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

Sartre - Freedom, Others & Responsibility

Expand Messages
  • alcyon11
    Early Sartre considered the Other as a danger to one s freedom. The look of the Other objectifies one, and endangers his subjectivity. However, a person has an
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 16, 2004
      Early Sartre considered the Other as a danger to one's freedom. The
      look of the Other objectifies one, and endangers his subjectivity.
      However, a person has an option whether to absorb the Other's freedom
      while keeping the Other's freedom intact, as in the case of love, or
      to try to objectify him, as in the case of sadism. The pessimism of
      the early Sartre as to the establishment of an authentic community is
      explicated at the end of his play, No Exit, when Garcin said that
      hell is other people. Hakim writes:

      Being-for-another belongs to the very being of man. Yet the moment
      this relationship is analyzed, it is seen that the Other pushes
      against my freedom and circumscribes it. At one and the same time,
      the Other, who helps establish my freedom, also destroys it; being-
      for-itself and being-for-another shatter each other. - Excerpted:

      <http://www.geocities.com/sartresite/sartre_theses4.html>

      Mary Jo
    • cribprdb
      Are birds free from the chains of the skyway? Which is the greater: freedom from lonliness or freedom from others? This is a fundamentally existentialist
      Message 2 of 13 , Mar 16, 2004
        ''Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?''

        Which is the greater: freedom from lonliness or freedom from others?
        This is a fundamentally existentialist question. Given the nature of
        our everyday existence, i/e swooning in communication, it seems
        possible to argue that freedom from lonliness is at least a
        collateral causal factor of this human existence. I think the
        philosophical risk inherent in existing on this somewhat ''other''
        overwhelmed planet is that freedom from others takes on a fascist
        face. It can be argued that freedom from others is the cause of
        cultural bonding and sociological structure - the need to find
        someone to agree with. I think the sense that we can only control
        others here out of frustration by intellectual domination, physical
        force, or strength in collective, is a fundamental causal factor in
        the existence of sociological structure, and the temporary insanity
        of some of its activities. I also think that the other causal factor
        is poorly formed emotionally grasped metaphysical ideas of the
        future of the species. As I have previously posted, the idea of a
        permanent future for the species is essentially sublimated in
        various cultural, philosophic, and religious forms in all of us here
        with few exceptions. We want to live and love, but we die - because
        this problem seems to complicated to address for most of us, we
        postpone its resolution and focus on now. Science is divided on the
        issue as well, and even where science earnestly pursues a lasting
        life, cultural impact forces postponement of a scientific solution.
        Scientist are forced into the same situation as laymen, dealing with
        the now and postponing the future. Though they may completely
        believe in a solution, because they have not proved one yet, and are
        forced by sociological restraints to pause from their quest, the
        unproven state of their ideas becomes akin to the same emotionally
        grasped metaphysical sublimated causal factor as religion. As I
        posted previously, focus on the now, i/e greed, does not
        neccessarily lead to aberrant behavior and atrocity, that only
        occurs when coupled to a sublimation of an imagined future
        existence. It is my opinion at this point that the zeal in
        existential thought that lead to absurdism was fueled by this
        realization. I do much prefer this existenial clarity, even though
        it leads to an unattractive conclusion because it cleared some
        intellectual closets and left the question open-ended.

        If we can learn to argue again that freedom from lonliness is a
        causal factor of human existence, we may discover that: our
        responsibility is essentially to ourselves, our ethics are
        essentially personal, we have no need of any erected sociological
        structure to express our personal meaning other than language and
        our human body, and real freedom is living with unresolved questions
        while recognizing finally that solutions are absolutely possible or
        we would not exist. Might as well put your cards on the table
        because you are only bluffing yourself.
        --
        "forever free"
        Trinidad


        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "alcyon11" <alcyon11@y...> wrote:
        > Early Sartre considered the Other as a danger to one's freedom.
        The
        > look of the Other objectifies one, and endangers his subjectivity.
        > However, a person has an option whether to absorb the Other's
        freedom
        > while keeping the Other's freedom intact, as in the case of love,
        or
        > to try to objectify him, as in the case of sadism. The pessimism
        of
        > the early Sartre as to the establishment of an authentic community
        is
        > explicated at the end of his play, No Exit, when Garcin said that
        > hell is other people. Hakim writes:
        >
        > Being-for-another belongs to the very being of man. Yet the moment
        > this relationship is analyzed, it is seen that the Other pushes
        > against my freedom and circumscribes it. At one and the same time,
        > the Other, who helps establish my freedom, also destroys it;
        being-
        > for-itself and being-for-another shatter each other. - Excerpted:
        >
        > <http://www.geocities.com/sartresite/sartre_theses4.html>
        >
        > Mary Jo
      • louise
        Trinidad, However unphilosophical this may seem to skilfully discurive theorists like CSW, your post here simply confirms my impression that studying Sartre
        Message 3 of 13 , Mar 16, 2004
          Trinidad,
          However 'unphilosophical' this may seem to skilfully discurive
          theorists like CSW, your post here simply confirms my impression that
          studying Sartre is a waste of time. This is my existentialist
          conviction. I could be more specific, but would probably be
          moderated by someone if I were. However, I seem to remember Lee
          Edgar Tyler has already expressed something of this ilk with great
          succinctness and force.
          Louise


          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "cribprdb" <trinidad@i...> wrote:
          > ''Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?''
          >
          > Which is the greater: freedom from lonliness or freedom from
          others?
          > This is a fundamentally existentialist question. Given the nature
          of
          > our everyday existence, i/e swooning in communication, it seems
          > possible to argue that freedom from lonliness is at least a
          > collateral causal factor of this human existence. I think the
          > philosophical risk inherent in existing on this somewhat ''other''
          > overwhelmed planet is that freedom from others takes on a fascist
          > face. It can be argued that freedom from others is the cause of
          > cultural bonding and sociological structure - the need to find
          > someone to agree with. I think the sense that we can only control
          > others here out of frustration by intellectual domination, physical
          > force, or strength in collective, is a fundamental causal factor in
          > the existence of sociological structure, and the temporary insanity
          > of some of its activities. I also think that the other causal
          factor
          > is poorly formed emotionally grasped metaphysical ideas of the
          > future of the species. As I have previously posted, the idea of a
          > permanent future for the species is essentially sublimated in
          > various cultural, philosophic, and religious forms in all of us
          here
          > with few exceptions. We want to live and love, but we die - because
          > this problem seems to complicated to address for most of us, we
          > postpone its resolution and focus on now. Science is divided on the
          > issue as well, and even where science earnestly pursues a lasting
          > life, cultural impact forces postponement of a scientific solution.
          > Scientist are forced into the same situation as laymen, dealing
          with
          > the now and postponing the future. Though they may completely
          > believe in a solution, because they have not proved one yet, and
          are
          > forced by sociological restraints to pause from their quest, the
          > unproven state of their ideas becomes akin to the same emotionally
          > grasped metaphysical sublimated causal factor as religion. As I
          > posted previously, focus on the now, i/e greed, does not
          > neccessarily lead to aberrant behavior and atrocity, that only
          > occurs when coupled to a sublimation of an imagined future
          > existence. It is my opinion at this point that the zeal in
          > existential thought that lead to absurdism was fueled by this
          > realization. I do much prefer this existenial clarity, even though
          > it leads to an unattractive conclusion because it cleared some
          > intellectual closets and left the question open-ended.
          >
          > If we can learn to argue again that freedom from lonliness is a
          > causal factor of human existence, we may discover that: our
          > responsibility is essentially to ourselves, our ethics are
          > essentially personal, we have no need of any erected sociological
          > structure to express our personal meaning other than language and
          > our human body, and real freedom is living with unresolved
          questions
          > while recognizing finally that solutions are absolutely possible or
          > we would not exist. Might as well put your cards on the table
          > because you are only bluffing yourself.
          > --
          > "forever free"
          > Trinidad
          >
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "alcyon11" <alcyon11@y...> wrote:
          > > Early Sartre considered the Other as a danger to one's freedom.
          > The
          > > look of the Other objectifies one, and endangers his
          subjectivity.
          > > However, a person has an option whether to absorb the Other's
          > freedom
          > > while keeping the Other's freedom intact, as in the case of love,
          > or
          > > to try to objectify him, as in the case of sadism. The pessimism
          > of
          > > the early Sartre as to the establishment of an authentic
          community
          > is
          > > explicated at the end of his play, No Exit, when Garcin said
          that
          > > hell is other people. Hakim writes:
          > >
          > > Being-for-another belongs to the very being of man. Yet the
          moment
          > > this relationship is analyzed, it is seen that the Other pushes
          > > against my freedom and circumscribes it. At one and the same
          time,
          > > the Other, who helps establish my freedom, also destroys it;
          > being-
          > > for-itself and being-for-another shatter each other. - Excerpted:
          > >
          > > <http://www.geocities.com/sartresite/sartre_theses4.html>
          > >
          > > Mary Jo
        • cribprdb
          I am saying that absurdism was proposed by Sartre as a temporary conclusion, in order to protect the integrity of his work from any mythological superstition
          Message 4 of 13 , Mar 16, 2004
            I am saying that absurdism was proposed by Sartre as a temporary
            conclusion, in order to protect the integrity of his work from any
            mythological superstition or metaphysical infection, sublimated in
            those who would carry it on as he faced the real and limited time of
            his own life, and the complexity of the solution he sought. If so,
            that in itself reflects his genius and complete awareness of the
            problem. The genius of Sartre is for the mind not predisposed to
            conclusion without definition. And it is genius my dear.
            tc

