now,cheers!"

 Another voice:"Derrida is dead,how sad!"

 The news by far actually can be understood as the coporeal body of him deceased,the vohandene thing([13]),his physical body begin to corrupt,the space of the body reduced,and the spatial modality of a coporeal thing got conceived as himself by someone and some voice,this is exactly the thought about a person of "what" the common people can make.

 "Who Died?",asked "I",suggest there is a ghost of him,suggest here means perhaps,that suggest the ghost still keep the style of his questions, maybe will raise one question if can voice:"what do you mean I am dead?",here,this suggest and question indicates and demand a play,a play to let/led a ghost speak,to seduce a ghost speak through a living,that is,seemingly request to form such a condition to let a ghost ventrilocate through the "I",and for its necessity,how and why the ghost should still need come back to talk? one of those reasons maybe he not buried properly,for such a returning of a dead,firstly means an apparition and a returning in the flesh.

 What does it mean a "Death"? And "Jacques Derrida's 'Death'"?

 As to Mr.Jacques Derrida himself,there is a pointing or basic belief he identified when alive,"Dasein is not a spiritual interiority,but has its own being-in-space.",for the body and the spirit,as to him,Jacques Derrida himself, he would like to see this as an obscure problem of "being-togethor", its form, as a vorhandensein of a bodily thing and a spiritual thing,as he saw and i am recalling here there is always a paralyzing effect trap for the voice cheers actually located, when they cheers :"Derrida is dead now,cheers!",for his proper being,or the being of the entity which Jacques Derrida is, his soul and his coporeal body, the voice determines the "who" ontologically as a subject existing in the form of a Vorhandenheit,behind this "who" and this enduring form of existence,Jacques Derrida thinks it's a vulgar concept of time,as Dasein is spiritual(geistig),for this reason Mr.Derrida identified with Heidegger that Dasein's spatial modality is impossible for a coporeal thing,also this question of death is about the relationships between time and spirit,time as a Hegelian or Heideggerian style conceived as a "vorhandenes which itself understood in the sense of subjectivity,as a 'being there' facing spirit", in a kind of external and structural form,Mr.Derrida ever proposed there is a fallen or fallens for spirit into time,and a history,from an originary temperolization to its degrading forms,or a temporality seperated into different levels,the vulgar interpretation of Cartesian-Hegelianism,a vorhandenes.Then,What does it mean a Death?or a Death of a mortal like Jacques Derrida,we know the great vessel of this soul lay emptied,if the human being the "who" could be understood as enduring form of existence([14]),if not a synthesis of the soul and the body, it is this vulgar concept of time behind this interpretation.

 What does it mean:a revenant of Derrida?

 "haunting [marks] the very existence of Europe.It would open the space and the relation to self of what is called by this name,at least since the Middle Ages"([1]).

 On the day "Jacques Derrida" was buried,was buried,buried as a dead,in nondescript cemetery,or a nondescript crypt,another room,a nondescriptive house for a dead,near his house outside Paris in Ris-Orangis, Le Monde lavished on its readers a ten-page supplement about the philosopher's life and work.Considering the traditional hostile feelings of alot french intellectuals to anything from Germany,and Jacques Derrida's reread and reintroduction in his late of Hegel,a germany,the french government seems eager to catch and declare something glory in his testament under name of the nationality france,i mean the testaments or legacy from an Algerian Alien,but negelect something others.As a Jewish child living under the collaborationist Vichy government during World War II, he was dismissed from school as a result of the regime's anti-Semitic laws,and got rejected and rejected until his late fame spread from abroad,so how interesting and humorous when i read again some death declare about him, "i" mean the death announce from the French President Jacques Chirac about Jacques Derrida,is some type of announcement,in this Funeral Address under the name of France,which stating "With him, France has given the world one of its greatest contemporary philosophers, one of the major figures of intellectual life of our time.",lol,"France has given the world"?,how interesting and humorous,yet France at least shows certain degree of hospitality for such a Stranger.And for this announcement or presentation,i mean when Jacques Chirac,as the president of France,presented some announcement about Jacques Derrida,in that funeral speech,he called a name,one name,one name in another name,to call the name of a dead,to call the name of one dead in the name of the nationality France,and he presented and signed that announcement in the name of nationality France,for the dead,and "unconsciously" for the signature,"Jacques Derrida",for(s) that being,for whom at living time already knows he himself is plurally occupied or haunted by the inhabitants of a crypt who speak through ventriloquism from a foreign to the subject ,or the hypotheses of mourning,then how dreadful,and unexpectedly who-else will returning in the name of Jacques Derrida when he calls,what if he also called someothers back unconsciously in that one name,or in the signature?What if Jacques Chirac knows his funeral address,as a promise and a speech,is also a contract with a dead,and with that signature,signed in the name of France?

 As what Jacques himself ever asked somewhere,that "What discourse does not call up the deceased?Does not appeal to the deceased?The becoming-epitaph of epitaphios,the impression in space of a funeral speech,is what the first word dedicated to the deceased promises.At the beginning of this logos,there is the promise of epitaph."

 "Aspasia's discourse is a summons to appear before the dead.You must answer for the dead,you must respond to them.Here and now.But this responsibility can be called for only by first of all summoning the dead.They are,after a fashion,made to be born again; they are convoked in an invocation,once again,of their birth.The oath of this co-engagement thus resembles a fraternal conjuration:"([28])...."...in the presence of the dead,if that can be said;for however difficult this remains to say,the dead live and the absent are present.They still keep watch over those who keep watch over them.And the given word[the 'pledge',la parole dennée] before the living dead,before the dead here present',rushes up here and now, in the first person plural,in the faithful and present tradition of our politics."

Politics of Friendship.

 Jacques Derrida's great vessel is corrupted,or is corrupting in the coffin,and corrupting in a specific yet nondescriptive crypt,but to him,such a spiritual being with shadows of many ghosts,at least one ghost as Georg to my knowing,at least Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel got a transcendental will lives on in Jacques Derrida,as what in his late maybe we can read something from Glas and from Psyche,can we declare so easily a "Death" and so easily a Vanish?

 If Death means deceased,Jacques Derrida's vessel is dead actually, as for the substantiality, i mean reification paralyzing effects of the soul and spirit, one type of indifference he ever pointed out when talk about the non-thingified being,soul,spirit,person,maybe its rashly and blind for some survivals among us declare the who or the questioning,the fragen and the possibilities terminated as to the temptation from the paralyzing effects of this indifference between vohandenes,i do not think so easily to declare death for who already a living-dead when alive,or a revenant,as he saw,always come back to present and returning from past and from the unborn,a haunting effect,from the markings of his texts,as certain scholars may know Jacques ever call up the furnace of spirit in double genitive,and remind:"spirit gives soul(psyche),it does not only give it up in death.","spirit in-flames",aware of his recall of the word "fremd", the soul following the fremding,a foreigner, the stranger who is de-ceased(like Jacques Derrida),is not simply dead,or mad,his steps carries him into the night,like a revenant,towards the more matutinal dawn of not yet born, the returning of this dead man from night to dawn,as the returning [revenir] of a spirit,this Revenance, as Jacques Derrida recognized when he still alive,need a more original essence of time,or a more originary think of time to comprehend,and beyond the Aristotlian time which prison us, and remind us language before any question,comes down to [revienta] the promise in the very question,this would also be a promise of spirit,and his question remind again when met Heidegger,What is Geist? How to hear or understood this:"Spirit in-flames", Geist and Seele, as his understanding of flame write itself in the flame,"the trait of conflagration" traces the rout and path which brings spirit back to soul,as a Holderlinian formulation,the Beseeler,"the soul,must consent,or lend itself, to spirit.",when talking about this,Jacques ever proposed "sadness carries away at the soul the mark of the flame","It is in sadness that spirit gives soul.Which inturn bears the spirit."

 Considering the gathering of Jacques Derrida and his gathering,and his knowing of the gathering togethor as the relation of spirit itself to itself, and his reminding that "it gathers all that is gathering,including the place(Ort),the de-cease, (Abgeschiedenheit), the soul,the Gemut,the one itself (Ein) of Ein Geschlecht",and i am here recalling reminding of his noting when talk about spirit and Hegel,i mean the abstract universality of spirit,"support the negation of its individual immediacy","infinite suffering",([12]). the spirit of Jacques Derrida, write and write in the flame, his gathering or his inflame,i mean actually there is an inflame of Jacques Derrida,or inflames,he knows,seems not so easily vanished accompanying his decease, then what say? About this revenant and this Beseeler,with these palest white the flame consumed,they are returning and returning in the memory and languages,texts,markings,i mean its a haunting effects he invoked or lighted,and thus any individuality really does not matter rashly even the fatherlike one absent ever since,early or later,some skull or some soul will be possessed by this endless returning in its endless leaving,a haunting effect,and To Be always means To Be Haunted:the ghost,as some time,yes,sometime when Jacques,"i" mean Jacques Derrida talked some thing about "Marx" and "Stirner",talks that odd thing about Marx's obsessions(with ghosts),and about the identity of the ghost?,that "is":"...by the same and by another,by the same that is each time another..."([28]).What if it returning here so oddly the same,what if the uncanny returning so unbearable and terrible?What if "...each time another...";historical events and occasions seems affected Karl Marx unexpectedly,and could not got explained reasonably by his own historical materialism,as for Marx,inevitably more attention should be paid to who make him obsessed,or St.Max.

 "Marx",or Prof.Karl Marx,as one of the most obsessing ghost,as a ghost bundled with so many events ever since middle of 19th century,to talk that name and the ghost will inevitably evoked that new-and-old theology,that new theology under that name of humanity and its generally realization,or communism;to talk Marx as a subject for Derrida,or his one address which later published and collected in articles of a book named Spectres de Marx at year 1993,most of the contemporary marxists unquestionably said or agreed that address or book is some presentation and proving signs of Jacques Derrida's "approach",or "close" to marxists and Marx's inheritance.From his own viewpoint,maybe most of the marxist-mordens who believe in materialism and self declared as materialists,they seem always too optimistic on Derrida's real intention in that address,and they seems too eager to got some positive support then seize some positive declaration as their conclusions,of course the marxists have that right to keep some seemingly positive discourse as conclusion; Yet Jacques Derrida's self comment and address with his specific intentions seemingly firstly negelected yet by marxist-followers who still keeps cheering for that seemingly positive speech about Karl Marx from Derrida,to remind their negelection,i mean somewhere Jacques declared very clearly that "......The subtitle of this address could thus have been:'Marx-das Unheimliche'......"([29]).,that is what he said himself about his address and his book under that title,but the subtitle,like a ghost,seems not displaced on its position apparently,as its subtitle name may suggested as Derrida mentioned and made to,let's firstly not started to talk about Unheimliche at this moment,just mention that subtitle,or its disappearance,or its invisible at the beginning,as Jacques mentioned,that is surely another head of that address and that book,unforgetable,except this address,Derrida ever written another sister book or companion volume under titile Wither Marxism?,from the start,or from the subtitle which apparently disappeared,as Jacques mentioned,Marx-das Unheimliche,for and in a translation in english,may it be Marx-the Uncanny,as if as a reader,or as one addressed/addressee of that address,from Jacques' real intention,that had already been the subtitle of that address,what is a subtitle?the dictionary noted that "a subtitile is a secondary, usually explanatory title, as of a literary work",normally a subtitle gets to the heart of the book,on this level,a subtitle or the heart of that address may be understand as Marx-the Uncanny,the english translation subtitile of that book under title specters of marx is another one:the state of the debt,the work of mourning,and the new international which accordingly translated,i do noticed and suggesting emphasis this difference has no any intended meaning to complaint or any critisize on its original translator,actually Dr.Peggy Kamuf excellent translation made that address very interesting and readable in english,this difference attention is only a comment from me,a comment from one addresee of that address,as for any addresee,"he must know how to read...He must know how to read when reading is useful to him.",for this Uneasily noticed difference may brings some difference for understand Derrida's real intention of this address,as Derrida ever confessed that he was a ghost or specter when in the movie named Ghost Dance with Pascale Ogier,to listen to him talk sounds like a teaching from a specter,whatever this difference big or small,it is a difference,and the subtitile mentioned by Jacques himself in somewhere but not from beginning itself is something uncanny,about this hided subtitle,to comment its importance,here i do borrow what Prof.Royle ever talked about a subtitle,that "Subtitles always mean polyphony,silent as the grave."([55]),yes,as silent as a grave,a grave crypted by Derrida himself of that address.How to understand it will inevitably arose very important difference for comprehending those abyss,detour,impure and conjure entangled within that address.And to understand that address seems not as easily as it looks apparently,that address was an event,as recognized and understood by Dr.Kamuf,she ever made a brief declare of that event properly,as she declared:

 "The presentation and then publication of Jacques Derrida's Specters of Marx in 1993 was an event in more than one regard."...Peggy.([38])

 [this is an interesting critical topic with necessity to pay attention].[~~~in editing since 1st-july 2011 start~~~].

 Then,my question,how to listen to one specter talk another one specter,or maybe another 2 ghosts there?i mean how can i,as one addresee,possibly hear something when read that address in which Derrida talked Marx,i supposed that possibly and actually to read,yes to read that address in the way of Marx-das Unheimliche,may brings more dramatic and visor effects than simply read it under name/title of Specters of Marx,and it surely will be some hard and time-costing task for me,does any uncanny subject not hard for anyone?although it cost time,but consider to clear a very very dangerous tendancy of many modern-marxists who prefers Derrida maybe as their relatives,which may has risks completely misunderstood his intentions,especially as that address was a ghost talk since the beginning(remember the beginning title of that address was "exordium"),and especially considering integrate some new archeology findings about Prof.Karl Marx and his contemporary Left Hegelian thinkers from certain german archeologists,which may disclose some secrets of Prof.Karl Marx himself during that period,and his never published notes,as those events and truth about Karl Marx at that time already got attentioned by some yet still too small number of scholars attention recently,and especially those his never published notes about Max Stirner,or Prof.Johann Kaspar Schmidt before Marx's death,why Karl Marx never dared to publish those private notes,except his famous public "diatribe" and so called "dialectical" comments in germany ideaology about Schimidt,that will be some very interesting topics which has some value to integrate with this specific address of Prof.Jacques Derrida,for that,may it be written into another specific article with an title name such like "Karl Marx:archeological sketch integration with new findings and some of Derrida's clues", and i have such an interest and plan to write those in details somedays later, and some clues from Prof.Jacques Derrida's address would surely do help for that later detection,to make it go ahead,i do trying some summary of these clues here,may it not complete and full at present,the attentioned clues will be selected with criteria of its critical for the Unheimliche and related criticals,the clue numbers does not mean orders at present:

 Beofore these hypothesis and discussions,its necessary to mention the distinguish of Marxism(s) Derrida ever tried to made,that Prof.Jacques Derrida made some kind of typology to identify those "sciences" under name of "Marx",or "marxisms",he got 3 prototypes and 1 spirit,those 3 prototype of Marxism got briefly listed as:1.marxism as ontology,as "dialectical materialism",philosophical or metaphysical system;2.marxism as method,or as historical materialism;3.incorporated marxism,or in Derrida sentence:"Marxism incorporated in to apparatuses of party,State,or worker's International";4.Derrida thinks its necessity to distinguish the spirit of Marxist critique from those 3 type marxism(s)(p.68-69),the typology Derrida identified seems very useful when clear the obscurity and misunderstanding of those who mistaken deconstruction as certain radicalization of Marxism,and its conjuring opposite alliance.This typology sure has its importance to understand Derrida's strategy about deconstructive treatment of what under name "Marxism(s)".

 Clues 1.Derrida proposed himself that deconstruction never been Marxist.At some end of the 2nd section of that address,later edited under a title "2.conjuring-maxism",Derrida declared very clearly his,and deconstruction difference than Marxist,that "to put it in a few words,deconstructive thinking of the trace,of iterability,of prosthetic synthesis,of supplementarity,and so forth,goes beyond this opposition,beyond the ontology it presumes."([30]),followed but instead of ontology of Karl Marx,Derrida mentioned which not ontology but alterity and heterogeneity,he continues:"Inscribing the possibility of the reference to the other,and thus of radical alterity and heterogeneity,of differance,of ntechnicity,and of ideality in the very event of presence,in the presence of the present that it dis-joins a priori in order to make it possible [thus impossible in its identity or its contemporaneity with itself],it does not deprive itself of the means with which to take into account,or to render an account of,the effects of ghosts,of simulacra,of "synthetic images," or even,to put it in terms of the Marxist code of ideologems,even if these take the novel forms to which modern technology will have given rise."([30]),briefly listed above mentioned tips,Derrida declared the difference and deconstruction never been marxist,"That is why such a deconstruction has never been Marxist,no more than it has ever been non-Marxist,although it has remained fauthful to a certain spirit of Marxism,to at least one of its spirits for,and this can never be repeated too often,there is more than one of them and they are heterogeneous."([30])

 Here the atitude of Derrida seems not obscure,if that is hard to judge,somewhere later this address,Jacques mentioned more clearly the difference,but he admitted that there is some indebt of that kind of so called deconstruction which attempt to radicalize Marxism,or radicalization of Marxism;the actual point of Derrida's intention to mentioned certain relationships is for he considered that so called deconstruction as radicalization of marxism may indebted to marxism([31]),but he declared very clearly that "Deconstruction has never had any sense or interest,in my view at least,except as a radicalization,which is to say also in the tradition of a certain Marxism,in a certain spirit of Marxism".

