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

Re: [Sartre] burn sartre's work?

Expand Messages
  • Henry W. Peters
    ... No doubt about it, paul is looking for some (probably well) needed attention... Hence I hesitate to reply here... Must be lonely in his cage... & also,
    Message 1 of 13 , Sep 14, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      >is there anybody here who has actually understood sartre who, if
      >elected president wouldn't find all his books and burn them to
      >cinders?
      >
      >thoughts on a postcard,
      >paul
      >

      No doubt about it, "paul" is looking for some (probably well) needed
      attention... Hence I hesitate to reply here... Must be lonely in his
      cage... & also, no doubt, running for president... (he seems to
      assume rather wrongly, I think, that this discussion list is
      "limited" to folk from USA, alas, a bias all to well known globally &
      which needs serious changing! If I thought it would do any good, I
      would apologize for this outlook... Well, "he" gets my "vote..."
      not saying exactly where, for the moment... since I am not the
      moderator of this discussion, but it ranks right "up" there with: --
      ezc4yq49 <ezc4yq49@...> wrote:
      > Are you far into debt?
      > I was in the hole

      Henry
    • Tommy Beavitt
      Hi there, Yes, well, I can see what you mean about the US-centricity here. However, paul doesn t specify president of the USA - his post could be taken to mean
      Message 2 of 13 , Sep 16, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi there,

        Yes, well, I can see what you mean about the US-centricity here.
        However, paul doesn't specify president of the USA - his post could be
        taken to mean the future president of a democratic world.

        Clearly, book-burning would have no place in such a world, and in
        particular the burning of Sartre's books.

        I won't say that paul's post is off-topic as it does specifically refer
        to the subject matter of this forum. However, probably most of the
        responses to it will be.

        If we are to continue in this vein, I would like to ask paul to say
        what of Sartre's work would merit burning and why? We need specific
        references here...

        Otherwise, let's move on.

        Tommy

        On 14 Sep 2004, at 17:27, Henry W. Peters wrote:

        >> is there anybody here who has actually understood sartre who, if
        >> elected president wouldn't find all his books and burn them to
        >> cinders?
        >>
        >> thoughts on a postcard,
        >> paul
        >>
        >
        > No doubt about it, "paul" is looking for some (probably well) needed
        > attention... Hence I hesitate to reply here... Must be lonely in his
        > cage... & also, no doubt, running for president... (he seems to
        > assume rather wrongly, I think, that this discussion list is
        > "limited" to folk from USA, alas, a bias all to well known globally &
        > which needs serious changing! If I thought it would do any good, I
        > would apologize for this outlook... Well, "he" gets my "vote..."
        > not saying exactly where, for the moment... since I am not the
        > moderator of this discussion, but it ranks right "up" there with: --
        > ezc4yq49 <ezc4yq49@...> wrote:
        >> Are you far into debt?
        >> I was in the hole
        >
        > Henry
        >
        >
        >
        > To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Lapin _866
        So Paul, would you burn these books? Why? ... Why Sartre? ... _________________________________________________________________ Soyez toujours informé de ce
        Message 3 of 13 , Sep 16, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          So Paul, would you burn these books? Why? ... Why Sartre?


          >From: "Paul" <p.cave@...>
          >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
          >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
          >Subject: [Sartre] burn sartre's work?
          >Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:26:47 -0000
          >
          >is there anybody here who has actually understood sartre who, if
          >elected president wouldn't find all his books and burn them to
          >cinders?
          >
          >thoughts on a postcard,
          >paul
          >

          _________________________________________________________________
          Soyez toujours informé de ce que prévoient les astres pour votre journée par
          SMS http://www.fr.msn.ch/mobile/
        • Paul
          well fair enough tommy beavit. nausea for example, should be burnt. it represents the narcissistic drive of a meglomaniac who cared more about IMMORTALISING
          Message 4 of 13 , Sep 16, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            well fair enough tommy beavit.

            nausea for example, should be burnt.

            it represents the narcissistic drive of a meglomaniac who cared more
            about "IMMORTALISING HIMSELF IN LITERATURE" than the effect of his
            work on people.

            Sartre present a problem that we cannot escape, and then provides a
            VASTLY inadequate solution to this problem he's just exposed to us.

            Nausea is self destructive, all it does it destroy, deconstruct.
            Michel Foucault said when he attended Sartre's funeral, he had no
            sympathy for sartre, and that it was his ambition to refute
            everything that sartre wrote... and he makes a good point - all
            nausea does is create a bumbling mass of humans trying "not to
            move... above all not to move"

            paul


            --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Lapin _866" <lapin_866@h...> wrote:
            > So Paul, would you burn these books? Why? ... Why Sartre?
            >
            >
            > >From: "Paul" <p.cave@u...>
            > >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
            > >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
            > >Subject: [Sartre] burn sartre's work?
            > >Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:26:47 -0000
            > >
            > >is there anybody here who has actually understood sartre who, if
            > >elected president wouldn't find all his books and burn them to
            > >cinders?
            > >
            > >thoughts on a postcard,
            > >paul
            > >
            >
            > _________________________________________________________________
            > Soyez toujours informé de ce que prévoient les astres pour votre
            journée par
            > SMS http://www.fr.msn.ch/mobile/
          • Cinque
            Alright. Let me jump in here. In The Lives of Michel Foucault: A Biography by David MacEy Foucault said of Sartre that he was a terrorist in that he was an
            Message 5 of 13 , Sep 16, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Alright. Let me jump in here.

              In The Lives of Michel Foucault: A Biography
              by David MacEy Foucault said of Sartre that he was a
              "terrorist" in that he was an intellectual whose
              genius went so far it overshadowed continental
              philosophy. Sartre and his methodology, his subject
              matter, his mannerisms all became monolithic in the
              European intellectual community. Everyone understood
              that his projects were, all things being equal, an
              attack on the bourgeoisie. To that end Foucault was
              right to call Sartre a terrorist, in that he terrified
              the younger generation of students from the Ecole
              Normal Superieure.


