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

marking

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    No one fractures Sartre or derides SK more than I do; but I think, like existentialism, they personally defy analysis. I often express that I agree with
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      No one fractures Sartre or derides SK more than I do; but I think,
      like existentialism, they personally defy analysis. I often express
      that I agree with Dennett and Dawkins and differ very little in view.
      I actually hold their view to be safe for a dialectical approach to
      meaning; something that Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger, Wittgenstein,
      and the whole body of American analytical philosophy through Quine
      including the radical empiricists like Mill and the later linguistic
      bent of Searle and others could never lay claim to. The dialectical
      approach is only harmless to human development when applied to natural
      science. There is no science of "consciousness" or "spirit" or "soul".
      Such claims are in fact simply literary phenomena and devices. Rorty
      approaches my view but stops short of Heidegger or Lyotard in actually
      announcing the death of metaphysics. Indeed he suggests the re-joining
      of science and philosophy is inevitable. This is not quite at the
      limit of the natural evolutionary view and a clean existentialism. It
      is my view; that it is the action of literature, indeed literacy
      itself, not philosophy, that will assimilate into a natural
      presentation of the human species. It will become a natural part of
      the human condition similar to a heartbeat or a breath; indeed
      forgotten until one skips a beat, or struggles for breath. Modern
      physics is absolutely heading the scientist into the role of
      participant in the phenomena being observed. In such a position
      dialectical analysis is moot. When Emerson refers to the philosopher's
      garden, or even the biblical St. Paul to the cloud of witnesses, they
      may not be far from future fact. If literature is a whole thing, a
      bounded phenomenon, (which may be argued dialectically: we could not
      actually make a visible mark without bounds) it might not be a non
      sequitur that the whole of literature, the philospher's garden if you
      will, is to become accessible naturally to the human being. In the
      past I used some software called (I think) "Pointillist" ( a recent
      post reminded me of that). The scientific basis of it was that the
      human eye assimilates and the human brain dialectically processes
      information faster than the brain can process it as literature
      dialectically. I'm sure the same could be said of every human
      empirical sense. There is no doubt that literature is a fixative of an
      evolutionary plateau for the human species. The question that begs a
      dialectic is: Should we boldy go, or step back. All sides (religion,
      politics, philosophy, science, even poetry) seem to be dialectically
      bent on boldly going. That gives me pause.

      Existentialism began as a repudiation of abstract rationalism. SK,
      followed most recently by Deleuze's twisted humorous turn, rejected
      the possibility that the human being will ever be satisfied by an all
      embracing objective understanding of the universe deeply enough to
      outweigh one's concern for their own life. As I have said, this utter
      unabashed dignifying of the individual's life and death is the core of
      the existentialist view. I would say, and Deleuze would probably agree
      that: A human being cannot evolve beyond an objective view of the
      universe without becoming an illusion (subjective) in that universe.
      There is no all knowing. Heidegger would say that our way of being in
      the world is objective activity. I would say that it is action that
      mediates our personal existence. I like to think that Sartre would
      maintain that the distance over which we experience is other than us
      and other than what we are aware of as experience. Nietzche would call
      it nothingness. Pinker would say that distance can only be other
      "consciousness". Tillich would say it was: "the actual objective God
      beyond the human subjective characterization of God". Rorty and
      Dennett would both maintain it was a blank to fill in and becoming is
      next - and that is the direction we are boldly going. I must say, as
      an existentialist; I think it is cowardice and rejection of the
      unpleasant (Onfray) that drives us to gambling away our dignity, our
      statement, our existential panache. We should write our balls or
      vagina off as the case may be, because it is literature that has fixed
      us as what we are; and what we are is the most dignified thing we can
      be. Still the existentialist cannot write dialectically without
      sacrificing dignity.

      Sartre, boringly succinct, (and Berdyaev) state that the freedom of
      the existentialist must ethically seek the freedom of other or not be
      free. I say that we are all in this age unassailably free because it
      was not an uninformed (absurd) choice that caused us to be. Literature
      existed before us all in this age. We simply at this stage of human
      development could not have arguably made an uninformed choice to be
      what we are. We saw marks and meant in every way to make our own. For
      the existentialist that means the ethical responsibility of dignifying
      the life and death of the human being. It is absolutely about the
      statement of human dignity. I have warts but I am human. I am a genius
      but I am human. It is the question of dignity that defines ethics;
      arisen of freedom, of choice, of individuality, and of solidarity –
      altogether. We have the same fundamental empirical capacities common
      to the species, but those capacites are so great that our views
      diverge. Rockin'. We have not chosen to come to this life to agree
      (control); but rather to dignify the choice. Dialectically this is
      absurd, and conflict is other – thus Sartre's view. Thus my view – the
      existentialist cannot be a philosopher because the first choice, that
      was his life and death as a human being, was to not be a philosopher,
      because that very choice was already a dialectical settlement.

      "Don't jump in the water;
      if you can't swim.
      Light like a feather.
      Heavy as lead."