            As far as Tyler I have e-mailed him privately and am more than
            willing to engage him in debate on any ideas in the area of
            existentialism. His choice of subject matter on his last foray here
            left me a bit uninterested. Furthermore he has yet to reply. I have
            no further interest in acrimony. Wyatt has made a good point.
            --
            "forever free"
            Trinidad

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@y...> wrote:
            > Trinidad,
            > However 'unphilosophical' this may seem to skilfully discurive
            > theorists like CSW, your post here simply confirms my impression
            that
            > studying Sartre is a waste of time. This is my existentialist
            > conviction. I could be more specific, but would probably be
            > moderated by someone if I were. However, I seem to remember Lee
            > Edgar Tyler has already expressed something of this ilk with great
            > succinctness and force.
            > Louise
            >
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "cribprdb" <trinidad@i...>
            wrote:
            > > ''Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?''
            > >
            > > Which is the greater: freedom from lonliness or freedom from
            > others?
            > > This is a fundamentally existentialist question. Given the
            nature
            > of
            > > our everyday existence, i/e swooning in communication, it seems
            > > possible to argue that freedom from lonliness is at least a
            > > collateral causal factor of this human existence. I think the
            > > philosophical risk inherent in existing on this somewhat
            ''other''
            > > overwhelmed planet is that freedom from others takes on a
            fascist
            > > face. It can be argued that freedom from others is the cause of
            > > cultural bonding and sociological structure - the need to find
            > > someone to agree with. I think the sense that we can only
            control
            > > others here out of frustration by intellectual domination,
            physical
            > > force, or strength in collective, is a fundamental causal factor
            in
            > > the existence of sociological structure, and the temporary
            insanity
            > > of some of its activities. I also think that the other causal
            > factor
            > > is poorly formed emotionally grasped metaphysical ideas of the
            > > future of the species. As I have previously posted, the idea of
            a
            > > permanent future for the species is essentially sublimated in
            > > various cultural, philosophic, and religious forms in all of us
            > here
            > > with few exceptions. We want to live and love, but we die -
            because
            > > this problem seems to complicated to address for most of us, we
            > > postpone its resolution and focus on now. Science is divided on
            the
            > > issue as well, and even where science earnestly pursues a
            lasting
            > > life, cultural impact forces postponement of a scientific
            solution.
            > > Scientist are forced into the same situation as laymen, dealing
            > with
            > > the now and postponing the future. Though they may completely
            > > believe in a solution, because they have not proved one yet, and
            > are
            > > forced by sociological restraints to pause from their quest, the
            > > unproven state of their ideas becomes akin to the same
            emotionally
            > > grasped metaphysical sublimated causal factor as religion. As I
            > > posted previously, focus on the now, i/e greed, does not
            > > neccessarily lead to aberrant behavior and atrocity, that only
            > > occurs when coupled to a sublimation of an imagined future
            > > existence. It is my opinion at this point that the zeal in
            > > existential thought that lead to absurdism was fueled by this
            > > realization. I do much prefer this existenial clarity, even
            though
            > > it leads to an unattractive conclusion because it cleared some
            > > intellectual closets and left the question open-ended.
            > >
            > > If we can learn to argue again that freedom from lonliness is a
            > > causal factor of human existence, we may discover that: our
            > > responsibility is essentially to ourselves, our ethics are
            > > essentially personal, we have no need of any erected
            sociological
            > > structure to express our personal meaning other than language
            and
            > > our human body, and real freedom is living with unresolved
            > questions
            > > while recognizing finally that solutions are absolutely possible
            or
            > > we would not exist. Might as well put your cards on the table
            > > because you are only bluffing yourself.
            > > --
            > > "forever free"
            > > Trinidad
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "alcyon11" <alcyon11@y...>
            wrote:
            > > > Early Sartre considered the Other as a danger to one's
            freedom.
            > > The
            > > > look of the Other objectifies one, and endangers his
            > subjectivity.
            > > > However, a person has an option whether to absorb the Other's
            > > freedom
            > > > while keeping the Other's freedom intact, as in the case of
            love,
            > > or
            > > > to try to objectify him, as in the case of sadism. The
            pessimism
            > > of
            > > > the early Sartre as to the establishment of an authentic
            > community
            > > is
            > > > explicated at the end of his play, No Exit, when Garcin said
            > that
            > > > hell is other people. Hakim writes:
            > > >
            > > > Being-for-another belongs to the very being of man. Yet the
            > moment
            > > > this relationship is analyzed, it is seen that the Other
            pushes
            > > > against my freedom and circumscribes it. At one and the same
            > time,
            > > > the Other, who helps establish my freedom, also destroys it;
            > > being-
            > > > for-itself and being-for-another shatter each other. -
            Excerpted:
            > > >
            > > > <http://www.geocities.com/sartresite/sartre_theses4.html>
            > > >
            > > > Mary Jo
          • louise
            Trinidad, I sincerely hope your epithet, my dear , is not addressed to me - I find it offensive and patronising. Louise ... of ... great ... seems ... of ...
            Message 5 of 13 , Mar 16, 2004
              Trinidad,
              I sincerely hope your epithet, 'my dear', is not addressed to me - I
              find it offensive and patronising.
              Louise

