But don't miss this: there is no either/or in operation here. Vitanza does not say print is dead, writing is dead, "we" are dead. To hear him in this way is to remain trapped in a dichotomy he does not accept: life/death. Pass-ing indicates a living on, the death of death itself. The event of absolute speed is not the end of print nor the end of us. But it does indicate that "we" are end-ing. Because here's the thing: when one temporality demonstrates a collapse of time and space, all temporalities are on the line—and that means that all the abstractions based on those temporalities are pass-ing, too.

So when Geoff, my otherwise brilliant collaborator, says Victor is only celebrating "speeeeeeeeed" and that speed is a rather macho non-value, a bullshit value (did he say "bullshit" or "horseshit"?), and that he much prefers, when he teaches, a steady, thoughtful slowness (and who doesn't?): he misses the point. Victor is marking a temporality that takes place: the time of absolute speed, the third interval, deadtime. He is not calling for it, he is welcoming it. Big difference. For it is (always) already at our door; or rather, it is always already in our house (of Being). It is there, doing its thing, even when "we" put the breaks on—in or out of the classroom—to engage in delicate thought operations, to make significant distinctions ... and to write. If it were not always already operating, quietly collapsing distinctions and challenging identities, "we" wouldn't have the impulse to hit the breaks.

-ddd