From: Tristan Riley <triley-AT-weber.ucsd.edu> Subject: Re: the wager of seduction Date: Wed, 26 Jul 95 22:45:21 PDT Malgosia Askanas writes: > >>> Ross, it seems to me a tad silly to take serious issue with the word >>> "resistance". To write/theorize in order to break down, disappear, seduce -- >>> what is at stake in insisting that this is not a form of resistance? > >> What is at stake in insisting that it *is*? > >> Our fervent wish that we aren't wasting our time when we "write/theorize"? > >Does the label "resistance" carry any kind of non-waste-of-time guarantee? > >It seems to me that we probably write/theorize largely for the pleasure >of doing so, so the waste of time question hardly arises. It was said, >however, that B writes in order to disappear, effect breakdown, seduce etc. >Of course, one could claim that he just happens to be the kind of person >who has fun disappearing, breaking things down, etc. -- whereas others may, >instead, seek pleasure in looming large and constructing edifices. >And that we read B to enjoy his antics, as we read Hegel to enjoy the >other kind of antics. I guess that would be cool with me. > Malgosia, in focussing on my (rather whimsical) suggestion for a possible stake involved in insisting on writing/theorizing as "resistance", you've completely avoided the question. This is fine--avoiding questions may be something which brings one the "enjoy[ment]" you speak of above. In this case, it doesn't, as I'm sure you realize, bolster your presumption that it is the claim that writing/theorizing is *not* "resistance" which is "silly" rather than the claim that it *is*. Salud, Tristan ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005