              -- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "cribprdb" <trinidad@i...> wrote:
              > I am saying that absurdism was proposed by Sartre as a temporary
              > conclusion, in order to protect the integrity of his work from any
              > mythological superstition or metaphysical infection, sublimated in
              > those who would carry it on as he faced the real and limited time
              of
              > his own life, and the complexity of the solution he sought. If so,
              > that in itself reflects his genius and complete awareness of the
              > problem. The genius of Sartre is for the mind not predisposed to
              > conclusion without definition. And it is genius my dear.
              > tc
              >
              > As far as Tyler I have e-mailed him privately and am more than
              > willing to engage him in debate on any ideas in the area of
              > existentialism. His choice of subject matter on his last foray here
              > left me a bit uninterested. Furthermore he has yet to reply. I have
              > no further interest in acrimony. Wyatt has made a good point.
              > --
              > "forever free"
              > Trinidad
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@y...>
              wrote:
              > > Trinidad,
              > > However 'unphilosophical' this may seem to skilfully discurive
              > > theorists like CSW, your post here simply confirms my impression
              > that
              > > studying Sartre is a waste of time. This is my existentialist
              > > conviction. I could be more specific, but would probably be
              > > moderated by someone if I were. However, I seem to remember Lee
              > > Edgar Tyler has already expressed something of this ilk with
              great
              > > succinctness and force.
              > > Louise
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "cribprdb" <trinidad@i...>
              > wrote:
              > > > ''Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?''
              > > >
              > > > Which is the greater: freedom from lonliness or freedom from
              > > others?
              > > > This is a fundamentally existentialist question. Given the
              > nature
              > > of
              > > > our everyday existence, i/e swooning in communication, it
              seems
              > > > possible to argue that freedom from lonliness is at least a
              > > > collateral causal factor of this human existence. I think the
              > > > philosophical risk inherent in existing on this somewhat
              > ''other''
              > > > overwhelmed planet is that freedom from others takes on a
              > fascist
              > > > face. It can be argued that freedom from others is the cause
              of
              > > > cultural bonding and sociological structure - the need to find
              > > > someone to agree with. I think the sense that we can only
              > control
              > > > others here out of frustration by intellectual domination,
              > physical
              > > > force, or strength in collective, is a fundamental causal
              factor
              > in
              > > > the existence of sociological structure, and the temporary
              > insanity
              > > > of some of its activities. I also think that the other causal
              > > factor
              > > > is poorly formed emotionally grasped metaphysical ideas of
              the
              > > > future of the species. As I have previously posted, the idea of
              > a
              > > > permanent future for the species is essentially sublimated in
              > > > various cultural, philosophic, and religious forms in all of
              us
              > > here
              > > > with few exceptions. We want to live and love, but we die -
              > because
              > > > this problem seems to complicated to address for most of us,
              we
              > > > postpone its resolution and focus on now. Science is divided on
              > the
              > > > issue as well, and even where science earnestly pursues a
              > lasting
              > > > life, cultural impact forces postponement of a scientific
              > solution.
              > > > Scientist are forced into the same situation as laymen,
              dealing
              > > with
              > > > the now and postponing the future. Though they may completely
              > > > believe in a solution, because they have not proved one yet,
              and
              > > are
              > > > forced by sociological restraints to pause from their quest,
              the
              > > > unproven state of their ideas becomes akin to the same
              > emotionally
              > > > grasped metaphysical sublimated causal factor as religion. As
              I
              > > > posted previously, focus on the now, i/e greed, does not
              > > > neccessarily lead to aberrant behavior and atrocity, that only
              > > > occurs when coupled to a sublimation of an imagined future
              > > > existence. It is my opinion at this point that the zeal in
              > > > existential thought that lead to absurdism was fueled by this
              > > > realization. I do much prefer this existenial clarity, even
              > though
              > > > it leads to an unattractive conclusion because it cleared some
              > > > intellectual closets and left the question open-ended.
              > > >
              > > > If we can learn to argue again that freedom from lonliness is
              a
              > > > causal factor of human existence, we may discover that: our
              > > > responsibility is essentially to ourselves, our ethics are
              > > > essentially personal, we have no need of any erected
              > sociological
              > > > structure to express our personal meaning other than language
              > and
              > > > our human body, and real freedom is living with unresolved
              > > questions
              > > > while recognizing finally that solutions are absolutely
              possible
              > or
              > > > we would not exist. Might as well put your cards on the table
              > > > because you are only bluffing yourself.
              > > > --
              > > > "forever free"
              > > > Trinidad
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "alcyon11" <alcyon11@y...>
              > wrote:
              > > > > Early Sartre considered the Other as a danger to one's
              > freedom.
              > > > The
              > > > > look of the Other objectifies one, and endangers his
              > > subjectivity.
              > > > > However, a person has an option whether to absorb the
              Other's
              > > > freedom
              > > > > while keeping the Other's freedom intact, as in the case of
              > love,
              > > > or
              > > > > to try to objectify him, as in the case of sadism. The
              > pessimism
              > > > of
              > > > > the early Sartre as to the establishment of an authentic
              > > community
              > > > is
              > > > > explicated at the end of his play, No Exit, when Garcin said
              > > that
              > > > > hell is other people. Hakim writes:
              > > > >
              > > > > Being-for-another belongs to the very being of man. Yet the
              > > moment
              > > > > this relationship is analyzed, it is seen that the Other
              > pushes
              > > > > against my freedom and circumscribes it. At one and the same
              > > time,
              > > > > the Other, who helps establish my freedom, also destroys it;
              > > > being-
              > > > > for-itself and being-for-another shatter each other. -
              > Excerpted:
              > > > >
              > > > > <http://www.geocities.com/sartresite/sartre_theses4.html>
              > > > >
              > > > > Mary Jo
            • louise
              Trinidad, I think the acrimony you are perceiving is a matter of angles; personally, that s the last thing I d expect to find in a personality like Ed s.
              Message 6 of 13 , Mar 16, 2004
                Trinidad,
                I think the 'acrimony' you are perceiving is a matter of angles;
                personally, that's the last thing I'd expect to find in a personality
                like Ed's. His post 26936 sums it up. If I dare borrow an
                expression from a man on the street (rather than inside the door,
                here) - 'neat'.
                Louise
                ... eduard, i miss you; where'd you go?...

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@y...> wrote:
                > Trinidad,
                > I sincerely hope your epithet, 'my dear', is not addressed to me -
                I
                > find it offensive and patronising.
                > Louise
                >
                > -- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "cribprdb" <trinidad@i...> wrote:
                > > I am saying that absurdism was proposed by Sartre as a temporary
                > > conclusion, in order to protect the integrity of his work from
                any
                > > mythological superstition or metaphysical infection, sublimated
                in
                > > those who would carry it on as he faced the real and limited time
                > of
                > > his own life, and the complexity of the solution he sought. If
                so,
                > > that in itself reflects his genius and complete awareness of the
                > > problem. The genius of Sartre is for the mind not predisposed to
                > > conclusion without definition. And it is genius my dear.
                > > tc
                > >
                > > As far as Tyler I have e-mailed him privately and am more than
                > > willing to engage him in debate on any ideas in the area of
                > > existentialism. His choice of subject matter on his last foray
                here
                > > left me a bit uninterested. Furthermore he has yet to reply. I
                have
                > > no further interest in acrimony. Wyatt has made a good point.
                > > --
                > > "forever free"
                > > Trinidad
                > >
                > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@y...>
                > wrote:
                > > > Trinidad,
                > > > However 'unphilosophical' this may seem to skilfully discurive
                > > > theorists like CSW, your post here simply confirms my
                impression
                > > that
                > > > studying Sartre is a waste of time. This is my existentialist
                > > > conviction. I could be more specific, but would probably be
                > > > moderated by someone if I were. However, I seem to remember
                Lee
                > > > Edgar Tyler has already expressed something of this ilk with
                > great
                > > > succinctness and force.
                > > > Louise
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "cribprdb" <trinidad@i...>
                > > wrote:
                > > > > ''Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?''
                > > > >
                > > > > Which is the greater: freedom from lonliness or freedom from
                > > > others?
                > > > > This is a fundamentally existentialist question. Given the
                > > nature
                > > > of
                > > > > our everyday existence, i/e swooning in communication, it
                > seems
                > > > > possible to argue that freedom from lonliness is at least a
                > > > > collateral causal factor of this human existence. I think
                the
                > > > > philosophical risk inherent in existing on this somewhat
                > > ''other''
                > > > > overwhelmed planet is that freedom from others takes on a
                > > fascist
                > > > > face. It can be argued that freedom from others is the cause
                > of
                > > > > cultural bonding and sociological structure - the need to
                find
                > > > > someone to agree with. I think the sense that we can only
                > > control
                > > > > others here out of frustration by intellectual domination,
                > > physical
                > > > > force, or strength in collective, is a fundamental causal
                > factor
                > > in
                > > > > the existence of sociological structure, and the temporary
                > > insanity
                > > > > of some of its activities. I also think that the other
                causal
                > > > factor
                > > > > is poorly formed emotionally grasped metaphysical ideas of
                > the
                > > > > future of the species. As I have previously posted, the idea
                of
                > > a
                > > > > permanent future for the species is essentially sublimated
                in
                > > > > various cultural, philosophic, and religious forms in all of
                > us
                > > > here
                > > > > with few exceptions. We want to live and love, but we die -
                > > because
                > > > > this problem seems to complicated to address for most of us,
                > we
                > > > > postpone its resolution and focus on now. Science is divided
                on
                > > the
                > > > > issue as well, and even where science earnestly pursues a
                > > lasting
                > > > > life, cultural impact forces postponement of a scientific
                > > solution.
                > > > > Scientist are forced into the same situation as laymen,
                > dealing
                > > > with
                > > > > the now and postponing the future. Though they may
                completely
                > > > > believe in a solution, because they have not proved one yet,
                > and
                > > > are
                > > > > forced by sociological restraints to pause from their quest,
                > the
                > > > > unproven state of their ideas becomes akin to the same
                > > emotionally
                > > > > grasped metaphysical sublimated causal factor as religion. As
                > I
                > > > > posted previously, focus on the now, i/e greed, does not
                > > > > neccessarily lead to aberrant behavior and atrocity, that
                only
                > > > > occurs when coupled to a sublimation of an imagined future
                > > > > existence. It is my opinion at this point that the zeal in
                > > > > existential thought that lead to absurdism was fueled by
                this
                > > > > realization. I do much prefer this existenial clarity, even
                > > though
                > > > > it leads to an unattractive conclusion because it cleared
                some
                > > > > intellectual closets and left the question open-ended.
                > > > >
                > > > > If we can learn to argue again that freedom from lonliness is
                > a
                > > > > causal factor of human existence, we may discover that: our
                > > > > responsibility is essentially to ourselves, our ethics are
                > > > > essentially personal, we have no need of any erected
                > > sociological
                > > > > structure to express our personal meaning other than language
                > > and
                > > > > our human body, and real freedom is living with unresolved
                > > > questions
                > > > > while recognizing finally that solutions are absolutely
                > possible
                > > or
                > > > > we would not exist. Might as well put your cards on the
                table
                > > > > because you are only bluffing yourself.
                > > > > --
                > > > > "forever free"
                > > > > Trinidad
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "alcyon11" <alcyon11@y...>
                > > wrote:
                > > > > > Early Sartre considered the Other as a danger to one's
                > > freedom.
                > > > > The
                > > > > > look of the Other objectifies one, and endangers his
                > > > subjectivity.
                > > > > > However, a person has an option whether to absorb the
                > Other's
                > > > > freedom
                > > > > > while keeping the Other's freedom intact, as in the case of
                > > love,
                > > > > or
                > > > > > to try to objectify him, as in the case of sadism. The
                > > pessimism
                > > > > of
                > > > > > the early Sartre as to the establishment of an authentic
                > > > community
                > > > > is
                > > > > > explicated at the end of his play, No Exit, when Garcin
                said
                > > > that
                > > > > > hell is other people. Hakim writes:
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Being-for-another belongs to the very being of man. Yet
                the
                > > > moment
                > > > > > this relationship is analyzed, it is seen that the Other
                > > pushes
                > > > > > against my freedom and circumscribes it. At one and the
                same
                > > > time,
                > > > > > the Other, who helps establish my freedom, also destroys
                it;
                > > > > being-
                > > > > > for-itself and being-for-another shatter each other. -
                > > Excerpted:
                > > > > >
                > > > > > <http://www.geocities.com/sartresite/sartre_theses4.html>
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Mary Jo
              • alcyon11
                eduard often using the expression my dear . I never found it patronising, but affectionate. Even within the sisterhood, we can disagree. Like I said, some of
                Message 7 of 13 , Mar 16, 2004
                  eduard often using the expression "my dear". I never found it
                  patronising, but affectionate. Even within the sisterhood, we can
                  disagree. Like I said, some of us don't mind being called "squaw".
                  Anyone feel free to call me dear or squaw, just call me something.

