Thanks Robin for the flash of incisive critical lockpick, I mean your
message re: Prynne insider trading, I take your point fully and like very
much the metaphor it couches us in. :
>Well, would that still be speculation? Maybe the whole deal was rigged:
insider trading. Shares in Prynne securities can go down as well as
up. Or you at least have to allow that possibility.
Bearing the second part of your point, rigging/securities
determination, in a mind to which it applies, I'd say with all antagonized
immanence that the first part is thereby answered in the affirmative: yes,
it's speculation, of the kind to which brokerage leaps to recommend itself
as correlate. But the amusement of such a ruddy debasing does thin, after
a while, the correlation is according to whatever shred of resistance to
pessimism we can muster mainly a kind of joke; the objects here - stocks
in the one dish, Prynne's lifework in the other - do not really announce
their availability to the prospects of the exigencies of self-interest in
ways that are essentially compatible. Remote compatibility is a
choice, and need not be imagined all that coercive. That's not to say the
comparison is useless, it's needed precisely so that it might be discarded
with historic vim. I manage this cheerfulness according to several gut
reactions, one of which is readily made reasonable: the motivating
criteria for a speculative involvement of self-interest in stocks is in
fact, currently, more crucial to the definition of stocks AS STOCKS than
their actual use value. I could never say this re: Prynne, nor can I
believe that it will ever really be the case, despite the imperious claims
wafted over his work, for instance the largely implicit one (in much
criticism published in UK Lit. mags) that his early work deserves more
attention than recent work at this point. Claiming Prynne for a
political quasi-icon, putting him under some optimised banner, is more and
less than precarious in compromising manners respectively. I do get this
gist from some of your own posts also, perhaps we agree on this head?
Anyhow, thanks for a stimulating and apt rejoinder, k
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|