              Now as for Burning Sartre's literary works. Of course.
              Burn them all. They only drive philosophy students
              crazy, and you'd have to be crazy to dive in to his
              works and come out sane. It can not be done. Emerging
              from Sartre is, like any good literature, like
              emerging from a sickness. But read them before you set
              the flame to them. The method in the madness is the
              method itself, which is the methodical project as it
              unfolds and the super-human effort and attention
              Sartre has put into his works.

              Was Sartre neurotic? Yes, of course. But who isn�t?
              Was Sartre megalomaniacal? Of course. Sartre was drunk
              on the frenzy of artistic expression, the Nietzschean
              conception of a Dionysian apotheosis.

              Best Regards,

              Ben



              --- Paul <p.cave@...> wrote:

              > well fair enough tommy beavit.
              >
              > nausea for example, should be burnt.
              >
              > it represents the narcissistic drive of a
              > meglomaniac who cared more
              > about "IMMORTALISING HIMSELF IN LITERATURE" than the
              > effect of his
              > work on people.
              >
              > Sartre present a problem that we cannot escape, and
              > then provides a
              > VASTLY inadequate solution to this problem he's just
              > exposed to us.
              >
              > Nausea is self destructive, all it does it destroy,
              > deconstruct.
              > Michel Foucault said when he attended Sartre's
              > funeral, he had no
              > sympathy for sartre, and that it was his ambition to
              > refute
              > everything that sartre wrote... and he makes a good
              > point - all
              > nausea does is create a bumbling mass of humans
              > trying "not to
              > move... above all not to move"
              >
              > paul
              >
              >
              > --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Lapin _866"
              > <lapin_866@h...> wrote:
              > > So Paul, would you burn these books? Why? ... Why
              > Sartre?
              > >
              > >
              > > >From: "Paul" <p.cave@u...>
              > > >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
              > > >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
              > > >Subject: [Sartre] burn sartre's work?
              > > >Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:26:47 -0000
              > > >
              > > >is there anybody here who has actually understood
              > sartre who, if
              > > >elected president wouldn't find all his books and
              > burn them to
              > > >cinders?
              > > >
              > > >thoughts on a postcard,
              > > >paul
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              _________________________________________________________________
              > > Soyez toujours inform� de ce que pr�voient les
              > astres pour votre
              > journ�e par
              > > SMS http://www.fr.msn.ch/mobile/
              >
              >




              _______________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
              http://vote.yahoo.com
            • Bill Barger
              It may be that Sartre was just too absorbed with his Flaubert study to pay much attention to Foucault and Structuralism. Foucault was not so outraged by
              Message 6 of 13 , Sep 17, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                It may be that Sartre was just too absorbed with his Flaubert study
                to pay much attention to Foucault and Structuralism. Foucault was
                not so outraged by Sartre's "terrorism" that he refused to join
                with him in protesting the government in power at several public
                demonstrations and protests that were held after May 1968. Sartre
                never, to my knowledge, called Foucault anything so venomous: he
                called Foucault a positivist, and rejected Structuralism on the same
                grounds that he rejected positivism: it was a bourgeois doctrine
                reducing humans to atoms in mechanical motion, and ignoring
                subjective human intentions and goals. In other words,
                structuralists were non-dialectical, in his view. But he would have
                fought vigorously against any attempt to burn their books. He would
                never tolerate that imitation of Naziism. Respectfully, Bill Barger

                --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, Cinque <eyeamdvnt@y...> wrote:
                >
                > Alright. Let me jump in here.
                >
                > In The Lives of Michel Foucault: A Biography
                > by David MacEy Foucault said of Sartre that he was a
                > "terrorist" in that he was an intellectual whose
                > genius went so far it overshadowed continental
                > philosophy. Sartre and his methodology, his subject
                > matter, his mannerisms all became monolithic in the
                > European intellectual community. Everyone understood
                > that his projects were, all things being equal, an
                > attack on the bourgeoisie. To that end Foucault was
                > right to call Sartre a terrorist, in that he terrified
                > the younger generation of students from the Ecole
                > Normal Superieure.
                >
                >
                > Now as for Burning Sartre's literary works. Of course.
                > Burn them all. They only drive philosophy students
                > crazy, and you'd have to be crazy to dive in to his
                > works and come out sane. It can not be done. Emerging
                > from Sartre is, like any good literature, like
                > emerging from a sickness. But read them before you set
                > the flame to them. The method in the madness is the
                > method itself, which is the methodical project as it
                > unfolds and the super-human effort and attention
                > Sartre has put into his works.
                >
                > Was Sartre neurotic? Yes, of course. But who isn't?
                > Was Sartre megalomaniacal? Of course. Sartre was drunk
                > on the frenzy of artistic expression, the Nietzschean
                > conception of a Dionysian apotheosis.
                >
                > Best Regards,
                >
                > Ben
                >
                >
                >
                > --- Paul <p.cave@u...> wrote:
                >
                > > well fair enough tommy beavit.
                > >
                > > nausea for example, should be burnt.
                > >
                > > it represents the narcissistic drive of a
                > > meglomaniac who cared more
                > > about "IMMORTALISING HIMSELF IN LITERATURE" than the
                > > effect of his
                > > work on people.
                > >
                > > Sartre present a problem that we cannot escape, and
                > > then provides a
                > > VASTLY inadequate solution to this problem he's just
                > > exposed to us.
                > >
                > > Nausea is self destructive, all it does it destroy,
                > > deconstruct.
                > > Michel Foucault said when he attended Sartre's
                > > funeral, he had no
                > > sympathy for sartre, and that it was his ambition to
                > > refute
                > > everything that sartre wrote... and he makes a good
                > > point - all
                > > nausea does is create a bumbling mass of humans
                > > trying "not to
                > > move... above all not to move"
                > >
                > > paul
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Lapin _866"
                > > <lapin_866@h...> wrote:
                > > > So Paul, would you burn these books? Why? ... Why
                > > Sartre?
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > >From: "Paul" <p.cave@u...>
                > > > >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                > > > >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                > > > >Subject: [Sartre] burn sartre's work?
                > > > >Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:26:47 -0000
                > > > >
                > > > >is there anybody here who has actually understood
                > > sartre who, if
                > > > >elected president wouldn't find all his books and
                > > burn them to
                > > > >cinders?
                > > > >
                > > > >thoughts on a postcard,
                > > > >paul
                > > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > _________________________________________________________________
                > > > Soyez toujours informé de ce que prévoient les
                > > astres pour votre
                > > journée par
                > > > SMS http://www.fr.msn.ch/mobile/
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > _______________________________
                > Do you Yahoo!?
                > Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
                > http://vote.yahoo.com
              • Henry W. Peters
                Thanks for the relevant morsels to ponder & helpful information Bill... & yes, I agree with that part which Ben says But read them before you... though
                Message 7 of 13 , Sep 18, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks for the relevant morsels to ponder & helpful information
                  Bill... & yes, I agree with that part which Ben says "But read
                  them before you..." though I would never assent to the "after
                  you..." implied, largely in irony, one hopes. I myself was not
                  much aware of Michel Foucault so I looked him up on the web & found,
                  among other things this...