                  In regard to Trinidad's evaluation of Sartre's genius, where do you
                  stand, Louise? Is his atheism offensive to you?

                  Mary Jo

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@y...> wrote:
                  > Trinidad,
                  > I sincerely hope your epithet, 'my dear', is not addressed to me -
                  I
                  > find it offensive and patronising.
                  > Louise
                  >
                  > -- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "cribprdb" <trinidad@i...> wrote:
                  > > I am saying that absurdism was proposed by Sartre as a temporary
                  > > conclusion, in order to protect the integrity of his work from
                  any
                  > > mythological superstition or metaphysical infection, sublimated
                  in
                  > > those who would carry it on as he faced the real and limited time
                  > of
                  > > his own life, and the complexity of the solution he sought. If
                  so,
                  > > that in itself reflects his genius and complete awareness of the
                  > > problem. The genius of Sartre is for the mind not predisposed to
                  > > conclusion without definition. And it is genius my dear.
                  > > tc
                  > >
                  > > As far as Tyler I have e-mailed him privately and am more than
                  > > willing to engage him in debate on any ideas in the area of
                  > > existentialism. His choice of subject matter on his last foray
                  here
                  > > left me a bit uninterested. Furthermore he has yet to reply. I
                  have
                  > > no further interest in acrimony. Wyatt has made a good point.
                  > > --
                  > > "forever free"
                  > > Trinidad
                  > >
                  > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@y...>
                  > wrote:
                  > > > Trinidad,
                  > > > However 'unphilosophical' this may seem to skilfully discurive
                  > > > theorists like CSW, your post here simply confirms my
                  impression
                  > > that
                  > > > studying Sartre is a waste of time. This is my existentialist
                  > > > conviction. I could be more specific, but would probably be
                  > > > moderated by someone if I were. However, I seem to remember
                  Lee
                  > > > Edgar Tyler has already expressed something of this ilk with
                  > great
                  > > > succinctness and force.
                  > > > Louise
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "cribprdb" <trinidad@i...>
                  > > wrote:
                  > > > > ''Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?''
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Which is the greater: freedom from lonliness or freedom from
                  > > > others?
                  > > > > This is a fundamentally existentialist question. Given the
                  > > nature
                  > > > of
                  > > > > our everyday existence, i/e swooning in communication, it
                  > seems
                  > > > > possible to argue that freedom from lonliness is at least a
                  > > > > collateral causal factor of this human existence. I think
                  the
                  > > > > philosophical risk inherent in existing on this somewhat
                  > > ''other''
                  > > > > overwhelmed planet is that freedom from others takes on a
                  > > fascist
                  > > > > face. It can be argued that freedom from others is the cause
                  > of
                  > > > > cultural bonding and sociological structure - the need to
                  find
                  > > > > someone to agree with. I think the sense that we can only
                  > > control
                  > > > > others here out of frustration by intellectual domination,
                  > > physical
                  > > > > force, or strength in collective, is a fundamental causal
                  > factor
                  > > in
                  > > > > the existence of sociological structure, and the temporary
                  > > insanity
                  > > > > of some of its activities. I also think that the other
                  causal
                  > > > factor
                  > > > > is poorly formed emotionally grasped metaphysical ideas of
                  > the
                  > > > > future of the species. As I have previously posted, the idea
                  of
                  > > a
                  > > > > permanent future for the species is essentially sublimated
                  in
                  > > > > various cultural, philosophic, and religious forms in all of
                  > us
                  > > > here
                  > > > > with few exceptions. We want to live and love, but we die -
                  > > because
                  > > > > this problem seems to complicated to address for most of us,
                  > we
                  > > > > postpone its resolution and focus on now. Science is divided
                  on
                  > > the
                  > > > > issue as well, and even where science earnestly pursues a
                  > > lasting
                  > > > > life, cultural impact forces postponement of a scientific
                  > > solution.
                  > > > > Scientist are forced into the same situation as laymen,
                  > dealing
                  > > > with
                  > > > > the now and postponing the future. Though they may
                  completely
                  > > > > believe in a solution, because they have not proved one yet,
                  > and
                  > > > are
                  > > > > forced by sociological restraints to pause from their quest,
                  > the
                  > > > > unproven state of their ideas becomes akin to the same
                  > > emotionally
                  > > > > grasped metaphysical sublimated causal factor as religion. As
                  > I
                  > > > > posted previously, focus on the now, i/e greed, does not
                  > > > > neccessarily lead to aberrant behavior and atrocity, that
                  only
                  > > > > occurs when coupled to a sublimation of an imagined future
                  > > > > existence. It is my opinion at this point that the zeal in
                  > > > > existential thought that lead to absurdism was fueled by
                  this
                  > > > > realization. I do much prefer this existenial clarity, even
                  > > though
                  > > > > it leads to an unattractive conclusion because it cleared
                  some
                  > > > > intellectual closets and left the question open-ended.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > If we can learn to argue again that freedom from lonliness is
                  > a
                  > > > > causal factor of human existence, we may discover that: our
                  > > > > responsibility is essentially to ourselves, our ethics are
                  > > > > essentially personal, we have no need of any erected
                  > > sociological
                  > > > > structure to express our personal meaning other than language
                  > > and
                  > > > > our human body, and real freedom is living with unresolved
                  > > > questions
                  > > > > while recognizing finally that solutions are absolutely
                  > possible
                  > > or
                  > > > > we would not exist. Might as well put your cards on the
                  table
                  > > > > because you are only bluffing yourself.
                  > > > > --
                  > > > > "forever free"
                  > > > > Trinidad
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "alcyon11" <alcyon11@y...>
                  > > wrote:
                  > > > > > Early Sartre considered the Other as a danger to one's
                  > > freedom.
                  > > > > The
                  > > > > > look of the Other objectifies one, and endangers his
                  > > > subjectivity.
                  > > > > > However, a person has an option whether to absorb the
                  > Other's
                  > > > > freedom
                  > > > > > while keeping the Other's freedom intact, as in the case of
                  > > love,
                  > > > > or
                  > > > > > to try to objectify him, as in the case of sadism. The
                  > > pessimism
                  > > > > of
                  > > > > > the early Sartre as to the establishment of an authentic
                  > > > community
                  > > > > is
                  > > > > > explicated at the end of his play, No Exit, when Garcin
                  said
                  > > > that
                  > > > > > hell is other people. Hakim writes:
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Being-for-another belongs to the very being of man. Yet
                  the
                  > > > moment
                  > > > > > this relationship is analyzed, it is seen that the Other
                  > > pushes
                  > > > > > against my freedom and circumscribes it. At one and the
                  same
                  > > > time,
                  > > > > > the Other, who helps establish my freedom, also destroys
                  it;
                  > > > > being-
                  > > > > > for-itself and being-for-another shatter each other. -
                  > > Excerpted:
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > <http://www.geocities.com/sartresite/sartre_theses4.html>
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Mary Jo
                • Bartley, Michael
                  Trinidad, my name is Michael. I was impressed with your statement about which is greater freedom from lonliness or freedom from others. It had a great impact
                  Message 8 of 13 , Mar 16, 2004
                    Trinidad, my name is Michael. I was impressed with your statement about
                    which is greater freedom from lonliness or freedom from others. It had a
                    great impact on me and in some important ways give me some insight into my
                    own behavior. In some ways I see this as the great struggle for all of us.
                    Not only to want freedom, from either lonliness or from others, but to much
                    it seems we choice the path from what we fear the most. Do I fear lonliness
                    or others more. To escape lonliness "we go along to get along" to escape
                    the fear of rejection we withdraw into our own world. I am not sure I
                    understand everthing you said in your posting, but I certainly see that
                    freedom is a struggle because one must choice there own form of freedom. In
                    that choice is our responsibility. Anyway thank you for giving me something
                    to think about.

