We know that Maurice Blanchot, rather than making the subject disappear, thinks it as the scene of infinite self-deconstruction, so that its new way of existence [referring to Nietzsche and Foucault] is that of “disappearing.” By undelimiting it toward the outside, he renders it the subject of the outside, in the sense of this double genitive (genitivus objectivus and subjectivus), which calls upon us to think the subject as a sub-ob-ject. A genitive which rejects both phantasmata: the construction of a subject full of autonomy and self-transparency, as well as its reduction to its status as an object, to its history, culture and social reality. This is why the joy in the face of emptiness is the joy of a subject, to which a “level” of “itself” is revealed. We are dealing with an empty subject of emptiness, an originally evacuated cogito. A subject devoid of a divine substrate, of transcendental meaning, a subject without subjectivity – because it is the movement of this incessant experience that happens beyond the present self-mediation and auto-appropriation. Empty subject – because it experiences the emptiness as absent foundation, as the desert of an incommensurable freedom, so incommensurable that it cannot be experienced as such. The absence of meaning, the non-existence of God, this emptiness shall not become the celebration of one’s own abandonment, because they mark a freedom which exceeds the difference of freedom and necessity.