[-empyre-] The Place of Skulls

Tue Apr 28 11:50:35 EST 2009

Hi, Nick!  I love the quote--it encapsulates everything you, myself and Davin have been discussing regarding the dematerialization of money, which has ramifications for economics/chrematistics, as well as aesthetics and poetics (Derrida’s discussion of counterfeit money in Given Time).  Interestingly enough, Warhol hates plastic, and only loves cold, hard cash—something he can hold in his hand, store in a jar (see his Philosophy).  The materiality of material is refreshing, and you are right to wink at what it might mean to re-relate to matter.  For even though a plastic card representing money (and in essence, representing representation) does possess physical qualities which allow me to access it as matter (it is firm, hard, smooth), the object of its reference lies beyond my tactile capacity, and so it possesses a compromised or limited materiality.

To touch, smell, or taste the represented/signified is particularly meaningful in an epoch marked by increasing distance from Das Ding.  The movie Traffic dealt with this notion rather brilliantly (the message being that, in LA, we get in car accidents because it is the only way we meet people, or gain any insight into their lives as concrete individuals inhabiting expanding space-time in a particular fashion).  I also wonder what Object Relations Theory has to say about the loss of matter integral to dematerialization: what happens to partial or transitional objects or full-fledged object-objects when they lose their objective dimension (something empirically “there,” in front of us, waiting for our embrace)?  

Matter matters: and engaging it at the level of its materiality within a society of spectacles, phantoms and distanced-distancing representations may very well be a heroic act.  Even sex, with the popularity of i-porn and “live” blow-up dolls and genitals (for example, Jeff Stryker’s plastic penis, available at any Pleasure Chest), as well as its own battery of chemicals (“Viva Viagra!”) has lost some of its materiality: a copulation ummediated by plastic or pills might actually be revolutionary, at the moment!             

Michael Angelo Tata, PhD  347.776.1931-USA
http://www.MichaelAngeloTata.com/

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 05:47:37 -0700
From: editor at intertheory.org
To: empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Rock Theory (and Jesse Livermore)

The infamous turn of the 20th century trader, Jesse Livermore, once wrote:

"...most speculators rarely see the money. To them the money is nothing real, nothing tangible. For years, after a successful deal was closed, I made a habit to draw out cash. I used to draw it out at the rate of $200,000 or $300,000 a clip. It is a good policy. It has a psychological value. Make it a policy to do that. Count the money over. I did. I knew I had something in my hand. I felt it. It was real.
    Money in a broker's account or bank account is not the same as if you feel it in your own fingers once in a while. Then it means something. There is a sense of possession that makes you just a little bit less inclined to take headstrong chances of losing your gains. So have a look at your real money...there is too much looseness in these matters on the part of the average speculator."

mt...perhaps there is a looseness in these matters with regard to the average person as well, regarding creation, expansion, becoming and so on, that of wealth, and other material objects? Perhaps most are too headstrong with the previous generation(s)'s gains? What would it mean to re-relate to objects, even people....how to embody it: "Yes, we can!" --but is that enough?! :-)

Perhaps anthropos is forever metaphysically abstracted from such a positivistic integral reality by vulgar virtue of subjective self-occupation and the predilection for one's specific pet position in the parallax of views...? 

We all know that 'objects are closer than they appear'  and that the distance is an illusion, but our spreading anthropic emotional distances (e.g. within foreign policy and international relations, religious dogmas, artistic dogmas, etc.) only prove that we like it that way, no? Thought is already manifest in the fullness of the human fold...whose thought prevails seems to be the likely issue for the Senators of the world, no? What is the thing that may re-appear, or even must first appear? After Golgotha, that place of skulls, might the Christos die for some again? Realign the metaphysical order of things?

 Nicholas Ruiz III, Ph.D
Editor, Kritikos
http://intertheory.org

From: "Michael Angelo Tata, PhD" <mtata at ipublishingllc.com>
To: Soft Skinned Space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:23:34 PM
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Rock Theory

Yes--it seems that dematerialization and thoughtlessness go together.  Whether we are talking about money, capital, or arms.  Perhaps to be thoughtful, we need to de-distance ourselves from concrete entities become abstractions: the thing may need to re-appear after all in order for there to be an ethics.    

