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

Facticity

Expand Messages
  • Charles Vermont
    I don t know about de Beauvoir s definition of facticity (by the way, I understand she was a woman and the steadiest of Sartre s many lovers), but here is the
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 4, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't know about de Beauvoir's definition of facticity (by the way, I understand she was a woman and the steadiest of Sartre's many lovers), but here is the definition from my copy of Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness'

      "Facticity is the For-itself's necessary connection with the In-itself, hence with the world and its own past. It is what allows us to say that the For-itself is or exists. The facticity of freedom is the fact that freedom is not able to be not free."

      For anyone not familiar with the terms, this may need some explaining. I'm not sure I am the one for the job, but I'll give it a go and hope it elicits a better analysis from someone else.

      The 'In-itself' is that part of a human which is concrete and real, like flesh, bone and blood. Or, as one lyricist once described it, 'The chemical reaction which is set to last for a hundred years' (he hopes). So it is that part of a human which is like a rock, or a pool of water, or an atom of oxygen. The 'For-itself' describes that part of a human which is able to make choices, whether out of instinct or free will. So by describing facticity this way, Sartre is, in a sense, creating a dualism between the part of us which is an inanimate object, and the part which has the freedom bit.

      The reason this is important, to my mind, is because it helps him solve a major problem in his view of the world. It is patently absurd for me to choose to stand 3,789 feet tall in my socks and no shoes, or to weigh in undressed at 285,000 pounds, or run a marathon in 5.2 seconds. Therefore I am not free to choose these things, which undermines Sartre's argument that we are all 'condemned to freedom'. However, by separating the In-itself and the For-itself he avoids this problem and can claim that the For-itself is completely free even though the In-itself is not.

      I happen to disagree strongly with him on this.

      Nice to see some action on this list.

      Charles Vermont
      London, England
    • Brandon Roshto
      Just a quick question: Have any of you guys ever heard of any good philosophers from Canada?
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 5, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Just a quick question: Have any of you guys ever heard of
        any good philosophers from Canada?
      • ds
        Yeah, I think there are lots of problems with the whole absolute freedom concept also...the decision making process is largely determined by experience,
        Message 3 of 7 , Oct 5, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Yeah, I think there are lots of problems with the whole "absolute freedom"
          concept also...the decision making process is largely determined by
          experience, social conditioning, instinct, etc. When confronted with a
          choice, you will automatically incorporate certain past experiences and such
          into your decision without thought. The other things would go into the
          decision making process without you ever considering these things, so
          essentially, most decisions are not you consciously making the decision, but
          rather your brain reacting.

          Personally, I think the whole concept of "free will" is a bit shaky and I
          can't understand why Sarte would put so much weight on it.

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Charles Vermont
          To: Existentialism List
          Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 1:09 PM
          Subject: [existlist] Facticity


          I don't know about de Beauvoir's definition of facticity (by the way, I
          understand she was a woman and the steadiest of Sartre's many lovers), but
          here is the definition from my copy of Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness'

          "Facticity is the For-itself's necessary connection with the In-itself,
          hence with the world and its own past. It is what allows us to say that the
          For-itself is or exists. The facticity of freedom is the fact that freedom
          is not able to be not free."

          For anyone not familiar with the terms, this may need some explaining. I'm
          not sure I am the one for the job, but I'll give it a go and hope it elicits
          a better analysis from someone else.

          The 'In-itself' is that part of a human which is concrete and real, like
          flesh, bone and blood. Or, as one lyricist once described it, 'The chemical
          reaction which is set to last for a hundred years' (he hopes). So it is that
          part of a human which is like a rock, or a pool of water, or an atom of
          oxygen. The 'For-itself' describes that part of a human which is able to
          make choices, whether out of instinct or free will. So by describing
          facticity this way, Sartre is, in a sense, creating a dualism between the
          part of us which is an inanimate object, and the part which has the freedom
          bit.