 Then where these seemingly thesis interlaces togethor?Derrida proposed out it may comes from the promise instead of onto-theological or teleo-eschatological program, which as the "messianic and emancipatory promise as promise",from which opened up access Derrida sensed another opening of eventness as historicity,this promise,Derrida considered it is different than those type of onto-theological or teleo-eschatological program or design(which he cased those classical examples from Fukuyama and Kojeve,and indirectly mentioned Hegel and Marx,totally 3 types of eschatology)([31a]),this event-ness,this promise,from which Derrida begin to disclose something different than Marixism and other eschatology.Instead of some eschatology,Derrida suggested this promise may entangled with that "very space of spectrality"(p.65),as he saw it and may engendered it,the new ghost,Derrida considering certain kind of choice must be made,and remind again what why such a will and a choice will not please anyone,including no please the marxist,for this promise,Prof.Derrida mentioned the necessity to understand "(1).spirits in the plural and (2).in the sense of specters."(p.87),,and remind a watch over at this moment and a choose among ghosts,as he proposed:"At this moment rather than at some other moment.By forgetfulness(guilty or innocent,it little matters here),by foreclosure or murder,this watch itself will engender new ghosts.It will do so by choosing already among the ghosts,its own from among its own,thus by killing the dead: law of finitude,law of decision and responsibility for finite existences,the only living-mortals for whom a decision,a choice,a responsibility has meaning and a meaning that will have to pass through the ordeal of the undecidable.Which is why what we are saying here will not please anyone."

  (Photo Painting Left is from artist Nick Marci:Grain of humanity,Fantasy art oil, hardboard 23.6“ x 16.5”( 60.0 x 42.0 cm )).

 Clues 2.Humanity.at near end of that book,actually opposite to wills of most marxists,Derrida nearly not made any compliments or something similar to marxism,but remind one of the faults which prof.Karl Marx ever made,this fault is humanity,as he pointed out:"What costs humanity very dearly is doubtless to believe that one can have done in history with a general essence of Man,on the pretext that it presents only a Hauptgespenst,arch-ghost,but also,what comes down to the same thing--at bottom---to still believe,no doubt,in this capital ghost....",but Derrida,unlike arrogant Prof.Karl Marx,reminded again this fault should be watched over,as its begin happened maybe for Marx unable to understand.([33]).This clue has its root in the atheist origins which belong to certain,but not all member of left hegelians,does this kind of atheism really as they declared?there is some historical truth need disclose later,which may brings interesting entanglement with the philosopher's thought actually.

 Clues 2.1.Derrida.a hypothesis.Prof.Derrida formed a hypothesis,and he said "The world is going badly,the picture is bleak,one could say almost black.Let us form an hypothesis."this is his hypothesis for "The time is out of joint",this hypothesis is dramatic when facing certain Kojeve's or Hegel's eschatology(that "the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the endpoint of human government," the "end of the problem of social classes"?),to specify this hypothesis,Derrida gave a catastrophic scene of the eschatology of capitalism,or in his own terminology, a new world order in "10-word telegram as 10-plagues,"Derrida attentioned and suggested once again the ghost-transformation,ghosts return,and the event which may happened from the "public space transforming" which cause by the new technology and media powers,and attentioned to the watch "itself will engender new ghosts";before and during make some difference between interpretations of those new-Marxists and those anti-Marxists interepretations,Derrida still insisted on promise,or the open to eventness of the event, and showed his own interest in "deconstruction of Marxist ontology",and self declared that he is not a Marxist("What is certain is that I am not a Marxist,as someone said a long time ago,let us recall,in a witticism reported by Engels.p.88"),Derrida seems clearly pointed out that Marx and Marxist has favors or habitat or instinct to provide ontological treatment of the spectrality,that is interesting but not funny,thus he insisted on and proposed the necessity to make distinguish of spirits for inheritance([33a]).   

 Clues 3.Derrida,a hypothesis,and a hypothesis of a cadaver,about Marx's cadaver.As he mentioned,a key of that address,as a trauma and topology of mourning,this trauma in Derrida's term,it called as "a politico-logic of trauma"([39]),the style of this discussions of Prof.Derrida sounds like a clinic doctor who is special in anatomy and necrology,as Prof.Karl Marx is already dead,as known that his cadaver was buried at Highgate Cemetery of London ever since 17 March 1883,then before this cadaver of marxism,and Marx's cadaver,Derrida obviously proposed another uncanny aspect,when he mentioned "the other path" of specters of Marx,of those revenant maybe Marx did not know their secrets,but they can be "named according to the other path of the genitive",of a Marx's hunted condition([40]),during mention and clear this cadaver of Marx or marxism,Derrida proposed more clearly a talk which may related with Clue 1,and mentioned a work of Marxism could be "the exlicit them of deconstruction",and apparently started his task very carefully,then mentioned a historical time,that time Marx give the red specter a name,"When,in 1847-48,Marx names the specter of communism.",and suggested to question that strange motifs which manifest from that name-giving,where Derrida thinks Marx manifest that specter in a body,and a body as a party,and proposed "the axiomatics of the party" may be "one of the strange motifs",seems with precautions Prof.Derrida proposed a hypothesis and a caution that "The hypothesis is that this mutation has already begun;it is irreversible.(p.103)",but Prof.Marx arrogantly declared a final and an end of that spectral([41]),instead of an end,Derrida proposed the "terror" or "fear" and "war" which may binding with the remains and a structure of events with Marxism,and cautioned there were some "equivocation in the event",a "Thing" which frightening,and a hunting of Karl Marx,and suggested some love between Marx and Ghost,but this love,yes,he used "Love",this structure of love is very strange,"Ghost love Marx"(but not "Marx love Ghost")([42]),that is interesting,as Derrida got sure that Marx was obsessed,"He was doubtless obsessed by them",and found "countless" "signs of obsessions",then Prof.Jacques started a trial count some of the signs very carefully.   

 The count:Prof.Jacques Derrida made a hypothesis about Marxism,and he mentioned some critical writings of Marx,actually 2 of them and a red specter;for the first one to Derrida's attention,it was what Marx written at 1841,that Dissertation(The Difference in the Philosophy of Nature of Democritus and Epicurus),Derrida suggested some filial dedication there,that "There the very young Marx signs a filial dedication",and "addresses himself as son to Ludwig von Westphalen",as a "sign of filial love"([34]);another critical articles Derrida suggested was Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,the shareness of these two,Derrida suggested he found some secret of Marx,"something like a spectropolitics and a genealogy of ghost"([35]);Followed these cases reminding,and Derrida's attention then discuss about Karl Marx's inherits of Hegel's history of repetition,remind Marx was trying "taking the pulse of history",Derrida attentioned at the point of The Eighteenth Brumaire Marx "intends to distinguish between the spirit(Geist) of the revolution and its specter(Gespenst)",and attentioned some implacable anachrony([36]),He pointed out some and insited that "it would,of course,have been necessary to cite more examples of this implacable anchrony in the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte"([37]),followed this finding of the anachrony,Derrida saw the red specter,and remind "the 'red specter' was also the name of a revolutionary group",then pushed out some important Hypothesis,that "Here is our hypothesis:well beyond an 'eighteenth Brumaire' this has never stopped happening to what is called Marxism.Far from protecting it from the worst,this return conjuration,this counter-conjuration will have precipitated it more surely in that direction."There is an Marxism got attentioned here.From a followed quote of Marx,attention should be made to Marx's history views:"history without events[Geschichte ohne Ereignisse](P.125)."   

 Of these counts:Derrida counted and considered Marx's age,at that year 1848,at which Marx was about 30,and suggested that was a "youthful decication",except the case 1 of Marx's obsession with Westphalen and that "sign of filial love";in the case 2,one is The German Ideology(1845~1846) and another is The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte(1852),which followed in 4 years of the Manifesto,Derrida suggested Prof.Marx and Prof.Engels may met troubles and made some pretending gesture,"Marx(and Engels) try to straighten things out,they seek to identify,the pretend to count.They have trouble."And here,Derrida noticed the secret he got found before appear again,The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte deploys once again "something like a spectropolitics and a genealogy of ghosts"(p.107),to check this revolutionary repetition which Marx inherited from Hegel's history repetition theory,Derrida got found some phantasmagoria of Marx and a "positive conjuration" which "never free of anxiety","This anxiety in the face of the ghost is properly revolutionary.",then started to weight the "spectral density",yes he weighs,as Prof.Marx proposed in the Brumaire that death weights on the living brain of the living,and still more on the brains of revolutionaries,it must then have some spectral density.And for this weigh,also means its opposite,that the specter also weights,weights in individual livings([43]),in this The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,Prof.Karl Marx tried to taking the pulse of history and enjoyed some pleasure of repetition,and Derrida suggested Marx tried some accumulate of that rhythmic anachrony when listening to the revolutionary frequency,and recognized that "fatal anachrony",to avoid the living being played by and playing the dead,"played or tricked[jouer] by the dead",Marx called for forgetting thus avoid that fatal anachrony.Before the dead Marx,and before the cadaver of Karl Marx,Derrida asked and raised a question:"What does Marx mean,the dead Marx?",Derrida and Marx all knows that the dead have never buried anyone,nor the living nor other dead.Then Derrida attentioned Marx seems "wanted first of all,it seems,to recall us to the make-oneself-fear of that fear of oneself.",for when inspecting the second case,that The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,Derrida found something other,and identified then concerned "the reflective return of a conjuration",and identified a parody of the specter itself,or a caricature([44]),at this frightening moment,Derrida identified a feature of marxism,the feature of the counter-conjuration,or "this return conjuration".Why Marx mentioned a "history without event"?Derrida tried question Prof.Marx's "absence of events" or "ahistoricity",Karl Marx denounced appearances in this analysis,which means the "red specter" lost its body,as "men and events appears as inverted Schlemihls"(the story of Peter Schlemihl,the man who lost his shadow),Marx suggested that case of Brumaire was an inverted version,the shadow or the red specter lost its body this case,Louis Bonaparte got described as some "auxiliary specter" and lost his own body,compare to his uncle Napoleaon Bonaparte and Revolution of 1789,Derrida made a different hypothesis here than Marx,he mentioned some "panoply" and proposed that the figure of ghost "(it) is perhaps the hidden figure of al figures.",and raised some task before that paradoxes.Then pointed some very interesting but serious comments on Prof.Karl Marx,and that comments sounds objective and targeted arrogance and tricks of Karl Marx:  

 Tip1.one of the comments is about alterity,Derrida found that Marx accusing Stirner(as famously known in the German Ideology),Derrida even use that word "diatribe" to describe Marx's accuse of Stirner,and Derrida think Marx learnt some from Stiner,"the neo-evangelist Stirner proclaims man,the secret(das Geheimnis),the unique(den Einzigen)",and Stirner tried a phenomenology of the christian spirit("Saint Marx intend to give us a phenomenology of the Christian spirit.",which Derrida identified it as the whole history of spirits,ghosts or revenants),Stirner declared that the world is a ghost,Marx learnt it from him,(Derrida proposed that "Stirner proclaims it himself:'ever since the word was made flesh,since the world was spiritualized[vergeistigt],bewitched [verzaubert],it is a ghost[ein Spuk].'"),here Derrida identified and mentioned Marx made a betray of Hegel,Marx even "scoff" or "mock" Saint Max,but Derrida thinks seriously about this question Stirner brought out,this questions about alterity,and actually Derrida scold Marx and yes,Scold Marx,Derrida proposed that "Marx should not have made fun of it,but he does,and maliciously,with an ingenuousness that would like to appear feigned",and He,Derrida raise that question very carefully and mentioned again the seriousness of Stirner's question,he said:"So let us not try to hide the fact here,...we take seriously the originality,audacity,and,precisely,the philosophico-political seriousness of Stirner who also should be read without Marx or against him;but this is not our topic here",Marx's theory betrayed its origin,or avenge his father Hegel;but Stirner's error Derrida identified as "the metamorphosis of the spiritual into the spectral",but for Marx,Derrida suggested that Marx's price was his insists on discerning,and "Marx is out to get the specter above all and not the spirit,as if he still believed in some de-contaminating purification in this regard,as if the ghost were not watching the spirit,as if it were not haunting the spirit,precisely,from the threshold of spiritualization,as if iterability itself,which conditions both the idealization and the spiritualization of the 'idea',did not erase any critical assurance as to the discernment between these two concepts.But Marx insists on discerning.That is the price of the krinein of the critique."

 Tip2.Conjure and Conjuration.There is some difference Dr.Jacques Derrida proposed and identified with his specific wisdom,that kind of ghostly wisdom,which means to completely understand a difference of Stirner,and of Marx.about Conjuring.  

 For Stirner,the Epoché,which resembled by the immediacy of an "I-Me",got understood as a phenomenological reduction of the ghost,Derrida suggested vividly the spectrogenic process correspond to a paradoxical incorporation,"the incorporation in a body that is,to be sure,neither perceptible nor invisible,but remains flesh,in a body without nature....a visible-invisible body,sensuous-non-sensuous,and always under ...some artifact:the helmet of the ideologem or the fetish under armor.",and "a self that in truth is nothing but this movement of interiorizing gathering", and for Stirner,the conjure means an "egological conversion", but Karl Marx "criticizes it(the Epoché) as a phenomenological reduction to the ghost",and Marx suggested conjure "need work"([45]),but actually Prof.Derrida correctly understand Stirner,"we better understand Stirner,....The Stirnerian living being,its unique Ego,would be in effect visisted by its own apparition.The individual himself gives to himself his 'this is my body.'","The essential mode of self-presence of the cogito would be the haunting obsession of this 'es spukt.' ",Derrida obviously sensed a critical question of Stirner about a transform,a transform into a ghost,with the "technique for visions" and that vertiginous asymmetry([46]),Stirner,or Saint Max,found two ghost or two conclusions finally,(1).one is,the phenomenal form of the world itself is spectral;(2)the other,the phenomenological ego(Me,You and so forth) is a specter.The ghost is the phenomenon of the spirit,or the apparition form."Sancho is the modern Christ",and "it (the phenomenology) cannot hide its Christian vocation.",Derrida commented,Face to this condition and this findings,Derrida considers and saw rage of and rages from Karl Marx,saw Marx's harass and barbs to Stirner,he saw Marx's "begrudge",Prof.Derrida mentioned that condition they(St.Max and Karl Marx) both faces,their experience of "Christian Europe in sum" and their "experience of conjuration",actually "there,two great hunters,Marx and Stirner,are in principle sworn to the same conjuration",Dr.Derrida found Marx's begrudge and proposed it in a very funny style,he said:"I am describing then this feeling:that of a Marx obsessed,haunted,possessed like/as Stirner,and perhaps more than him,which is even harder to take.Now,Stirner talked about all this before he(Marx) did,and at such great length,which is even more intolerable.In the sense given to this word in hunting,he poached the specters of Marx.Marx tried all the exorcisms,and with what eloquence,what jubilation,what bliss!He so loved the words of the exorcism!",He,Prof.Derrida saw Marx's begrudge(or envy),and found Marx maybe thinks himself is a better expert,expert of what?"a scholar of ghost"("Marx thinks he is a better expert(a better "scholar of ghosts")"),Derrida considered seriously for Marx and this condition,and found some,to verify his own(Marx's) scholarship,Prof.Karl Marx started to count off Stirner's ghost,with his 10 fingers,for example,the famous work of Karl Marx,the German Ideology,Derrida suggested it could be considered as a "statistics of ghosts",Marx counted them in the "impure history of spirits",From the Gespenst No.1(ghost No.1),God,counted on and on,until to Gespenst No.10:Everything.and Marx thinks Stirner(Max)"will have succeeded in transmuting everything,the All itself,into a ghost.",during this count,Marx's count,for its Gespenst No.8.man,(which may again related to our Clues 2.Humanity),Derrida proposed "Here we come closest to ourselves but also to the most terrifying thing.",here Stirner uses that word "unheimlich",the most "unheimlich" of all ghosts,man,suggested "it(unheimlich) is the word of irreducible haunting or obsession.",and proposed some fearsome,that fearsome of man,"He is even more spectral than the spectral,Man makes himself fear.",before this fearsome,Derrida vividly attentioned to its critical position which may guiding,as he proposed:"We see rise up here the logic of this fear of onself that is guiding our remarks.The ipseity of the self is constituted there.No one will have escaped it,neither Marx,nor the Marxist,nor of course their mortal enemies...Marx exposed the fatefulness of this,but he does so in the other,precisely,exposed in the opposite,on the side facing,in Saint Max",from Derrida's viewpoint,Karl Marx insisted on difference between being/appearing,and when mentioned Marx's settlement about this origin of "history of ghosts",Derrida thinks it may attribute to Marx's borrow of Feuerbach's theology class([47]),Prof.Derrida believes Marx and Stirner are heirs to the Platonic tradition,on this "{most critical and ontological" question,which means "phantasma...the figure of dead souls...they are haunting the souls of certain living persons,day and night.",Derrida found that Marx's(not Stirner's) "treatment of the phantomatic"(as in the German Ideology),where Marx must grants to religion absolute privilege,that religion,Derrida may suggested Marx may used in another word,"ideology",that "Marx always grants to religion,to ideology as religion,mysticism,or theology",for example,Derrida proposed Marx's fetish bears some "ghostly character",and he gave 2 points on this:1."one the one hand,the irreducibly specific character of the specter."2."one the other hand and by the same token,at stake is the irreducibility of the religious model in the construction of the concept of ideology".

