A theoretical claim I have been making since I’ve taken up the originary hypothesis is that the originary scene has never closed. In other words, if we ask, when would the originary event be over and the scene complete, we could answer by saying, once the sparagmos has been completed and the first ritual (the repetition of the gesture, this time deliberately and in unity) has been enacted. But the possibility that the scene will still break down and that the ritual will be insufficiently choreographed to “hold” remains until the closure of the scene has been “confirmed” externally, upon a new scene referencing the previous one. But the same question could be raised regarding this new scene of confirmation, which would therefore need a new confirmation within a new scene, and so on, as long as humanity endures. Rather than infinite regression we have infinite progression. We are still, then, on the originary scene, and the subsequent and widely distributed scene created to confirm it also index its uncertainty and the ongoing tenuousness of the human. I consider this a highly productive extension of the hypothesis because it allows us to analyze each scene and each stacking of scenes in terms of the question of the demonstration and even operationalization of the continuation of the originary scene within these others—that is, we are always performing our presence on the same scene, the originary one. My insistence on the centrality of succession should be seen in this light: only by ensuring, marking, validating, authenticating, etc., succession at the center can the chain of references back to the originary scene be prolonged.