                  Henry

                  As the poet sd: "How can you learn less?"

                  >http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/fouc.essay.html
                  > "Foucault.info -> Michel Foucault - Interview: Polemics, Politics and
                  > Problematizations
                  >
                  >Paul Rabinow: Why is it that you don't engage in polemics ?
                  >
                  >Michel Foucault: I like discussions, and when I am asked questions, I try to
                  >answer them. It's true that I don't like to get involved in
                  >polemics. If I open a book
                  >and see that the author is accusing an adversary of "infantile
                  >leftism" I shut it
                  >again right away. That's not my way of doing things; I don't belong
                  >to the world of
                  >people who do things that way. I insist on this difference as
                  >something essential: a
                  >whole morality is at stake, the one that concerns the search for truth and the
                  >relation to the other."



                  >It may be that Sartre was just too absorbed with his Flaubert study
                  >to pay much attention to Foucault and Structuralism. Foucault was
                  >not so outraged by Sartre's "terrorism" that he refused to join
                  >with him in protesting the government in power at several public
                  >demonstrations and protests that were held after May 1968. Sartre
                  > never, to my knowledge, called Foucault anything so venomous: he
                  >called Foucault a positivist, and rejected Structuralism on the same
                  >grounds that he rejected positivism: it was a bourgeois doctrine
                  >reducing humans to atoms in mechanical motion, and ignoring
                  >subjective human intentions and goals. In other words,
                  >structuralists were non-dialectical, in his view. But he would have
                  >fought vigorously against any attempt to burn their books. He would
                  >never tolerate that imitation of Naziism. Respectfully, Bill Barger
                  >
                  >--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, Cinque <eyeamdvnt@y...> wrote:
                  >>
                  >> Alright. Let me jump in here.
                  >>
                  >> In The Lives of Michel Foucault: A Biography
                  >> by David MacEy Foucault said of Sartre that he was a
                  >> "terrorist" in that he was an intellectual whose
                  >> genius went so far it overshadowed continental
                  >> philosophy. Sartre and his methodology, his subject
                  >> matter, his mannerisms all became monolithic in the
                  >> European intellectual community. Everyone understood
                  >> that his projects were, all things being equal, an
                  >> attack on the bourgeoisie. To that end Foucault was
                  >> right to call Sartre a terrorist, in that he terrified
                  >> the younger generation of students from the Ecole
                  >> Normal Superieure.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Now as for Burning Sartre's literary works. Of course.
                  >> Burn them all. They only drive philosophy students
                  >> crazy, and you'd have to be crazy to dive in to his
                  >> works and come out sane. It can not be done. Emerging
                  >> from Sartre is, like any good literature, like
                  >> emerging from a sickness. But read them before you set
                  >> the flame to them. The method in the madness is the
                  >> method itself, which is the methodical project as it
                  >> unfolds and the super-human effort and attention
                  >> Sartre has put into his works.
                  >>
                  >> Was Sartre neurotic? Yes, of course. But who isn't?
                  >> Was Sartre megalomaniacal? Of course. Sartre was drunk
                  >> on the frenzy of artistic expression, the Nietzschean
                  >> conception of a Dionysian apotheosis.
                  >>
                  >> Best Regards,
                  >>
                  >> Ben
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> --- Paul <p.cave@u...> wrote:
                  >>
                  >> > well fair enough tommy beavit.
                  >> >
                  >> > nausea for example, should be burnt.
                  >> >
                  >> > it represents the narcissistic drive of a
                  >> > meglomaniac who cared more
                  >> > about "IMMORTALISING HIMSELF IN LITERATURE" than the
                  >> > effect of his
                  >> > work on people.
                  >> >
                  >> > Sartre present a problem that we cannot escape, and
                  >> > then provides a
                  >> > VASTLY inadequate solution to this problem he's just
                  >> > exposed to us.
                  >> >
                  >> > Nausea is self destructive, all it does it destroy,
                  > > > deconstruct.
                  >> > Michel Foucault said when he attended Sartre's
                  >> > funeral, he had no
                  >> > sympathy for sartre, and that it was his ambition to
                  >> > refute
                  >> > everything that sartre wrote... and he makes a good
                  >> > point - all
                  >> > nausea does is create a bumbling mass of humans
                  >> > trying "not to
                  >> > move... above all not to move"
                  >> >
                  >> > paul
                  >> >
                  >> >
                  >> > --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Lapin _866"
                  >> > <lapin_866@h...> wrote:
                  >> > > So Paul, would you burn these books? Why? ... Why
                  >> > Sartre?
                  >> > >
                  >> > >
                  >> > > >From: "Paul" <p.cave@u...>
                  >> > > >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                  >> > > >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                  >> > > >Subject: [Sartre] burn sartre's work?
                  >> > > >Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:26:47 -0000
                  >> > > >
                  >> > > >is there anybody here who has actually understood
                  >> > sartre who, if
                  >> > > >elected president wouldn't find all his books and
                  >> > burn them to
                  >> > > >cinders?
                  >> > > >
                  >> > > >thoughts on a postcard,
                  >> > > >paul
                  >> > > >
                  >> > >
                  >> > >
                  >> >
                  >> _________________________________________________________________
                  >> > > Soyez toujours informé de ce que prévoient les
                  >> > astres pour votre
                  >> > journée par
                  > > > > SMS http://www.fr.msn.ch/mobile/
                • Tommy Beavitt
                  Hi Bill, Thanks for the posting below - very helpful in terms of providing a distinction between existentialism and structuralism. I hadn t earlier realised
                  Message 8 of 13 , Sep 19, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Bill,