   Based on Derrida's findings,which i can be sure that Marx's political economy theory should better be understood as some exorcism trial from his own will,rather than simply see it as a pure economic science,of course there is another conjuring from Marx other than the conjuring presented in Capital,with that pseudo name "Science" at early modern period,Marx seems successfully hided his intention of his conjuring tricks which on the one hand brought the appearance of the specter,and on the other hand named it with that title,and with a phenomenology,or in Derrida's expression,"the phenomenological conjuring trick",Marx's purpose got hided behind that thickness of data analysis and descriptions,to target what haunted the commodity,as Marx mentioned the commodity production economy will soon vanished in ancient society as some magics,Marx,with his wisdom as a writer,used the name of "science",which may be understood as some consistency maybe with his materialism,and as some commonly accpeted fashions,"Science" was becoming into a fashion,and Marx understood it as a drive with magics,with this wisdom,that abyss wisdom nearly approach Stirner,as we all know that Marx's major work on political economy was Capital,and its subtitle is "A Critique of Political Economy",Marx gave that specter a name,"Das Capital",as what Prof.Derrida suggested Marx's concept in Capital."is indeed constructed with reference to a certain haunting.",Prof.Derrida saw it,the commodity,a specter,or an "apparition of a strange creature"([48]),how to see this specter?,as "the commodity is not so simple"([49]),"One must see,at first sight,what does not let itself be seen.And this is invisibility itself.",he considered that the table,the wood table Marx cased is an "example of an apparition",Prof.Derrida's method is using a mirror,a "mysterious mirror",when he asked:"How do you recognize a ghost?By the fact that it does not recgnize itself in a mirror."He saw what Marx found in commodity,is a phantasmagoria which comes on stage at exchange-value,Prof.Derrida very sure that Prof.Marx wanted the commodities confess themselves that they are exchange-values,considering Marx's strategy to make them confess is his suggestion or implies that commodity cannot speak,("Marx implies that they cannot speak"),so he,Prof.Marx began to ventriloquize the commodity and speaks from the depth of the soul of commodities,this speech is about one side of the anthropomorphic projection,another side of the anthropormorphic projection,Derrida identified it as a will "inhabit",and suggested "the difference between inhabit(hausen) and haunt becomes here more ungraspable than ever".From the C-M-C of the total circulation,Derrida identified a metamorphosis and a haunting structure,as "it is because the metamorphosis is possible in all directions between the use-value,the commodity,and money.",all directions,thus the C-M-C seems without beginning or end....(as some description from Prof.Marx explain attached below),what Derrida senses is that there is some bind of fetishism,ghost,religion as cloudy apparitions binded with this production,and an exorcism Marx ever tried,as he proposed:"In other words,as soon as there is production,there is fetishism:idealization,autonomization and automatization,dematerialization and spectral incorporation,morning work coextensive with all work,and so forth.Marx believes he must limit this co-existensity to commodity production.In our view,this is a gesture of exorcism,which we spoke of earlier and regarding which we leave here once again out question suspended.".[by the way,away from the topic here,for some economics peculiar visions,what Derrida attentioned Marx's mysterious definition not easily understood as it looks apparently is the residual product of labor,he thinks that was a phantomatic objectivity which can be classified as the place in Capital where Marx located the Fetishist phantomaticity,which one may not understand as commonly and apparently some pure economic terms of labor definition,this Derrida considered as one view point of phantomatic spectrality([54]),if this finding bind with C-M-C or M-C..P...C'-M',interesting secrets may shocking when come again Derrida's related question:"But what would Enlightenment be without the market?And who will ever make progress without exchange-value?",although Marx use a number analysis,yes,Marx has to for at least he seems tried to make it sounds like a science,but what he considered seems not that simple,suggest you are Marx,facing a specter instead of some data,what way you will have?Which maybe one can guess some true reason of Marx's major work on political economy made slow progress.Why?Why he hesitate and do some reedit and broke his original manuscript?The hesitation here need be attentioned not as a delay of other reasons althought they may be,but better be a hesitation,a hesitation before some-Thing,as Marx was a wise writer and simutaneously a wise hunter.To continue this topic may worthy further speculations,but still far from present thesis,so just stop it with a note of this delay which noted by some classical Marxist introduction([55]).]

Marx describes what he calls “the circular movement of capital” (23) via this abbreviation,beyond the preface,in v2 of Capital:

 M-C…P…C’-M’

 The dashes represent market activity (exchanges) and the ellipses represent time away from markets (production). Marx breaks this sequence down into “three stages.” (23.)

 The stage M-C represents the capitalist appearing on the market as an owner of money, M, looking to buy commodities, C. These commodities consist of a variety of objects (means of production) and of labor power.

 The stage C…P…C’ represents the process of production. The workers hired (ie, the labor power purchased) are set to work in production, P, using the other objects purchased – raw material, tools, machines, the physical space of the work place. The produce new commodities, C’.

 The stage C’-M’ represents the capitalist returning to the market as an owner of commodities, the end result of the production process P.

  

 This drawing is an attempt to show these stages in relation to a single capitalist.

from v2 of Capital.

 Marx's exorcism may based on ontology,which may different than Stirner,in this sense,Derrida suggested that (Marx's) "ontology is a conjuration",or ontology which Marx used for treatment of the phantomatic,a conjuration,Prof.Derrida is sure of this and mentioned it once again,and once again later,"...Marx continues to want to ground his critique or his exorcism of the spectral simulacrum in an ontology...this critical ontology means to deploy the possibility of dissipating the phantom,",before this ontological and critical,Derrida suggested this ontological critical has some political consequences,this space of the politics may again about Man-Ghost,which comes back to Clues2 again.As before and face the cadaver of Marx,Derrida ever attentioned to his own deconstructive task of Marx,or his interest,in his words,"the deconstruction of Marxist ontology",when Derrida question this ghost of Marx,he considered this condition of what i can briefly called here it as "Marx's binding strategy"([51]),when Prof.Derrida faced this marxist ontology,he questioned such style which attentioned the bind,and the bind of the bind,of such an ontology,the Marxist ontology,with other maybe call it marxist thesis(apparatuese and strategies),the deconstruction before this biding,this binding may sound like binded all marxism(s) in previous typological category as i did mentioned since the beginning(Derrida counted the binded as:"of this ontology,with materialism,the party,the State,the becoming-totalitarian of the states?"),Prof.Derrida suggested it would be an event maybe,instead of a method or theoritical practice,the guiding thread here is always about question of ghost,a deconstruction,or Derrida briefly declared it as "To critique,to call for interminable self-critique is still to distinguish between everything and almost everything",a deconstruction before Marxist ontology,he insisted on that promise,and reminded "a promise must promise to be kept,that is,not to remain 'spiritual' or 'abstract,' but to produce events,new effective forms of action,practice,organization,and so forth."([52]).Derrida,in that whole address,as he mentioned since the exordium,was trying to look for a new scholarship,a new notion about a scholarship those classical scholars never tried to,a scholarship about other spaces which can be called affirmatively spectral or phantomistic,his question about this is:"learn to live finally".

 As Stirner say:"Mensch,es spukt in deinem Kopfe!"(this commonly translated as "Man,there are specters in your head!"),the "Es spukt" is a verbal form,an "impersonal verbal form,of something or someone,neither someone nor something,of a 'one' that does not act.",the question Derrida sensed here for Marx,then later for Freud-Heidegger is some "fearsome interrupt the serenity of research",facing the Unheimlich,the uncanninies,Prof.Marx must ever had some fearsome,this need trace back again to Marx's counting on with his 10 fingers,about the 8th,the Man,before that count,Derrida counted about the oldest son,Man,he proposed:"The arch-specter,the one who is at the beginning and at the controls,the capital ghost(das Hauptgespenst) is man himself with a capital M(das Hauptgespenst ist naturlich "der Mensch" selbst).But if men exist,in this logic,only as representatives(Reprasentanten) of an abstract generality,an essence,a concept,or a spirit,of a foreign(Fremden) sacrality or alterity,then they are present for each other only in a ghostly fashion,as specters(nur als gespenstige,Gespenster fur einander vorhanden sind)",thus "Humanity is but a collection or series of ghosts.",till nearly the end of that address,Derrida made a hypothesis about Marx's spectrology,or Marx's exorcism,about what Marx ever laughed at,What Marx laughed at,yes laughed at,Prof.Derrida thinks it was the general essense of Man,"in the face of the capital or paternal ghost,the Hauptgespenst that is the general essence of Man",and Marx seems still be an immigrant all his life, he belongs to "a time of disjunction".Actually this comment sound like some bury,if Marx's cadaver got buried by some others at 17 March 1883,Prof.Derrida's bury sound like a bury of Marx's revenants,as although Marx already dead,his cadaver laying inside the coffin,it seems no one can truly buried him properly,maybe Marx would like and prefer certain shaman to bury him?Derrida saw Marx's real strategy historically,as he said,his exorcism which may different than Marx,not a chase away but a grant,grant what? "To exorcise not in order to chase away the ghost,but this time to grant them the right",for the right,Derrida may means to grant them come back alive,"revenant s"come back as "other arrivants" to whom hospitality should be offered,the right for justice even on this impossible possible,justice,So,Derrida,he,like the living he mentioned who watch over the ghost,granted Marx a bury,Marx,for Derrida,maybe from his fearsome facing that haunting,"before life as such,before death as such,it id doubtless not his fault",but the fault we inherited always means a great price for humanity precisely,which should be watched,as we are mortals who can be the only candidate to watch it.([53]).

 Tip3.An articulation and An equivocation.Prof.Derrida gave caution,he reminded that articulation about Geist(spirit) and Gespenst(specter),and reminded that "Geist can also mean specter,...the spirit is also the spirit of spirit.",from this articulation related question,he proposed clearly Marx abuses this equivocation,as he proposed:"The German Ideology uses and abuses this equivocation.It is its principal weapon.And especially,although it operates with constancy or consistency,and even if it is less tanable than Marx himself thinks,the argument that permits him to distinguish between spirit and specter remains discreet and subtle.",this thread is all about the difference between Geist and Gespenst,or spirit and specter,Derrida tried to approach and grasp Marx's abuse from his literality about Stirner,what Marx called "conjuring tricks",Marx seems insist difference between being and appearing,Derrida raised this question out as "the fold of the unheimlich",about which he descrived Marx's condition:"It has to do with the phenomenological fold,Marx seems to suggest,with that difference,both decisive and insubstantial at the same time,that separates being from appearing.The appearing of being,as such,as phenomenality of its phenomenon,is and is not the being that appears;that is the fold of the 'unheimlich',",to consider the seriousness and terrible result,Prof.Derrida reminded that "This fear of oneself could have led the writer to suicide....What saves this man from man is still another ghost."Prof.Derrida obviously saw the terrifying result of this fearsome of Man,as he cased Freud and Heidegger later,at the point of Freud,Derrida identified Freud'w later thinking about his own start,"Das Unheimliche":"Freud moreover recognizes that he should have begun his research(on the Unheimliche,the death drive,the repetition compulsion,the beyond of the pleasure principle,and so forth) with what says the 'es spukt',Derrida reminded Freud's psychagogical caution:"if he had to begin not where he could have or should have begun,it is because with the thing in question(the strongest example of Unheimlichkeit,the 'es spukt',ghosts,and apparitions),one scares oneself too much.One confuses what is heimliche-unheimliche,in a contradictory,undecidable fashion,with the terrible or the frightful(mit dem Grauenbaften); For Heidegger,Derrida suggested that the value of Unheimlichkeit,"in Being and Time and elsewhere,remains generally unnoticed or neglected",Prof.Derrida reminded again the cost of humanity,or general essence of Man,that great price,which maybe for fears both for Marx-Freud-Heidegger,Derrida suggested another way of exorcise,which different than Karl Marx,but seems approach to Stirner,when he mentioned that way with "the absolute ashes",or to exorcise which means to grant them the right,instead of chase away,and reminded to remember the impossible is always possible:"Let the dead bury their dead".([50]),as to the way,Derrida saw a narrow one,this time not Marx but maybe Stirner,when he cautioned to watch over the future,cautioned:"But in memory,this time,of that impure 'impure impure history of ghost'."

 What later scholars noticed and attentioned,Derrida's address at 1993 actually end with a discussion of the uncanny,as identified by Prof.Nicolas Royle,that "Specters of Marx is like an essay in the night",he recogznied Derrida puzzle there,and proposed it may lay at that point where the logic of spectrality is "inseparable from the very motif...of deconstruction",he thinks Derrida does not know or can not see where he would be led to,and "Night spuks",and he also attentioned Derrida's topic at that address was actually all about das Unheimliche,he proposed this way:"Derrida concludes Spetres of Marx by suggesting that everything he has been saying is a matter of the uncanny,das Unheimliche.Marx,Freud,Heidegger--none of them,Derrida says,began 'where [they] ought to have 'been able to begin'(beginnen konnen),namely with haunting,before life as such,before death as such...This fault,in any case,by definition,is repeated,we inherited,we must watch over it.the uncanny is what will have come back,haunting Derrida's work from the beginning,or from 'where he ought to have 'been able to begin'.Of that essay or address in the night entitled Spectres of Marx,he observes in the closing pages:'the subtitle of this address could thus have been:'Marx-das Unheimliche".

 [~~~in editing since 1st-july 2011end~~~].

  And his Ventriloquism?To reject the demarcation and avoid the spirit caught in the "metaphysics of subjectivity", and his knowing Hegel appearing as "one of the most obsessing Ghosts among the philosophers of this Alchemy"(As Mr.John Smith suggested([15])),when facing the dualism of Spirit and letter-body-animal-matter what Hegel and Heidegger ever faced,and he sees some difference happens between Geistigkeit and a certain (non-Christian) Geistlichkeit of the Geist whose purity Heidegger wants to save, this purity is internal to spirit,even though he(Heidegger) recognizes that evil (das Bose) is spiritual (geistlich).And the literal bogeyman(bogey) out of subjectivity(he refers to this as "its bad double,the phantom of subjectivity") what he followed Heidegger and made it,or this demarcation/limitation or delimit? Some guys like John Smith thinks it as a substitute or a returning of a "Ghost" and haunt the exorcist,Since demarcation brings a caught of spirit in the metaphysics,making a bogey to rejecting such demarcation would fail for the ghost's returning and haunt the exorcist([16]),where Mr.Smith thinks Derrida's logic comes as a "head-spinning deconstruction",where John thinks this "demarcation vis-a-vis its contaminating other" as a "fatal" demarcation,the otherness or the contaminating other of the demarcation including naturalism or biologism,anti-fascism,anti-racism.There is some wise opinion and misunderstandings maybe here,for Jacques Derrida himself,although time cost to identify,originally he considered and used "ventriloquist" instead of the word "ghost" someone thinks as a substitute,for the program of Heidegger ever faced,that the equivocation Heidegger faced and presented in the Rectorship Address---"has to do with the fact that Geist is always haunted by its Geist"---,and thinks the program of Heidegger is "diabolical" and on "both evils", Derrida sees this equivocation as "spirit's double, Geist as the Geist of Geist","which Heidegger never able to avoid",and he knows it "returning to be the other's ventriloquist",and this equivocation which Derrida saw from and between the difference of the mention and use of mark "" by Heidegger in so long seperated years,as ever since the vermeiden warning in year 1927 Sein und Zeit,and the mark's disappear during 1933 to 1935 in the Rectorship Address and the Introduction to Metaphysics.Actually Jacques Derrida believes and thinks very clearly and carefully that the 1935 strategy of Heidegger using geistig instead of geistliche,by this new delimitation(the authentic Geistigkeit),delimit the whole European and Christian-metaphysical discourse,Actually He(Derrida) remind Heidegger's attention to a historial epochality and to the history of Being,Derrida guess,yes He Guess (he used a word "perhaps") that Heidegger situates beyond history or the epochality of Being:a certain thinking of Ereignis.