          The reason this is important, to my mind, is because it helps him solve a
          major problem in his view of the world. It is patently absurd for me to
          choose to stand 3,789 feet tall in my socks and no shoes, or to weigh in
          undressed at 285,000 pounds, or run a marathon in 5.2 seconds. Therefore I
          am not free to choose these things, which undermines Sartre's argument that
          we are all 'condemned to freedom'. However, by separating the In-itself and
          the For-itself he avoids this problem and can claim that the For-itself is
          completely free even though the In-itself is not.

          I happen to disagree strongly with him on this.

          Nice to see some action on this list.

          Charles Vermont
          London, England
        • TiffaniTN@xxx.xxx
          For those of you toiling with the concept of free will versus various forms of determinism, I highly recommend reading Dostoevsky s Notes From The
          Message 4 of 7 , Oct 6, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            For those of you toiling with the concept of free will versus various forms
            of determinism, I highly recommend reading Dostoevsky's 'Notes From The
            Underground.'

            Anyone who has read this book, I would love to hear your thoughts.

            Basically, my thoughts on the free will/determinism debate are this. Anyone
            who tries to suggest that we have absolute freedom is ludicrous ... even
            Sartre didn't say this... Sartre said we have complete freedom but not
            absolute (though for a different reason than I am about to express). There
            are so many factors that limit the possibility of absolute freedom. I don't
            think that anyone who is up to date on Physiological studies would suggest
            that our biological make-up has no effect on our choices (disposition), nor
            would anyone who is familiar with Psychology try to suggest that our past
            experiences have no influence on our daily choices. These, our genetics and
            our past experiences, greatly influence us without doubt.

            The fact that we have the ability to introspect and analyze our
            predispositions to behave in a certain way in a given context is where the
            freedom begins. In Dostoevsky's 'Notes From The Underground' this idea is
            expounded upon. The fact that one can recognize his inclinations and yet
            still rebel against them seems to solve the genetics/environment debate. I
            rebel, therefore I am free.

            Sure, any one of us can make the argument "but how can we really know that
            even this perceived freedom is not merely an illusion...." It seems that we
            could debate that issue endlessly ... but I challenge you, what sense does
            the question even make to ask? Can we ever know? We function as though we
            have freedom. We feel like we have freedom. We can be educated enough to
            know what is best for us and still choose to rebel, as in Dostoevsky's 'Notes
            from the Underground.' We have set up this society with the belief that
            there is freedom. Let's face it, if we reduce everyone to deterministic
            animals, how can we make anyone responsible for any of their actions?

            I reiterate my strong belief that the fact that we can metacognate on our
            influences and rebel against them seems to offer substance to the theory that
            there is a sort of freedom, that we are not merely walking products of our
            bodily composition and environmental conditioning.

            Tiffani
          • Matt Kirby
            Have not read, but on my list, thanks for the recommendation. I must agree with you. Absolute freedom is an illusion, we have created the idea to make us feel
            Message 5 of 7 , Oct 6, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Have not read, but on my list, thanks for the recommendation.
              I must agree with you. Absolute freedom is an illusion, we have created the
              idea to make us feel better about "us." We are a vast superior species, so
              how can we be limited by things we can not see. The fact is we are limited
              and in order to make "us" feel better we create illusionary ideas with
              illusionary words such as freedom, why heck maybe love is an illusion, just
              some neurons firing, transmitting a neurotransmitter that makes "us" feel
              what we call love. We hate to be limited, so we do everything we can to
              curve that, "the political correct unlimited" I think that is why we climb
              Mt. Everest, go to the moon, and swim the English Channel, because we rule
              this planet, so there is nothing that we can not do or be. That idea is a
              fallacy of thought, the haunting truth is we are limited to our environment
              and our own genetics. Sad but true, but hey who ever said false hope is bad,
              its better than no hope.
              Kirby
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: <TiffaniTN@...>
              To: <existlist@onelist.com>
              Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 8:11 PM
              Subject: Re: [existlist] Facticity


