What does not happen in this anachrony! Perhaps "the time, time itself, precisely, always "our time," the epoch and the world shared among us, ours every day, nowadays, the present as our present. Especially when "things are not going well" among us, precisely Qustement]: when "things are going badly, when it's not working, when things are bad. But with the other, is not this disjuncture, this dis-adjustment of the "it's going badly" necessary for the good, or at least the just, to be announced? Is not disjuncture the very possibility of the other? How to distinguish between two disadjustments, between the disjuncture of the unjust and the one that opens up the infinite asymmetry of the relation to the other, that is to say, the place for justice? Not for calculable and distributive justice. Not for law, for the calculation ofrestitution, the economy of vengeance....Specters of Marx The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning and the New International

economy of FEAR OR ECONOMY oF punishment
(for if Hamlet is a tragedy of vengeance and punishment in
the triangle or circle of an Oedipus who would have taken an
additional step into repression-Freud, Jones, and so forth-one
must still think the possibility of a step beyond repression: there
is a beyond the economy of repression whose law imples it to
exceed itself, of itself in the course of a history, be it the history of
theater or of politics between Oedipus Rex and Hamlet). Not for
calculable equality, therefore, not for the symmetrizing and
synchronic accountability or imputability of subjects or objects,
not for a rendering justice that would be limited to sanctioning,
to restituting, and to doing right, but for justice as incalculability

of the gift and singularity of the an-economic ex-position to
others. "The relation to others-that is to say, justice, writes
Lf~vinas. 18 Whether he knows it or not, Hamlet is speaking in
the space opened up by this question-the appeal of the gift,
singularity, the coming of the event, the excessive or exceeded
relation to the other-when he declares "The time is out of
joint. And this question is no longer dissociated from all those
that Hamlet apprehends as such, that of the specter-Thing and of
the King, that of the event, of present-being, and of what there is to be, or not, what there is to do, which means to think, to make do or
to let do, to make or to let come, or to give, even if it be death.
How does the concern with what there is to be intersect, in order
perhaps to exceed it, with the logic of vengeance or right?
A trajectory that is necessarily without heading and without
assurance. The trajectory of a precipitation toward which trembles,
vibrates, at once orients and disorients itself the question that is
here addressed to us under the name or in the name of justice,
surely a problematic translation of Dike. One of the most sensitive,
though certainly not the only, places today for this Singular
topology would be perhaps Der Spruch des Anaximander. Heidegger
there interprets Dike as joining, adjOining, adjustment, articulation
of accord or harmony, Fug, Fuge (Die Fuge ist der Fug). Insofar
as it is thought on the basis of presence (als Anwesen gedacht Dike harmoniously conjOins, in some way, the joining and the
accord. Adikia to the contrary: it is at once what is diSjOinted,
undone, twisted and out of line, in the wrong of the injust, or
even in the error of stupidity. 19
Let us note in passing that mit Fug und Recht commonly means
"within rights, "rightfully," "rightly" versus "wrongly." The
German equivalent of "out of jOint," in the sense of disarticulated,
dislocated, undone, beside itself, deranged, off its hinges,
disjointed, disadjusted, is aus den Fugen, aus den Fugen gehen. Now,
when Heidegger insists on the necessity of thinking Dike on
this side of, before, or at a distance from the juridical-moral
determinations of justice, he finds in his language, with the
expression "aus den Fugen, the multiple, collected, and suspended
virtualities of "The time is out of joint": something in
the present is not going well, it is not going as it ought to go.
The word a-dikia immediately suggests that dike is absent [wegbleibt]. We are accustomed to translate dike as right
[Recht]. The translations of the fragment [des Spruches, i.e. of
Anaximander] even use "penalties" to translate "right." If we resist our own juridical-moral notions, Uuristich-moralischen
VorstellungenJ, if we restrict ourselves to what comes to language,
then we hear that wherever adikia rules all is not right
with things [dass es, wo sie waltet, nicht mit rechten Dingen
zugehtJ. That means something is out of joint [etwas ist aus
den Fugen]. But of what are we speaking? Of what is present,
lingering awhile [Vomje-weilig Anwesenden].20
It is important to recall here, regarding the translation of
"je-weilig" ("lingering awhile") that Heidegger's meditative
writing no doubt passes through this determination of the present
(Anwesend) as je-weiHg (of the moment, of the epoch, each
time, and so forth), as well as through this indispensable attribution
as Weile (moment, passing moment, lapse of time) or weilen
(to stay, linger, remain). But still more important here appears to
be the interpretation of weilen: a passage, to be sure, and thus by
definition a transitory moment, but whose transition comes AI COMES COMES ....

interpretation of weilen: a passage, to be sure, and thus by
definition a transitory moment, but whose transition comes, if
one can say that, from the future. It has its provenance in what,
by essence, has not yet come-from [provenu], still less come about,
and which therefore remains to come. The passage of this time
of the present comes from the future to go toward the past,
toward the going of the gone [l'en aue] (Das Weilen ist der Ubergang
aus KunEt zu Gang. Das Anwesende ist das Je-weilige).21 Heidegger continues:
"But where are there jointures in what is present? Or
where is there even one jointure  eine Fuge]? How can what
is present [das Anwesende] without jointure be adikan, out of joint
[aus der Fuge],,? One may, as the translator did here, translate
Heidegger, the reader of Anaximander, into the language of
Hamlet: how is it possible, that which is? Namely, how is it

possibLE that the present, and therefore time, be out of joint? TIME OUT OF JOINT ....