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

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

Expand Messages
  • Leon McQuaid
    which book are you refering to Amy? ... _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM: Try the new MSN 8 and get 2 months
    Message 1 of 16 , Jan 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 16 , Jan 4, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 16 , Jan 7, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 16 , Jan 8, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 16 , Jan 8, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 16 , Jan 9, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                ‘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 7 of 16 , Jan 10, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- 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.