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: cribprdb [mailto:trinidad@...]
                    Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:36 AM
                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [existlist] Re: Sartre - Freedom, Others & Responsibility


                    ''Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?''

                    Which is the greater: freedom from lonliness or freedom from others?
                    This is a fundamentally existentialist question. Given the nature of
                    our everyday existence, i/e swooning in communication, it seems
                    possible to argue that freedom from lonliness is at least a
                    collateral causal factor of this human existence. I think the
                    philosophical risk inherent in existing on this somewhat ''other''
                    overwhelmed planet is that freedom from others takes on a fascist
                    face. It can be argued that freedom from others is the cause of
                    cultural bonding and sociological structure - the need to find
                    someone to agree with. I think the sense that we can only control
                    others here out of frustration by intellectual domination, physical
                    force, or strength in collective, is a fundamental causal factor in
                    the existence of sociological structure, and the temporary insanity
                    of some of its activities. I also think that the other causal factor
                    is poorly formed emotionally grasped metaphysical ideas of the
                    future of the species. As I have previously posted, the idea of a
                    permanent future for the species is essentially sublimated in
                    various cultural, philosophic, and religious forms in all of us here
                    with few exceptions. We want to live and love, but we die - because
                    this problem seems to complicated to address for most of us, we
                    postpone its resolution and focus on now. Science is divided on the
                    issue as well, and even where science earnestly pursues a lasting
                    life, cultural impact forces postponement of a scientific solution.
                    Scientist are forced into the same situation as laymen, dealing with
                    the now and postponing the future. Though they may completely
                    believe in a solution, because they have not proved one yet, and are
                    forced by sociological restraints to pause from their quest, the
                    unproven state of their ideas becomes akin to the same emotionally
                    grasped metaphysical sublimated causal factor as religion. As I
                    posted previously, focus on the now, i/e greed, does not
                    neccessarily lead to aberrant behavior and atrocity, that only
                    occurs when coupled to a sublimation of an imagined future
                    existence. It is my opinion at this point that the zeal in
                    existential thought that lead to absurdism was fueled by this
                    realization. I do much prefer this existenial clarity, even though
                    it leads to an unattractive conclusion because it cleared some
                    intellectual closets and left the question open-ended.

                    If we can learn to argue again that freedom from lonliness is a
                    causal factor of human existence, we may discover that: our
                    responsibility is essentially to ourselves, our ethics are
                    essentially personal, we have no need of any erected sociological
                    structure to express our personal meaning other than language and
                    our human body, and real freedom is living with unresolved questions
                    while recognizing finally that solutions are absolutely possible or
                    we would not exist. Might as well put your cards on the table
                    because you are only bluffing yourself.
                    --
                    "forever free"
                    Trinidad


                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "alcyon11" <alcyon11@y...> wrote:
                    > Early Sartre considered the Other as a danger to one's freedom.
                    The
                    > look of the Other objectifies one, and endangers his subjectivity.
                    > However, a person has an option whether to absorb the Other's
                    freedom
                    > while keeping the Other's freedom intact, as in the case of love,
                    or
                    > to try to objectify him, as in the case of sadism. The pessimism
                    of
                    > the early Sartre as to the establishment of an authentic community
                    is
                    > explicated at the end of his play, No Exit, when Garcin said that
                    > hell is other people. Hakim writes:
                    >
                    > Being-for-another belongs to the very being of man. Yet the moment
                    > this relationship is analyzed, it is seen that the Other pushes
                    > against my freedom and circumscribes it. At one and the same time,
                    > the Other, who helps establish my freedom, also destroys it;
                    being-
                    > for-itself and being-for-another shatter each other. - Excerpted:
                    >
                    > <http://www.geocities.com/sartresite/sartre_theses4.html>
                    >
                    > Mary Jo



                    Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                    (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                  • louise
                    Mary Jo, There is someone in our village whom I hardly know, who has habitually called me my dear - I have never found it offensive or patronising. Context
                    Message 9 of 13 , Mar 16, 2004
                      Mary Jo,
                      There is someone in our village whom I hardly know, who has
                      habitually called me "my dear" - I have never found it offensive or
                      patronising. Context is all. Is Trinidad an Existentialist, or
                      not? If he is, then I should have thought he'd welcome this
                      information from me, about my responses to his words.
                      I love true atheists. Sartre is a jerk. That's not to say he's
                      unloveable. I find Nietzsche wholly loveable.
                      Louise

                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "alcyon11" <alcyon11@y...> wrote:
                      > eduard often using the expression "my dear". I never found it
                      > patronising, but affectionate. Even within the sisterhood, we can
                      > disagree. Like I said, some of us don't mind being called "squaw".
                      > Anyone feel free to call me dear or squaw, just call me something.
                      >
                      > In regard to Trinidad's evaluation of Sartre's genius, where do
                      you
                      > stand, Louise? Is his atheism offensive to you?
                      >
                      > Mary Jo
                      >
                      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@y...>
                      wrote:
                      > > Trinidad,
                      > > I sincerely hope your epithet, 'my dear', is not addressed to
                      me -
                      > I
                      > > find it offensive and patronising.
                      > > Louise
                      > >
                      > > -- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "cribprdb" <trinidad@i...>
                      wrote:
                      > > > I am saying that absurdism was proposed by Sartre as a
                      temporary
                      > > > conclusion, in order to protect the integrity of his work from
                      > any
                      > > > mythological superstition or metaphysical infection,
                      sublimated
                      > in
                      > > > those who would carry it on as he faced the real and limited
                      time
                      > > of
                      > > > his own life, and the complexity of the solution he sought. If
                      > so,
                      > > > that in itself reflects his genius and complete awareness of
                      the
                      > > > problem. The genius of Sartre is for the mind not predisposed
                      to
                      > > > conclusion without definition. And it is genius my dear.
                      > > > tc
                      > > >
                      > > > As far as Tyler I have e-mailed him privately and am more than
                      > > > willing to engage him in debate on any ideas in the area of
                      > > > existentialism. His choice of subject matter on his last foray
                      > here
                      > > > left me a bit uninterested. Furthermore he has yet to reply. I
                      > have
                      > > > no further interest in acrimony. Wyatt has made a good point.
                      > > > --
                      > > > "forever free"
                      > > > Trinidad
                      > > >
                      > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@y...>
                      > > wrote:
                      > > > > Trinidad,
                      > > > > However 'unphilosophical' this may seem to skilfully
                      discurive
                      > > > > theorists like CSW, your post here simply confirms my
                      > impression
                      > > > that
                      > > > > studying Sartre is a waste of time. This is my
                      existentialist
                      > > > > conviction. I could be more specific, but would probably
                      be
                      > > > > moderated by someone if I were. However, I seem to remember
                      > Lee
                      > > > > Edgar Tyler has already expressed something of this ilk with
                      > > great
                      > > > > succinctness and force.
                      > > > > Louise
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "cribprdb" <trinidad@i...>
                      > > > wrote:
                      > > > > > ''Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?''
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Which is the greater: freedom from lonliness or freedom
                      from
                      > > > > others?
                      > > > > > This is a fundamentally existentialist question. Given the
                      > > > nature
                      > > > > of
                      > > > > > our everyday existence, i/e swooning in communication, it
                      > > seems
                      > > > > > possible to argue that freedom from lonliness is at least
                      a
                      > > > > > collateral causal factor of this human existence. I think
                      > the
                      > > > > > philosophical risk inherent in existing on this somewhat
                      > > > ''other''
                      > > > > > overwhelmed planet is that freedom from others takes on a
                      > > > fascist
                      > > > > > face. It can be argued that freedom from others is the
                      cause
                      > > of
                      > > > > > cultural bonding and sociological structure - the need to
                      > find
                      > > > > > someone to agree with. I think the sense that we can only
                      > > > control
                      > > > > > others here out of frustration by intellectual domination,
                      > > > physical
                      > > > > > force, or strength in collective, is a fundamental causal
                      > > factor
                      > > > in
                      > > > > > the existence of sociological structure, and the temporary
                      > > > insanity
                      > > > > > of some of its activities. I also think that the other
                      > causal
                      > > > > factor
                      > > > > > is poorly formed emotionally grasped metaphysical ideas
                      of
                      > > the
                      > > > > > future of the species. As I have previously posted, the
                      idea
                      > of
                      > > > a
                      > > > > > permanent future for the species is essentially sublimated
                      > in
                      > > > > > various cultural, philosophic, and religious forms in all
                      of
                      > > us
                      > > > > here
                      > > > > > with few exceptions. We want to live and love, but we die -

