Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Sartre] Re: Nietzsche and "Yes"

Expand Messages
  • Leon McQuaid
    What are you trying to say here? ... _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months
    Message 1 of 16 , Jan 3, 2003
      What are you trying to say here?

      >From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
      >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
      >To: <Sartre@yahoogroups.com>
      >Subject: Re: [Sartre] Re: Nietzsche and "Yes"
      >Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:06:05 -0800
      >
      >We'll, I, for one, am glad that we got that straight. I like to have stuff
      >myself. I wonder what Sartre would say about that. Do you think Sartre
      >had stuff, or did he consume his stuff, or at least some of his stuff? He
      >certainly liked to consume tobacco, coffee, and, I hear, wine and
      >amphetamines. Did that make him a consumer if not a consumerist? Maybe he
      >was a consumer of some things, like bread, and a consumerist of other
      >things, like books and mental stimulants, for he was a voracious reader
      >speed freak.
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Josh@...
      > To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 11:56 AM
      > Subject: Fwd: [Sartre] Re: Nietzsche and "Yes"
      >
      >
      > I must concur.
      > Consumerism is not about possessing.
      > It's about consuming.
      >
      > ---- Original message ----
      > >Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 16:39:46 -0000
      > >From: "loconito442 <loconito442@...>"
      > <loconito442@...>
      > >Subject: [Sartre] Re: Nietzsche and "Yes"
      > >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > >Hi, I have a point to make on this subject. I think that
      > when you
      > >say "yes" to consumerism you are saying "yes" to
      > consumerism, and not
      > >to having stuff.
      >
      >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >


      _________________________________________________________________
      The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months
      http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
    • Leon McQuaid
      No don t appologize, I like what you said. Possession vs. consumption. I would like to explore this. If we rationalize possession there is no basis of
      Message 2 of 16 , Jan 3, 2003
        No don't appologize, I like what you said. Possession vs. consumption. I
        would like to explore this. If we rationalize possession there is no basis
        of owning anything other than our actions.
        After all what is the criteria of ownership? A deed? that's just a piece of
        paper. Perhaps what is ownership is only the violence that can back up a
        claim. But there is another more accurate use of the word Possess, "as in
        the sense of the devil possessed me". And as an 'empty' consiousness I can
        define myself on 'having possessions' (ownership) or 'the act of
        possessing'. What I mean 'the act of possessing' is fully realizing the
        sensual potential of what I, as subject, objectify. I believe this is what
        De Beauvoir might mean when she talks about 'intersubjectivity'. Though I
        am fundamentally seperated from 'the Other' (or that which I objectify) if I
        am completely "generous in both body and consiousness" I almost 'possess the
        Other' it or they almost become a part of me. Thus I am not consuming or
        defining myself on want, I am defining myself on possession... yes that is
        good!!





        >From: Amy Wing <loconito442@...>
        >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
        >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: Re: [Sartre] Re: Nietzsche and "Yes"
        >Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:10:11 -0500 (EST)
        >
        >Hi, of course we consume things. Or more acuratly we
        >eat them, listen to them, protect ourselves with them,
        >but "consumerism" is has to do with producing for
        >profit. Well actually that is the way I meant it. Then
        >we just consume for the sake of consuming or in other
        >words because some celebraty says we need it, because
        >the Jones are the centre of attention because they
        >have something that we don't. That's what I meant.
        >Best, Amy --- Christopher Bobo <cbobo@...> wrote:
        > > We'll, I, for one, am glad that we got that
        > > straight. I like to have stuff myself. I wonder
        > > what Sartre would say about that. Do you think
        > > Sartre had stuff, or did he consume his stuff, or at
        > > least some of his stuff? He certainly liked to
        > > consume tobacco, coffee, and, I hear, wine and
        > > amphetamines. Did that make him a consumer if not a
        > > consumerist? Maybe he was a consumer of some things,
        > > like bread, and a consumerist of other things, like
        > > books and mental stimulants, for he was a voracious
        > > reader speed freak.
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: Josh@...
        > > To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
        > > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 11:56 AM
        > > Subject: Fwd: [Sartre] Re: Nietzsche and "Yes"
        > >
        > >
        > > I must concur.
        > > Consumerism is not about possessing.
        > > It's about consuming.
        > >
        > > ---- Original message ----
        > > >Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 16:39:46 -0000
        > > >From: "loconito442 <loconito442@...>"
        > > <loconito442@...>
        > > >Subject: [Sartre] Re: Nietzsche and "Yes"
        > > >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
        > > >
        > > >Hi, I have a point to make on this subject. I
        > > think that
        > > when you
        > > >say "yes" to consumerism you are saying "yes" to
        > > consumerism, and not
        > > >to having stuff.
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
        > > removed]
        > >
        > >
        >
        >______________________________________________________________________
        >Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca


