Apocalyptic fiction is full of the apocalypse of the other, which we encounter via 'the strange, the uncanny and the alien' and as the 'disruption of the 'self', the 'world' and the 'society'.12 I have argued in Chapter 4 that the _Unheimlich_ is the ultimate horror, the horror of horror, and that horror has two 'principal and equivalent moments' in its production, namely, 'horror in its most abstract form', whereby 'all human values are abolished', and 'the horror of horror', whereby terror is produced as both the origin of the world and in being confronted by it.13 The latter is clearly at the heart of apocalypticism, which is concerned with 'the end of the world' through which 'the world ends in a second time, becomes a strange world in its own right'.14 Such apocalypticism is a 'counterworld', 'a premonitory and anticipatory "end" of the world that opens out towards the future'.15 In such a way, the _Unheimlich_ becomes 'the apocalyptic', a 'theophany of the Other' and 'other-worldly'.16 Although it has much in common with the _Unheimlich_ , the apocalyptic is not about the alien, but about the other. 'End of the world' and 'other world' are thus central concepts, and the former is closely tied to the 'afterlife' where there are both similarities and differences to the _Unheimlich_. As suggested above, it is possible to see the afterlife as a sort of 'end of the world' and an 'other world'. But the afterlife is different. It has two essential features, it is always temporal, and its alienness is not about its otherness, which in a sense is its 'self', but rather its otherness as it is encountered. In time, _unheimlich_ 'dwells on its own',17 and in death, it 'reaches a goal, so to speak, to be taken home'.18 It is neither about the horror of horror, nor about the _Unheimlich_. On the contrary, its essential features are that it is temporal and that its otherness is about the 'other', both of which contrast with the _Unheimlich_ which is atemporal and whose otherness is about itself. In such a way, the afterlife, which we will discuss in Chapter 7, is a place which is alien to the human other. And it is here that we encounter the human other as the _Unheimliche_ , rather than as _unheimlich_ as such. The alien is other than the self, rather than _unheimlich_ , and is related to the _Unheimliche_ , as we shall see in Chapter 5, which deals with the sense of being 'other than myself'.19 Such a sense is common to many ways in which one feels 'other than myself'.20 For example, one may feel this way when going to the hairdresser and one feels that the hairdresser is an 'other', although he is a fellow human being.21 This feeling is alien to one's self, and this is an example of the _Unheimliche_ about the human other, as 'other' to oneself. Of course, the _Unheimliche_ may be felt when the human other is not in the same room, for example, in the case of a telephone call, but the sense of alienness and otherness is still 'other to oneself'. It is therefore not an example of _Unheimlich_ as such. As suggested above, _unheimlich_ always occurs within a horizon of otherness, and is a way of being with the other. But the boundaries of the _Unheimliche_ are porous, and the very nature of the human other and the _Unheimliche_ are 'fluid'. As we shall see below, the _Unheimliche_ is 'constituted through an affective relation of a "non-hierarchical" kind, a relation of "intimate" non-recognition that is "trans-subjective"'.22 The _Unheimliche_ may either be felt by a number of people at the same time, or it may be internalized so that one is uncertain whether one has really seen something or imagined it.23 It is 'an affect that remains indeterminate, ambiguous or uncertain to the subject and others'.24 This uncertainty of whether the affect is actually felt, as with my hairdresser, or whether it is a 'phantom' of my imagination is not a feature of 'unheimlich' as such, but one of its forms. Indeed, this uncertainty is present whenever the _Unheimliche_ appears. Thus in the context of the afterlife, as we shall see in Chapter 7, the sense of 'otherness' of human beings is an essential feature. We can, then, conclude that the _Unheimliche_ is not about the _Unheimliche_ , but is about the human other. And in fact it is about the _otherness_ of the human other. In many ways it may be contrasted with the _Unheimliche_. First, as we have seen, in addition to feeling the otherness of the other, one may feel 'other than oneself'. It is this otherness that is 'other to oneself'. Second, the _Unheimliche_ may be felt in relation to the human other but the latter has no otherness about it. And third, the _Unheimliche_ is usually felt about a 'human other' and not about an 'other human', such as animals. The _Unheimliche_ may also be felt in relation to the human other as the other and as other to the other. This is particularly likely to occur in relation to the afterlife, when one knows that one is going to die and can see oneself no longer. But this feeling of an 'other-self' is not necessarily either 'other than oneself' or necessarily 'other than oneself as such'. For example, when one is with the dead one is aware that it is 'you', although it is only 'an other'. But in a general sense this is not the case, that is, if a friend of mine is dead, I know that he or she is 'an other', but I do not know that they are a 'human other', and in this sense we can then say that they are 'other to myself', 'other than myself', and 'other than myself as such'. But it is the awareness of the death of the other that makes it the case that this other is 'other to oneself' and 'other than oneself', so that one feels 'other to myself'. In contrast, it is not a feature of 'unheimlich' as such that one feels oneself as 'other to oneself' or as 'other to myself as such'. ## **The in-between: the other as other to the self** Thus in all these ways the _Unheimliche_ is about the alienness of the human other as being both 'other to itself' and 'other to me'. This is not the _Unheimliche_ as such, but the _Unheimliche_ occurs when the alienness of the other is felt, such that it is not always clear to whom the other alienness refers, and is experienced as such. Such a sense of alienness is especially likely to occur when the other is experienced as an 'Other'. In contrast, when a person feels close to the human other, one can be sure that the alienness of the other is directed to oneself, not to an other. One may thus ask the question, in which cases does the _Unheimliche_ occur? The answer to this question is that the _Unheimliche_ occurs whenever there is an experience of the other as other to the self, and it is thus more general than the above-mentioned forms of the _Unheimliche_ that occur in relation to the human other.25 In other words, the _Unheimliche_ is something that is common to many relations with other people and is not restricted to the relation between the 'human other' and the 'human self'. It is felt as the alienness of the other rather than 'alien to me', and the other is not 'other to itself' and 'other than itself' as a human self. But in all such cases, it is also felt that it is not 'alien to oneself', but is the 'other' and hence is neither an 'alien to myself', 'alien to the self' or 'alien to the self as such'. In short, the _Unheimliche_ is about the 'other', but not about 'otherness', and it is always about the 'other to the self', which in addition to the 'alien to oneself' is thus also 'other to myself', 'the other as other to the self' and 'other to the self as such', although it is still felt as 'unheimlich', that is, the 'self', which is also 'other' to itself and 'other than itself as such'. Such an alienness of the other is thus always within the context of 'the other', which is only possible when there is no threat of violence. If the other is not an 'Other' but an 'alien', it is simply an 'alien' and is not seen as an 'Other', and hence does not entail the concept of the _