                    Thanks for the posting below - very helpful in terms of providing a
                    distinction between existentialism and structuralism. I hadn't earlier
                    realised the extent to which the structuralist movement within
                    "Continental" philosophy echoes an earlier movement within
                    "Anglo-Saxon" thinking, which we normally group under the heading of
                    positivism.

                    I can't help thinking that there might be some possibilities to explore
                    in a synthesis of structuralism and dialectical existentialism.
                    Clearly, the relation between Self (être-pour-soi) and Other is
                    dialectical, whether these terms are posited within the existentialist
                    or the structuralist/positivist frame of reference.

                    It is almost impossible to move towards an ethical position without
                    moving away from Sartre's ontology in Being and Nothingness - either in
                    the direction of dialectical materialism, with its overtones of Hegel,
                    or towards structuralism. Either way, we find a decreased emphasis on
                    the individual, as ontologically defined, and an increased emphasis on
                    the role that individual plays in communication within a State or
                    state-like structure.

                    I am finding it hard to decide in favour of either of these approaches.
                    Both seem to have merits. I can see how structuralism tends towards a
                    bourgeois world view, but equally, I can see how dialectical
                    materialism leads towards the kinds of monolithic state structures
                    still tending to predominate in countries like Russia and China, in
                    extreme cases like North Korea.

                    Let us take for granted, for the purposes of this argument, that we
                    would all like to see progress towards a world democracy, in which
                    universal human rights were guaranteed by a border-less world
                    government. Would such a government be more easily achieved using a
                    dialectical or rather a structuralist approach?

                    Tommy

                    PS. On a recent trip to Venice I was intrigued to discover the younger
                    generation of philosophical thinkers there tending to label themselves
                    as "analytical". Although I met one such person who was writing his
                    Ph.D. thesis on Husserl, I was informed that many younger French
                    thinkers are also distinguishing themselves from their predecessors in
                    terms of an alignment with analytic philosophy previously associated
                    with "Anglo-Saxon" thinking. Have others observed this phenomenon? Does
                    it represent a new movement within "Continental" philosophy, or does it
                    illustrate a general waning in Continental-type thinking? If true, what
                    are the implications for Sartean or indeed structuralist thinking in
                    present-day Europe and what might be the political consequences of this
                    realignment? My Venetian friends seemed concerned to insist that
                    politics was an entirely separate and unrelated field to philosophy, so
                    no political position was derivable from their analytical stance.

                    On 18 Sep 2004, at 03:43, Bill Barger wrote:

                    > It may be that Sartre was just too absorbed with his Flaubert study
                    > to pay much attention to Foucault and Structuralism. Foucault was
                    > not so outraged by Sartre's "terrorism" that he refused to join
                    > with him in protesting the government in power at several public
                    > demonstrations and protests that were held after May 1968. Sartre
                    > never, to my knowledge, called Foucault anything so venomous: he
                    > called Foucault a positivist, and rejected Structuralism on the same
                    > grounds that he rejected positivism: it was a bourgeois doctrine
                    > reducing humans to atoms in mechanical motion, and ignoring
                    > subjective human intentions and goals. In other words,
                    > structuralists were non-dialectical, in his view. But he would have
                    > fought vigorously against any attempt to burn their books. He would
                    > never tolerate that imitation of Naziism. Respectfully, Bill Barger
                  • decker150
                    Hi Tommy. Thanks for your thoughts on the distinction between existentialism and structuralism. It seems to me that the structuralist rejects one of Sartre s
                    Message 9 of 13 , Sep 19, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Tommy. Thanks for your thoughts on the distinction between
                      existentialism and structuralism. It seems to me that the
                      structuralist rejects one of Sartre's key points; that is, human
                      freedom. Structuralism interprets the human condition as being
                      influence by all the preceeding state of affairs; by culture and
                      psychological influences. I take this to signify that the
                      structuralist might also conclude that we are not responsible for
                      our actions, by rather victums of a chain reaction by all the events
                      that shape and determine our lives. In the polemic, what is the
                      rebuttal for this conclusion. Are we responsible or not? Are we
                      partly responsible or victum of the vaste social matrix? How do we
                      define freedom in light of the acknowledgement that none of us are
                      an island unto ourself? Is freedom 'radical' in scope or 'illusory'?