              > From: TiffaniTN@...
              >
              > For those of you toiling with the concept of free will versus various
              forms
              > of determinism, I highly recommend reading Dostoevsky's 'Notes From The
              > Underground.'
              >
              > Anyone who has read this book, I would love to hear your thoughts.
              >
              > Basically, my thoughts on the free will/determinism debate are this.
              Anyone
              > who tries to suggest that we have absolute freedom is ludicrous ... even
              > Sartre didn't say this... Sartre said we have complete freedom but not
              > absolute (though for a different reason than I am about to express).
              There
              > are so many factors that limit the possibility of absolute freedom. I
              don't
              > think that anyone who is up to date on Physiological studies would suggest
              > that our biological make-up has no effect on our choices (disposition),
              nor
              > would anyone who is familiar with Psychology try to suggest that our past
              > experiences have no influence on our daily choices. These, our genetics
              and
              > our past experiences, greatly influence us without doubt.
              >
              > The fact that we have the ability to introspect and analyze our
              > predispositions to behave in a certain way in a given context is where the
              > freedom begins. In Dostoevsky's 'Notes From The Underground' this idea is
              > expounded upon. The fact that one can recognize his inclinations and yet
              > still rebel against them seems to solve the genetics/environment debate.
              I
              > rebel, therefore I am free.
              >
              > Sure, any one of us can make the argument "but how can we really know that
              > even this perceived freedom is not merely an illusion...." It seems that
              we
              > could debate that issue endlessly ... but I challenge you, what sense does
              > the question even make to ask? Can we ever know? We function as though
              we
              > have freedom. We feel like we have freedom. We can be educated enough to
              > know what is best for us and still choose to rebel, as in Dostoevsky's
              'Notes
              > from the Underground.' We have set up this society with the belief that
              > there is freedom. Let's face it, if we reduce everyone to deterministic
              > animals, how can we make anyone responsible for any of their actions?
              >
              > I reiterate my strong belief that the fact that we can metacognate on our
              > influences and rebel against them seems to offer substance to the theory
              that
              > there is a sort of freedom, that we are not merely walking products of our
              > bodily composition and environmental conditioning.
              >
              > Tiffani
              >
              > > From The Exist List...
              > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
            • Zithromax
              If you had absolute, total amnesia (as in the book/movie Bourne Identity ) it is possible that you would not know that you are a canadian bluenoser nor retain
              Message 6 of 7 , Aug 23, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                If you had absolute, total amnesia (as in the book/movie "Bourne Identity") it is possible that you would not know that you are a canadian bluenoser nor retain any cultural predispositions towards gender roles. In such a situation who you are is independent of facticity. Facticity can influence us, obviously. For example if we have plenty of cash we could act differently than if we are impoverished, e.g. we may not have the free will to buy a lamborghini. However, I think that when Heidegger or Sartre talk about Facticity they are really saying that free will and accepting responsibility for our actions frees us from a prison of facticities. When you realize that who you are is based on the decisions you make independently of things like gender, age, and birth then you realize your free will, and a deeper understanding of who you are. I think this is why some people enjoy primitive camping, rock climbing, and survivalish stuff. Such activities can represent a choice to radically change facticity, if only for a weekend, and in taking on nature we can better understand ourselves.

                Zith
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Lorna Landry
                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 1:04 PM
                Subject: Re: [existlist] Facticity


                I think facticity means those circumstances of your existence over which you have no control, such as time and place of birth, sex, etc. We are, all of us, born into an absolutely free existence (for Sartre), but all of us are born into a situation of some sort, and our facticity is the way Sartre describes this element of being born into situation.

                I'm a female, Canadian bluenoser born in 1967. This I cannot change about myself, no matter what I try to do. This is the facticity of my existence.

                My absolute freedom comes into play in the sense that I am the only one who ultimately has contol over the attitude I take toward this particular, canadian, female, nova scotian, situation I find myself in.

