introductionwhich is what irrupts as the un-grounding of thought. She finds in
both religion and phenomenology an undeniable call for transcendence.
Even though the phenomenological concept of transcendence empha-
sizes radical alterity and limitation of rationality, she suggests with
Deleuze that transcendence always implicitly prepares the way for
political order based on fixity and repression.
Marius Timmann Mjaaland, on the other hand, finds an opposite
risk in a phenomenology that does not allow itself to talk about
ultimates. He takes up a discussion with Derrida and takes his starting-
point in the nominalist discussion on the name. He asks what there is
in a name, and how something ultimately can be named. Timmann
Mjaaland claims in three readings of one and the same passage, that
Derrida’s way of relating subjectivity to alterity is problematic. It
tends to collapse the distinction between alterity and subjectivity, thus
making the articulation of true alterity impossible. Instead he argues
for the acceptance of an ultimate Otherness, prior to definition.
Derrida and his non-dual ontology is the theme also in Björn
Thorsteinsson’s article. But here the central theme is whether there is
a future for justice and emancipation. This question leads him to
explore the relation between materialism and religion today, together
with their messianic dimensions. He claims that Christianity implies
a Difference, a rupture of the homogeneity of time, but that it also has
a tendency to close this gap. With Derrida Thorsteinsson proposes
that this dualistic either-or situation could be resituated through a
“hauntology” that makes it possible to think beyond the static
opposition between being and non-being, and to think what is outside
the present horizon. This leads to the possibility to do justice to what
is not (yet). Thorsteinsson develops this further with help from
Agamben, and claims that where Derrida tends to think about justice
without an active subject, Agamben develops the hauntology into a
more empowering version and opens up for a future of emancipation.
In Jayne Svenungsson’s contribution both messianism, and the
twofold character of religion is brought up. She states that reactive
tendencies in religion, often referred to as “traditional” religiosity, are
generally based on modern readings of the Bible. In contrast to such
“traditional” religiosity she points to the continuous self-criticism
that takes place within religious traditions. Her example is the idea of