1 This becomes increasingly more pressing as biomedical research focuses in ever
greater detail on the smaller and smaller components of biological existence:
hormones, proteins, cells, the gene itself. The more technologies render micro-
scopic elements of the body knowable, the more a philosophical understanding
of the place of biology in culture is required as a necessary counterbalance.
2 In Volatile Bodies (Grosz 1994).
3 This is a claim developed with great insight in Pheng Cheah, ‘‘Mattering’’ (1996),
and especially in Spectral Nationality (2003).
4 In Space, Time and Perversion (Grosz 1995), where for some strange reason, and
in spite of the title, the question of time is barely mentioned; and in Architecture
from the Outside (Grosz 2001), where I explore some of the same figures (Berg-
son, Deleuze, Irigaray) as here, but in terms of their implications for considering
5 This concept of the untimely is ultimately Nietzschean, but it has been carefully
elaborated by both Derrida (1995b) and Deleuze (1997).
6 Irwin C. Lieb, Past, Present and Future (1991) discusses in more detail than I some
of the contributions of these figures regarding the reality of time.
7 See de Landa (1999).
8 While Deleuze (1983) makes clear Nietzsche’s untimeliness, Derrida too is inter-
ested in the disruptions of time, in the ghostly, the haunted, that which returns
unseasonably (see Derrida 1992, 1995 a, 1995b).
9 This concept of the virtual has been of central concern to a number of theorists
in philosophy, cultural studies, and architectural theory for a number of years.
See, for example, Kwinter (2001), de Landa (2002), Rajchman (1992, 1998, 2000),