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


     ------------------