        _________________________________________________________________
        The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months
        http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
      • Amy Wing
        Hi Leon, I think that I understand what you are saying. We are activley defining ourselves by possessing and therefore producing the meaning in our life.
        Message 3 of 16 , Jan 4, 2003
          Hi Leon, I think that I understand what you are
          saying. We are activley defining ourselves by
          possessing and therefore producing the meaning in our
          life. Giving, is making others apart of the meaning in
          our life, thus apart of us. This is why Sartre says
          that when we choose for ourselves we also choose for
          the world. We are the same. How did I do? I
          understand that possession does not just relate to
          material possesions. I like your line of thinking, and
          I have something to add. We can create meaning for
          ourselves by what we do possess and what we don't
          possess.

          An idea related to defining ourselves by what we do
          not possess, that has me totally awstruck, is that
          when we say that we do not own something, we emphasis
          it. So, if I was to say, I do not believe in boarders,
          I actually create them. What I am saying by this is
          that my property does not have boards which really
          means that people can come on my property. This is
          getting a bit off topic, so don't worry if no-one
          really has anything to say about it. I am just really
          puzzled at the power of this idea and I think that it
          is very key to they way we produce meaning without
          knowing it.

          Bye the way orangebox--I like everything you said.
          Thanks.

          All Best,
          Amy


          --- Leon McQuaid <leonpmcquaid@...> wrote: >
          No don't appologize, I like what you said.
          > Possession vs. consumption. I
          > would like to explore this. If we rationalize
          > possession there is no basis
          > of owning anything other than our actions.
          > After all what is the criteria of ownership? A deed?
          > that's just a piece of
          > paper. Perhaps what is ownership is only the
          > violence that can back up a
          > claim. But there is another more accurate use of
          > the word Possess, "as in
          > the sense of the devil possessed me". And as an
          > 'empty' consiousness I can
          > define myself on 'having possessions' (ownership) or
          > 'the act of
          > possessing'. What I mean 'the act of possessing' is
          > fully realizing the
          > sensual potential of what I, as subject, objectify.
          > I believe this is what
          > De Beauvoir might mean when she talks about
          > 'intersubjectivity'. Though I
          > am fundamentally seperated from 'the Other' (or that
          > which I objectify) if I
          > am completely "generous in both body and
          > consiousness" I almost 'possess the
          > Other' it or they almost become a part of me. Thus
          > I am not consuming or
          > defining myself on want, I am defining myself on
          > possession... yes that is
          > good!!
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > >From: Amy Wing <loconito442@...>
          > >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
          > >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
          > >Subject: Re: [Sartre] Re: Nietzsche and "Yes"
          > >Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:10:11 -0500 (EST)
          > >
          > >Hi, of course we consume things. Or more acuratly
          > we
          > >eat them, listen to them, protect ourselves with
          > them,
          > >but "consumerism" is has to do with producing for
          > >profit. Well actually that is the way I meant it.
          > Then
          > >we just consume for the sake of consuming or in
          > other
          > >words because some celebraty says we need it,
          > because
          > >the Jones are the centre of attention because they
          > >have something that we don't. That's what I meant.
          > >Best, Amy --- Christopher Bobo <cbobo@...>
          > wrote:
          > > > We'll, I, for one, am glad that we got that
          > > > straight. I like to have stuff myself. I
          > wonder
          > > > what Sartre would say about that. Do you think
          > > > Sartre had stuff, or did he consume his stuff,
          > or at
          > > > least some of his stuff? He certainly liked to
          > > > consume tobacco, coffee, and, I hear, wine and
          > > > amphetamines. Did that make him a consumer if
          > not a
          > > > consumerist? Maybe he was a consumer of some
          > things,
          > > > like bread, and a consumerist of other things,
          > like
          > > > books and mental stimulants, for he was a
          > voracious
          > > > reader speed freak.
          > > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > > From: Josh@...
          > > > To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
          > > > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 11:56 AM
          > > > Subject: Fwd: [Sartre] Re: Nietzsche and "Yes"
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > I must concur.
          > > > Consumerism is not about possessing.
          > > > It's about consuming.
          > > >
          > > > ---- Original message ----
          > > > >Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 16:39:46 -0000
          > > > >From: "loconito442 <loconito442@...>"
          > > > <loconito442@...>
          > > > >Subject: [Sartre] Re: Nietzsche and "Yes"
          > > > >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
          > > > >
          > > > >Hi, I have a point to make on this subject.
          > I
          > > > think that
          > > > when you
          > > > >say "yes" to consumerism you are saying "yes"
          > to
          > > > consumerism, and not
          > > > >to having stuff.
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
          > > > removed]
          > > >
          > > >
          > >
          >
          >______________________________________________________________________
          > >Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
          >
          >
          >
          _________________________________________________________________
          > The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months
          > http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
          >
          >

