There is no satisfying mode of speaking of Eastern Europe – at least I have never encountered one. This I would like to use as a motif in order to construct a position for thinking the world that stems from the periphery and is conscious of the planetary. It is nothing but the urgency of making the world livable again, something we should not deny to anyone – at this particular moment in time, every attempt to create bonds with as many entities as possible must be encouraged, for we are losing

Eastern Europe opens the possibility of dissolving identity, which in our world, marked by borders overstepping borders, can be a mode of living and thinking of oneself that is less burdening and more compassionate. We do not carry the weight of history because it has been taken away from us. We are light, perhaps unbearably light. But everyone else in dragging along pasts as well as futures which they no longer live up to. We have nothing, we are nothing, always insignificant, always the black hole of ideas. We can dissolve and show others that it does not hurt to dissolve.
A defining experience in Eastern Europe is not managing to raise the personal to the political – in fact, understanding the political closer to the way we do now, as the planetary.
The terrestrial or, a new term that designates the dislocated, the position which is neither local nor global, but which assumes both – I would call it the digital space.
Question what recent migration, following a long period of isolation, has brought to our imaginary (both internal and the way in which we project ourselves outside, how we are perceived). Hybridity – displacement – dislocation – migration. Eastern Europe is defined by the experience of migration with the purpose of working.
Eastern Europe should not strive for purity. Eastern Europe is both very connected to soil (and in that sense isolated) and extremely dispersed, because of migration but also because of symbolic perception. My opinion is that we should take advantage of this uncertain status and assume more firmly our position beyond global and local.

Hybridity must be understood in relation to process philosophy: the traditional dialectical form must be reworked by looking at a term from the point of view of the other, then shift the perspective. This will not mount to producing a final synthesis. For example, in the case of East-West, the binary we have been given as thinking tool (but only in the East), in order to achieve a better understanding of the term East, it is necessary to look at it from the perspective of the West (something which is usually done, and in derogatory terms), but also to use it as ground to look at the West from what i would call an anthropologic perspective.

People come together in order to form more compact bodies, to protect each other in a world set on destruction. It is even perceived as reactionary to make claims of dissolution – after all, power is located in the unseen, the devious, the ambiguous. But it is not towards a life of privileged particles that I would like to draw you. On the contrary, the humility of the parasite is what helps it survive. When it becomes arrogant, and infests its host, feeding on it excessively out of either pleasure or despair, ecosystems morph into rigid structures. Rigid because what brings them together is fear. A new body is not necessarily a happy body. And the body of the new peripheries of the world – or, the body of the world as a new periphery – is a scared and troubled one. Even as we linger upon who the parasite may be and who the host, when the new body reproduces itself, it splits into winners and losers: either above or below the parasite’s initial humility.
When I look at these forms of life, they do not make me want to live. Even as the borders between them constantly move, they are all trapped below the horizon of imagination.
I am not interested in working at the level of history and culture – these are the tools of power, discourse in these fields amounts to shifting signifiers, without the smallest possibility of changing the discourse itself. So on the one hand, it is necessary to rethink the foundations – and that means philosophy – and on the other hand, we must accept hybridity against purity.