                      Joe




                      --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, Tommy Beavitt <tommy@s...> wrote:
                      > Hi Bill,
                      >
                      > Thanks for the posting below - very helpful in terms of providing
                      a
                      > distinction between existentialism and structuralism. I hadn't
                      earlier
                      > realised the extent to which the structuralist movement within
                      > "Continental" philosophy echoes an earlier movement within
                      > "Anglo-Saxon" thinking, which we normally group under the heading
                      of
                      > positivism.
                      >
                      > I can't help thinking that there might be some possibilities to
                      explore
                      > in a synthesis of structuralism and dialectical existentialism.
                      > Clearly, the relation between Self (être-pour-soi) and Other is
                      > dialectical, whether these terms are posited within the
                      existentialist
                      > or the structuralist/positivist frame of reference.
                      >
                      > It is almost impossible to move towards an ethical position
                      without
                      > moving away from Sartre's ontology in Being and Nothingness -
                      either in
                      > the direction of dialectical materialism, with its overtones of
                      Hegel,
                      > or towards structuralism. Either way, we find a decreased emphasis
                      on
                      > the individual, as ontologically defined, and an increased
                      emphasis on
                      > the role that individual plays in communication within a State or
                      > state-like structure.
                      >
                      > I am finding it hard to decide in favour of either of these
                      approaches.
                      > Both seem to have merits. I can see how structuralism tends
                      towards a
                      > bourgeois world view, but equally, I can see how dialectical
                      > materialism leads towards the kinds of monolithic state structures
                      > still tending to predominate in countries like Russia and China,
                      in
                      > extreme cases like North Korea.
                      >
                      > Let us take for granted, for the purposes of this argument, that
                      we
                      > would all like to see progress towards a world democracy, in
                      which
                      > universal human rights were guaranteed by a border-less world
                      > government. Would such a government be more easily achieved using
                      a
                      > dialectical or rather a structuralist approach?
                      >
                      > Tommy
                      >
                      > PS. On a recent trip to Venice I was intrigued to discover the
                      younger
                      > generation of philosophical thinkers there tending to label
                      themselves
                      > as "analytical". Although I met one such person who was writing
                      his
                      > Ph.D. thesis on Husserl, I was informed that many younger French
                      > thinkers are also distinguishing themselves from their
                      predecessors in
                      > terms of an alignment with analytic philosophy previously
                      associated
                      > with "Anglo-Saxon" thinking. Have others observed this phenomenon?
                      Does
                      > it represent a new movement within "Continental" philosophy, or
                      does it
                      > illustrate a general waning in Continental-type thinking? If true,
                      what
                      > are the implications for Sartean or indeed structuralist thinking
                      in
                      > present-day Europe and what might be the political consequences of
                      this
                      > realignment? My Venetian friends seemed concerned to insist that
                      > politics was an entirely separate and unrelated field to
                      philosophy, so
                      > no political position was derivable from their analytical stance.
                      >
                      > On 18 Sep 2004, at 03:43, Bill Barger wrote:
                      >
                      > > It may be that Sartre was just too absorbed with his Flaubert
                      study
                      > > to pay much attention to Foucault and Structuralism. Foucault
                      was
                      > > not so outraged by Sartre's "terrorism" that he refused to join
                      > > with him in protesting the government in power at several public
                      > > demonstrations and protests that were held after May 1968.
                      Sartre
                      > > never, to my knowledge, called Foucault anything so venomous: he
                      > > called Foucault a positivist, and rejected Structuralism on the
                      same
                      > > grounds that he rejected positivism: it was a bourgeois doctrine
                      > > reducing humans to atoms in mechanical motion, and ignoring
                      > > subjective human intentions and goals. In other words,
                      > > structuralists were non-dialectical, in his view. But he would
                      have
                      > > fought vigorously against any attempt to burn their books. He
                      would
                      > > never tolerate that imitation of Naziism. Respectfully, Bill
                      Barger
                    • Tommy Beavitt
                      Hi Joe, I am glad to disagree with your statement that structuralism rejects Sartre s key point concerning human freedom. The ontological I or the we
                      Message 10 of 13 , Sep 24, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Joe,

                        I am glad to disagree with your statement that structuralism rejects
                        Sartre's key point concerning human freedom.

                        The ontological "I" or the "we" (which you, perhaps unconsciously,
                        treat as equivalent in your argument) is defined properly by Sartre as
                        possessing freedom, but what he also commented on extensively is the
                        extent to which the "I" finds itself in, through or by the "we".

                        John Donne somewhat earlier in the history of human musings said that
                        no man is an island and I feel that perhaps Sartre wouldn't entirely
                        disagree. Sartre's analysis of the Look of the Other encapsulates what
                        I believe to be the case in terms of being-for-itself finding a
                        definition of itself there.

                        But the Look is never entirely absent from the ontology of
                        being-for-itself: from the first tender glance of a mother towards her
                        newborn to the pitiful gaze of mourners surrounding a death-bed, it is
                        always there. When absent, it is reconstructed by the "conscience" of
                        the human subject, it impacts thus on his or her freedom.

                        But the forms of communication that define this two-way relationship
                        between self and other within, as you put it, the social matrix, are
                        subject to radical individual freedom and that freedom is found in our
                        ability to form a perception or interpretation of a situation. We do
                        this according to our understanding of situations in general which, in
                        turn, is informed by our communications with other.

                        I say, "Look, a situation", and the other's gaze follows my
                        metaphorically pointing finger. Crucially, to a degree, we both observe
                        the same situation. In fact, in-itself, the situation consists entirely
                        of this perceptual concurrence.

                        So an expression of my radical freedom might be for example to
                        interpret a situation as an opportunity instead of a threat and the
                        situational "world" that ensued from that interpretation could be
                        vastly different as a result. I might gain a million dollars instead of
                        being gunned down or allow a woman to walk away forever into the rain
                        instead of staying and falling in love with me.

                        I can communicate an understanding and perception to an other, whose
                        "world" might as a result be similarly transformed. Needless to say,
                        this freedom might be also experienced by "me" as a choice to agree
                        with such an understanding and perception as was communicated to me by
                        an other; or, indeed, to disagree.

                        I think that the structuralists, such as Derrida, were right to
                        concentrate therefore on how understanding and perception can be
                        communicated through language - because that is where Sartre's freedom
                        can be found.