          ______________________________________________________________________
          Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
        • Elaine
          ... Have thought a great deal lately of Consumerism . Yes, it is an ism , a fundamental principal to ensure the masses are always dependent upon the system.
          Message 4 of 16 , Jan 4, 2003
            > Hi, of course we consume things. Or more acuratly we
            > eat them, listen to them, protect ourselves with them,
            > but "consumerism" is has to do with producing for
            > profit. Well actually that is the way I meant it. Then
            > we just consume for the sake of consuming or in other
            > words because some celebraty says we need it, because
            > the Jones are the centre of attention because they
            > have something that we don't. That's what I meant.
            > Best, Amy

            Have thought a great deal lately of "Consumerism".
            Yes, it is an "ism", a fundamental principal to ensure
            the masses are always dependent upon the system.
            Where once, human need created interest, the powers that
            be have inspired interest to create a need. They have reversed
            the principal. Media/advertising brainwashes by continual
            representation. In the vast majority of cases, the need is a
            total delusion, for once acquired possessions often stand
            dormant after an initial period of use. It is not that these possessions
            are not useful, but rather there is not a need for their usefulness.
            Regardless, the system is maintained, for the workers must continue
            to work to either replace inferior productions or possess newly created
            items for possession. It is not about human beings having possession, but
            rather human beings owned/possessed by way of maintaining their interest
            in a need to possess, where the possessions themselves become meaningless.

            Love & Massive Hugs
            Elaine
          • Amy Wing
            Hi Elaine, Well put! I also think that this system, consumerism, keeps us dependendent by creating needs instead of satisfying them. I absolutly agree with
            Message 5 of 16 , Jan 4, 2003
              Hi Elaine, Well put! I also think that this system,
              consumerism, keeps us dependendent by creating needs
              instead of satisfying them. I absolutly agree with
              you. It has been a while since I have read the book,
              but De Beauvoir decribes the main protagonist in her
              novel "The Blood Others" as not seeming to need
              anything material. He never even really eats. I don't
              want to give away anything for anyone who has not read
              it, but a woman who indulges her desires at every turn
              becomes very attracted to him, creating a tension in
              the novel. Like I said, I don't want to give the plot
              away, because it is a goody, I just wanted to say that
              Simone addresses this issue of need vs desire very
              directly in her book.