                      > > > because
                      > > > > > this problem seems to complicated to address for most of
                      us,
                      > > we
                      > > > > > postpone its resolution and focus on now. Science is
                      divided
                      > on
                      > > > the
                      > > > > > issue as well, and even where science earnestly pursues a
                      > > > lasting
                      > > > > > life, cultural impact forces postponement of a scientific
                      > > > solution.
                      > > > > > Scientist are forced into the same situation as laymen,
                      > > dealing
                      > > > > with
                      > > > > > the now and postponing the future. Though they may
                      > completely
                      > > > > > believe in a solution, because they have not proved one
                      yet,
                      > > and
                      > > > > are
                      > > > > > forced by sociological restraints to pause from their
                      quest,
                      > > the
                      > > > > > unproven state of their ideas becomes akin to the same
                      > > > emotionally
                      > > > > > grasped metaphysical sublimated causal factor as religion.
                      As
                      > > I
                      > > > > > posted previously, focus on the now, i/e greed, does not
                      > > > > > neccessarily lead to aberrant behavior and atrocity, that
                      > only
                      > > > > > occurs when coupled to a sublimation of an imagined
                      future
                      > > > > > existence. It is my opinion at this point that the zeal
                      in
                      > > > > > existential thought that lead to absurdism was fueled by
                      > this
                      > > > > > realization. I do much prefer this existenial clarity,
                      even
                      > > > though
                      > > > > > it leads to an unattractive conclusion because it cleared
                      > some
                      > > > > > intellectual closets and left the question open-ended.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > If we can learn to argue again that freedom from lonliness
                      is
                      > > a
                      > > > > > causal factor of human existence, we may discover that:
                      our
                      > > > > > responsibility is essentially to ourselves, our ethics
                      are
                      > > > > > essentially personal, we have no need of any erected
                      > > > sociological
                      > > > > > structure to express our personal meaning other than
                      language
                      > > > and
                      > > > > > our human body, and real freedom is living with
                      unresolved
                      > > > > questions
                      > > > > > while recognizing finally that solutions are absolutely
                      > > possible
                      > > > or
                      > > > > > we would not exist. Might as well put your cards on the
                      > table
                      > > > > > because you are only bluffing yourself.
                      > > > > > --
                      > > > > > "forever free"
                      > > > > > Trinidad
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "alcyon11"
                      <alcyon11@y...>
                      > > > wrote:
                      > > > > > > Early Sartre considered the Other as a danger to one's
                      > > > freedom.
                      > > > > > The
                      > > > > > > look of the Other objectifies one, and endangers his
                      > > > > subjectivity.
                      > > > > > > However, a person has an option whether to absorb the
                      > > Other's
                      > > > > > freedom
                      > > > > > > while keeping the Other's freedom intact, as in the case
                      of
                      > > > love,
                      > > > > > or
                      > > > > > > to try to objectify him, as in the case of sadism. The
                      > > > pessimism
                      > > > > > of
                      > > > > > > the early Sartre as to the establishment of an
                      authentic
                      > > > > community
                      > > > > > is
                      > > > > > > explicated at the end of his play, No Exit, when Garcin
                      > said
                      > > > > that
                      > > > > > > hell is other people. Hakim writes:
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > Being-for-another belongs to the very being of man. Yet
                      > the
                      > > > > moment
                      > > > > > > this relationship is analyzed, it is seen that the Other
                      > > > pushes
                      > > > > > > against my freedom and circumscribes it. At one and the
                      > same
                      > > > > time,
                      > > > > > > the Other, who helps establish my freedom, also destroys
                      > it;
                      > > > > > being-
                      > > > > > > for-itself and being-for-another shatter each other. -
                      > > > Excerpted:
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > >
                      <http://www.geocities.com/sartresite/sartre_theses4.html>
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > Mary Jo
                    • Amanda Lemesonoka
                      Trinidad and Michael, i don t remember if i have quoted Sartre on this one (if i have, sorry), but i ll try now - if you feel bad while being alone, then
                      Message 10 of 13 , Mar 16, 2004
                        Trinidad and Michael,

                        i don't remember if i have quoted Sartre on this one (if i have, sorry), but i'll try now - "if you feel bad while being alone, then you're in a bad company". i think that humans can never be alone and still are alone at the same time. to explain this, i must start with what my understanding of "lonelyness" is - the quote from Sartre shows better than i could explain it that even when you're alone, you're in the company of yourself and therefore you can never be completely alone.

                        on the other hand - even being together with others, being bound together with them leaves you alone in your thoughts. not one person can understand me to the fullest, i can express myself and my thoughts but understanding of those will be different from the person with whom i'm communicating, therefore the reaction also won't be exactly the one that i would acquire. maybe it's better to say - physically i'm not alone, but mentally i am.

                        now turning to freedom from lonelyness and freedom from others - i think, if a person can find something in himself (this is really hard to explain) that makes him mentally satisfied, then one can be free from both lonelyness and others. word "lonely" usually comes with a bitter taste to it, but if i can find something that turns this bitter meaning round and makes me happly while being alone, then i'm not lonely while being alone.

                        Amanda



                        "Bartley, Michael" <michael.bartley@...> wrote: Trinidad, my name is Michael. I was impressed with your statement about
                        which is greater freedom from lonliness or freedom from others. It had a
                        great impact on me and in some important ways give me some insight into my
                        own behavior. In some ways I see this as the great struggle for all of us.
                        Not only to want freedom, from either lonliness or from others, but to much
                        it seems we choice the path from what we fear the most. Do I fear lonliness
                        or others more. To escape lonliness "we go along to get along" to escape
                        the fear of rejection we withdraw into our own world. I am not sure I
                        understand everthing you said in your posting, but I certainly see that
                        freedom is a struggle because one must choice there own form of freedom. In
                        that choice is our responsibility. Anyway thank you for giving me something
                        to think about.

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: cribprdb [mailto:trinidad@...]
                        Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:36 AM
                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [existlist] Re: Sartre - Freedom, Others & Responsibility


                        ''Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?''

                        Which is the greater: freedom from lonliness or freedom from others?
                        This is a fundamentally existentialist question. Given the nature of
                        our everyday existence, i/e swooning in communication, it seems
                        possible to argue that freedom from lonliness is at least a
                        collateral causal factor of this human existence. I think the
                        philosophical risk inherent in existing on this somewhat ''other''
                        overwhelmed planet is that freedom from others takes on a fascist
                        face. It can be argued that freedom from others is the cause of
                        cultural bonding and sociological structure - the need to find
                        someone to agree with. I think the sense that we can only control
                        others here out of frustration by intellectual domination, physical
                        force, or strength in collective, is a fundamental causal factor in
                        the existence of sociological structure, and the temporary insanity
                        of some of its activities. I also think that the other causal factor
                        is poorly formed emotionally grasped metaphysical ideas of the
                        future of the species. As I have previously posted, the idea of a
                        permanent future for the species is essentially sublimated in
                        various cultural, philosophic, and religious forms in all of us here
                        with few exceptions. We want to live and love, but we die - because
                        this problem seems to complicated to address for most of us, we
                        postpone its resolution and focus on now. Science is divided on the
                        issue as well, and even where science earnestly pursues a lasting
                        life, cultural impact forces postponement of a scientific solution.
                        Scientist are forced into the same situation as laymen, dealing with
                        the now and postponing the future. Though they may completely
                        believe in a solution, because they have not proved one yet, and are
                        forced by sociological restraints to pause from their quest, the
                        unproven state of their ideas becomes akin to the same emotionally
                        grasped metaphysical sublimated causal factor as religion. As I
                        posted previously, focus on the now, i/e greed, does not
                        neccessarily lead to aberrant behavior and atrocity, that only
                        occurs when coupled to a sublimation of an imagined future
                        existence. It is my opinion at this point that the zeal in
                        existential thought that lead to absurdism was fueled by this
                        realization. I do much prefer this existenial clarity, even though
                        it leads to an unattractive conclusion because it cleared some
                        intellectual closets and left the question open-ended.