                        Tommy

                        On 19 Sep 2004, at 19:10, decker150 wrote:

                        > Hi Tommy. Thanks for your thoughts on the distinction between
                        > existentialism and structuralism. It seems to me that the
                        > structuralist rejects one of Sartre's key points; that is, human
                        > freedom. Structuralism interprets the human condition as being
                        > influence by all the preceeding state of affairs; by culture and
                        > psychological influences. I take this to signify that the
                        > structuralist might also conclude that we are not responsible for
                        > our actions, by rather victums of a chain reaction by all the events
                        > that shape and determine our lives. In the polemic, what is the
                        > rebuttal for this conclusion. Are we responsible or not? Are we
                        > partly responsible or victum of the vaste social matrix? How do we
                        > define freedom in light of the acknowledgement that none of us are
                        > an island unto ourself? Is freedom 'radical' in scope or 'illusory'?
                        >
                        > Joe
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, Tommy Beavitt <tommy@s...> wrote:
                        >> Hi Bill,
                        >>
                        >> Thanks for the posting below - very helpful in terms of providing
                        > a
                        >> distinction between existentialism and structuralism. I hadn't
                        > earlier
                        >> realised the extent to which the structuralist movement within
                        >> "Continental" philosophy echoes an earlier movement within
                        >> "Anglo-Saxon" thinking, which we normally group under the heading
                        > of
                        >> positivism.
                        >>
                        >> I can't help thinking that there might be some possibilities to
                        > explore
                        >> in a synthesis of structuralism and dialectical existentialism.
                        >> Clearly, the relation between Self (être-pour-soi) and Other is
                        >> dialectical, whether these terms are posited within the
                        > existentialist
                        >> or the structuralist/positivist frame of reference.
                        >>
                        >> It is almost impossible to move towards an ethical position
                        > without
                        >> moving away from Sartre's ontology in Being and Nothingness -
                        > either in
                        >> the direction of dialectical materialism, with its overtones of
                        > Hegel,
                        >> or towards structuralism. Either way, we find a decreased emphasis
                        > on
                        >> the individual, as ontologically defined, and an increased
                        > emphasis on
                        >> the role that individual plays in communication within a State or
                        >> state-like structure.
                        >>
                        >> I am finding it hard to decide in favour of either of these
                        > approaches.
                        >> Both seem to have merits. I can see how structuralism tends
                        > towards a
                        >> bourgeois world view, but equally, I can see how dialectical
                        >> materialism leads towards the kinds of monolithic state structures
                        >> still tending to predominate in countries like Russia and China,
                        > in
                        >> extreme cases like North Korea.
                        >>
                        >> Let us take for granted, for the purposes of this argument, that
                        > we
                        >> would all like to see progress towards a world democracy, in
                        > which
                        >> universal human rights were guaranteed by a border-less world
                        >> government. Would such a government be more easily achieved using
                        > a
                        >> dialectical or rather a structuralist approach?
                        >>
                        >> Tommy
                        >>
                        >> PS. On a recent trip to Venice I was intrigued to discover the
                        > younger
                        >> generation of philosophical thinkers there tending to label
                        > themselves
                        >> as "analytical". Although I met one such person who was writing
                        > his
                        >> Ph.D. thesis on Husserl, I was informed that many younger French
                        >> thinkers are also distinguishing themselves from their
                        > predecessors in
                        >> terms of an alignment with analytic philosophy previously
                        > associated
                        >> with "Anglo-Saxon" thinking. Have others observed this phenomenon?
                        > Does
                        >> it represent a new movement within "Continental" philosophy, or
                        > does it
                        >> illustrate a general waning in Continental-type thinking? If true,
                        > what
                        >> are the implications for Sartean or indeed structuralist thinking
                        > in
                        >> present-day Europe and what might be the political consequences of
                        > this
                        >> realignment? My Venetian friends seemed concerned to insist that
                        >> politics was an entirely separate and unrelated field to
                        > philosophy, so
                        >> no political position was derivable from their analytical stance.
                        >>
                        >> On 18 Sep 2004, at 03:43, Bill Barger wrote:
                        >>
                        >>> It may be that Sartre was just too absorbed with his Flaubert
                        > study
                        >>> to pay much attention to Foucault and Structuralism. Foucault
                        > was
                        >>> not so outraged by Sartre's "terrorism" that he refused to join
                        >>> with him in protesting the government in power at several public
                        >>> demonstrations and protests that were held after May 1968.
                        > Sartre
                        >>> never, to my knowledge, called Foucault anything so venomous: he
                        >>> called Foucault a positivist, and rejected Structuralism on the
                        > same
                        >>> grounds that he rejected positivism: it was a bourgeois doctrine
                        >>> reducing humans to atoms in mechanical motion, and ignoring
                        >>> subjective human intentions and goals. In other words,
                        >>> structuralists were non-dialectical, in his view. But he would
                        > have
                        >>> fought vigorously against any attempt to burn their books. He
                        > would
                        >>> never tolerate that imitation of Naziism. Respectfully, Bill
                        > Barger
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • decker150
                        Hi Tommy, Your points are helpful. I see the shared intersubjective experience as shaping the experience of individual freedom, but still possible. But that
                        Message 11 of 13 , Sep 24, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Tommy,

                          Your points are helpful. I see the shared intersubjective experience
                          as shaping the experience of individual freedom, but still possible.
                          But that is within the scope of 'social' influences. How about within
                          the scope of being-in-itself; does this not also determine the
                          for-itself and in fact predetermine the meaning of freedom. It would
                          seem that being-in-itself has command over the for-itself, therefore
                          just as existence preceeds essence, so the
                          determining-power-of-being-in-itself preceeds the subsequent
                          aspirations of freedom, which is and has alway been controlled by the
                          already present limitations. But we know this, that human life is
                          mortal, finite, and extremely limited. Freedom is always confined
                          within our basic existential condition. I am free to do what the
                          silly body that constitutes me and will 'let me' do. It does not let
                          me walk through concrete walls.