              Love and hugs right back at ya,

              Amy
              Our --- Elaine <lizral@...> wrote: >
              >
              > > Hi, of course we consume things. Or more acuratly
              > we
              > > eat them, listen to them, protect ourselves with
              > them,
              > > but "consumerism" is has to do with producing for
              > > profit. Well actually that is the way I meant it.
              > Then
              > > we just consume for the sake of consuming or in
              > other
              > > words because some celebraty says we need it,
              > because
              > > the Jones are the centre of attention because they
              > > have something that we don't. That's what I meant.
              > > Best, Amy
              >
              > Have thought a great deal lately of "Consumerism".
              > Yes, it is an "ism", a fundamental principal to
              > ensure
              > the masses are always dependent upon the system.
              > Where once, human need created interest, the powers
              > that
              > be have inspired interest to create a need. They
              > have reversed
              > the principal. Media/advertising brainwashes by
              > continual
              > representation. In the vast majority of cases, the
              > need is a
              > total delusion, for once acquired possessions often
              > stand
              > dormant after an initial period of use. It is not
              > that these possessions
              > are not useful, but rather there is not a need for
              > their usefulness.
              > Regardless, the system is maintained, for the
              > workers must continue
              > to work to either replace inferior productions or
              > possess newly created
              > items for possession. It is not about human beings
              > having possession, but
              > rather human beings owned/possessed by way of
              > maintaining their interest
              > in a need to possess, where the possessions
              > themselves become meaningless.
              >
              > Love & Massive Hugs
              > Elaine
              >
              >
              >
              >

              ______________________________________________________________________
              Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
            • Leon McQuaid
              which book are you refering to Amy? ... _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM: Try the new MSN 8 and get 2 months
              Message 6 of 16 , Jan 4, 2003
                which book are you refering to Amy?






                >From: Amy Wing <loconito442@...>
                >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                >Subject: Re: [Sartre] Re: Nietzsche and "Yes"
                >Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 18:32:58 -0500 (EST)
                >
                >Hi Elaine, Well put! I also think that this system,
                >consumerism, keeps us dependendent by creating needs
                >instead of satisfying them. I absolutly agree with
                >you. It has been a while since I have read the book,
                >but De Beauvoir decribes the main protagonist in her
                >novel "The Blood Others" as not seeming to need
                >anything material. He never even really eats. I don't
                >want to give away anything for anyone who has not read
                >it, but a woman who indulges her desires at every turn
                >becomes very attracted to him, creating a tension in
                >the novel. Like I said, I don't want to give the plot
                >away, because it is a goody, I just wanted to say that
                >Simone addresses this issue of need vs desire very
                >directly in her book.
                >
                >Love and hugs right back at ya,
                >
                >Amy
                >Our --- Elaine <lizral@...> wrote: >
                > >
                > > > Hi, of course we consume things. Or more acuratly
                > > we
                > > > eat them, listen to them, protect ourselves with
                > > them,
                > > > but "consumerism" is has to do with producing for
                > > > profit. Well actually that is the way I meant it.
                > > Then
                > > > we just consume for the sake of consuming or in
                > > other
                > > > words because some celebraty says we need it,
                > > because
                > > > the Jones are the centre of attention because they
                > > > have something that we don't. That's what I meant.
                > > > Best, Amy
                > >
                > > Have thought a great deal lately of "Consumerism".
                > > Yes, it is an "ism", a fundamental principal to
                > > ensure
                > > the masses are always dependent upon the system.
                > > Where once, human need created interest, the powers
                > > that
                > > be have inspired interest to create a need. They
                > > have reversed
                > > the principal. Media/advertising brainwashes by
                > > continual
                > > representation. In the vast majority of cases, the
                > > need is a
                > > total delusion, for once acquired possessions often
                > > stand
                > > dormant after an initial period of use. It is not
                > > that these possessions
                > > are not useful, but rather there is not a need for
                > > their usefulness.
                > > Regardless, the system is maintained, for the
                > > workers must continue
                > > to work to either replace inferior productions or
                > > possess newly created
                > > items for possession. It is not about human beings
                > > having possession, but
                > > rather human beings owned/possessed by way of
                > > maintaining their interest
                > > in a need to possess, where the possessions
                > > themselves become meaningless.
                > >
                > > Love & Massive Hugs
                > > Elaine
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >______________________________________________________________________
                >Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca


