File spoon-archives/baudrillard.archive/baudrillard_1995/baudrillard.07-95, message 42

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 16:27:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: the wager of seduction (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 16:21:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: B Madonna Durkheim <>
To: Malgosia Askanas <>
Subject: Re: the wager of seduction

On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, Malgosia Askanas wrote:

> > The point being that I could just as easily agree with 
> > Ryan, I could disagree, I could agree with a completely 
> > self-contradictory argument, or disagree with the subtle implication that 
> > I was actually in agreement, or I could simply make an direct set of 
> > statements in which you, the reader, can assume a position I have, which 
> > I may not have, or I could drink just enough alcohol to be just below the 
> > level of making sense.  Who knows?  But, gain is the last thing i was 
> > thinking of.  So what do you think?
> Yes, of course you could always and anywhere do any of these things.  
> Is there any more reason to purposely do them on this here list than 
> anywhere else?   

Ahhh!  The perfect question, and precisely the moment at which 
Baudrillard's theories are more "post" than "post", because the subject 
still roams the halls.  Maybe he is dead, but he has not disappeared.  I 
"purposely do them on this here list" because no one else will 
listen/read them anywhere else.  "The desire of the other" and all that 
rot.  We still suffer from the lingering effects and affects of that 
great metaFreudian phenomenal called psychoanalysis.  Fortunately, we are 
not subjects proper, but the new hyper-subjects,  

Long live horror,




Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005