[-empyre-] para-nodal

[Robert Summers]

Serres states, *my book is rigorously fuzzy* ( _The Parasite_, 56).  I
deployed the term *parasite* (or redeploy it) in the way Serres does
and does not.  He writes, *parasitism is an elementary relation; it is
... the elements of the relation* (182).  I want to think about
*elementary relations* and *elements of the relation.*  Also, I have
been thinking of *queer theory* back to the rise of the HIV/AIDS
pandemic, and I want to think *queer theory* back to a kind of virus,
as a kind-of virology.  But, then, I find the concept of the
*parasite* interesting in relation to *queer theory* and this would
lead me back to *queer relationality* -- which, in this online
discussion, I am merely thinking aloud to help me think things
through.  I am not at all interested in writing on emypre what I
already have down as a solid answer: that would not be any fun.  So,
somewhat *against* Serres who states, *I don’t want to play any more.
Neither at the game of who is smarter nor that of the truth. For you
can die of hunger, of cold, of drowning, while playing* -- I am very
much for playing, which I will not qualify as either serious or
unserious.
So, Serres, *the parasite,* queer relational, and play.  I am
somewhere in-between; thinking in the middle and relationally.  I
think we can think *parasitically* -- which is to say, to not think in
a binary way, which you, Marc, critique, and I agree.  I think the
idea of the *parasite* can lead us to a discussion of *middles* or
*in-betweens.*  (Is this a *queer* space?)  This is what I am
attempting to think: not either/or, but rather */* ... I do not know
if this offers a clear answer, but the *parasite* is not about
clarity, but it is about relationality.

-Robert

Robert Summers, PhD/ABD