                _________________________________________________________________
                Help STOP SPAM: Try the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
                http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
              • Amy Wing
                Hi, It is called The Blood Of Others , by Simone De Beauvoir. A very thought provoking novel. You ll love it! Cheers, Amy --- Leon McQuaid
                Message 7 of 16 , Jan 4, 2003
                  Hi, It is called "The Blood Of Others", by Simone De
                  Beauvoir. A very thought provoking novel. You'll love
                  it! Cheers, Amy --- Leon McQuaid
                  <leonpmcquaid@...> wrote: > which book are you
                  refering to Amy?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > >From: Amy Wing <loconito442@...>
                  > >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                  > >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                  > >Subject: Re: [Sartre] Re: Nietzsche and "Yes"
                  > >Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 18:32:58 -0500 (EST)
                  > >
                  > >Hi Elaine, Well put! I also think that this system,
                  > >consumerism, keeps us dependendent by creating
                  > needs
                  > >instead of satisfying them. I absolutly agree with
                  > >you. It has been a while since I have read the
                  > book,
                  > >but De Beauvoir decribes the main protagonist in
                  > her
                  > >novel "The Blood Others" as not seeming to need
                  > >anything material. He never even really eats. I
                  > don't
                  > >want to give away anything for anyone who has not
                  > read
                  > >it, but a woman who indulges her desires at every
                  > turn
                  > >becomes very attracted to him, creating a tension
                  > in
                  > >the novel. Like I said, I don't want to give the
                  > plot
                  > >away, because it is a goody, I just wanted to say
                  > that
                  > >Simone addresses this issue of need vs desire very
                  > >directly in her book.
                  > >
                  > >Love and hugs right back at ya,
                  > >
                  > >Amy
                  > >Our --- Elaine <lizral@...> wrote: >
                  > > >
                  > > > > Hi, of course we consume things. Or more
                  > acuratly
                  > > > we
                  > > > > eat them, listen to them, protect ourselves
                  > with
                  > > > them,
                  > > > > but "consumerism" is has to do with producing
                  > for
                  > > > > profit. Well actually that is the way I meant
                  > it.
                  > > > Then
                  > > > > we just consume for the sake of consuming or
                  > in
                  > > > other
                  > > > > words because some celebraty says we need it,
                  > > > because
                  > > > > the Jones are the centre of attention because
                  > they
                  > > > > have something that we don't. That's what I
                  > meant.
                  > > > > Best, Amy
                  > > >
                  > > > Have thought a great deal lately of
                  > "Consumerism".
                  > > > Yes, it is an "ism", a fundamental principal to
                  > > > ensure
                  > > > the masses are always dependent upon the system.
                  > > > Where once, human need created interest, the
                  > powers
                  > > > that
                  > > > be have inspired interest to create a need. They
                  > > > have reversed
                  > > > the principal. Media/advertising brainwashes by
                  > > > continual
                  > > > representation. In the vast majority of cases,
                  > the
                  > > > need is a
                  > > > total delusion, for once acquired possessions
                  > often
                  > > > stand
                  > > > dormant after an initial period of use. It is
                  > not
                  > > > that these possessions
                  > > > are not useful, but rather there is not a need
                  > for
                  > > > their usefulness.
                  > > > Regardless, the system is maintained, for the
                  > > > workers must continue
                  > > > to work to either replace inferior productions
                  > or
                  > > > possess newly created
                  > > > items for possession. It is not about human
                  > beings
                  > > > having possession, but
                  > > > rather human beings owned/possessed by way of
                  > > > maintaining their interest
                  > > > in a need to possess, where the possessions
                  > > > themselves become meaningless.
                  > > >
                  > > > Love & Massive Hugs
                  > > > Elaine
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >______________________________________________________________________
                  > >Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  _________________________________________________________________
                  > Help STOP SPAM: Try the new MSN 8 and get 2 months
                  > FREE*
                  > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
                  >
                  >

