This essay offers a speculative account of a third wave of Beckett criticism, emerging at the turn of the current century, one which is dedicated to the articulation of a Beckettian literary politics.

The first two waves of Beckett criticism, the essay suggests, despite their manifest differences, shared a sense that Beckett was in some fundamental sense an apolitical writer. The first wave sees his work as invested in a universal condition, which is resistant to any form of political particularity. The second tended to see his writing as a deconstructive endeavour, one which reveals not an essential human condition, but the groundless of all forms of being.

Both of these waves of criticism, the essay argues, tend to overlook a central dynamic in Beckett’s writing, in which a rejection of forms of reference coincides with a longing, however residual, for forms of political community. The urge towards solitude in Beckett is countered by an equally strong urge towards company, towards shared life. To begin to articulate a Beckettian politics, as part of a third wave of Beckett criticism, it is necessary to develop a critical language that can account at once for Beckett’s negativity – his refusal of political commitments – and for his persistent attachment to the word that he seems to disavow.

The history of management (and its science) could be seen as a long attempt to master or dominate time. Whether it is objective, subjective, social, or processual, time is conceptualized by management as a resource or as a place of creativity. Management sciences focus on individuals’ temporal agency over the agency of time itself. However, managers’ daily experience, the literature in social sciences (Rosa, 2003), or some authors in management science (Johnsen, Toyoki, 2019; Holt, Johnsen, 2019) show that individuals are not masters of time, and even may suffer from it. In this work we want to take seriously the agency of time itself, and build a new managerial posture where managers no longer dominate time but learn to “deal with it”. Our desire here is to build a theoretical framework that takes seriously the domination of time over us. From this negative conception of time, we want to redefine the process of temporal structuring as a way for individuals to inhabit it. The aim of this process is not to dominate time but to “deal with it”. This theoretical framework must be able to restore a balance between individuals’ temporal agency and the agency of time.

This fragment’s argument draws on a range of intellectual sources in order to make the case for the value of oppositional or negative thought, the thought that says ‘no’ to orthodox ideas.

This fragment applies negative thought to the French statute prohibiting ostensible religious attire at school and shows the radically alternative comparative law model that I defend at work.

After his controversy with Schelling, Fichte orally presented several new versions of his Science in which he adopted, if not a new standpoint, certainly a new methodology that had repercussions for the earlier standpoint. Where the “I is I” was the principle of the earlier Science, the trope of “light,” used alternatively with Evidenz and Reason, was the new principle. Where Fichte had earlier urged his auditors to engage in productive thinking, he now encouraged them to practice “attention,” an attitude of being actively engaged in the passive reception of the objects that presented themselves to their grasp. They had to detect in them, but only indirectly, the source of the intelligibility that made their presence compelling yet itself remained unseen. The aim was to let this source pervade one’s life. Fichte was adopting a new kind of realism which was in fact more consistent with the monism to which he had been committed from the beginning. Chapter 3 explores in detail a key text of 1804 in which these changes are introduced. The ontological quietism to which Fichte’s Science now led was one possible existential attitude that the assumed monism fostered.

An introduction to reading Latin literature through the prism of textual absence. It places the volume’s aims and objectives within the broader panorama of Latin literary studies, introduces the volume’s contributions and sketches some possible future avenues for the topic.

This chapter introduces the notion of entanglement, methods of detection, and various types of two atomic ensemble entangled states. Bipartite The bipartite system constitutes is the simplest and most straightforward way of understanding entanglement, where there is a well-developed theory of detecting and quantifying it. We discuss how von Neumann entropy and negativity are two simple and powerful quantifiers of entanglement in pure and mixed systems, respectively. In the absence of a way to topographically reconstruct the density matrix, other correlation-based entanglement criteria are important practically, since they only involve the measurement of some key correlations. Various approaches to this are introduced, such as the Duan--Giedke--Cirac--Zoller criterion, Hillery--Zubairy criteria, entanglement witness approaches, and covariance matrices. Finally, two types of squeezed states for two atomic ensembles are introduced, : namely the one-axis two-spin and two-axis two-spin squeezed states are introduced.