Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Softbank Group Corp -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (3857)	2/12/2000 3:59:00 PM
From: manohar kanuri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6018

Speaking of gambling, horses and eyeballs, things they forgot to teach in Finance 666 ... intuitive in Hongkong perhaps, and on tracks everywhere? .... quoted without permission from Forget Baudrillard, interviewer Slvere Lotringer; (C) 1987 Semiotext(e): JB: ....free-floating capital is an ecstatic form of the circulation of money. [It] no longer bear[s] any relationship to production. SL: It is an extreme form of the logic of capital. JB: The ecstatic form of capital is totally generalized exchange. .... Look at what happens in the movement of money - money no longer bears any relationship to value, even in the sense in which Bataille uses the term (in order for there to be something "spent", one must believe in value). That is what gives rise to intense miraculous effects of multiplication. The secret of gambling is that money does not exist as value. SL: But value returns after the fact: it's what you have to pay if you lose. JB: Afterward, you commit suicide. But in the heat of the moment, the idea of winning or losing is relatively unimportant compared to the sequence of seductive events. SL: Gambling is the ecstatic form of money. JB: Gambling isn't exactly a passion: the pleasure one derives from it is too crystalline. It is a cold ecstasy which deals with money not as meaning, value, depth or substance, but in the pure form of appearance or disappearance. .... SL: It's a game with a subject. This would explain the fascination it holds: to gamble is to forget yourself. The extreme form of neurosis -- and its annulment. JB: Gambling is a game, a challenge. There is no gambling subject: the transsubstantiation is complete. It's pure seduction. It comes from elsewhere. In theory gambling is without consequence. This is why it's so easy to condemn the "immorality" of gambling. Gambling is immoral. It bears no relation to the reality of money. SL: It feeds on itself. JB: It's the passion of arriving at a given object - money, in this case -and managing to completely disconnect it, to discover its means of appearing. I didn't say means of production; we know that only too well, and it's no fun. Wherever you can find the possibility of pure appearances, you are once again in the game. .... SL: Is the fatal the fulfillment of an empty rule? JB: A rule can be perfectly arbitrary in its enunciation, but it is much more unbreakable than the "law," which can be transgressed. You can do anything with the law. With the rule, on the other hand, either you play or you don't play. If you play, the rule is implacable. You can't get around it. It would be idiotic to transgress it. The rule of the game - the seductive sequence - is played in an extremely ceremonialized fashion. Situations can be replayed indefinitely, the "rule" does not change. But it is secret, never known, never spoken. If it were known, things would become visible and reversible again. With causal or rational sequences, on the contrary, you are - literally - in a catastrophic order. SL: That's the logic of the avalanche. JB: Forms that are beyond judgement have a much greater power of fascination, but they are for that same reason terribly dangerous for any order whatsoever. They can no longer be controlled. At any given moment a category or a form stops representing itself, it no longer enters the stage of representation, it no longer functions according to its end. It doubles back upon itself, taking a curve so rapid that it reaches a kind of potentialization. .... SL: It is ritual without the sacred, the tragic without tragedy. JB: It is not a sacred universe, even though there is indeed a tragic aspect in seduction. If you accept the rule of the game, you can never know in advance to what degree of concatenation of appearances [of things, events, money? etc. - mk] a strategy may lead. Take, for example, the story of the woman to whom a man sends an ardent love letter. She asks him what part of her seduced him the most. What else can he answer? Her eyes, of course. And he receives in the mail, wrapped in brown paper, the woman's eye. The man is shattered, destroyed. The woman sets herself as the destiny of the other. Literalizing the metaphor, she abolishes the symbolic order. The sign becomes the thing. The subject is caught in the trap of his own desire. m, wondering if there is any way to expand dictation software vocabularies by linking to online dictionaries.