                Lorna


                Mary Jo Malo <alcyon11@...> wrote:
                eduard,

                Don't think many of us here are pure existentialists with a
                capital "E". I'll have to look into facticity, but I'm sure it means
                more than just real facts. Maybe someone here on the list can give us
                a condensed definition. I'm a realist in my everyday life, but an
                optimist for the big picture.

                Mary Jo

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduard at home wrote:
                > Mary Jo,
                >
                > It does matter which comes first from an Existentialist
                > point of view. It gets back to the old idea of the blank
                > sheet or whatever it is called. The idea is that you start
                > off from zero and then through life and experience, you
                > create yourself. Thus you exist before you have essence.
                > Of course, this does raise the question of what is
                > "essence". Some would say that there are some essences
                > which are genetic. But as I mentioned before, the
                > Existentialist covers this by allocating such things to
                > "facticity". I am not that sure what facticity means,
                > however, it does serve to get around the problem.
                >
                > I agree that the hooded-man and the femme-sage [perhaps we
                > should use the French term -- homme sage -- for the
                > hooded-man] are the same. To a large extent the femme-sage
                > has had a harder time of things because of opposition by the
                > establishment.
                >
                > Yes, only a few manage to make the stage of homme-sage. I
                > keep thinking of the movie, "Treasure of the Sierra Madre"
                > where Walter Houston plays that role. When the Indians find
                > the three of them -- Walter Houston, Tim Holt, and Humphrey
                > Bogart -- they demand that Houston stay with them, because
                > of his value as a healer.
                >
                > eduard
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: "Mary Jo Malo"
                > To:
                > Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 9:40 AM
                > Subject: [existlist] Re: God??? and the hooded-man
                >
                >
                > > eduard,
                > >
                > > Yes, I think I understand what you're saying and asking.
                > My
                > > philosophy allows me to have essence and existence,
                > because I always
                > > am :) Does it matter which comes first? Here are some more
                > thoughts.
                > >
                > > As we said earlier the wise elder was an important part of
                > many
                > > societies. The Church usurped this role when it's
                > archbishops spoke
                > > at the right hand of the kings. It's wisdom came from
                > absolute power
                > > and authority and the written "word" of god. But there was
                > always an
                > > underground stream of freethinkers who knew that wisdom
                > was
                > > individual and not dispensed by the state. The archetype
                > or pattern
                > > of the wise elder, however, has not left us. The hooded
                > one or the
                > > wise crone was the natural or pagan guide, such as poets
                > and artists,
                > > who spoke directly to our experiences as Joseph Campbell
                > would say.
                > > Carl Jung said they come to us in dreams.
                > >
                > > Is there a pattern of character that we naturally fall
                > into with age?
                > > Perhaps, but I don't think we could separate that from the
                > influence
                > > of our society which often defines our roles.
                > >
                > > The difference between mere fatherhood and the hooded one
                > is that
                > > this wise elder is one amongst the many. He is a unique
                > member of his
                > > society. Not all adults were the wise ones. They were
                > special with a
                > > special function. Like we said before, age is no guarantee
                > of wisdom.
                > > There is a humility in wisdom which knows there is so much
                > more to
                > > learn. It's a humility which honors individuality and has
                > confidence
                > > in inevitability and unpredictability. The sage often has
                > a wicked
                > > sense of humor. (I loved Nicol Williamson's Merlin in
                > "Excalibur")
                > >
                > > Today, we existentialists sit at the knees of the writers
                > and other
                > > examples of free thinkers who share their wisdom through
                > the written
                > > word and the arts.
                > >
                > > As to your question of whether there is a difference
                > between the male
                > > and female sage, I'd say no. The sage is a completely
                > integrated
                > > personality who contains both attributes. The sage speaks
                > from both
                > > the natural world (magic) and the intellectual sphere, a
                > person of
                > > experience and hope in the future of humanity. The sage
                > believes in
                > > and is part of the cosmos. The sage understands how it
                > works and can
                > > advise and affect change. The sage is trusted because of
                > experience.
                > >
                > > Mary Jo



                Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




                ---------------------------------
                Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


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


                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                ADVERTISEMENT




                Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Mary Jo Malo
                Zith, Thanks. When you realize . . . is what s important. People have to be educated about choices and free will. In our society the essential meaning of
                Message 7 of 7 , Aug 24, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Zith,

                  Thanks. "When you realize . . ." is what's important. People have to
                  be educated about choices and free will. In our society the essential
                  meaning of what has become a mere slogan, is very important. If
                  children are properly educated about free will and responsibility,
                  they have a greater chance of avoiding or breaking free from negative
                  facticities. I've observed that the human species is very childlike
                  in that it is easily prey to suggestion and emotional vulnerability.
                  We are imprinted behaviorily as children; indoctrinated by
                  advertising; brainwashed by the media's hysteria; entranced by
                  television and movies' fairy tales; and thus the difficulties of free
                  will. Often it's a trauma or dramatic change of circumstances that
                  can liberate us from facticity. We are predisposed to react, both
                  biologically and mentally, and that keeps us a prisoner rather than
                  an adventurer. Yes, a heavy dose of education at an early age is
                  critical, as well as mature parents who provide environments
                  conducive to such freedom.

                  Mary Jo

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Zithromax" <zithromax@s...> wrote:
                  > If you had absolute, total amnesia (as in the book/movie "Bourne
                  Identity") it is possible that you would not know that you are a
                  canadian bluenoser nor retain any cultural predispositions towards
                  gender roles. In such a situation who you are is independent of
                  facticity. Facticity can influence us, obviously. For example if we
                  have plenty of cash we could act differently than if we are
                  impoverished, e.g. we may not have the free will to buy a
                  lamborghini. However, I think that when Heidegger or Sartre talk
                  about Facticity they are really saying that free will and accepting
                  responsibility for our actions frees us from a prison of
                  facticities. When you realize that who you are is based on the
                  decisions you make independently of things like gender, age, and
                  birth then you realize your free will, and a deeper understanding of
                  who you are. I think this is why some people enjoy primitive
                  camping, rock climbing, and survivalish stuff. Such activities can
                  represent a choice to radically change facticity, if only for a
                  weekend, and in taking on nature we can better understand ourselves.
                  >
                  > Zith
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: Lorna Landry
                  > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 1:04 PM
                  > Subject: Re: [existlist] Facticity
                  >
                  >
                  > I think facticity means those circumstances of your existence
                  over which you have no control, such as time and place of birth, sex,
                  etc. We are, all of us, born into an absolutely free existence (for
                  Sartre), but all of us are born into a situation of some sort, and
                  our facticity is the way Sartre describes this element of being born
                  into situation.
                  >
                  > I'm a female, Canadian bluenoser born in 1967. This I cannot
                  change about myself, no matter what I try to do. This is the
                  facticity of my existence.
                  >
                  > My absolute freedom comes into play in the sense that I am the
                  only one who ultimately has contol over the attitude I take toward
                  this particular, canadian, female, nova scotian, situation I find
                  myself in.
                  >
                  > Lorna
                  >
                  >
                  > Mary Jo Malo <alcyon11@y...> wrote:
                  > eduard,
                  >
                  > Don't think many of us here are pure existentialists with a
                  > capital "E". I'll have to look into facticity, but I'm sure it
                  means
                  > more than just real facts. Maybe someone here on the list can
                  give us
                  > a condensed definition. I'm a realist in my everyday life, but an
                  > optimist for the big picture.
                  >
                  > Mary Jo
                  >
                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduard at home wrote:
                  > > Mary Jo,
                  > >
                  > > It does matter which comes first from an Existentialist
                  > > point of view. It gets back to the old idea of the blank
                  > > sheet or whatever it is called. The idea is that you start
                  > > off from zero and then through life and experience, you
                  > > create yourself. Thus you exist before you have essence.
                  > > Of course, this does raise the question of what is
                  > > "essence". Some would say that there are some essences
