[-empyre-] Response to Marc: Parasite, the In-Between, and Relationality

[Robert Summers]

Michel Serres states, *my book is rigorously fuzzy* ( _The Parasite_,
56).  I deployed the term *parasite* 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 Summers, PhD/ABD