                          Joe


                          >
                          > The ontological "I" or the "we" (which you, perhaps unconsciously,
                          > treat as equivalent in your argument) is defined properly by Sartre as
                          > possessing freedom, but what he also commented on extensively is the
                          > extent to which the "I" finds itself in, through or by the "we".
                          >
                          > John Donne somewhat earlier in the history of human musings said that
                          > no man is an island and I feel that perhaps Sartre wouldn't entirely
                          > disagree. Sartre's analysis of the Look of the Other encapsulates what
                          > I believe to be the case in terms of being-for-itself finding a
                          > definition of itself there.
                          >
                          > But the Look is never entirely absent from the ontology of
                          > being-for-itself: from the first tender glance of a mother towards her
                          > newborn to the pitiful gaze of mourners surrounding a death-bed, it is
                          > always there. When absent, it is reconstructed by the "conscience" of
                          > the human subject, it impacts thus on his or her freedom.
                          >
                          > But the forms of communication that define this two-way relationship
                          > between self and other within, as you put it, the social matrix, are
                          > subject to radical individual freedom and that freedom is found in our
                          > ability to form a perception or interpretation of a situation. We do
                          > this according to our understanding of situations in general which, in
                          > turn, is informed by our communications with other.
                          >
                          > I say, "Look, a situation", and the other's gaze follows my
                          > metaphorically pointing finger. Crucially, to a degree, we both observe
                          > the same situation. In fact, in-itself, the situation consists entirely
                          > of this perceptual concurrence.
                          >
                          > So an expression of my radical freedom might be for example to
                          > interpret a situation as an opportunity instead of a threat and the
                          > situational "world" that ensued from that interpretation could be
                          > vastly different as a result. I might gain a million dollars instead of
                          > being gunned down or allow a woman to walk away forever into the rain
                          > instead of staying and falling in love with me.
                          >
                          > I can communicate an understanding and perception to an other, whose
                          > "world" might as a result be similarly transformed. Needless to say,
                          > this freedom might be also experienced by "me" as a choice to agree
                          > with such an understanding and perception as was communicated to me by
                          > an other; or, indeed, to disagree.
                          >
                          > I think that the structuralists, such as Derrida, were right to
                          > concentrate therefore on how understanding and perception can be
                          > communicated through language - because that is where Sartre's freedom
                          > can be found.
                          >
                          > Tommy
                          >
                          > On 19 Sep 2004, at 19:10, decker150 wrote:
                          >
                          > > Hi Tommy. Thanks for your thoughts on the distinction between
                          > > existentialism and structuralism. It seems to me that the
                          > > structuralist rejects one of Sartre's key points; that is, human
                          > > freedom. Structuralism interprets the human condition as being
                          > > influence by all the preceeding state of affairs; by culture and
                          > > psychological influences. I take this to signify that the
                          > > structuralist might also conclude that we are not responsible for
                          > > our actions, by rather victums of a chain reaction by all the events
                          > > that shape and determine our lives. In the polemic, what is the
                          > > rebuttal for this conclusion. Are we responsible or not? Are we
                          > > partly responsible or victum of the vaste social matrix? How do we
                          > > define freedom in light of the acknowledgement that none of us are
                          > > an island unto ourself? Is freedom 'radical' in scope or 'illusory'?
                          > >
                          > > Joe
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, Tommy Beavitt <tommy@s...> wrote:
                          > >> Hi Bill,
                          > >>
                          > >> Thanks for the posting below - very helpful in terms of providing
                          > > a
                          > >> distinction between existentialism and structuralism. I hadn't
                          > > earlier
                          > >> realised the extent to which the structuralist movement within
                          > >> "Continental" philosophy echoes an earlier movement within
                          > >> "Anglo-Saxon" thinking, which we normally group under the heading
                          > > of
                          > >> positivism.
                          > >>
                          > >> I can't help thinking that there might be some possibilities to
                          > > explore
                          > >> in a synthesis of structuralism and dialectical existentialism.
                          > >> Clearly, the relation between Self (être-pour-soi) and Other is
                          > >> dialectical, whether these terms are posited within the
                          > > existentialist
                          > >> or the structuralist/positivist frame of reference.
                          > >>
                          > >> It is almost impossible to move towards an ethical position
                          > > without
                          > >> moving away from Sartre's ontology in Being and Nothingness -
                          > > either in
                          > >> the direction of dialectical materialism, with its overtones of
                          > > Hegel,
                          > >> or towards structuralism. Either way, we find a decreased emphasis
                          > > on
                          > >> the individual, as ontologically defined, and an increased
                          > > emphasis on
                          > >> the role that individual plays in communication within a State or
                          > >> state-like structure.
                          > >>
                          > >> I am finding it hard to decide in favour of either of these
                          > > approaches.
                          > >> Both seem to have merits. I can see how structuralism tends
                          > > towards a
                          > >> bourgeois world view, but equally, I can see how dialectical
                          > >> materialism leads towards the kinds of monolithic state structures
                          > >> still tending to predominate in countries like Russia and China,
                          > > in
                          > >> extreme cases like North Korea.
                          > >>
                          > >> Let us take for granted, for the purposes of this argument, that
                          > > we
                          > >> would all like to see progress towards a world democracy, in
                          > > which
                          > >> universal human rights were guaranteed by a border-less world
                          > >> government. Would such a government be more easily achieved using
                          > > a
                          > >> dialectical or rather a structuralist approach?
                          > >>
                          > >> Tommy
                          > >>
                          > >> PS. On a recent trip to Venice I was intrigued to discover the
                          > > younger
                          > >> generation of philosophical thinkers there tending to label
                          > > themselves
                          > >> as "analytical". Although I met one such person who was writing
                          > > his
                          > >> Ph.D. thesis on Husserl, I was informed that many younger French
                          > >> thinkers are also distinguishing themselves from their
                          > > predecessors in
                          > >> terms of an alignment with analytic philosophy previously
                          > > associated
                          > >> with "Anglo-Saxon" thinking. Have others observed this phenomenon?
                          > > Does
                          > >> it represent a new movement within "Continental" philosophy, or
                          > > does it
                          > >> illustrate a general waning in Continental-type thinking? If true,
                          > > what
                          > >> are the implications for Sartean or indeed structuralist thinking
                          > > in
                          > >> present-day Europe and what might be the political consequences of
                          > > this
                          > >> realignment? My Venetian friends seemed concerned to insist that
                          > >> politics was an entirely separate and unrelated field to
                          > > philosophy, so
                          > >> no political position was derivable from their analytical stance.
                          > >>
                          > >> On 18 Sep 2004, at 03:43, Bill Barger wrote:
                          > >>
                          > >>> It may be that Sartre was just too absorbed with his Flaubert
                          > > study
                          > >>> to pay much attention to Foucault and Structuralism. Foucault
                          > > was
                          > >>> not so outraged by Sartre's "terrorism" that he refused to join
                          > >>> with him in protesting the government in power at several public
                          > >>> demonstrations and protests that were held after May 1968.
                          > > Sartre
                          > >>> never, to my knowledge, called Foucault anything so venomous: he
                          > >>> called Foucault a positivist, and rejected Structuralism on the
                          > > same
                          > >>> grounds that he rejected positivism: it was a bourgeois doctrine
                          > >>> reducing humans to atoms in mechanical motion, and ignoring
                          > >>> subjective human intentions and goals. In other words,
                          > >>> structuralists were non-dialectical, in his view. But he would
                          > > have
                          > >>> fought vigorously against any attempt to burn their books. He
                          > > would
                          > >>> never tolerate that imitation of Naziism. Respectfully, Bill
                          > > Barger
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > >
                          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                        • rory
                          William James The Dilemma of Determinism, appears to me as the most well-balanced stance on the problem. It is the nature and apparent advantage of
                          Message 12 of 13 , Oct 4, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            William James' "The Dilemma of Determinism," appears to me as the most well-balanced stance on the problem. It is the nature and apparent advantage of pragmatism as the middle-ground between Anglo-American language philosophy and the Continental trends of which Sarte is deemed to belong, the progenitors of which are Heidegger and Descartes.

