The future requires both anticipation and absolute surprise working together

Evidence

Language must be able to play, there must be within it the very display of its aptitude to play, the habit of conjugating, and of holding in itself and for itself, in the very body of its syntax and of its lexicon, the constant mark of this transformation, something like the permanent habitus of this alteration. In other words, it is of the essence of language, of what we call an idiom or a dialect, that its vocation be dialectical or, if one prefers, that its calling be essentially plastic. The idiom itself must be a subject capable of ‘seeing what is coming’. … The question becomes then, and will remain obscure: how can (and may we) see ourselves coming to ourselves, to the double meaning of ‘to see (what is) coming’? What is the ipseity of this ‘self’ who sees itself come, and hence, constitutes itself at the same time in the teleological development of itself and in absolute surprise? For, let us say it simply: there would, without the future, be no more history, and there would be no more future, no event to come, without the very possibility of an absolute surprise (that is, without this ‘to see (what is) coming’ blind to all anticipation); but there would also be no future, no future as such, no novelty at all, without some sort of historical link, memory, retention or tradition, thus without some sort of synthesis. — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 57

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies the doubled structure of ‘voir venir’ — plasticity must hold teleological synthesis and explosive surprise in one idiom — directly refining how enmity’s plasticity would have to be read as an unstable double.
• XREF: Derrida’s ‘absolute surprise’ and plasticity/gelignite double maps onto Anidjar’s plastic enemy that is simultaneously passive screen and explosive agent — the reader’s core MOC question of which conditions tip one into the other.
• QUESTION: If language’s essence requires holding anticipation and surprise simultaneously, what institutional arrangement in enmity would analogously hold receptivity and explosiveness without collapsing one into the other?
• DEEPTHINKING: The ‘surprise without surprise’ formulation — where synthesis must dampen novelty to make it possible — attacks the reader’s premise that there is a clean before/after (receptivity then explosion) in the enemy construction.