 And at somewhere he reminding the temptation,the temptation of thinking all the ghosts flapping in the wings of this alchemical theater,where among them one of the most obsessing ghosts would again be Hegel,as what John reminded,that his last will and testament of German Idealism,and as a will of a dead,or a testament,and the will seems normally conceived as a form of "metaphysical subjectivity"?,that by this way the DEAD trying speaking to us,in their "remains" and legacies we inherit,at least we can say that Hegel got a transendental "will" lives on in Derrida,and considering the unfinished German Idealism's returning and resurrection via/from/and through Jacques Derrida,and his reminding that Scene of the Geist as the sublime effluvia of a fermentation rises up or rises up again above the decomposing dead, to interiorize itself in the Aufhebung,"i" think it is both an evocation and an argot,then the Ventriloquism and the Monologue may be heard and understood in double or triple ways?

  As to his knowing and questioning when still alive,people still not started to read him.As he saw the the duplicity obscurity from Geist and the misinterpretation it brings to the "teacher of philosophers" or "academic fellows",that misunderstandings can really make some of them blind even they have eyes,and that is one real point and actual reason Jacques Derrida got criticized by many philosophy teachers,duplicity of Geist is so magical thus maybe only a wizard can broken it,but not "a philosopher" or "an academic teacher".

 And also why an "obscurity charge" instead of others?Basically,Prof.Jacques Derrida's writings are really hard to be read in a manner of subjective consciousness,as from the start,it is based on a conscious of differance,this is one major point maybe,Futher,considering Derrida's late writings,he,like all those ancient wizard pharmakeus,seems to me,may hold a habit,a habit which can be understood only as a concealment relations,or easier speaking,Derrida hide something in his late,and this kind of hide,may only be understandable with relations to his crypt,to his crypt,which means to that specific crypt and its haunting effects,if that language appears bounding and contract requesting with some dead,that understanding is obsolutely could not be even sensed on the reflective subjective conscious reasoning,so in most cases,for many readers,the basic sense of his writing effect is delirium.

 i am not among those who cheers for his death,what is the possibility of evoking such a stranger?attached a poem he ever quoted from George Trakl for a short memory of the stranger:Jacques Derrida.

 

 Springtime of the Soul

  Outcry in sleep; through black alleys the wind falls,
  The blue of spring beckons through breaking branches,
  Purple night-dew and stars extinguish all around.
  Greenish the river dawns, silverly the old avenues
  And the towers of the city. O soft drunkenness
  In the gliding boat and the dark calls of the blackbird
  In childish gardens. Already, the rosy veil thins.
  Solemnly the waters murmur. O the moist shadows of the floodplain,
  The striding animal; greening shapes, flowering branches
  Touch the crystal forehead; shimmering swaying boat.
  Quietly the sun sounds in the rose-colored clouds by the hill.
  Great is the stillness of the fir forest, the serious shadows at the river.
  Purity! Purity! Where are the terrible paths of death,
  Of grey stony silence, the rocks of the night
  And the peaceless shadows? Radiant sun-abyss.
  Sister, when I found you at the lonely clearing
  Of the forest, and it was midday and the silence of the animal great;
  Whiteness under wild oak, and the thorn bloomed silver.
  Enormous dying and the singing flame in the heart.
  Darker the waters flow around the beautiful play of fishes.
  Hour of mourning, silent vision of the sun;
  The soul is a strange shape on earth. Spiritually blueness
  Dusks over the pruned forest; and a dark bell rings
  Long in the village; peaceful escort.
  Silently the myrtle blooms over the white eyelids of the dead one.
  Quietly the waters sound in the sinking afternoon
  And the wilderness on the bank greens more darkly; joy in the rosy wind;
  The brother's soft song by the evening hill.

  Endless Memorials for the Stranger:Jacques Derrida.

 ♣dedicated by Michael.since date Dec.28 th,2009.(last updated d.t.June 24th,2011.)

Metamorphosis of the Evil One

Das Tier hat keine Welt,auch keine Umwelt.

Martin Heidegger.

like the sublime effluvia of a fermentation, Geist---the gas--- rises up or rises up again above the decomposing dead, to interiorize itself in the Aufhebung.
 Evil is spiritual....the ruah can also,like Geist,carry evil within it.It can become ruah raa,the evil spirit...

Jacques Derrida:De L'esprit.X.

In a sense,language is everything,since it is the voice of no one,since it is the very voice of the things,the waves,and the forests...

Paul Valéry.

  Geist got conceived by Derrida not only as gathering,as the gas or sublime effluvia of a fermentation rising up above the decompositing dead,interiorizes itself in the Aufhebung([24]).

 Derrida ever mentioned the ambiguous clarity of flame can bring us to the nexus or the interlacing of the threads about, Geist,got seen by him as another name for Heidegger as the One and Versammlung."What is 'thing,' or thingness(Dinglichkeit)?"as asked by Jacques,there is an ontological provenance of thingness need to clarify when we speak of non-thingified Being.Accompanying the darkening of the world,there is an Entmachtung of spirit,"a self-destitution" or a resignation he thinks has four types of "interpretative mutation",Interestingly for one type resignation of spirit,as the instrumentalization of spirit,Marxism got seen and recognized as one type of instrumentalization of spirit resignation,in this system,spirit got conceived as a superstructural or powerless intellect,accordingly symmetrically,organization of the people, got conceived as a living mass or a race.

 Once identified four types of resignation of spirit,Jacques Derrida cares how to awaken it,or "lead it out of resignation to responsibility",Jacques Derrida,like a wizard,tried to awaken or evoking it,at the point attention got paid to the divisibility of Geist in man(and not in God),Jacques in his analysis used spirit as a revenant when analysing the relationships between the upcoming of spirit and poet,such as Holderlin or Trakl,as for him,Spirit find its place or take place in the soul of the poet, and Seele or soul got considered by him as a synonym for Mut or Gemut,and identified there is a missing of a correct interpretation of Gemut in Sein and Zeit,for the condition spirit is never at home,he call it as "originary de-propriation".

 On invoke of Schelling and his 1809 Treatise On the Essence of Human Freedom which Heidegger devoted and commented at year 1936,Jacques thought the "Schellingian" formulas sustains this Trakl interpretation belong to the metaphysics of evil Heidegger trying to delimit,and he noted in 1936 Heidegger tried to withdraw this Schellingian thinking of evil from a purely Christian space.So there is a delimit and a withdraw,he calls it as "displacement", Heidegger's use of the Schellingian formula in the guesture beyond Christianity,but also confirm a metaphysics of evil,a metaphysics of the will,and metaphysics of humanitas and snimalitas.Jacques thinks this happens during the same period 1935 in Introduction to Metaphysics,and he noticed a guesture of Heidegger on this:"so it seems to me, never went back on".Derrida push out an example with his criteria proximity,the example is Metamorphosis of the Evil one which he saw Heidegger write it down immediately after evoking the "original signification" of the word Geist.Here need pay a lot more attention to search and read Metamorphosis of the Evil one:

Thus understood,spirit deploys its essence(west) in the possibility of gentleness and destruction. Gentleness does not submit to some repression(schlagt keineswegs nieder) the being-outside-itself- of conflagration (des Entflammenden), but holds it gathered (versammelt) in the peace of friendship. Destruction comes from the frenzy which consumes (verzehrt) itself on its own insurrection and in this way pushes the evil one (das Bosartige betreibt). Evil is always the evil of a spirit. Evil, and its malignity, is not the sensible, the material. No more is it of a simply " spiritual" nature

"geistiger" Natur...(p.60[179])

 Where "Evil is spiritual (geistlich)",where he noticed that some difference between animal/man with wickedness belongs spirit.Animal can never be "wicked",yet Man can overturn the ontological fit of his Dasein and disjoin it,thus to man that is reserved the dubious privilege of being able to fall lower than the animal...the ground of evil thus resides in the primordial will of the primary base."ground of evil resides in the primordial will which man capable to reserve falling lower than animal", thus suggest why Heidegger got written "Metamorphosis of the Evil one", following part will paid to some topics about the metamorphosis of the evil,and the capability of man reserve falling lower than animal for ground of evil resides in the primordial will.

 Here offers or present a trial archeological and psychological research about metamorphosis,and suggest maybe there will be some findings from history about what does it mean above.

 The story to tell starts from a legend or myth?The story is told by Plato,in his Republic (trans. Shorey) (Greek philosopher C4th B.C.),about Zeus Lykaios and his transformation in a wolf:

 "The legend that is told of the shrine of Zeus Lykaios in Arckadia...The story goes that he who tastes of the one bit of human entrails minced up with those of other victims is inevitably transformed into a wolf. Have you not heard the tale?"([2]).
 Plato asked:"have you heard that tale?", it's a tale,

 Zeus Lykaios was Zeus wolf-god and also Zeus the Light god. But there was a definite cult of Zeus Lykaios at a temple on Mt. Lykaion in Arkadia. According to Cooke, he-wolves were kept at Zeus Lykaios's sanctuary there as sacred animals. They offered human sacrifices to him. Pliny and Augustine both mention the temple. Many of his imagines were dressed in wolf skins. Zeus Lykaios also had a cult at Kyrene, and coins with this image were found at Sparta.

 For the legend of Zeus Lykaios of Arkadia,there in Arkadia which describe the Zeus Lykaios(Of the Wolf) as follows 2 cults ever found:

 first.Pausanias, Description of Greece 8. 2. 1 - 3 (trans. Jones) (Greek travelogue C2nd A.D.) written:
 "Lykaon the son of Pelasgos [mythical early king of Arkadia] devised the following plans, which were more clever than those of his father. He founded the city Lykosoura on Mount Lykaios [in Arkadia], gave to Zeus the surname Lykaios (of the Wolf) and founded the Lykaia Games. I hold that the Panathenaia festival was not founded before the Lykaia...My view is that Lykaon [founder of the Lykaia festival] was contemporary with Kekrops [founder of the Athenaia festival], the king of Athens, but that they were not equally wise in matters of religion. For Kekrops was the first to name Zeus Hypatos (the Supreme god), and refused to sacrifice anything that had life in it, but burnt instead on the altar the national cakes...But Lykaon brought a human baby to the altar of Zeus Lykaios, and sacrificed it, pouring out its blood upon the altar, and according to the legend immediately after the sacrifice he was changed from a man to a wolf (Lykos). I for my part believe this story; it has been a legend among the Arkadians from of old, and it has the additional merit of probability. For the men of those days, because of their righteousness and piety, were guests of the gods, eating at the same board; the good were openly honored by the gods, and sinners were openly visited with their wrath...So one might believe that Lykaon was turned into a beast."

 second.Pausanias, Description of Greece 6. 8. 2 written:
 "As to the boxer [of the Olympic Games], by name Damarkhos, an Arkadian of Parrhasia, I cannot believe (except, of course, his Olympic victory) what romancers say about him, how he changed his shape into that of a wolf at the sacrifice of Zeus Lykaios (Wolf), and how nine years after he became a man again."

 Above literature registration describe a legend or a phenomena,at that time of Plato,this phenomena got named "Lycanthropy", to express briefly,Zeus Lykaios was associated with wolves. The myth told of a man named Demetrius who was turned to a wolf by the god, but, if he could refrain from eating human flesh, could regain his human form. If he ate the flesh he was cursed to remain a wolf. It is strongly possible that the word Lykaios comes from lyke, but from the masculine form of the noun.

 King Lycann of Arcadia,described as an ancient king who did not hide that he was a werewolf.In Greek myth, Lycaon was the first king of Arcadia and was cursed by Zeus to turn into a wolf.

 Some etymological dictionary give explain and brief description that "A man who can change into a wolf and back". This condition is also called lycanthropy. Lykos is Greek for "wolf," anthropos for man,this is earlier than neraly the same as what appeared later times under another name: Werewolf.

 At the time of Plato and some later period,Lycanthropy got conceived as a transformation,a disease majorly from diabolical possession. This phenomena or Lycanthropy,can be conceived as a an early case of shapeshift,another word,transformation or metamorphosis in ancient times,transformed humans,and metamorphoses into animals.

 Ever since the time of Plato,the phenomena in later times got another name:"werewolf",for the etymological origin of the "were",a citation from Richard Dowland's writing at 1605 give some brief explain:"Were our ancestors vsed somtyme in steed of Man yet should it seeme that were was moste commonly taken for a maried man.But the name of man is now more knoun and more generally vsed in the whole Teutonic toung then the name of Were."([3]).And in legend,the Roman Empire was founded by Romulus and Remus who were suckled and protected by a she-wolf.

 According to 1902 Encyclopedia,a story about wolves registered.

 "According to Baronius, in the year 617, a number of wolves presented themselves at a monastery, and tore in pieces several friars who entertained heretical opinions. The wolves sent by God tore the sacrilegious thieves of the army of Francesco Maria, duke of Urbino, who had come to sack the treasure of the holy house of Loreto. A wolf guarded and defended from the wild beasts the head of St Edmund the martyr, king of England. St Oddo, abbot of Cluny, assailed in a pilgrimage by foxes, was delivered and escorted by a wolf."

 In this story,many of the were-wolves were most innocent and God-fearing persons, who suffered through the witchcraft of others,or simply from an unhappy fate.

 When time to 17th century,according to Richard Verstegan,who write in his Restitution of Decayed Intelligence,1628,registered that "The were-wolves, are certayne sorcerers, who having annoynted their bodies with an ointment which they make by the instinct of the devill, and putting on a certayne inchaunted girdle, doe not onely unto the view of others seem as wolves, but to their owne thinking have both the shape and nature of wolves, so long as they weare the said girdle. And they do dispose themselves as very wolves, in wourrying and killing, and most of humane creatures." This opinion affected an origin of werewolf at modern time,which briefly thinks werewolf become from a sorcerers by his magic ointment and devotion to devil, thus a shape-shift and togethor a psychological-shift can be performed. Such were the views about lycanthropy current throughout the continent of Europe when Vestegan wrote.

 Another part registered the opinion about lycanthropy fevor "France in particular seems to have been infested with were-wolves during the 16th century, and the consequent trials were very numerous. In some of the cases,e.g., those of the Gandillon family in the Jura, the tailor of Chalons, and Roulet in Angers, all occurring in the year 1598,there was clear evidence against the accused of murder and cannibalism, but none of association with wolves; in other cases, as that of Gilles Garnier in D?le in 1573, there was clear evidence against some wolf, but none against the accused; in all the cases, with hardly an exception, there was that extraordinary readiness in the accused to confess and even to give circumstantial details of the metamorphosis, which is one of the most inexplicable concomitants of mediaeval witchcraft. Yet, while this lycantrhopy fever, both of suspectors and of suspected, was at its height, it was decided in the case of Jean Grenier at Bordeaux, in 1603, that lycantrhopy was nothing more than an insane delusion. From this time the loup-garou gradually ceased to be regarded as a dangerous heretic, and fell back into his pre-Christianic position of being simply a "man-wolf-fiend," as which he still survives among the French peasantry.

 The werewolf legend grew strong in the late 1500's in Europe mainly because the wolf's presence was very strong in the countryside at that time. The people's fear of these creatures was so strong and so real that it may have contributed to many of the werewolf legends. The wolf, in it's natural form, has been noted to possess demonic qualities: semi nocturnal, gray in color, high pitched howls, razor sharp teeth, eyes that glow yellow, green or red and a tendency to be quiet and not seen in the hunt and while foraging. This haunting and frightening image of a wolf combined with the fear and the ranting of many, led people to believe that attacks on their village were due to werewolves.

 Werewolf legend originated from the countryside around German town Colongne and Bedburg in 1591,a man named Peter Stubb confessed to being a werewolf. His confession, like those of witches, was brought about by a severe method of torture and interrogation. Nevertheless, Stubbs admitted to shape shifting to a wolf by wearing a magical belt of wolf skin and killing many women and girls, whom he also violated and later ate. His most hideous crime was killing his own son who he took out to the woods and killed, later eating his brain. He died under the most horrible mutilation and torture his peers could conceive as punishment.([10]).

 Except the man got becomed into werewolf, there is some case a child got turned, Jean Grenier is on record as being one of the earliest known child werewolves. He was not born a werewolf, but was said to have been given a magic ointment by the dark and sinister Master of the Forest. He also turned out to be one of the earliest documented cases of what doctors today classify as Lycanthropy. In 1603, in Southwest France, he boasted of killing and eating many girls, which the villages believed since the girls were indeed missing. He told of shape shifting by applying this magic ointment, and hunting down the weakest of the village. Grenier was believed and tried but judged not to be a werewolf, only to be a mentally defective youth. The judges determined that his thinking he was a werewolf was caused by demonic possession, so they imprisoned him for life in a monastery.