                  > > which are genetic. But as I mentioned before, the
                  > > Existentialist covers this by allocating such things to
                  > > "facticity". I am not that sure what facticity means,
                  > > however, it does serve to get around the problem.
                  > >
                  > > I agree that the hooded-man and the femme-sage [perhaps we
                  > > should use the French term -- homme sage -- for the
                  > > hooded-man] are the same. To a large extent the femme-sage
                  > > has had a harder time of things because of opposition by the
                  > > establishment.
                  > >
                  > > Yes, only a few manage to make the stage of homme-sage. I
                  > > keep thinking of the movie, "Treasure of the Sierra Madre"
                  > > where Walter Houston plays that role. When the Indians find
                  > > the three of them -- Walter Houston, Tim Holt, and Humphrey
                  > > Bogart -- they demand that Houston stay with them, because
                  > > of his value as a healer.
                  > >
                  > > eduard
                  > >
                  > > ----- Original Message -----
                  > > From: "Mary Jo Malo"
                  > > To:
                  > > Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 9:40 AM
                  > > Subject: [existlist] Re: God??? and the hooded-man
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > > eduard,
                  > > >
                  > > > Yes, I think I understand what you're saying and asking.
                  > > My
                  > > > philosophy allows me to have essence and existence,
                  > > because I always
                  > > > am :) Does it matter which comes first? Here are some more
                  > > thoughts.
                  > > >
                  > > > As we said earlier the wise elder was an important part of
                  > > many
                  > > > societies. The Church usurped this role when it's
                  > > archbishops spoke
                  > > > at the right hand of the kings. It's wisdom came from
                  > > absolute power
                  > > > and authority and the written "word" of god. But there was
                  > > always an
                  > > > underground stream of freethinkers who knew that wisdom
                  > > was
                  > > > individual and not dispensed by the state. The archetype
                  > > or pattern
                  > > > of the wise elder, however, has not left us. The hooded
                  > > one or the
                  > > > wise crone was the natural or pagan guide, such as poets
                  > > and artists,
                  > > > who spoke directly to our experiences as Joseph Campbell
                  > > would say.
                  > > > Carl Jung said they come to us in dreams.
                  > > >
                  > > > Is there a pattern of character that we naturally fall
                  > > into with age?
                  > > > Perhaps, but I don't think we could separate that from the
                  > > influence
                  > > > of our society which often defines our roles.
                  > > >
                  > > > The difference between mere fatherhood and the hooded one
                  > > is that
                  > > > this wise elder is one amongst the many. He is a unique
                  > > member of his
                  > > > society. Not all adults were the wise ones. They were
                  > > special with a
                  > > > special function. Like we said before, age is no guarantee
                  > > of wisdom.
                  > > > There is a humility in wisdom which knows there is so much
                  > > more to
                  > > > learn. It's a humility which honors individuality and has
                  > > confidence
                  > > > in inevitability and unpredictability. The sage often has
                  > > a wicked
                  > > > sense of humor. (I loved Nicol Williamson's Merlin in
                  > > "Excalibur")
                  > > >
                  > > > Today, we existentialists sit at the knees of the writers
                  > > and other
                  > > > examples of free thinkers who share their wisdom through
                  > > the written
                  > > > word and the arts.
                  > > >
                  > > > As to your question of whether there is a difference
                  > > between the male
                  > > > and female sage, I'd say no. The sage is a completely
                  > > integrated
                  > > > personality who contains both attributes. The sage speaks
                  > > from both
                  > > > the natural world (magic) and the intellectual sphere, a
                  > > person of
                  > > > experience and hope in the future of humanity. The sage
                  > > believes in
                  > > > and is part of the cosmos. The sage understands how it
                  > > works and can
                  > > > advise and affect change. The sage is trusted because of
                  > > experience.
                  > > >
                  > > > Mary Jo
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                  > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                  >
                  > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                  > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ---------------------------------
                  > Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  > ADVERTISEMENT
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                  > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                  >
                  > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                  > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! 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.