                        If we can learn to argue again that freedom from lonliness is a
                        causal factor of human existence, we may discover that: our
                        responsibility is essentially to ourselves, our ethics are
                        essentially personal, we have no need of any erected sociological
                        structure to express our personal meaning other than language and
                        our human body, and real freedom is living with unresolved questions
                        while recognizing finally that solutions are absolutely possible or
                        we would not exist. Might as well put your cards on the table
                        because you are only bluffing yourself.
                        --
                        "forever free"
                        Trinidad


                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "alcyon11" <alcyon11@y...> wrote:
                        > Early Sartre considered the Other as a danger to one's freedom.
                        The
                        > look of the Other objectifies one, and endangers his subjectivity.
                        > However, a person has an option whether to absorb the Other's
                        freedom
                        > while keeping the Other's freedom intact, as in the case of love,
                        or
                        > to try to objectify him, as in the case of sadism. The pessimism
                        of
                        > the early Sartre as to the establishment of an authentic community
                        is
                        > explicated at the end of his play, No Exit, when Garcin said that
                        > hell is other people. Hakim writes:
                        >
                        > Being-for-another belongs to the very being of man. Yet the moment
                        > this relationship is analyzed, it is seen that the Other pushes
                        > against my freedom and circumscribes it. At one and the same time,
                        > the Other, who helps establish my freedom, also destroys it;
                        being-
                        > for-itself and being-for-another shatter each other. - Excerpted:
                        >
                        > <http://www.geocities.com/sartresite/sartre_theses4.html>
                        >
                        > Mary Jo



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







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



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

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

                        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.




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

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Bartley, Michael
                        I though more about the concepts of freedom from lonliness and others. For me I see this in very personal terms. I agree the happier one is with themselves
                        Message 11 of 13 , Mar 17, 2004
                          I though more about the concepts of freedom from lonliness and others. For
                          me I see this in very personal terms. I agree the happier one is with
                          themselves the reason it may be to be free from other. However if one wants
                          to be free from lonliness, they have to have deep intimate relationships
                          with others. These relationships could be family, lover, friends, and co
                          workers. To have intimate relationships, you need, anyway I belive, you
                          need to response to those people. You must be open to their demands, wished,
                          needs, and desires, as they must do for you. That means at time you have to
                          give up doing what you want to do and respond to them. I may want to read
                          this evening, but my girlfriend wants me to listen to her problems she is
                          having at work. If I want this relationship to help me be free from
                          lonliness I might choice to listen to her. Of course if I want to free of
                          others, the opposite is true, I did want. To me this is one of the core
                          issues of freedom. There to my thinking a tension between freedom from
                          lonliness and freedom from other.
                          Amanda, I think I understand and agree with you when you say at our core we
                          are alone. Even in the deepest intimate relationship, that person or
                          persons, is outside of you of your thoughts, of your feelings. Yet most
                          people, even people that are happy being alone, feel a need to share,to
                          almost to become contacted to another person. It is a very large world and
                          at times I feel so good just holding someone's hand.
                          Michael

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Amanda Lemesonoka [mailto:kamy_ams@...]
                          Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 11:48 PM
                          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: Sartre - Freedom, Others & Responsibility



                          Trinidad and Michael,

                          i don't remember if i have quoted Sartre on this one (if i have, sorry), but
                          i'll try now - "if you feel bad while being alone, then you're in a bad
                          company". i think that humans can never be alone and still are alone at the
                          same time. to explain this, i must start with what my understanding of
                          "lonelyness" is - the quote from Sartre shows better than i could explain it
                          that even when you're alone, you're in the company of yourself and therefore
                          you can never be completely alone.

                          on the other hand - even being together with others, being bound together
                          with them leaves you alone in your thoughts. not one person can understand
                          me to the fullest, i can express myself and my thoughts but understanding of
                          those will be different from the person with whom i'm communicating,
                          therefore the reaction also won't be exactly the one that i would acquire.
                          maybe it's better to say - physically i'm not alone, but mentally i am.

                          now turning to freedom from lonelyness and freedom from others - i think, if
                          a person can find something in himself (this is really hard to explain) that
                          makes him mentally satisfied, then one can be free from both lonelyness and
                          others. word "lonely" usually comes with a bitter taste to it, but if i can
                          find something that turns this bitter meaning round and makes me happly
                          while being alone, then i'm not lonely while being alone.

                          Amanda



                          "Bartley, Michael" <michael.bartley@...> wrote: Trinidad, my name is
                          Michael. I was impressed with your statement about
                          which is greater freedom from lonliness or freedom from others. It had a
                          great impact on me and in some important ways give me some insight into my
                          own behavior. In some ways I see this as the great struggle for all of us.
                          Not only to want freedom, from either lonliness or from others, but to much
                          it seems we choice the path from what we fear the most. Do I fear lonliness
                          or others more. To escape lonliness "we go along to get along" to escape
                          the fear of rejection we withdraw into our own world. I am not sure I
                          understand everthing you said in your posting, but I certainly see that
                          freedom is a struggle because one must choice there own form of freedom. In
                          that choice is our responsibility. Anyway thank you for giving me something
                          to think about.

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: cribprdb [mailto:trinidad@...]
                          Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:36 AM
                          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: [existlist] Re: Sartre - Freedom, Others & Responsibility


                          ''Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?''

                          Which is the greater: freedom from lonliness or freedom from others?
                          This is a fundamentally existentialist question. Given the nature of
                          our everyday existence, i/e swooning in communication, it seems
                          possible to argue that freedom from lonliness is at least a
                          collateral causal factor of this human existence. I think the
                          philosophical risk inherent in existing on this somewhat ''other''
                          overwhelmed planet is that freedom from others takes on a fascist
                          face. It can be argued that freedom from others is the cause of
                          cultural bonding and sociological structure - the need to find
                          someone to agree with. I think the sense that we can only control
                          others here out of frustration by intellectual domination, physical
                          force, or strength in collective, is a fundamental causal factor in
                          the existence of sociological structure, and the temporary insanity
                          of some of its activities. I also think that the other causal factor
                          is poorly formed emotionally grasped metaphysical ideas of the
                          future of the species. As I have previously posted, the idea of a
                          permanent future for the species is essentially sublimated in
                          various cultural, philosophic, and religious forms in all of us here
                          with few exceptions. We want to live and love, but we die - because
                          this problem seems to complicated to address for most of us, we
                          postpone its resolution and focus on now. Science is divided on the
                          issue as well, and even where science earnestly pursues a lasting
                          life, cultural impact forces postponement of a scientific solution.
                          Scientist are forced into the same situation as laymen, dealing with
                          the now and postponing the future. Though they may completely
                          believe in a solution, because they have not proved one yet, and are
                          forced by sociological restraints to pause from their quest, the
                          unproven state of their ideas becomes akin to the same emotionally
                          grasped metaphysical sublimated causal factor as religion. As I
                          posted previously, focus on the now, i/e greed, does not
                          neccessarily lead to aberrant behavior and atrocity, that only
                          occurs when coupled to a sublimation of an imagined future
                          existence. It is my opinion at this point that the zeal in
                          existential thought that lead to absurdism was fueled by this
                          realization. I do much prefer this existenial clarity, even though
                          it leads to an unattractive conclusion because it cleared some
                          intellectual closets and left the question open-ended.

                          If we can learn to argue again that freedom from lonliness is a
                          causal factor of human existence, we may discover that: our
                          responsibility is essentially to ourselves, our ethics are
                          essentially personal, we have no need of any erected sociological
                          structure to express our personal meaning other than language and
                          our human body, and real freedom is living with unresolved questions
                          while recognizing finally that solutions are absolutely possible or
                          we would not exist. Might as well put your cards on the table
                          because you are only bluffing yourself.
                          --
                          "forever free"
                          Trinidad


                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "alcyon11" <alcyon11@y...> wrote:
                          > Early Sartre considered the Other as a danger to one's freedom.
                          The
                          > look of the Other objectifies one, and endangers his subjectivity.
                          > However, a person has an option whether to absorb the Other's
                          freedom
                          > while keeping the Other's freedom intact, as in the case of love,
                          or
                          > to try to objectify him, as in the case of sadism. The pessimism
                          of
                          > the early Sartre as to the establishment of an authentic community
                          is
                          > explicated at the end of his play, No Exit, when Garcin said that
                          > hell is other people. Hakim writes:
                          >
                          > Being-for-another belongs to the very being of man. Yet the moment
                          > this relationship is analyzed, it is seen that the Other pushes
                          > against my freedom and circumscribes it. At one and the same time,
                          > the Other, who helps establish my freedom, also destroys it;
                          being-
                          > for-itself and being-for-another shatter each other. - Excerpted:
                          >
                          > <http://www.geocities.com/sartresite/sartre_theses4.html>
                          >
                          > Mary Jo



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







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



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

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

                          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.




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

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




                          Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                          (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                          Yahoo! Groups Links
                        • alcyon11
                          Michael, Spoken from the heart. To use a slang expression these days - it s all good. Mary Jo ... others. For ... with ... one wants ... relationships ... and
                          Message 12 of 13 , Mar 17, 2004
                            Michael,

                            Spoken from the heart. To use a slang expression these days - it's
                            all good.

