Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 17:09:33 +0800 (CST)
From: Liano Sharon <lsharon-AT-ms2.hinet.net>
Subject: Re: p.s. to my answer to Brian &Liano re: res.to th.




On Sat, 21 Dec 1996, Vadim Linetski wrote:

> 14 MAY 97
> Why not dot the i's and cross the t's?
> from my definition of textual resistance it follows that Liano's view of
> "shitting" as a continuous activity

	As long as you're dotting and crossing, please go on and provide 
the argument itself, since you have not yet explained clearly how it is 
that I advocate this view of "shitting".  First, you might explain 
clearly where I lay out a view of "shitting" at all, and then you can get 
into how this view involves continuous activity.


> is self-contradictory:

	Certainly you misunderstand my argument, because I don't believe 
in contradictions, only in paradoxes.  Contradictions are archical 
artifacts, while paradoxes are creative movements.  Any contradiction can 
be a paradox, and any paradox can be a contradiction, its all a matter of 
the attitude you take.  I take the attitude that contradictions are an 
uninteresting way of looking at paradoxes, and thus I don't bother with 
them much at all.  To be perfectly clear on the distinction I make:

That two (or more) things are contradictory means that one or both (or 
all) must be Wrong, must be False.  That two (or more) things are 
paradoxical does not preclude them from being contradictory, but rather 
allows the possibility that they are not--paradox insists on the 
possibility that the seemingly contradictory are complementary, are 
co-existant.  Contradiction denies possibilities, paradox explores 
possibilities.


> it proves ...
> my own claims: if Orpheus's pieces are "shit", then they cannot be used,
> i.e. resist PoMo theory and therefore are bound to be censored.

	Why is something bound to be censored just because it has been 
evaluated by some one, or even a whole society, as shit?  Also, the i.e. 
is very unclear hear, please explain what you mean.


> Another
> theoretical  defeat illustrating the ideas from my main message
> 
> 

Why are you speaking the language of battle all of a sudden?  Are you 
fighting some one?  Who?  I have no desier to enter the archical arena of 
war.  Defeat and Victory, being only mirrors of each other and the battle 
they continue, are irrelevent to creation.


YOur Friend,

	Liano