 Above literature and registrations,as can be summarized under title of "lacanthropy" or "werewolf",conception of this phemonema of ancient people shaked or hesitated,got swirled by this transformation between beast-human monster,whether this is a man-wolf,or a wolf-man,its a question not easily to decide,and this difficulty,this obscurity of definition in terms also appear in the origin identification of this metamorphosis,wether it is from a demonic possession,or from a disease,there are discriminative opinions on this for the ancient writers and observers,they themselves sometimes got confused and not easy to make a clear classification,such state of mind got well expressed even in modern writers, such as Montague.When he tried to give a definition,feels some difficulty,Montague wrote:

 "Precisely to define the werewolf is perhaps not altogethor easy.We may,however,say that a werewolf is a human being,man,woman or child(more often the first),who either voluntarily or involuntarily changes or is metamorphosed into the apparent shape of a wolf,and who is them possessed of all the characteristics,the foul appetites,ferocity,cunning,the brute strength,and swiftness of that animal......This shape-shifting is for the most part temporary,of longer or shorter duration, but it is sometimes supposed to be permanent.The transformation,again,such as it is, if desired,can be effected by certain rites and ceremonies,which in the case of a constitutional werewolf are often of the black geotic kind......"([4]).And he remarked the suffering of a person,from some disease."It should be remarked that in a secondary or derivative sense the word werewolf has been erroneously employed to denote a person suffering from lycanthropy,that mania or disease when the patient imagines himself to be a wolf,and under that savafe delusion betrays all the bestial propensities of the wolf,howling in a horrid long-drawn note."([5]).

 When Dr.Niall Scott doing his research about the monsters,his note on this topic is so insightful and just quote some parts here for an additional note:

 "The Monster as Metaphor has transformative power and is ignored at the reader's peril."

 "The term "monstrous" is grounded in notions of human privilege.Its Old and Middle French (monstre and monstre,respectively),and Anglo-Norman derivations articulate disfiguration of the human form, and the terms's evolution from classical Latin(monstrum) through Italian (monstro),Spanish(mostro),and Portuguese (monstro) imply a warning(from base monere-to warn) embodied in the monstrous form.Thus, the etymological roots of the monstrous imply a boundary space between human and non-human (originally,human and animal)-the imaginary region that lies between being and non-being,presence and absence."([6]).

 One presumptions he pointed proposed and included:the human form included elements not found in lower forms(thus,the use of the term "monstrous" to define the presence of animal characteristics in the human form, as in mythological beings such as the Centaur,the Minotaur,the Griffin,Dryad,Faun,Mermaid,Phoenix,Raven,and so on,)

 “ZEUS: You are not in your own home,intruder;you are a foreign body in the world, like a splinter in the flesh,or a poacher in his lordship’s forest.”
          Sartre..The Flies

 According to Dr.Susan Neiman,”the problem of evil can be expressed in theological or secular terms,but it is fundamentally a problem about the intelligibility of the world as a whole.Thus it belongs neither to ethics nor to metaphysics but forms a link between the two.”([7]).

 During this period,some phenomena of these reflected in poems,corresponding the darkening of the world,there is an Entmachtung of spirit,from the Cartesian Heritage,there is still a non-questioning Being with a presupposition of metaphysics of subjectivity.When traces the history line of this phenomena,i got known some acestors of George Trakl,they are dark poet ever lived vivdly in France but not German,these poets and artists are sensitive receivers of dark forces from nether side of our world,they are French poet Rimbaud and Lautreamont.It seems France is a strange area where monsters inhabit oftenly.

 They are representative poet and artists who is sensitive or receivers of dark forces from nether side of our world and seeping into out dimension and transforming this planet in strange ways.Some modern occultist such as Kenneth Grant call these forces are Qliphoth,which connect our "dayside" with "nightside",or open our conscious mind to the primordial depth of the dark unconscious.Thus some poets or artists's neurons are sensitive to these forces or invoke them and express their power through art.Lautreamont and Rimbaud are just these kind of artists.

 As in his own writings about the poet,Rimbaud's genius seems as excellent as George Trakl,as he wrote:

 "The primary study of the man who wishes to be a poet", wrote Rimbaud "is his own knowledge, entirely. He seeks for his soul, inspects, tempts it, instructs it. As soon as he knows it, his duty is its cultivation...the soul must be made monstrous...I say that he must be a voyant, make himself into one. The poet makes himself into a seer by a long, tremendous and reasoned derangement of the senses."

 Arthur Rimbaud(Jean-Nicolas-Arthur Rimbaud) was born on October 20,1854,in Charleville,in the northern Ardennes region of France,except his poet,for his life,Rimbaud was known to have been a French Libertine and a "restless soul", traveling extensively on three continents before his death from cancer less than a month after his 37th birthday,a strolling soul seems would not like to inhabit.Grant thinks Rimbaud is a Lycanthropic Seer.

 In above mentioned his writing about a poet "the soul must be made monstrous",Grant thinks that making the soul "monstrous" just means the evoking of lycanthropy,the belief in the transformation of man into wolf,tiger or hyene.From his viewpoint,those who let in the forces of the Qliphoth must themselves assume the Mask of the Beast,which means abnormal and perverted lusts,such forces expressed themselves in poet of Lautreamont and Rimbaud,which filled with blasphemy,degradation,perversion and violence.

 Grant proposed that Rimbaud, through his method of "derangement of the senses" grasped this zeitgeist, this dark spirit of the age and expressed it not only through his poetry, but through his life.And Rimbaud saw himself "as a beast, a monster, a Lycanthropic seer.",and these has an evidence from his lover,poet Paul Verlaine (Rimbaud's lover):"You are prodigiously well equipped for battle. I have as it were the smell of your lycanthropy." In Rimbaud's poetry itself we have numerous references to he being a dog, wolf or hyena: "'You will remain a hyena' etc..., yells the demon who crowned me with such delightful poppies. 'You will reach your death with all of your lusts, with your selfishness and all your capital sins'."

 Hyena got considered by Kenneth Grant as symbolic of all half-lives,all twilight states,all cross breeds and cross roads:interweaving,seeping,coiling,worming its neither-neither sexuality into flesh,and stamping with the Mark of the Beast all those forms through which it satisfied its savage hungers.

 In Rimbaud's poem,there is some corresponding between Rombaud's blood ancestry and Grant's cross breeds.The demon tells Rimbaud that he "will remain a hyena" thereby stamping him with the Mark of the Beast, and dealing with a demon or devil brings up the concept of crossroads - that old southern legend of making a pact with the Devil at some infernal intersection.

 There is an interesting Lycanthropic section in Rimbaud's poetry comes in his poem "A Season in Hell":

        The wolf cried under the leaves
        As he spat out the fine feathers
        Of his meal of fowl;
        Like him I consume myself.

 In his self description,Rimbaud compare himself to the wolf sees himself consuming his soul (the fowl). Rimbaud writes: "[....] I looked at the disorder of my mind as sacred.I was idle,a prey to heavy fever.I envied the happiness of animals-", as some writers conceived him as "He is that differentiated being,the prodigy,born of human flesh and blood but suckled by the wolves."

 For the way he used to reach the primal vision and destroy the rationality,Rimbaud use his formula of the derangement of the sense,that means using poisons(drugs,alcohol,sleep deprevation) to brink himself to the brink of mania inorder to achieve this supreme gnosis,destroying reason,uniting all dualities,invoking the divine madness that one finally "sees".

 This way seems a torment,a torment of spirit,"derangement of senses",enormous suffering,thus can see Rimbaud torture his own spirit to reach a poet,he used "born poet",as he express this in a letter written to an old teacher,a mad poet:

 "I want to be a poet, and I'm working at turning myself into a seer. You won't understand any of this, and I'm almost incapable of explaining it to you. The idea is to reach the unknown by the derangement of all the senses. It involves enormous suffering, but one must be strong and be a born poet. And I've realized that I am a poet. It's really not my fault."

 This way to poet,means torture of spirit,or enormous toll on the poet himself, he wanted to release the endlessly imaginative forces of the dark unconscious,and thus saw himself as a kind of Satanic, Pagan mystic.To achieve this "divine" insight of demonic evil,Rimbaud knew he would have to divest himself of every kernel of his known personality,to strip his psyche bare,to consume himself like the wolf in his poem.And in his formula,Grant commented weaved alchemy with obsession,delirium,reversion,..."Alchemy, obsession, delirium, reversion, and the sorceries of sex form the foundation of creative occultism, and these elements were woven by Rimbaud into his celebrated formula.".

 And about his poem,Rimbaud has a poem under title Evil,there is two version of it:

 Evil

        While the red-stained mouths of machine guns ring
        Across the infinite expanse of day;
        While red or green, before their posturing King,
        The massed battalions break and melt away;

        And while a monstrous frenzy runs a course
        That makes of a thousand men a smoking pile-
        Poor fools! - dead, in summer, in the grass,
        On Nature's breast, who meant these men to smile;

        There is a God, who smiles upon us through
        The gleam of gold, the incense-laden air,
        Who drowses in a cloud of murmured prayer,

        And only wakes when weeping mothers bow
        Themselves in anguish, wrapped in old black shawls-
        And their last small coin into his coffer falls.

 Another version of this poem:

 The Evil

        While the grapeshot red spittles
        Whistle all day through blue-sky infinity;
        While, near the King who mocks at them,
        Scarlet or green battalions crumble all together in the fire;

        While a dreadful madness grinds,
        And makes a smoking heap of a hundred thousand men;
        — Poor dead! In the summer, in the grass, in your joy,
        Nature! O! You who saintlily made these men!... —

        — There is a God, who laughs at damask altar-cloths,
        At incense, at great gold chalices;
        Who dozes off at hosannas lullaby,

        And wakes up, when the mothers, crouched
        In anguish, and crying beneath their old black bonnets,
        Give Him a big coin tied up in their handkerchief!

 Lautreamont(Le Comte de Lautreamont) was the pseudonym of Isodore Ducasse. He was born in Montevideo, France in 1846 and died in 1870 of mysterious circumstances. He wrote the hallucinatory book Maldoror in 1868,which got regarded as a masterpiece by Dadaists and Surrealists.Lautreamontism as a name observed and summarized by Philosopher Gaston Bachelard charactered and summed up in "will to attack",a character of beast(animal),or as "the phenomenology of pure aggression",Lautreamont's Maldoror full of descriptions of predatory best with claws rip and rend victims apart.A brief summary about this from Stroud written as

 "Bachelard sees a similarity between an animal and the human psyche - the human is as eager to strike out as is the animal in the jungle to seize its prey. Animal cruelty slashes its victim blindly, ignores all prior relationship, invalidates previous feelings. In like manner human cruelty returns us to the gratuitous animal gesture. Whenever we hate, the animal emerges: 'in the tiniest of hatreds there is a little, live, animal filament."

 In Lautreamont's self expression from Maldoror,"TrueWill" as promordial and natural got identified as cruelty of bestial way, which opposed to the spiritual, "For my part, I use my genius to depict the delights of cruelty: delights which are not transitory or artificial..."because they are primordial and natural. "Cannot genius be allied with cruelty in the secret resolutions of providence? Or, can one, being cruel, not have genius?" ,a kind of TrueWill,one type of cruelty or beastial got seens as the primordial will,inside this will there is an identity of those "hellish astral entities",which considered as the predatory instincts of old long buried but always waiting to emerge. Such evoking got conceived by Lautreamont in his writing about dogs :

 "[...] driven wild, break their chains and escape from distant farms. They run all over the countryside, a prey to madness...their prolonged howls fill nature with dread. And then, woe to the belated traveler! These graveyard fiends will seize upon him, will tear him to pieces and eat him, their mouths dripping blood; for they have sound teeth... like those dogs, I feel the need for the infinite." This infinite hosted with such a primordial will of animal and evil,or subconscious forces.

 Thus in Rimbaud and his torture of reason,what Jacques proposed got more clear and spring out its meanings, "Man can overturn the ontological fit of his Dasein and disjoint it,thus to man that is reserved the dubious privilege of being able to fall lower than the animal…the ground of evil thus resides in the primordial will of the primary base."

 Can we say Rimbaud and Lautreamont are comrade of George Trakl in France?

 Summarize the way of Rimbaud,Lautreamont used to reach to the primordial of the primary base,as torture of spirit, there are some as :

 Derangement of the senses,using poisons(drugs,alcohol,sleep deprevation),destroy reason, reach to brink of mania, uniting all dualities,invoking the divine madness that one finally "sees", to divest himself of every kernel of his known personality,enormous suffering,thus can see Rimbaud torture his own spirit to reach a poet,he used "born poet",such a poet need to arrive "divine" insight of demonic evil,such a poet is a pagan poet different than Holderlin,there is another “fremd”,another fremding inside the spirit such as come from outside,and a circule or haunting effects.

 As Jacques Derrida proposed,the "The degradation of the spiritual into the "rational," "intellectual," "ideological" is indeed what Heidegger was condemning in 1935." And reminded the negative approaches to the essence of spirit, as Geist neither Christian Geistlichkeit,nor Platonic-metaphysical Geistigkeit,reminding that "evil as a torment of spirit".There are many torment or torture the dark Poet used to reach their divine insight,where demonic evil ghostly haunting and slips into spirit's monologue,which makes the poet looks like a self-torment. Actually we know from these literatures and these poets, except the lacanthropy from disease and demonic possessions, there also lycanthropy or metamorphosis from self-torment.Certain Man made such a decision to fall lower than animals,and become a monster,and where evil inhabit on the primordial wills,its interesting and reminding or warning to see some details of their primordial will:

 For Rimbaud,these primordial will,express themselves as blasphemy,degradation,perversion and violence, destroying reason, invoking the divine madness,subconscious forces,cruelty,genius cruelty,bestial way,sacrificial alter,

 These poet can feel something via their attack or rituals,evil coming out via their primordial wills,inhabited hide inside it,and has a motivity,such as from a Sex Magick ritual,which described in Michael Bertiaux's incredible Voudon Gnostic Workbook:

 "Those demons began to come more and more to the surface, those very primitive beings, which are normally hidden deep within the animal nature of humanity, they were slowly coming to where "I" was, to where the ego had its reign. Slowly, and with a most astonishing viciousness, they heatedly began to surface. Slowly, they cried out to be fed, those base babes, animal pups and cubs, those primitive parts of my world, and your own which most if not all have forgotten about, under normal circumstances, now these were pressing in on me and slowly, they were coming more and more to where I was and I was feeling them and hearing them. Their cries and growls, the brushing of their bodies against me, and then they are there."([8]).

 Such a poet,such a sensation,such desire,just as smart as Jacques described when quote Schelling about the term Sucht,"This evil is inscribed in desire,and,like desire itself,it carries in it a motivity,an 'adversed mobility'(gegenwendige Bewegtheit):go out of oneself and return into oneself(Schelling...p.150[p.125]).The evil of this Sehnsucht which gives the impulsion to go out of oneself in order to return to oneself,or to return to onself so as to go out of oneself,is the essence of spirit of which Holderlin speaks as poet."In spirit,"says Heidegger,'there reigns the nostalgia for its own essence.' "

 "This very cruelty implies humanity.It is directed at a fellow[un semblable],even in a being of another species."

 ..."where Lacan is on the side of a certain common sense,according to which the beast,ignorant of the Law,is not free,neither responsible nor culpable,cannot transgress a Law it does not know,cannot be held to be criminal.A beast never commits a crime and is never in infraction of the law.Which means that Crime,as transgression of the Law,would be proper to man.With Law and Crime,man begins."...([25])

Jacques Derrida.Marie-Louise Mallet,Geoffrey Bennington.

 When discuss Rousseau's([27]) Confessions,where Derrida sensed and noticed a Rousseau decidedly obsessed by wolves at least twice more in this Confession,"that's his thing,wolves,ça le regarde[that's his thing:literally "that looks at him"],the wolves look at him,like the Wolf Man,and I've already counted in Rousseau six or seven appearances of the wolf or the werewolf,like the Wolf Man who feels he is being looked at by six or seven wolves on the walnut-tree or his genelycological tree.The wolves,ça le regarde"([26])

 As for the word "lycanthropy," which appears in this passage,a note in the Pléiade edition makes it clearer by referring to the Dictionary of the Academie[francaise] of the time,1762:"Lycanthropy:mental illness in which the patient imagines he turned into a wolf."But the editor adds:"But here it would rather be the mental state of a man who if full of hatred,cruel[my emphasis,J.D.],enraged like a wolf."

 These madness,these subconscious,these primordial wills,express them in the symptoms of a disease,such clinical observations of "the patient",according to a professional researcher of lycanthropy,the people who claimed to be suffering from Lycanthrope has many symptoms of the following:

 "1.conscisousness transformation: which means altered states of consciousness,(transformation into the fur,voice,posture of wolves.)
 2.alienation:alienation from themselves and from human society(frequenting cemeteries,woods,isolated areas)
 3.acute physiological stress and anxiety;
 4.bestial compulsions(wolvish sexual positions, appetite for raw flesh)
 5.obsession with the demonic(evil eye,invasion of the body by the devil,satanism)."([9]).