                            cicero

                            decker150 <decker150@...> wrote:
                            Hi Tommy. Thanks for your thoughts on the distinction between
                            existentialism and structuralism. It seems to me that the
                            structuralist rejects one of Sartre's key points; that is, human
                            freedom. Structuralism interprets the human condition as being
                            influence by all the preceeding state of affairs; by culture and
                            psychological influences. I take this to signify that the
                            structuralist might also conclude that we are not responsible for
                            our actions, by rather victums of a chain reaction by all the events
                            that shape and determine our lives. In the polemic, what is the
                            rebuttal for this conclusion. Are we responsible or not? Are we
                            partly responsible or victum of the vaste social matrix? How do we
                            define freedom in light of the acknowledgement that none of us are
                            an island unto ourself? Is freedom 'radical' in scope or 'illusory'?

                            Joe




                            --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, Tommy Beavitt <tommy@s...> wrote:
                            > Hi Bill,
                            >
                            > Thanks for the posting below - very helpful in terms of providing
                            a
                            > distinction between existentialism and structuralism. I hadn't
                            earlier
                            > realised the extent to which the structuralist movement within
                            > "Continental" philosophy echoes an earlier movement within
                            > "Anglo-Saxon" thinking, which we normally group under the heading
                            of
                            > positivism.
                            >
                            > I can't help thinking that there might be some possibilities to
                            explore
                            > in a synthesis of structuralism and dialectical existentialism.
                            > Clearly, the relation between Self (être-pour-soi) and Other is
                            > dialectical, whether these terms are posited within the
                            existentialist
                            > or the structuralist/positivist frame of reference.
                            >
                            > It is almost impossible to move towards an ethical position
                            without
                            > moving away from Sartre's ontology in Being and Nothingness -
                            either in
                            > the direction of dialectical materialism, with its overtones of
                            Hegel,
                            > or towards structuralism. Either way, we find a decreased emphasis
                            on
                            > the individual, as ontologically defined, and an increased
                            emphasis on
                            > the role that individual plays in communication within a State or
                            > state-like structure.
                            >
                            > I am finding it hard to decide in favour of either of these
                            approaches.
                            > Both seem to have merits. I can see how structuralism tends
                            towards a
                            > bourgeois world view, but equally, I can see how dialectical
                            > materialism leads towards the kinds of monolithic state structures
                            > still tending to predominate in countries like Russia and China,
                            in
                            > extreme cases like North Korea.
                            >
                            > Let us take for granted, for the purposes of this argument, that
                            we
                            > would all like to see progress towards a world democracy, in
                            which
                            > universal human rights were guaranteed by a border-less world
                            > government. Would such a government be more easily achieved using
                            a
                            > dialectical or rather a structuralist approach?
                            >
                            > Tommy
                            >
                            > PS. On a recent trip to Venice I was intrigued to discover the
                            younger
                            > generation of philosophical thinkers there tending to label
                            themselves
                            > as "analytical". Although I met one such person who was writing
                            his
                            > Ph.D. thesis on Husserl, I was informed that many younger French
                            > thinkers are also distinguishing themselves from their
                            predecessors in
                            > terms of an alignment with analytic philosophy previously
                            associated
                            > with "Anglo-Saxon" thinking. Have others observed this phenomenon?
                            Does
                            > it represent a new movement within "Continental" philosophy, or
                            does it
                            > illustrate a general waning in Continental-type thinking? If true,
                            what
                            > are the implications for Sartean or indeed structuralist thinking
                            in
                            > present-day Europe and what might be the political consequences of
                            this
                            > realignment? My Venetian friends seemed concerned to insist that
                            > politics was an entirely separate and unrelated field to
                            philosophy, so
                            > no political position was derivable from their analytical stance.
                            >
                            > On 18 Sep 2004, at 03:43, Bill Barger wrote:
                            >
                            > > It may be that Sartre was just too absorbed with his Flaubert
                            study
                            > > to pay much attention to Foucault and Structuralism. Foucault
                            was
                            > > not so outraged by Sartre's "terrorism" that he refused to join
                            > > with him in protesting the government in power at several public
                            > > demonstrations and protests that were held after May 1968.
                            Sartre
                            > > never, to my knowledge, called Foucault anything so venomous: he
                            > > called Foucault a positivist, and rejected Structuralism on the
                            same
                            > > grounds that he rejected positivism: it was a bourgeois doctrine
                            > > reducing humans to atoms in mechanical motion, and ignoring
                            > > subjective human intentions and goals. In other words,
                            > > structuralists were non-dialectical, in his view. But he would
                            have
                            > > fought vigorously against any attempt to burn their books. He
                            would
                            > > never tolerate that imitation of Naziism. Respectfully, Bill
                            Barger



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



                            Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


                            ---------------------------------
                            Yahoo! Groups Links

                            To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

                            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                            ---------------------------------
                            Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.