                            Mary Jo

                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Bartley, Michael"
                            <michael.bartley@m...> wrote:
                            > I though more about the concepts of freedom from lonliness and
                            others. For
                            > me I see this in very personal terms. I agree the happier one is
                            with
                            > themselves the reason it may be to be free from other. However if
                            one wants
                            > to be free from lonliness, they have to have deep intimate
                            relationships
                            > with others. These relationships could be family, lover, friends,
                            and co
                            > workers. To have intimate relationships, you need, anyway I
                            belive, you
                            > need to response to those people. You must be open to their
                            demands, wished,
                            > needs, and desires, as they must do for you. That means at time
                            you have to
                            > give up doing what you want to do and respond to them. I may want
                            to read
                            > this evening, but my girlfriend wants me to listen to her problems
                            she is
                            > having at work. If I want this relationship to help me be free from
                            > lonliness I might choice to listen to her. Of course if I want to
                            free of
                            > others, the opposite is true, I did want. To me this is one of the
                            core
                            > issues of freedom. There to my thinking a tension between freedom
                            from
                            > lonliness and freedom from other.
                            > Amanda, I think I understand and agree with you when you say at our
                            core we
                            > are alone. Even in the deepest intimate relationship, that person
                            or
                            > persons, is outside of you of your thoughts, of your feelings. Yet
                            most
                            > people, even people that are happy being alone, feel a need to
                            share,to
                            > almost to become contacted to another person. It is a very large
                            world and
                            > at times I feel so good just holding someone's hand.
                            > Michael
                            >
                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: Amanda Lemesonoka [mailto:kamy_ams@y...]
                            > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 11:48 PM
                            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: Sartre - Freedom, Others &
                            Responsibility
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Trinidad and Michael,
                            >
                            > i don't remember if i have quoted Sartre on this one (if i have,
                            sorry), but
                            > i'll try now - "if you feel bad while being alone, then you're in a
                            bad
                            > company". i think that humans can never be alone and still are
                            alone at the
                            > same time. to explain this, i must start with what my understanding
                            of
                            > "lonelyness" is - the quote from Sartre shows better than i could
                            explain it
                            > that even when you're alone, you're in the company of yourself and
                            therefore
                            > you can never be completely alone.
                            >
                            > on the other hand - even being together with others, being bound
                            together
                            > with them leaves you alone in your thoughts. not one person can
                            understand
                            > me to the fullest, i can express myself and my thoughts but
                            understanding of
                            > those will be different from the person with whom i'm communicating,
                            > therefore the reaction also won't be exactly the one that i would
                            acquire.
                            > maybe it's better to say - physically i'm not alone, but mentally i
                            am.
                            >
                            > now turning to freedom from lonelyness and freedom from others - i
                            think, if
                            > a person can find something in himself (this is really hard to
                            explain) that
                            > makes him mentally satisfied, then one can be free from both
                            lonelyness and
                            > others. word "lonely" usually comes with a bitter taste to it, but
                            if i can
                            > find something that turns this bitter meaning round and makes me
                            happly
                            > while being alone, then i'm not lonely while being alone.
                            >
                            > Amanda
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > "Bartley, Michael" <michael.bartley@m...> wrote: Trinidad, my name
                            is
                            > Michael. I was impressed with your statement about
                            > which is greater freedom from lonliness or freedom from others. It
                            had a
                            > great impact on me and in some important ways give me some insight
                            into my
                            > own behavior. In some ways I see this as the great struggle for
                            all of us.
                            > Not only to want freedom, from either lonliness or from others, but
                            to much
                            > it seems we choice the path from what we fear the most. Do I fear
                            lonliness
                            > or others more. To escape lonliness "we go along to get along" to
                            escape
                            > the fear of rejection we withdraw into our own world. I am not
                            sure I
                            > understand everthing you said in your posting, but I certainly see
                            that
                            > freedom is a struggle because one must choice there own form of
                            freedom. In
                            > that choice is our responsibility. Anyway thank you for giving me
                            something
                            > to think about.
                            >
                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: cribprdb [mailto:trinidad@i...]
                            > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:36 AM
                            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: [existlist] Re: Sartre - Freedom, Others & Responsibility
                            >
                            >
                            > ''Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?''
                            >
                            > Which is the greater: freedom from lonliness or freedom from
                            others?
                            > This is a fundamentally existentialist question. Given the nature
                            of
                            > our everyday existence, i/e swooning in communication, it seems
                            > possible to argue that freedom from lonliness is at least a
                            > collateral causal factor of this human existence. I think the
                            > philosophical risk inherent in existing on this somewhat ''other''
                            > overwhelmed planet is that freedom from others takes on a fascist
                            > face. It can be argued that freedom from others is the cause of
                            > cultural bonding and sociological structure - the need to find
                            > someone to agree with. I think the sense that we can only control
                            > others here out of frustration by intellectual domination, physical
                            > force, or strength in collective, is a fundamental causal factor in
                            > the existence of sociological structure, and the temporary insanity
                            > of some of its activities. I also think that the other causal
                            factor
                            > is poorly formed emotionally grasped metaphysical ideas of the
                            > future of the species. As I have previously posted, the idea of a
                            > permanent future for the species is essentially sublimated in
                            > various cultural, philosophic, and religious forms in all of us
                            here
                            > with few exceptions. We want to live and love, but we die - because
                            > this problem seems to complicated to address for most of us, we
                            > postpone its resolution and focus on now. Science is divided on the
                            > issue as well, and even where science earnestly pursues a lasting
                            > life, cultural impact forces postponement of a scientific solution.
                            > Scientist are forced into the same situation as laymen, dealing
                            with
                            > the now and postponing the future. Though they may completely
                            > believe in a solution, because they have not proved one yet, and
                            are
                            > forced by sociological restraints to pause from their quest, the
                            > unproven state of their ideas becomes akin to the same emotionally
                            > grasped metaphysical sublimated causal factor as religion. As I
                            > posted previously, focus on the now, i/e greed, does not
                            > neccessarily lead to aberrant behavior and atrocity, that only
                            > occurs when coupled to a sublimation of an imagined future
                            > existence. It is my opinion at this point that the zeal in
                            > existential thought that lead to absurdism was fueled by this
                            > realization. I do much prefer this existenial clarity, even though
                            > it leads to an unattractive conclusion because it cleared some
                            > intellectual closets and left the question open-ended.
                            >
                            > If we can learn to argue again that freedom from lonliness is a
                            > causal factor of human existence, we may discover that: our
                            > responsibility is essentially to ourselves, our ethics are
                            > essentially personal, we have no need of any erected sociological
                            > structure to express our personal meaning other than language and
                            > our human body, and real freedom is living with unresolved
                            questions
                            > while recognizing finally that solutions are absolutely possible or
                            > we would not exist. Might as well put your cards on the table
                            > because you are only bluffing yourself.
                            > --
                            > "forever free"
                            > Trinidad
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "alcyon11" <alcyon11@y...> wrote:
                            > > Early Sartre considered the Other as a danger to one's freedom.
                            > The
                            > > look of the Other objectifies one, and endangers his
                            subjectivity.
                            > > However, a person has an option whether to absorb the Other's
                            > freedom
                            > > while keeping the Other's freedom intact, as in the case of love,
                            > or
                            > > to try to objectify him, as in the case of sadism. The pessimism
                            > of
                            > > the early Sartre as to the establishment of an authentic
                            community
                            > is
                            > > explicated at the end of his play, No Exit, when Garcin said
                            that
                            > > hell is other people. Hakim writes:
                            > >
                            > > Being-for-another belongs to the very being of man. Yet the
                            moment
                            > > this relationship is analyzed, it is seen that the Other pushes
                            > > against my freedom and circumscribes it. At one and the same
                            time,
                            > > the Other, who helps establish my freedom, also destroys it;
                            > being-
                            > > for-itself and being-for-another shatter each other. - Excerpted:
                            > >
                            > > <http://www.geocities.com/sartresite/sartre_theses4.html>
                            > >
                            > > Mary Jo
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                            > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                            > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ---------------------------------
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/
                            >
                            > 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.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ---------------------------------
                            > Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends
                            today!
                            > Download Messenger Now
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                            > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          • louise
                            Jay, I just read your latest reply to me. You are clearly very sympathetic person. I want to attempt answers to your questions, and in general to further
                            Message 13 of 13 , Nov 2, 2006
                              Jay,

                              I just read your latest reply to me. You are clearly very sympathetic
                              person. I want to attempt answers to your questions, and in general
                              to further communication at this list if possible, with you, with
                              others. My previous attempts seem to have foundered quite often. So
                              it's only emotional thing with me, that the very thought of
                              explanation leaves me incredibly tired. So please bear with me, I
                              don't know whether I'll try to post more tonight, or whether it might
                              take a day or two.

                              kind regards,
                              Louise
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.