                  ______________________________________________________________________
                  Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
                • loconito442 <loconito442@yahoo.com>
                  Hi Leon, I was just re-reading the point that you were making about possesing and owning and actually I am argueing that you can posses something, to use it,
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jan 7, 2003
                    Hi Leon, I was just re-reading the point that you were making about
                    possesing and owning and actually I am argueing that you can posses
                    something, to use it, without owning it. Thanks, Amy--- In
                    Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Leon McQuaid" <leonpmcquaid@h...> wrote:
                    > No don't appologize, I like what you said. Possession vs.
                    consumption. I
                    > would like to explore this. If we rationalize possession there is
                    no basis
                    > of owning anything other than our actions.
                    > After all what is the criteria of ownership? A deed? that's just a
                    piece of
                    > paper. Perhaps what is ownership is only the violence that can
                    back up a
                    > claim. But there is another more accurate use of the word
                    Possess, "as in
                    > the sense of the devil possessed me". And as an 'empty'
                    consiousness I can
                    > define myself on 'having possessions' (ownership) or 'the act of
                    > possessing'. What I mean 'the act of possessing' is fully
                    realizing the
                    > sensual potential of what I, as subject, objectify. I believe this
                    is what
                    > De Beauvoir might mean when she talks about 'intersubjectivity'.
                    Though I
                    > am fundamentally seperated from 'the Other' (or that which I
                    objectify) if I
                    > am completely "generous in both body and consiousness" I
                    almost 'possess the
                    > Other' it or they almost become a part of me. Thus I am not
                    consuming or
                    > defining myself on want, I am defining myself on possession... yes
                    that is
                    > good!!
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > >From: Amy Wing <loconito442@y...>
                    > >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                    > >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                    > >Subject: Re: [Sartre] Re: Nietzsche and "Yes"
                    > >Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:10:11 -0500 (EST)
                    > >
                    > >Hi, of course we consume things. Or more acuratly we
                    > >eat them, listen to them, protect ourselves with them,
                    > >but "consumerism" is has to do with producing for
                    > >profit. Well actually that is the way I meant it. Then
                    > >we just consume for the sake of consuming or in other
                    > >words because some celebraty says we need it, because
                    > >the Jones are the centre of attention because they
                    > >have something that we don't. That's what I meant.
                    > >Best, Amy --- Christopher Bobo <cbobo@m...> wrote:
                    > > > We'll, I, for one, am glad that we got that
                    > > > straight. I like to have stuff myself. I wonder
                    > > > what Sartre would say about that. Do you think
                    > > > Sartre had stuff, or did he consume his stuff, or at
                    > > > least some of his stuff? He certainly liked to
                    > > > consume tobacco, coffee, and, I hear, wine and
                    > > > amphetamines. Did that make him a consumer if not a
                    > > > consumerist? Maybe he was a consumer of some things,
                    > > > like bread, and a consumerist of other things, like
                    > > > books and mental stimulants, for he was a voracious
                    > > > reader speed freak.
                    > > > ----- Original Message -----
                    > > > From: Josh@o...
                    > > > To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                    > > > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 11:56 AM
                    > > > Subject: Fwd: [Sartre] Re: Nietzsche and "Yes"
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > I must concur.
                    > > > Consumerism is not about possessing.
                    > > > It's about consuming.
                    > > >
                    > > > ---- Original message ----
                    > > > >Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 16:39:46 -0000
                    > > > >From: "loconito442 <loconito442@y...>"
                    > > > <loconito442@y...>
                    > > > >Subject: [Sartre] Re: Nietzsche and "Yes"
                    > > > >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                    > > > >
                    > > > >Hi, I have a point to make on this subject. I
                    > > > think that
                    > > > when you
                    > > > >say "yes" to consumerism you are saying "yes" to
                    > > > consumerism, and not
                    > > > >to having stuff.
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                    > > > removed]
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >_____________________________________________________________________
                    _
                    > >Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
                    >
                    >
                    > _________________________________________________________________
                    > The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months
                    > http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
                  • David Villena
                    Can you read Plato´s Theaetetus? David ... __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jan 8, 2003
                      Can you read Plato�s Theaetetus?