 According to Kathyryn A.Edwards,for the characters of lycanthropia disease registration traced to some early source,such as Aetius's On Melancholy which written in the late fifth century."There he describes a disease called lycanthopia or 'wolves fury' that incorporates many of the characteristics associated with werewolfism in early mordern Europe albeit without the actual,physical transformation;the afflicted disturbs graves,eats bones,suffers from thirst,has a hollow,haggard appearance,and even howls"([11]).
 There are many cures to lycanthropy found from many legends. In many German legends the cure is an “exorcism” that involves a carved circle,candles,mixing ingredients, and the repetition of the words "Foul spirit release this persons' soul, return to the great unknown!"
 Another popular means of protection is water. This can be based upon the relation of lycanthropy and hydrophobia, since a real canid who is affected by this disease fears water. Thus the drinking of salt water and splashing the werewolf with holy water is known to get rid of the curse.
 The other possible methods of curing lycanthropy include: drawing 3 drops of blood, addressing the werewolf three times with a Christian name, and saluting the werewolf with the sign of the cross.

 Time passing by,recently in the 21st-century,the medical condition that lycanthrope represented is now called as "clinical lycanthropy",this lycanthropy is now have been considered as the most popular form of therianthropy,this clinical lycanthropy,has been redefined as a specific type of schizophrenia, Its so interesting clinical lycanthropy got considered as a specific type of schizophrenia, and a most popular form of therianthropy,or a metamorphosis of humans into other animals,a type of Schizophrenia,the question here is about the definition of name meanings of Schizophrenia,could that simply and easily can be understood as a "divide of spirit",at least modern doctors believe that lycanthropes suffer from any or all of these disorders: schizophrenia, hysterical neurosis, manic depressive psychosis and psychomotor epilepsy.

 There is a record,or a A Case of Lycanthropy got recorded on The American Journal of Psychiatry Vol. 134, No. 10. October 1977,which reported by Dr.Harvey Rostenstock, M.D. and Kenneth R. Vincent, Ed.D.,this case report got quoted following as its original text:

Case Report

 A 49-year-old married woman presented on an urgent basis for psychiatric evalution because of delusions of being a wolf and "feeling like an animal with claws." She suffered from extreme apprehension and felt that she was no longer in control of her own fate: she said, "A voice was coming out of me." Throughout her 20-year marriage she experienced compulsive urges towards bestiality, lesbianism, and adultery.

 The patient chronically ruminated and dreamed about wolves. One week before her admission, she acted on these ruminations for the first time. At a family gathering, she disrobed, assumed the female sexual posture of a wolf, and offered herself to her mother. This episode lasted for approximately 20 minutes. The following night, after coitus with her husband, the patient suffered a 2-hour episode, during which time she growled, scratched, and gnawed at the bed. She stated that the devil came into her body and she became an animal. Simultaneously, she experienced auditory hallucinations. There was no drug involvement or alcoholic intoxication.

 Hospital course. The patient was treated in a structured inpatient program. She was seen daily for individual psychotherapy and was placed on neuroleptic medication. During the first 3 weeks, she suffered relapses when she said such things as "I am a wolf of the night; I am a wolf woman of the day...I have claws, teeth, fangs, hair... and anguish is my prey at night...the gnashing and snarling of teeth...powerless is my cause, I am what I am and will always roam the earth long after death...I will continue to search for perfection and salvation.

 She would peer into a mirror and look frightened because her eyes looked different: "One is frightened and the other is like the wolf--it was dark, deep, and full of evil, and full of revenge of the other eye. This creature of the dark wanted to kill." During these periods, she felt sexually aroused and tormented. She experienced strong homosexual urges, almost irresistable zoophilic drives, and masturbatory compulsions--culminating in the delusion of a wolflike metamorphosis. She would gaze into the mirror and see "the head of a wolf in place of a face on my own body--just a long-nosed wolf with teeth, groaning, snarling, growling...with fangs and claws, calling out "I am the devil." Others around her noticed the unintelligible, animal-like noises she made.

 By the fourth week she had stabilized considerably, reporting, "I went and looked into a mirror and the wolf eye was gone." There was only other short-lived relapse, which responded to reassurance by experienced personnel. With the termination of that episode, which occurred on the night of a full moon, she wrote what she experienced: "I don't intend to give up my search for (what) I lack...in my present marriage...my search for such a hairy creature. I will haunt the graveyards...for a tall, dark man that I intend to find." She was discharged during the ninth week of hospitalization on neuroleptic medication.

 Psychological data. On the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, the patients performance showed normal intellect; the subscale configuration was devoid of behavioral correlates associated with organicity, as was the Bender Motor Gestalt Test. On the Holtzman Ink Blot Technique, the performance was indicative of an acutely psychotic schizophrenic with distorted body image and gross sexual preoccupation. The Lovinger Sentence Completion Blank was corroborative. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory was interpreted as showing an acute schizophrenic reaction with evidence of obsessional thinking, marked feelings of inferiority, and excessive needs for attention and affection."([22])

The American Journal of Psychiatry Vol. 134, No. 10. October 1977

 ...And there is still appears existence of archetype in modern Babylon, Iraq area until recent years,8 cases got reported diagnosis was severe depressive disorder with psychotic symptoms which proved Lycanthropy delusion existence recently([23]).

 According to some analysis report devoted under title Howling at the Moon: Modern-day Lycanthropy,which registered a seminal study on lycanthropy from the famous McLean Hospital (temporary residence of both mathematician John Nash and poet Sylvia Plath) reported on a series of cases and proposed some diagnostic criteria by which lycanthropy could be recognised:

 1.A patient reports in a moment of clarity or looking back the he sometimes feels as an animal or has felt like one.

 2.A patient behaves in a manner that resembles animal behaviour, for example crying, grumbling or creeping.

 Some brief conclusion made under this modern analysis that "According to these criteria, either a delusional belief in current or past transformation, or behaviour that suggests a person thinks of themselves as transformed, is considered evidence of clinical lycanthropy. The authors go on to note that although the condition seems to be an expression of psychosis there is no specific diagnosis of mental or neurological illness associated with its behavioural consequences. ",some further study on this routine proposed a judgement togethor disclose a clear evidence of an organic origin of the syndrome,which propose below:

One important factor may be differences or changes in parts of the brain known to be involved in representing body shape. A brain scanning study of two people with lycanthropy showed that these areas display unusual activation, suggesting that when people report their bodies are changing shape, they may be genuinely perceiving those feelings. Body shape distortions are not unknown in mental and neurological illness, so this may help explain at least part of the process. One further puzzle is why an affected person doesn't simply report that their body "feels like it's changing in odd ways", rather than presenting with a delusional belief that they are changing into a specific animal. There is much evidence that psychosis is more than just odd perceptual experiences so perhaps lycanthropy is the result of these unusual bodily experiences being understood by an already mixed-up mind.([29])

Howling at the Moon: Modern-day Lycanthropy

  (right photo is about Sergei Pankejeff:the "Wolf Man" (right) and his family in Odessa.)

 In a famous writing,The Wolf Man's Magic Word,Prof.Abraham and Torok argues a case,that case Dr.Freud failed,that Freud failed or unable to cure his famous Wolf Man patient,Sergei Pankeiev(or Sergei Pankejeff),because the latter had formed a crypt,a radically other locus of subjectivity that could not be opened by the instrument of language.Because the encrypted subject was not bound by language in the ordinary sense of the term(Paneiev,according to the authors,had created a secret and absolutely singular idiom),he was not restricted by its finitudes.The Wolf Man was not mortal: he was incapable,according to the authors,of dying.

 What is the problems of Freud's Wolf Man patient met,his problem comes from a dream:

  The image left is a drawing of Sergei’s recurring dream: hearing cacophonous howling outside his window, Sergei crept to the glass, only to see a thousand wolves perched like lithe, light sparrows on the outstretched branches of a dead tree. They stared in at him accusingly with shimmering eyes. authors,of dying.

 Freud's basic viewpoint on this case is believed the dream stemmed from an experience Sergei had at 18 months, witnessing his mother and father having sex.

 For the patient Wolf Man,his dream of "six or seven" white wolves on a tree,which crack a crypt.Prof.Abraham and Maria Torok got some interesting findings,which suggested the Russian word for window,okno,hinges upon a similar word for "'eye',that is oko or otch,the root for its inflected forms"(Wolf Man's 33),it marks both a transition from organ(eye) to apparatus(window),or cinematic apparatus(lens),and displays the method by which cryptonyms enter into the bodies of other words,as Prof.Abraham and Maria Torok comment on the secret word which determine the crypt:"The key word,no doubt unutterable for some reason,and unknown for the moment,would have to be polysemic,expressing multiple meanings through a single phonetic structure.One of these would remain shrouded,but the other,or several other meanings now equivalent,would be stated through distinct phonetic structures,that is,through synonyms.To make our conversation about this easier,we would call them cryptonyms(words that hide) because of their allusion to a foreign and arcane meaning."(Wolf Man's 18).

 As in brief,this case Prof.Abraham and Torok spent about five years to investigate the patient's Verbier,and developed an explanation of the mechanisms that produced the Wolf Man's secret world and its predominant modes of concealment,and call this which talking cure short-circuited as the Wolf Man's crypt.As they seems recognized an undermining defense mechanism which in the Freudian model the splitting of the ego(a process normally associated with libidinal development),which Freud not recognized:If the subject loses an object which is indispensable in the early organization of the psyche,or if the idealized relationship with this object is threatened,the object may be "incorporated" into the ego,meaning that the subject presumes the object itself,rather than the words that represent the object,to have been completely internalized.

 Or there is a symbiotic partner? no joke,i am not so pleased and think so easily as some clinical doctors to define a Schizophrenia,if with no questions of the legacy of Cartesian.

 For most post-modernist critical theory,the era Descartes begans is coming to an end and the time has come to hear voices again,that epoch or era is a whole tradition of discourse about man has taken the self as a conscious subject,the era is terminated by the rise of structuralist and deconstructionist methodologies,as in the Cartesian sense,the ego is predator,truth is determined and validated by certainty,and certainty in turn is located in the ego,the self becomes the hub of reality and relates to the world outside itself in an exploratory,necessarily exploitative way,as knower and user,the ego is predator.When this era comes to an end,as Mr.Lavery declared the findings of structuralist such as Levi-Strauss,that

 "once the conscious subject is deprived of its role as source of meaning---once meaning is explained in terms of conventional systems which may escape the grasp of the conscious subject---the self can no longer be identified with consciousness.It is "dissolved" as its functions are taken up by a variety of impersonal systems that operate through it.The human sciences,which began by making man an object of knowledge,find,as their work advances,that "man" disappears under structural analysis."The goal of the human sciences," writes Levi-Strauss,"is not to constitute man but to dissolve him"(La Pensee sauvage,p.326).Michel Foucault argues in Les Mots et choses that man is only a recent invention,a figure not yet two centuries old,a simple fold in our knowledge,and that he will disappear as soon as that knowledge has found a new form."

 "...Ventriloquist:One who hath an evil spirit speaking from his belly or one that can by use and practice speech as it were out of his belly."

Blount's Dictionary(1688).

 "Ventriloquism,in the original use of the word,means 'speaking from the belly,'for which reason those possessed by prophetic spirits were known as ventriloquist.By ancient accounts the voice of the spirit seemed to come from deep in the abdomen or 'armpit' and was base and guttural.This is a genuine phenomenon unaffected by culture or time(see Isaiah 29:4).Oesterreich writes:
 The second characteristic which reveals change of personality is closely related to the first:it is the voice.At the moment when the countenance alters,a more or less changed voice issues from the mouth of the person in the fit.The new intonation also corresponds to the character of the new individuality manifesting itself in the organism and is conditioned by it.In particular the top register of the voice is displaced;the feminine voice is transformed into a bass one,for in all the cases of possession which it has hitherto been my lot to know the new individuality was a man.(Oesterreich[1921] 1974,1:2:19-20)"

The Three Books of Occult Philosophy-BOOK III,p.512.Written by Henry Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim,translated by James Freake,edited and annotated by Donald Tyson..

  "the incorporated dead,[meaning that which one has not managed to assimilate through introjection and which] continues to lodge there like something other and to ventrilocate through the 'living'."

Jacques Derrida,"Roundtable on Autobiography",p.57~8

 According to Lavery,The Ventriloquist,the history of ventriloquism is in fact almost inseparable from a history of inspiration.And actually "belly speaking" as the literal original Greek meaning of the word was practiced extensively through serpents in antiquity,and the tendency of the ancients to be inspired by transpersonal voices was certainly no mystery:Delphi,Dodona,the Hebrew Baal-Obh,all were the contrived results of adept ventriloquists.And dangerous,as St.Clement ever spoke of "the ventriloquist-demon" as the "worst and most abandoned of all demons." And the Catholic Church denounced ventriloquism as one of the three central pillars of witchcraft,as famously known in 16th century Elizabeth Barton was executed for her ventriloquism for her unwisely used to denounce Henry VIII's marriage to Anne Boelyn before a crowd of thousands.And scholar Lavery proposed his vivid finding after examining the inspiration and ventriloquism then concluded the beneathed reason why ventriloquism got feared,"As the voice of the belly,ventriloquism is to be feared as representing the body rather than the mind---the interests of bodily functions,eating,sex,excretion as opposed to rationality.",and verbalizing the ventriloquist's "body voice," the dummy speaks the repressed:"whereas the head-voice[of the ventriloquist] speaks the society's polite language,the body-voice speaks more sincere,personal,and unguarded language,a language no longer watched over by the conscious mind",and saw the ventriloquism experiencing a resurgence([17]).

 Once and for a while,these what we can evoked or sensed as "evil spirit or evil breaths",one the one side,evil to the prevailing philosophical order,as Tim Gough mentioned in a related article([18]),these no being,no existence but pure intensities defined only in their difference to one another,these evil breaths,which prior to any notion of being or fixity or origin,from which being can be distilled,no "self" as "of the order of the Antichrist" which ever questioned and raised by Deleuze,Can be traced to the great historic division between the pre-enlightenment centering of the infinite divine being and the Kantian substitution of it by the finite self.And as the self can only exist by virtue of God,and in this respect the enlightenment fools itself as to its own true footing:"As long as we maintain the formal identity of the self,doesn't the self remain subject to a divine order,and to a unique God who is its foundation?Klossowski insists that God is the sole guarantor of the identity of the self and of its substantive base...One cannot conserve the self without also holding onto God",actually the footing of the enlightment is Not True,or it is not what the enlightment thinks it to be."It is not true in the sense that the footing is nothing other than non-footing,nothing other than intensities,movements,rhythms from the beginning,breaths from the beginning,heterogeneous origin,that which differs in itself,differance or counter-turn at the beginning.", and this kind of AntiChrist belief,or these enlightenment positions which hold a belief that God is a delusion togethor with belief in identity and self security which based on the destruction of God.

 Where finally such a legal proposition of the subject raised out.Accordingly symmetrically,the subject as an illness has some figure or symptoms if judged by autoimmunity of Derrida and Jean-Luc Nancy([19]),that case (1).from Nietzsche's philosopher-physiologist view,the symptoms constitute a veritable "pathology of effects",of which on one hand,the historical and speculative problem of nihilism on the one hand,and the fundamental problematic of the subject as a "fiction",and the subject finally got considered as a prosthesis("an artificial limb,an artifice,which masks an ultimate absense(nihil).");case (2).and in Jacques Lacan's structural linguistics reworking of Freudian metapsychology with contemporary culture background,the symptom is reconfigured as a radically meaningless knot of "jouissance"(or excess enjoyment) which structure a subject's psychic life,which associated with the disturbing materiality of the drive.This was revised by Lacan in his 24th seminar entitled "Le Sinthome".case (3).Deleuze and Guattari provide a virtual instruction manual in the book Capitalism and Schizophrenia,for radical self-(de)construction with employing the figure of the hypochondriac,and a practice autoimmune self-immunization against organization,signification and subjectification. Whereas case (4).When Foucault made his "diagnosis of the present"(which means our knowledge,our power relations,our selves) with his genealogy as a diagnostic method to excavates the nonsubjective structure of intelligibility operating below the level of conscious thought(the structure's epistemes,problematizations and the logic of both),and considering psychoanalysis in the background and history of will to know.

 When professor Nicolas Royle discuss some related matter,he proposed that oddness of what could be called modernity since its beginning,haunting defines the very beginning of the project of the Enlightenment,and uncanny became unplaceable since the period 18th century,as he quoted Mladen Dolar's description that:"There is a specific dimension of the uncanny that emerges with modernity...[I]n premodern societies the dimension of the uncanny was largely covered (and veiled) by the area of the sacred and untouchable.It was assigned to a religiously and socially sanctioned place...With the triumph of the Enlightenment,this privileged and excluded place(the exclusion that founded society) was no more.That is to say that the uncanny became unplaceable;it became uncanny in the strict sense."(see.The uncanny,1.the uncanny:an introduction,p.22.),Royle suggested that uncanny is a key to understand both modernity and so-called postmodernity,and Prof.Jacques Derrida was recognized and reconsidered by Royle again since Prof.Sarah Kofman recognized him as an Uncanny Philosopher as early at 1984([56]).