*******************************************
Michael Angelo Tata, PhD  347.776.1931-USA
http://www.MichaelAngeloTata.com/

> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:04:58 -0400
> From: davinheckman at gmail.com
> To: empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] headline: human interaction reaches junk status!
> 
> I think you are right to suggest that I am downgrading human
> interaction to junk status. And I cannot say that it was necessarily
> ever different. But I still want to the kind of person who does not
> always act like an idiot and who is willing to make changes to build a
> world that is different.
> 
> I don't know that junk status is absolute. If somebody wants to make
> an argument in favor of one way of doing something over another, then,
> my judgment is wrong precisely because I have claimed that everything
> is so "thoughtless." If someone says, "No, Davin. You are wrong. I
> am not as thoughtless as you think." And if they can articulate this
> thought, it would be hard for me to insist otherwise. But, if people
> don't care to explore the space of their consciousness (and better
> yet, share it), instead preferring to ride on cruise control, then in
> that particular case, they have been thoughtless. And, of course,
> nobody should have to prove they are thoughtful to me.... but they
> should try to prove it to themselves from time to time, the more the
> better.
> 
> While I am sure that people have always been pretty thoughtless, it
> strikes me as particularly true in our age of relentless busyness. I
> am particularly taken by Virilio's arguments about speed and
> cybernetics, particularly the notion that acceleration leads to
> decreased capacity to respond responsibly, so judgment is increasingly
> embodied in formulas and cybernetic systems. When we killed each
> other with rocks, you had to look at the person you were going to
> crush before you crushed them. Today, when you kill someone at
> supersonic speed, you just plug in some coordinates, and the machine
> does the rest. Or, you can just kill through default by destroying
> infrastructure and imposing embargoes. This is thoughtlessness on an
> ultimate scale.
> 
> I'm plenty thoughtless myself. And I feel like I should be more
> thoughtful. And when I try to be thoughtful, it is usually fairly
> exhausting and often frustrating. But, on the other hand, it's also
> very rewarding in its own way. It's usually accompanied by some
> feeling of guilt, possibly some immediate changes in my behavior, and
> eventually a sense that I tried to do something other than what I
> would have done had I not been mindful. It's a modest reward, and
> maybe it is an impossible way to change anything in all but the most
> minute ways, but I would like to believe that if enough people even
> devoted a modest slice of each day (5 minutes) to something as simple
> as studying and reflecting upon some injustice that they themselves
> have inflicted upon another, either through action or omission,
> directly or indirectly, that the world we would create would be much
> more ethical. (Jeez! I guess I am becoming a whacko.)
> 
> Peace!
> Davin
> 
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Nicholas Ruiz III
> <editor at intertheory.org> wrote:
> >
> > Indeed, the consumer society has been rotten forever...but at least we can switch the channel from the wedding planners to the forensic pathologists...sounds like you're downgrading human interaction to junk status...but we might ask...when was it different? When was the way we were...'here'...I'm just curious to know... :-)
> >
> > NRIII
> >
> >  Nicholas Ruiz III, Ph.D
> > Editor, Kritikos
> > http://intertheory.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: davin heckman <davinheckman at gmail.com>
> > To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > Sent: Monday, April 6, 2009 10:32:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: [-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 53, Issue 6
> >
> > I think this might be why gift giving can be so subversive, because if
> > we were to resign ourselves, say, to viewing the cash nexus as the
> > only medium for exchange...  gift giving implies that the cash nexus
> > is incomplete or insufficient.
> >
> > If you give a gift (say, you give someone a copy of your favorite
> > book) and it returns to you with an expected equivalent compensation
> > from the recipient ($27.95), then this is a business transaction.  If
> > the gift returns to you in all of the various ways that gifts can...
> > you strengthen a bond of friendship, you feel a little bit better,
> > maybe even you hope that someday someone will give you a gift (maybe a
> > mix tape or their favorite music or a copy of THEIR favorite book), or
> > whatever...  it cheapens the whole idea of economics by suggesting
> > that something else matters more.  Say you are a jerk and you neglect
> > to say "thank you" for a gift, this implies that the money or the time