                      David
                      --- "loconito442 <loconito442@...>"
                      <loconito442@...> wrote:
                      > Hi Leon, I was just re-reading the point that you
                      > were making about
                      > possesing and owning and actually I am argueing that
                      > you can posses
                      > something, to use it, without owning it. Thanks,
                      > Amy--- In
                      > Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Leon McQuaid"
                      > <leonpmcquaid@h...> wrote:
                      > > No don't appologize, I like what you said.
                      > Possession vs.
                      > consumption. I
                      > > would like to explore this. If we rationalize
                      > possession there is
                      > no basis
                      > > of owning anything other than our actions.
                      > > After all what is the criteria of ownership? A
                      > deed? that's just a
                      > piece of
                      > > paper. Perhaps what is ownership is only the
                      > violence that can
                      > back up a
                      > > claim. But there is another more accurate use of
                      > the word
                      > Possess, "as in
                      > > the sense of the devil possessed me". And as an
                      > 'empty'
                      > consiousness I can
                      > > define myself on 'having possessions' (ownership)
                      > or 'the act of
                      > > possessing'. What I mean 'the act of possessing'
                      > is fully
                      > realizing the
                      > > sensual potential of what I, as subject,
                      > objectify. I believe this
                      > is what
                      > > De Beauvoir might mean when she talks about
                      > 'intersubjectivity'.
                      > Though I
                      > > am fundamentally seperated from 'the Other' (or
                      > that which I
                      > objectify) if I
                      > > am completely "generous in both body and
                      > consiousness" I
                      > almost 'possess the
                      > > Other' it or they almost become a part of me.
                      > Thus I am not
                      > consuming or
                      > > defining myself on want, I am defining myself on
                      > possession... yes
                      > that is
                      > > good!!
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > >From: Amy Wing <loconito442@y...>
                      > > >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                      > > >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                      > > >Subject: Re: [Sartre] Re: Nietzsche and "Yes"
                      > > >Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:10:11 -0500 (EST)
                      > > >
                      > > >Hi, of course we consume things. Or more acuratly
                      > we
                      > > >eat them, listen to them, protect ourselves with
                      > them,
                      > > >but "consumerism" is has to do with producing for
                      > > >profit. Well actually that is the way I meant it.
                      > Then
                      > > >we just consume for the sake of consuming or in
                      > other
                      > > >words because some celebraty says we need it,
                      > because
                      > > >the Jones are the centre of attention because
                      > they
                      > > >have something that we don't. That's what I
                      > meant.
                      > > >Best, Amy --- Christopher Bobo <cbobo@m...>
                      > wrote:
                      > > > > We'll, I, for one, am glad that we got that
                      > > > > straight. I like to have stuff myself. I
                      > wonder
                      > > > > what Sartre would say about that. Do you
                      > think
                      > > > > Sartre had stuff, or did he consume his stuff,
                      > or at
                      > > > > least some of his stuff? He certainly liked to
                      > > > > consume tobacco, coffee, and, I hear, wine and
                      > > > > amphetamines. Did that make him a consumer if
                      > not a
                      > > > > consumerist? Maybe he was a consumer of some
                      > things,
                      > > > > like bread, and a consumerist of other
                      > things, like
                      > > > > books and mental stimulants, for he was a
                      > voracious
                      > > > > reader speed freak.
                      > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                      > > > > From: Josh@o...
                      > > > > To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                      > > > > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 11:56 AM
                      > > > > Subject: Fwd: [Sartre] Re: Nietzsche and
                      > "Yes"
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > I must concur.
                      > > > > Consumerism is not about possessing.
                      > > > > It's about consuming.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > ---- Original message ----
                      > > > > >Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 16:39:46 -0000
                      > > > > >From: "loconito442 <loconito442@y...>"
                      > > > > <loconito442@y...>
                      > > > > >Subject: [Sartre] Re: Nietzsche and "Yes"
                      > > > > >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >Hi, I have a point to make on this
                      > subject. I
                      > > > > think that
                      > > > > when you
                      > > > > >say "yes" to consumerism you are saying
                      > "yes" to
                      > > > > consumerism, and not
                      > > > > >to having stuff.
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                      > > > > removed]
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >
                      >_____________________________________________________________________
                      > _
                      > > >Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      _________________________________________________________________
                      > > The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months
                      > > http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
                      >
                      >
                      > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
                      > Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >


                      __________________________________________________
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                      http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                    • praxistence@aol.com
                      What we re calling consumerism is just one element of what Sartre called the mediation of matter by men. People are materialist in the sense that we carry out
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jan 8, 2003
                        What we're calling consumerism is just one element of what Sartre called the
                        mediation of matter by men. People are materialist in the sense that we carry
                        out our lives through the mediation of matter, whether it's ekeing out a
                        subsistence existence, using the PC to communicate, or the extreme
                        conspicuous consumption.