 Where ontology,or classical ontology,the dialectically constituted ontology which drawing the boundaries of is-ness itself by drawing definitive distinctions between being and non-being,presence and absence,me and you,the living and the dead,here and there,now and then,etc.Where Derrida launched his famous pseudo-logic of haunting perpetual exceeding of the onto-logic of binary opposition.And remind where the entirety of the philosophical,literary,and theological heritage is haunted([20]),a precede of hauntologie over ontologie both conditions and disrupts could be conceived as a historical facts,where Derrida ever quoted Karl Marx's repeated disavowal of Stirner's exclamation,"Ja,es spukt in der ganzen Welt"("indeed,the whole world is haunted."),where Derrida theorizes the spectral as that which "is neither living nor dead,present nor absent:it spectralizes.It does not belong to ontology,to the discourse on the Being of beings,or to the essence of life or death.It requires,then,that we call it...hauntology"..........

Conversation and Talk with the Ghost?

 Writing's case is grave

Jacques Derrida,Plato's Pharmacy

  the crypt,it is "perhaps itself the contract with the dead."...the "Thing" is necessarily a "crypt effect",not because it is predicated upon the notion of language as the "house" of being in which man "dwells"--these metaphors evoke a particular nostalgia for "home"-but rather upon the understanding of language as being motivated by and/or performative of its ties with the dead as well as being performative of the "subject" as a spectral effect(of the text and thus of writing)...the crypt effect of writing,"what is engaged and bound",may as a contractual aspects of language in terms of indebtedness,inheritance,promise,pledge,and betrothal,all of which imply the phenomenon that the spirit of return in that which is yet to come...a "hauntology"

Jacques Derrida,Fors.xxxviii,xiii

 the dead can often be more powerful than the living......
 What does it mean to follow a ghost?And what if this came down to being followed by it,always,persecuted perhaps by the very chase we are leading?
 could one address oneself in general if already some ghost did not come back?If he [sic] loves justice at least,the "scholar" of the future,the "intellectual" of tomorrow should learn it and from the ghost.He should learn to live by learning not how to make conversation with the ghost but how to talk with him,with her,how to let them speak or how to give them back speech,even if it is in oneself,in the other,in the other in oneself:they are always there,specters,even if they do not exist,even if they are no longer,even if they are not yet.They give us to rethink the "there" as soon as we open our mouths.

Jacques Derrida,Specters 10,176

 
 [Madonna Litta, ca. 1490-91.The Hermitage, St. Petersburg.The Painting by Leonardo da Vinci (Italian, 1452-1519).]

 ......The simulacrum is a force......

Jacques Derrida,Dissemination.

 "The image looks at us,concerns us[L'image nous regarde]"....

FD 199/160.

   "'Darling,'it said":Making a Contract with the Dead.

 Jodey repeated a story written by Stephen King,the story is Pet Sematary,a novel,a written piece,about a young physician named Louis Creed moves from Chicago to a small town in Maine with his wife Rachel,two children Ellie and Gage,their pet cat Church(abbr for Churchill),moved into a large,colonial-style house sits onside of a highway,behind the house in the woods there located the "Pet Sematary" where cats and dogs got buried inside for generations.Local elderly man named Jud Crandall, warns Louis and Rachel about the highway that runs past their house...later,Church got killed by a car then buried by Louis in the Pet Sematary,then returns the next day but different,later his son Gage killed on the same road then buried by Louis firstly in the town cemetery then disintered and buried again in the Micmac burial ground,later Gage returned and killed his own mother and Jud Crandall,then Gage got killed by his father Louis,and Louis buried his returned son Gage and his wife Rachel...and story ending with a waiting,Louis solemnly waiting for Rachel's return,and reflect upon the economy into which he has bought:"What you buy is what you own,and sooner or later what you own will come back to you."......

  Lois waiting in his kitchen...he did not turn around but only looked at his cards as the slow,gritting footsteps approached.He saw the queen of spades.He put his hand on it.
 The steps ended directly behind him.
 Silence.
 A cold hand fell on Louis's shoulders.Rachel's voice was grating,full of dirt.

 "Darling,"it said.