> > spent is not an issue....  it's a fundamental "lack of respect" or
> > something social that you have screwed up.  It's not fraud, theft, or
> > a crime against property....  it is an offense against a human being,
> > it hurts people's feelings, it disrupts the social order, it is
> > inconsiderate, etc.  Or, the giver might not even mind.  In any case,
> > at the very most it allows capitalism a role in human relations, but
> > it is not the dominant role.
> >
> > On the other hand, there are a great many "human" situations which
> > require gift giving, but which have been fairly formalized and are
> > being turned into transactions.  Weddings, for instance.  The
> > historical role of wedding gifts was to help the new couple establish
> > a home.  To help streamline this process for the benefit of guests,
> > people started creating registries.  And today, people....  even those
> > who already have a home together...  just request a bunch of new stuff
> > that they didn't get around to buying yet....  and they hope that in
> > exchange for a superfluous ceremony, you will buy them a specific set
> > of dishes which is nicer than the decent set they already own.  I am
> > looking forward to the day when all weddings will be handled by
> > paypal....  you can pay money in small denominations to see virtual
> > images of what the wedding would look like if it were to take place,
> > and even pay extra to be in the wedding party.  The money could even
> > be placed in escrow in case of divorce.  And then, after five years of
> > virtually wedded bliss, you can take the money out of the escrow
> > account and have a live action ceremony.  I know I am being cynical
> > about these things.  And the truth is, I actually like weddings a
> > great deal.  But I am a sentimental person, so I am suspicious about
> > those things which turn the objects of my sentiment into commodities.
> > It's not the couples that upset me...  it's this whole industry which
> > says, "OK, now, you are supposed to act like this.  He is supposed to
> > act this way.  She is supposed to be like such and such."  (I even
> > went to a wedding where we had to take all kinds of pictures of things
> > that didn't happen during the wedding.  Like walking down a flight of
> > stairs and pretending that we were waving to people that weren't
> > there, over and over again, and lots of people yelling about how to
> > look comfortable and pleased.  It was surreal.  Think of mushrooms in
> > painful shoes, and that about is what it was like.)  But to bring it
> > back to gift giving, here you have the market trying to turn weddings
> > into cash by selling it as a particular type of reality show.
> >
> > Sorry to ramble.  Good thing there are no page limits.
> >
> > Peace!
> > Davin
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Cinzia Cremona
> > <cinziacremona at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>As for reciprocity, for Derrida, there is a fundamental dissymetry between
> >>> myself and the Other, as well as among myself and the "other >others" with
> >>> whom I share social concourse: the gift I am expected to hand over to the
> >>> deity is one which will not be reciprocated, but >refused, causing me to be
> >>> remunerated in a posthumous order where spirirual riches accumulate, but
> >>> only if I forget.  With DNA in the place >of the Other, does this dissymetry
> >>> remain, or is the playng field leveled?
> >>
> >>>For Derrida, to give is to forget that one has given: but can we forget our
> >>> investments?
> >>
> >> I am glad I haven't missed this latest discussion, although it is hard to
> >> find the time to follow the conversation as it deserves.
> >>
> >> In relation to the passage above, I was thinking about Derrida's contretemps
> >> - when I give, I do not forget my gift, but I do not know when I will see
> >> what the return might be ... or from what direction it might come. How about
> >> reading dissymetry and lack of reciprocity as a possible wider form of
> >> circulation of capital, and of a larger variety of forms of capital? The
> >> gifts I receive might not be comparable to the gifts I have given in terms
> >> of a certain value system, but I might still depend on them, or they might
> >> be priceless from a different perspective. Also, I find it quite plausible
> >> to expect gifts from those I have not given to, and have no intention or
> >> capacity to give to.
> >> --
> >> Cinzia
> >>
> >> Visions in the Nunnery
> >> 22 to 31 May 2009
> >> openvisions.org
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> empyre forum
> >> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> >> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> >
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre

Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage. Check it out.
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage.  
http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_042009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20090427/3e2dd281/attachment-0001.html 