                        I suppose in the same fashion that Sartre thought people should look
                        "ordinary," he also believed that we had little choice but to consume;
                        however, I suspect that this consumerism should be likewise ordinary,
                        although in the past 20 years, owning a computer is an example of ordinary
                        consumption.


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Helen Brady
                        ‘In the past 20 years, owning a computer is an example of ordinary consumption.’ I must add - not only do I feel privileged to access the computer I am
                        Message 11 of 16 , Jan 9, 2003
                          ‘In the past 20 years, owning a computer is an example of ordinary
                          consumption.’ I must add - not only do I feel privileged to access the
                          computer I am also aware that within some regions there are pockets of
                          depravation where individuals may, or may not, have a poor credit record
                          and where primary employment seems unobtainable - where crime is rife
                          and computers are bought and sold on the black market. Is this ordinary
                          consumption?
                          Antonio Gramsci, and others, as I have just read, view consumerism,
                          materialism etc. as extending from the manipulation of a cumulating
                          party who are the creators of universalisation ie: the Bourgeois. A more
                          accurate explanation would be found under Hegemonic theory.
                          Great to have the time to read so many interesting
                          opinions – thank you - Helen.

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: praxistence@... [mailto:praxistence@...]
                          Sent: 08 January 2003 22:23
                          To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [Sartre] Re: Nietzsche and "Yes"

                          What we're calling consumerism is just one element of what Sartre called
                          the
                          mediation of matter by men. People are materialist in the sense that we
                          carry
                          out our lives through the mediation of matter, whether it's ekeing out a

                          subsistence existence, using the PC to communicate, or the extreme
                          conspicuous consumption.

                          I suppose in the same fashion that Sartre thought people should look
                          "ordinary," he also believed that we had little choice but to consume;
                          however, I suspect that this consumerism should be likewise ordinary,
                          although in the past 20 years, owning a computer is an example of
                          ordinary
                          consumption.


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                          To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                          <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • phil572002 <phil572002@yahoo.com>
                          ... the ... of ... record ... rife ... ordinary ... more ... Well, who is «bourgeois» and who is not?in my opinion we are all bourgeois , me in Canada and
                          Message 12 of 16 , Jan 10, 2003
                            --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Helen Brady" <helen@b...> wrote:
                            > `In the past 20 years, owning a computer is an example of ordinary
                            > consumption.' I must add - not only do I feel privileged to access
                            the
                            > computer I am also aware that within some regions there are pockets
                            of
                            > depravation where individuals may, or may not, have a poor credit
                            record
                            > and where primary employment seems unobtainable - where crime is
                            rife
                            > and computers are bought and sold on the black market. Is this
                            ordinary
                            > consumption?
                            > Antonio Gramsci, and others, as I have just read, view consumerism,
                            > materialism etc. as extending from the manipulation of a cumulating
                            > party who are the creators of universalisation ie: the Bourgeois. A
                            more
                            > accurate explanation would be found under Hegemonic theory.
                            > Great to have the time to read so many interesting
                            > opinions – thank you - Helen.

                            Well, who is «bourgeois» and who is not?in my opinion
                            we are all bourgeois , me in Canada and you in Great Britain ,
                            in the eyes of the peasant in Latin America, for example.
                            >
                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: praxistence@a... [mailto:praxistence@a...]
                            > Sent: 08 January 2003 22:23
                            > To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: Re: [Sartre] Re: Nietzsche and "Yes"
                            >
                            > What we're calling consumerism is just one element of what Sartre
                            called
                            > the
                            > mediation of matter by men. People are materialist in the sense
                            that we
                            > carry
                            > out our lives through the mediation of matter, whether it's ekeing
                            out a
                            >
                            > subsistence existence, using the PC to communicate, or the extreme
                            > conspicuous consumption.
                            >
                            > I suppose in the same fashion that Sartre thought people should
                            look
                            > "ordinary," he also believed that we had little choice but to
                            consume;
                            > however, I suspect that this consumerism should be likewise
                            ordinary,
                            > although in the past 20 years, owning a computer is an example of
                            > ordinary
                            > consumption.
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >
                            > To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >
                            >
                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                            > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.