 Reference:
 1:see Specters of Marx.page.4.
 The photo attached with the poem of Tralk comes from "Springtime" by Roberto "ROY" Ercolino.
 2:see Republic.565d.
 3:see Werewolf.by Montague Summers;Kessinger Publishing,2003;ISBN 0766132102,9780766132108.
 4:see ibid.page 2.
 5:see ibid.page 2.
 6:see Monsters and the monstrous: myths and metaphors of enduring evil.By Niall Scott.Publisher Rodopi,2007.ISBN 9042022531, 9789042022539.
 7:see page 7,8,Evil In Modern Thought:An alternative History of Philosophy.Susan Neiman.Princeton University Press.ISBN 0-691-09608-2.
 8:see Voudon Gnostic Workbook.Michael Bertiaux.
 9:see The Lycanthropy Reader.Charlotte Otten.
 10:Stubbe’s trial noticed:"When he was 12 he sold his soul to the devil. He made a pact that he would recruit “lost wanderers,” and in return he would be granted with the powers of a wolf",Werewolf legend originated from the countryside around German town Colongne and Bedburg in 1591. At that time Europe was under the dark shadow of ignorance and superstitions. Towns were underdeveloped and people lived near woods. A few people cornered a wolf and set their dogs upon it. They attacked it with sharp sticks and spears. Surprisingly the ferocious wolf did not run away; it stood up and turned into a middle-aged man. They could recognize the wolf shaped man; he was Peter Stubbe of the same village. This Peter Stubbe was the first werewolf mankind has ever faced with. He had started to practice sorcery when he was only 12 and was so obsessed with it that he even had tried to make a pact with the Devil. Wearing a magic girdle he started to attack his enemies, real or imaginary, for revenge. After several months, he took the guise of a wolf and continued his evil with more brutality. In the wolf form he used to tear up victims’ throats and suck warm blood. Gradually his thirst for blood grew and he roamed around fields in search of prey. The savagery of his crimes was beyond imagination. Stubbe committed the most gruesome crime upon his own son. He took his son to a nearby forest, cracked the poor child’s skull and ate brain. No punishment could match the magnitude of Stubbe’s crime. He was put on the torture wheel, where he confessed 16 murders including two pregnant women and thirteen children, and his flesh was pulled off with red-hot pincer. His arms and legs were broken, and finally he was decapitated. His carcass was burned to ashes. As accessories to his misdeeds, his daughter and mistress were also burnt alive. The words of Stubbe’s trial and execution spread across the lands. His brutality, their ways and atrocity were beyond human experience. His ferocity was readily related with the behavior of wolf. People started to believe that such creatures with the shadow of wolves were living among them. They named them Werewolves.
 11:see Werewolves, witches, and wandering spirits: traditional belief folklore in early modern Europe.Kathryn A. Edwards.Truman State Univ Press, 2002.ISBN.1931112088
 12:see De L'esprit.Jacques Derrida.University of Chicago Press.Where Jacques reminded first time about the universality of spirit when discuss the deconstructible ontology of Geist mentioned then used by Heidegger,in the only note of this chapter,The Philosophy of Spirit,in the Encyclopedia,§378.,where Hegel defines the essence of spirit as liberty and as the capacity,in its formal determination,to support infinite suffering.Jacques thought he must quote this paragraph to anticipate what will be said later about spirit,liberty,and evil for Heidegger:"This is why the essence of spirit if formally liberty,the absolute negativity of the concept as self-identity.According to this formal determination,it can abstract all that is exterior and its own exteriority,its own presence: it can support the negation of its individual immediacy,infinite suffering:that is,conserve itself affirmative in this negation and be identical for itself.This possibility is in itself the abstract universality of spirit,universality which is-for-itself"(§382.);
 ...and his reminding about Spirit as the third element in Glas,that "filiation",that "spirit is the element of the Aufhebung in which the seed returns to the father.",see Glas,p30~31.
 13:As according to Jacques Derrida,"In truth, to the entity as Vorhandene, its Being is not even indifferent(gleichgultig)".
 14:As to Jacques Derrida's discuss focused on the questiong of Being as a substantial identity as subject existing in the form of Vorhandenheit,although any insisting to "protests against the substantiality of the soul, the reification of consciousness, or the objectivity of the person.",this substantial subjectivity and this Vorhandenheit affected spirit itself,such an interpretation of time or vulgar concept of time must be avoided when we speak of spirit,and lead us to understand why Heidegger gives it to say and what does this "existence" means,that "the 'substance' of man is not spirit as a synthesis of the soul and the body but existence"(§25,p.117.).
 15:see Hegel After Derrida,Edited by Stuart Barnett.First published 1998 by Routledge,11 New Fetter Lane,Londong EC4P 4EE.Part I.2.Of Spirit(s) and Will(s),by John H.Smith.p.64-90.John H.Smith is Professor of German at the University of California at Irvine.He is the author of The Spirit and Its Letter:Traces of Rhetoric in Hegel's Philosophy of 'Bildung,' as well as numerous articles on literature and philosophy.In this related article,John gives an excellent discussion about the lecture which Jacques Derrida delivered in 1987,and gives some clever idea and representation of those phamtoms of Derrida's lecture he met and a finding of the will which absent from Glas and got from Derrida's unfolding "legend" of the family and the Spirit,especially that derived from Antigone,and raised out the moment or recall to resurrect the moment of the buried unthoughts from Hegel then Derrida,by John's words,its "beyond the grave of Geist".
 16:see ibid.notes 21.where John Smith give a note explain about this,that "consider the problematic and highly reductive reference to 'the epoch of Cartesian-Hegelian subjectivity'(p.55).Now ,to use Derrida's own game,this could perhaps be in quotes as a citation of a kind of periodization within Heideggerian Seinsgeschichte.But it is not in quotes and, I think, tells us also about Derrida's unnuanced notion of subjectivity".
 17:see Lavery The Ventriloquist,III.The History of Ventriloquism.p7~9.
 18:see Tim Gough Evil spirit:Deleuze,Klossowski,Derrida.
 19:see Chris Lloyd 'Immune disorder is also in order...'- Derrida's (and Nancy's) autoimmunity and the subject(in law)..
 20:see Mary-Jane Rubenstein.Wesleyan University OF GHOSTS AND ANGELS:DERRIDA,KUSHNER,AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF FORGIVENESS,III.Ghostly Disturbances.p.85~87;Jacques Derrida.Specters of Marx
 21:see Jacques Derrida Negotiations:Interventions and Interviews 1971-2001,Stanford University Press,2002.Under title "The Deconstruction of Actuality";Jacques Derrida.Specters of Marx,133.
 22:see Harvey Rostenstock, M.D. and Kenneth R. Vincent, Ed.D. The American Journal of Psychiatry Vol. 134, No. 10. October 1977A Case of Lycanthropy.http://www.primitivism.com/index.html
 23:see Younis AA, Moselhy HF.Department of Psychiatry and Behaviours Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, UAE University, Al Ain, UAE.Lycanthropy alive in Babylon: the existence of archetype.Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2009 Feb;119(2):161-4; discussion 164-5. Epub 2008 Dec 4.,PMID: 19076114.Which reported as "OBJECTIVE: Lycanthropy is the belief in the capacity of human metamorphosis into animal form. It has been recorded in many cultures. Apart from historic description of lycanthropy, there has been several case reports described in the medical literature over the past 30 years. METHOD: We identified eight cases of lycanthropy in 20 years, mainly in the area of Babylon, Iraq. RESULTS: The most commonly reported diagnosis was severe depressive disorder with psychotic symptoms. The type of animal that the patients changed into were mainly dogs (seven cases) and only one case changed into a cow for the first time to report. CONCLUSION: Lycanthropy delusion is a rare delusion but appears to have survived into modern times with possible archetypal existence."
 24:see Glas page.91.,when Jacques Derrida discuss about Jesus resembles Moses,and that question of the destiny of Christianity,and the Hegelian reading of Christianity,that "...No doubt the memory of the rotting body was first effaced in the intuition of the glory,but it has returned,was insistent,to the very extent the split continued its work.The dead body resting there in the interminable decomposition of relics,the spirit never raises itself high enough,it is retained as a kind of effluvium,of gas fermenting above the corpse.A kind of weight "draw{s}" it "down to earth(ihn zur Erde zieht),"...", and De L'esprit.beginning of X,p99.
 25:see The beast & the sovereign,University of Chicago Press.Nov.2009.ISBN:0226144283.By Jacques Derrida, Marie-Louise Mallet, Geoffrey Bennington; FOURTH SESSION.January 23,2002.Page.141.101.102,103.
 26:see The beast & the sovereign.FOURTH SESSION.January 23,2002.Page.143~146.
 27:Jean-Jacques Rousseau, (June 28, 1712 – July 2, 1778) was a philosopher of the Enlightenment whose political ideas influenced the French Revolution, the development of both liberal and socialist theory, and the growth of nationalism. With his Confessions and other writings, he practically invented modern autobiography and encouraged a new focus on the building of subjectivity that would bear fruit in the work of thinkers as diverse as Hegel and Freud. His novel Julie, ou la nouvelle Héloïse was one of the best-selling fictional works of the eighteenth century and was important to the development of romanticism. Rousseau also made important contributions to music both as a theorist and a composer.for more,see http://www.biographicon.com
 28:Jacques talked:"He[Marx/Derrida/me?] has recognized someone who,like him,appears obsessed by ghosts and by the figure of the ghost and by its names with their troubling consonance and reference(Geist,Gespenst).Someone who is besieged,like him,by the same and by another,by the same that is each time another,because the identity of the ghost is precisely the 'problem'...I am describing then this feeling:that of a Marx obsessed,haunted,possessed like/as Stirner,and perhaps more than him,which is even harder to take.",see Specters.page.139-140
 29:see Specters of Marx.somewhere.
 30:see Specters of Marx.2.conjueing-marxism,page 75.Published by Routledge at 1994,English Translation,translated by Peggy Kamuf.Originally published in French as Spectres de Marx,Editions Galilee,1993.
 31:see Specters of Marx.3.wears and tears,page 90~93.What Prof.Jacques Derrida proposed as when talk about the so called deconstruction as some radicalization of marxism,he said:"...But a radicalization is always indebted to the very thing it radicalizes.That is why I spoke of the Marxist memory and tradition of deconstruction,of its Marxist 'spirit'."...Before this supplement explain and before his declare of deconstruction not marxism,Derrida suggested that what radicalization here particular for,that "...Such a deconstruction would have been impossible and unthinkable in a pre-Marxist space."
 31a:see Specters of Marx.these onto-theological or teleo-eschatological program Prof.Derrida raised out under title "conjuration",or "anti-Marxist conjuration"(p.56),which these conjuring forces come into alliance as liberal democracy and free market(p.57),where Marxist ontology based on or "grounding the project of Marxist science...also carries with it and must carry with it,necessarily....a messianic eschatology"(p.59),on the sense of Hegel and Marx as 2 master of the end of history or eschatology,and Fukuyama's synthetic philosopher Hegel-Kojeve and his Last Man,end of man's history as liberal democracy and free market,if there is a count here,maybe 3 or 4 types,Hegel's,Kojeve's,Marx's, and Fukuyama's synthetic transformation of the first two,that is:1.Hegel's,or Hegelian Eschatology,as the "liberal state" and also as a Christian event,as a Christian eschatology(that Hegel invoked "the existence of the State is the coming of God into the world",and "This end of History is essentially a Christian eschatology",where got suggested by Fukuyama as thr postwar America or the European Community,a New-Christian-Holly-Alliance);2.Marx's eschatology,or the communist society;3.Kejeve's eschatology,according to Derrida,Kejeve questioned the American end represents "the ultimate figure of the ultimate",namely the "Hegelian-Marxist end of history as present and not at future",and thinks "the final stage of communism in the postwar United States does indeed,as it must,reduce man to animality";4.Fukuyama's synthetic transformation of the first two,Derrida considered Fukuyama invented some synthetic philosopher named Hegel-Kojeve(p.68),Fukuyama choosed the liberal state as the "end of history".
 32:see Specters of Marx.4.in the name of the revolution,page 110.
 33:see Specters of Marx.5.apparition of the inapparent,page 175.nearly at the end of that address,Prof.Jacques Derrida proposed humanity is a great price,and he seems actually scold Karl Marx instead of praise,"If Marx,like Freud,like Heidegger,like everybody,did not begin where he ought to have 'been able to begin'(beginnen konnen),namely with haunting,before life as such,before death as such,it is doubtless not his fault.The fault,in any case,by definition,is repeated,we inherit it,we must watch over it.It always comes at a great price---an for humanity precisely."
 33a:see Specters of Marx.3.wears and tears.For the 10 plagues,briefly list they are:1.unemployment,2.new experience of identity and frontiers,3.ruthless economic war,4.inability to master the contradictions in the concept,norms,and reality of the free market,5.state of debt,7.nuclear spread,8.inter-ethinic wars which rised from ontopology,9.genealogy of phantom-states,10.international laws and its institutions.For those interpretations of new-Marxists and those anti-Marxists interepretations,Derrida considered their strategy are as:1.those marxists logic means to dissociate from a.any teleology,and from any b.messianic eschatology;He mentioned those interpretations from Althusser surrounds and french Marxists;2.those anti-Marxist interpretations "determine their own emancipatory eschatology by giving it a metaphysical or onto-theological content that is always deconstructible."
 34:see Specters of Marx.4.in the name of the revolution,page 106.And Baron Johann Ludwig von Westphalen (11 July 1770 – 3 March 1842) was a liberal government official, Prussian aristocrat with Scottish heritage, and a friend and mentor of Karl Marx.the Friend of lawyer Heinrich Marx,Karl Marx's father,Ludwig wfirst introduced Marx to the socialist teachings of Saint-Simon.Marx's dissertation was dedicated to Ludwig.In 1842 Marx was present at the deathbed of Ludwig von Westphalen.He died on March 3 1842 in Trier.Jenny and Karl became married in 1843, a year after Ludwig's death.
 35:see Specters of Marx.4.in the name of the revolution,page 107.Derrida noted,that "A little later,in fact.The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte deploys once again,on the same frequency,something like a spectropolitics and a genealogy of ghosts,more precisely a patrimonial logic of the generations of ghosts.Marx never stops conjuring and exorcising there."
 36:see Specters of Marx.4.in the name of the revolution,page 107~116.at page 112,Derrida noted:"...Marx then accumulates the examples of this rhythmic anachrony.He analyzes its pulses and impilsions.He takes pleasure in it,the pleasure of repetition,...And he is listening to a revolutionary frequency.In regular bursts,the latter alternates conjuration and abjuration of the specters.The great specter of the classical tradition(Rome) is convoked (this is the positive conjuration) so as to allow one to rise to the height of the historic tragedy,but already also so as to hide,in the illusion,the mediocre content of bourgeois ambition.Then,this done,the phantasm is revoked,which is the abjuration;one forgets the ghost as if one were waking up from an hallucination.Cromwell had already spoken the language of the Hebrew prophets.The bourgeois revolution accomplished,the English people prefer Locke to Habakkuk.Then comes the Eighteenth Brumaire and the repetition repeats itself.It is at this point that Marx intends to distinguish between the spirit(Geist) of the revolution and its specter(Gespenst),as if the former did not already call up the latter,as if everything,and Marx all the same recognizes this himself,did not pass by way of differences within a fantastic as general as it is irreducible.Far from organizing the good schematics of a constitution of time,this other transcendental imagination is the law of an invincible anachrony..."
 37:see Specters of Marx.4.in the name of the revolution,page 116.
 38:see Book of Addresses.by.Peggy Kamuf,2005.Stanford University Press.Original Printing 2005.under title $13.The Haunts of Scholarship.p.238.Peggy Kamuf is the Marion Frances Chevalier Professor of French and Comparative Literature at the University of South California.
 39:see Specters of Marx.4.in the name of the revolution,p.96~97.from the start,Derrida mentioned that key note about that Address,where he said:"...the logic of the key in which I hope to orient this keynote address was one of a politico-logic of trauma and a topology of mourning.A mourning....between introjection and incorporation....Mourning always follows a trauma....It is work itself,work in general.",then he listed 3 major traumas on human narcissisim,these included:1.psychological trauma,2.biological trauma,3.cosmological trauma. Where whe listing discover of these traumas,Prof.Derrida mentioned Freud and Darwin, but seem forget or maybe in hurry not mentioned Prof.Nicolas Abraham and Maria Torok.
 40:see Specters of Marx.4.in the name of the revolution,p.98.Derrida talked of specters of Marx in an uncanny attitude,and talked about those revenants who Marx does not knew their secrets,then how dare Marx?"But the specters of Marx come one stage from the other side.They are named according to the other path of the genitive--and this other grammar says more than gramma.The specters of Marx are also his.They are perhaps first of all the ghosts that inhabited him,the revenants with which Marx himself will have been occupied,and which he will have wanted in advance to make his thing;which does not mean that he knew their secrets,nor even that he thematized in his turn the obsessive recurrence of what would be a theme if one could say of the revenant that it lets itself be posed there,exposed before you,as a theme or a system,a thesis or a synthesis ought to do.All of these values are disqualified by the specter,if there is any."Actually Derrida was talking some huanted condition of Prof.Marx.
 41:see Specters of Marx.4.in the name of the revolution,p.102-103.Derrida cautions when explain that specter's history and its time,he talked:"There is no Dasein of the specter,but there is no Dasein without the uncanniness,without the strange familiarity(Unheimlichkeit) of some specter.What is a specter?What is its history and what is its time?",the party(communist party) Derrida thinks from Marx's point view,it is a manifestation of that specter,or the real presence of that specter.He recognized that:"...But it must also manifest itself in the form of a manifesto that will be the Manifesto of a party.",Derrida thinks Marx declared the end of the spectral with that party,but his caution and hypothesis here would be critical for future considering on this,instead Derrida thinks it mutation just begun there."The universal Communist Party,the Communist International will be,said the Manifesto in 1848,the final incarnation,the real presence of the specter,thus the end of the spectral."
 42:see Specters of Marx.4.in the name of the revolution,Derrida pointed out that asymmetrical structure of love between Ghost and Marx,that "...More than others,perhaps,Marx had ghosts in his head and knew without knowing what he was talking about("Mensch,es spukt in deinem Kopfe!" one might say to him in a parody of Stirner.)But for this very reason he also did not love the ghosts he loved.And who loved him---and observed him from beneath the visor."(p.106)
 43:see Specters of Marx.4.in the name of the revolution,p.109.Prof.Derrida proposed:"The specter weighs[pese],it thinks [pense],it intensifies and condenses itself within the very inside of life,within the most living life,the most singular(or,if one prefers,individual) life."
 44:see Specters of Marx.4.in the name of the revolution,p.116.Derrida identified and described that red specter with a very funny style,he proposed a parody and a caricature of that specter,it said:"It would,...necessary to cite more examples of this implacable anachrony in the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte....This time it is a matter in effect of a parody of the specter itself.A revolution begins itself to caricature the 'red specter' that the counter-revolutionaries did everything to conjure(away)....The supplementary fold that matters to us here is the one that regularly assures the reflexive return of a conjuration:those who inspire fear frighten themselves,they conjure the very specter they represent."
 45:see Specters of Marx.5.apparition of thew inapparent,p.131.Prof.Derrida proposed Marx's logic of conjuring:"Marx is very firm:when one has destroyed a phantomaytic body,the real body remains.When the ghostly body(die gespenstige Leibhaftigkeit) of the emperor disappears,it is not the body that disappears,merely its phenomenality,its phantomality(Gespensterbaftigkeit)."
 46:see Specters of Marx.5.apparition of thew inapparent,p.134.Prof.Derrida proposed that technique,"Vertiginous asymmetry:the technique for having visions,for seeing ghosts is in truth a technique to make oneself seen by ghost.The ghost,always,is looking at me",and cases an instruction in the art of seeing spirits,one must transformed into a complete fool first of all.As what Stirner saw and wrote in his address The Ego and Its Own,section titled "the Spook",he mentioned Man,"the longing to make the spook comprehensible,or to realize non-sense,has brought about a corporeal ghost,a ghost or spirit with a real body,an embodied ghost.How the strongest and most talented Christians have tortured themselves to get a conception of this ghostly appartition!But there always remained the contradiction of two natures,the divine and human,o.e.,the ghostly and sensual;there remained the most wondrous spook,a thing that was not a thing.Never yet was a ghost more soul torturing,and no shaman,who pricks himself to raving fury and nerve-lacerating cramps to conjure a ghost,can endure such soul-torment as Christians suffered from that most incomprehensible ghost.....But through Christ the truth of the matter had at the same time come to light,that the veritable spirit or ghost is---man.The corporeal or embodied spirit is just man;he himself is the ghostly being and at the same time the being's appearance and existence.Henceforth man no longer,in typical cases,shudders at ghosts outside him,but at himself; he is terrified at himself.In the depth of his breast dwells the spirit of sin;even the faintest thought(and this is itself a spirit,you know) may be a devil,etc.---The ghost has put on a body,God has become man,but now man is himself the gruesome spook which he seeks to get back of,to exorcise,to fathon,to bring to reality and to speech;man is---spirit.What matter if the body wither,if only the spirit is saved?Everything rests on the spirit,and the spirit's or 'soul's' welfare becomes the exclusive goal.Man has become to himself a ghost,an uncanny spook,to which there is even assigned a distinct seat in the body(dispute over the seat of the soul,whether in the head,etc)"
 47:see Specters of Marx.5.apparition of thew inapparent,p.146.Prof.Derrida suggested,"Marx refers to Feuerbach and to his distinction between ordinary theology,which believes in the ghosts of sensuous imagination,and speculative theology,which believes in the ghost of non-sensuous abstraction.But theology in general is 'belief in ghosts'(Gespensterglaube)."
 48:see Specters of Marx.5.apparition of thew inapparent,actually Prof.Derrida suggested this point several times,when mentioned Capital,Marx's book,he said:"Now,this concept is indeed constructed with reference to a certain haunting.",as to the commodity-thing,or the mystification of the thing itself,Derrida saw Marx saw that the ghost is already taking shape,"the commodity is not so simple",and mentioned a metamorphosis of the wood table into a supernatural thing,attentioned "the commodity is a 'thing' without phenomenon",this should be understood in its supernatural sense.When mentioned the war between commodities,or their competitions,it said:"Facing up to the others,before the others,its fellows,here then is the apparition of a strange creature:at the same time Life,Thing,Beast,Object,Commodity,Automaton---in a word,specter.""the dead-living thins is a Father-Mother",some parthenogenesis.Later when discuss the anthromorphoric projection A and B,of a speech and of a will,Derrida proposed again:"the discourse of Capital on the 'exchange process' opens like a discourse on haunting--and on the laws of its reflection.
 49:about the commodity,attention should be made that he call it as "commodity-thing",which should be understood as to its supernatural sense,or should better be understood as a "comodity-Thing",such like, "The commodity is even very complicated;it is blurred,tangled,paralyzing,aporetic,perhaps undecidable(ein sehr vertracktes Ding).It is so disconcerting,this commodity-thing,that one has to approach it with 'metaphysical' subtlety and 'theological' niceties.Precisely in order to analyze the metaphysical and the theological that constructed the phenomenological good sense of the thing itself,of the immediately visible commodity,in flesh and blood:as what it is 'at first sight'(auf den ewrsten Blick).This phenomenological good sense may perhaps be valid for use-value.",then Derrida mentioned its metamorphosis,the wood table metamorphosed into a supernatural thing,"Coup de theatre:the ordinary,sensuous thing is transfigured(verwandelt sich),it becomes someone,it assumes a figure.This woody and headstrong denseness is metamorphosed into a supernatural thing,a sensuous non-sensuous thing,sensuous but non-sensuous,sensuously supersensible(verwandelt er sich in ein sinnlich Übersinnliches Ding)",Derrida identified certain transcendence here and saw a haunting displaces,he proposed:"Marx does not say sensuous and non-sensuous,or sensuous but non-sensuous;he says:sensuous non-sensuous,sensuously supersensible....The commodity thus haunts the thing,its specter is at work in use-value.This haunting displaces itself like an anonymous silhouette or the figure of an extra[figurante] who might be the principal or capital character.It changes place,one no longer knows exactly where it is,it turns,it invades the stage with its moves:there is a step there and its allure belongs only to this mutant.Marx must have recourse to theatrical language and must describe the apparition of the commodity as a stage entrance(auftritt)."see Specters of Marx.5.apparition of thew inapparent,p.150,149,151,153,155.
 50:about the grant and the exorcise,Derrida proposed that "That the without-ground of this impossible can neverthless take place is on the contrary the ruin or the absolute ashes,the threat that must be thought,and,why not,exorcised yet again.To exorcise not in order to chase away the ghost,but this time to grant them the right...Present existence or essence has never been the condition,object,or the thing [chose] of justice.One must constantly remember that the impossible('to let the dead bury their dead')is,alas,always possible.One must constantly remember that this absolute evil(which is ,is it not,absolute life,fully present life,the one that does not know death and does not want to hear about it) can take place."
 51:about Marx's binding strategy,when Prof.Derrida faced this marxist ontology,he questioned such style which attentioned the bind,and the bind of the bind,of such an ontology,Marxist ontology,with other maybe call it marxist thesis(apparatuese and strategies),he proposed:"For,let us speak as 'good Marxists',the deconstruction of Marxist ontology does not go after only a theoretico-speculative layer of the Marxist corpus but everything that articulate this corpus with the most concrete history of the apparatuses and strategies of the worldwide labor movement"(p.89),such strategies of worldwide labor movement,can it be understood the incarnation of the red specter Marx named during 1847~1848?suggest it,then some difference between Derrida and Marx about the mutation point(Derrida) or spectral end(Marx) may show its significance,this deconstruction Prof.Derrida suggested would be an event maybe,instead of a method or theoritical practice,as he proposed on:"And this deconstruction is not,in the last analysis,a methodical or theoretical procedure.In its possibility as in the experience of the impossible that will always have constituted it,it is never a stranger to the event,that is,very simply,to the coming of that which happens.Certain Soviet philosophers told me in Moscow a few years ago:the best translation of perestroika was still 'deconstruction'."Then Prof.Derrida proposed the guiding thread of ghost,about bind and bind of bind of Marxist ontology,he asked:"For this apparently chemical analysis that will isolate in sum the spirit of Marxism to which one ought to remain faithful by dissociating it from all the other spirits---and one will observe perhaps with a smile that the latter include almost everything---out guiding thread this evening will be precisely the question of the ghost.How did Marx himself treat that ghost,the concept of the ghost,the specter or revenant?How did he determin it?How did he bind it finally,after so many hesitations,through so many tensions and contradictions,to an ontology?What is this attachment of the ghost?what is the bind of this bind,of this ontology,with materialism,the party,the State,the becoming-totalitarian of the State?"(p.89).see Specters of Marx.3.wears and tears.
 52:see Specters of Marx.3.wears and tears.p.89.
 53:see Specters of Marx.5.Apparition and the inapparent.p.114~115.When mentioned the watch over,Prof.Derrida proposed:"Only mortals,only the living who are not living gods can bury the dead.Only mortals can watch over them,and can watch period.Ghosts can do so as well,they are everywhere where there is watching;the dead cannnot do so---it is impossible and they must not do so."..."that the without-ground of this impossible can nevertheless take place is on the contrary the ruin or the absolute ashes."
 54:see Specters of Marx.5.Apparition and the inapparent.p.167.before the question of phantomatic spectrality,Derrida tried to point out 3 points view of such phantomatic spectrality,as for the first one,he saw Marx located some,this is a finding of Derrida,"1.Fetishist phantomaticity in general and its place in Capital.Even before commodity value makes its stage entrance and before the choreography of the wooden table,Marx had defined the residual product of labor as a phantomatic objectivity(gespenstige Gegenstandlichkeit).",some further notes of this from Derrida should be read at page 194.
 54:see "Karl Marx,1818-1883",from The History Guide:Lectures on Modern European Intellectual History.Parts of it described:"That By 1857 he had produced a gigantic 800 page manuscript on capital, landed property, wage labor, the state, foreign trade and the world market. The Grundrisse (or Outlines) was not published until 1941.And why in the early 1860s he broke off his work to compose three large volumes, Theories of Surplus Value, which discussed the theoreticians of political economy, particularly Adam Smith and David Ricardo. It was not until 1867 that Marx was able to publish the first results of his work in volume 1 of Capital, a work which analyzed the capitalist process of production. In Capital, Marx elaborated his version of the labor theory value and his conception of surplus value and exploitation which would ultimately lead to a falling rate of profit in the collapse of industrial capitalism. Volumes II and III were finished during the 1860s but Marx worked on the manuscripts for the rest of his life and they were published posthumously by Engels.",there is a link:http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/marx.html.
 55:see The uncanny,page 78,under title "film",by Nicholas Royle.Manchester University Press,2003.ISNB.9780719055614.
 56:see The uncanny,page 22,24,under title "1.The uncanny:an introduction",by Nicholas Royle.at page 24,Prof.Royle proposed something about deconstruction and its uncanny,that "Deconstruction involves explorations of the surprising,indeed incalculable effects of all kinds of virus and parasite,foreign body,supplement,borders and margins,spectrality and haunting.",at that note 83.he proposed Sarah Kofman's early recognize of Derrida as uncanny philosopher, it reads"By 'deconstruction' I am referrring,in particular,to work by or related to Jacques Derrida.Sarah Kofman was perhaps the first to write at length about Derrida as 'uncanny philosopher'.See 'Un philosophe 'unheimlich' in Kofman,Lectures de Derrida(Paris:Galilee,1984).'"