      Trinidad Cruz
    • louise
      Trinidad, My past experience with you leads me to expect that whatever cogent argument and evidence I adduce will be selectively ignored according to whim.
      Message 2 of 6 , Jul 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Trinidad,

        My past experience with you leads me to expect that whatever cogent
        argument and evidence I adduce will be selectively ignored according
        to whim. Some of what you write below I find appallingly violent by
        implication, and your statements about SK contradictory. You are
        also name-dropping in a most careless way. The fact that you have
        chips on both shoulders about your own race and others' beliefs only
        makes impossible any dialogue with you. Constant posting about US
        politics drags down the philosophical content of the list. This is
        a generalised complaint, and it will be my last. You and I have
        clashed for a long time, and now I wash my hands of all further
        attempt to reason. From my own point of view, I don't mind what you
        have to say about me. Skin has thickened now. I would prefer, of
        course, if I don't provoke a reaction that leads anyone, including
        yourself, to bring more moderation disputes to the list, but what is
        choice, after all?? How may one defend oneself against charges from
        those who do not believe in the duty of argument and counter-
        argument? Value-systems vary, and my own concepts of dignity most
        certainly differ from yours. One is responsible for one's own
        speech and actions, that is one facet of existentialism. Sadness
        and despair, however, weaken the human will, and such weakness is as
        destructive a force in our civilisations as are hubristic forms of
        strength.

        Louise


        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > No one fractures Sartre or derides SK more than I do; but I think,
        > like existentialism, they personally defy analysis. I often express
        > that I agree with Dennett and Dawkins and differ very little in
        view.
        > I actually hold their view to be safe for a dialectical approach to
        > meaning; something that Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger,
        Wittgenstein,
        > and the whole body of American analytical philosophy through Quine
        > including the radical empiricists like Mill and the later
        linguistic
        > bent of Searle and others could never lay claim to. The dialectical
        > approach is only harmless to human development when applied to
        natural
        > science. There is no science of "consciousness" or "spirit"
        or "soul".
        > Such claims are in fact simply literary phenomena and devices.
        Rorty
        > approaches my view but stops short of Heidegger or Lyotard in
        actually
        > announcing the death of metaphysics. Indeed he suggests the re-
        joining
        > of science and philosophy is inevitable. This is not quite at the
        > limit of the natural evolutionary view and a clean existentialism.
        It
        > is my view; that it is the action of literature, indeed literacy
        > itself, not philosophy, that will assimilate into a natural
        > presentation of the human species. It will become a natural part of
        > the human condition similar to a heartbeat or a breath; indeed
        > forgotten until one skips a beat, or struggles for breath. Modern
        > physics is absolutely heading the scientist into the role of
        > participant in the phenomena being observed. In such a position
        > dialectical analysis is moot. When Emerson refers to the
        philosopher's
        > garden, or even the biblical St. Paul to the cloud of witnesses,
        they
        > may not be far from future fact. If literature is a whole thing, a
        > bounded phenomenon, (which may be argued dialectically: we could
        not
        > actually make a visible mark without bounds) it might not be a non
        > sequitur that the whole of literature, the philospher's garden if
        you
        > will, is to become accessible naturally to the human being. In the
        > past I used some software called (I think) "Pointillist" ( a recent
        > post reminded me of that). The scientific basis of it was that the
        > human eye assimilates and the human brain dialectically processes
        > information faster than the brain can process it as literature
        > dialectically. I'm sure the same could be said of every human
        > empirical sense. There is no doubt that literature is a fixative
        of an
        > evolutionary plateau for the human species. The question that begs
        a
        > dialectic is: Should we boldy go, or step back. All sides
        (religion,
        > politics, philosophy, science, even poetry) seem to be
        dialectically
        > bent on boldly going. That gives me pause.
        >
        > Existentialism began as a repudiation of abstract rationalism. SK,
        > followed most recently by Deleuze's twisted humorous turn, rejected
        > the possibility that the human being will ever be satisfied by an
        all
        > embracing objective understanding of the universe deeply enough to
        > outweigh one's concern for their own life. As I have said, this
        utter
        > unabashed dignifying of the individual's life and death is the
        core of
        > the existentialist view. I would say, and Deleuze would probably
        agree
        > that: A human being cannot evolve beyond an objective view of the
        > universe without becoming an illusion (subjective) in that
        universe.
        > There is no all knowing. Heidegger would say that our way of being
        in
        > the world is objective activity. I would say that it is action that
        > mediates our personal existence. I like to think that Sartre would
        > maintain that the distance over which we experience is other than
        us
        > and other than what we are aware of as experience. Nietzche would
        call
        > it nothingness. Pinker would say that distance can only be other
        > "consciousness". Tillich would say it was: "the actual objective
        God
        > beyond the human subjective characterization of God". Rorty and
        > Dennett would both maintain it was a blank to fill in and becoming
        is
        > next - and that is the direction we are boldly going. I must say,
        as
        > an existentialist; I think it is cowardice and rejection of the
        > unpleasant (Onfray) that drives us to gambling away our dignity,
        our
        > statement, our existential panache. We should write our balls or
        > vagina off as the case may be, because it is literature that has
        fixed
        > us as what we are; and what we are is the most dignified thing we
        can
        > be. Still the existentialist cannot write dialectically without
        > sacrificing dignity.
        >
        > Sartre, boringly succinct, (and Berdyaev) state that the freedom of
        > the existentialist must ethically seek the freedom of other or not
        be
        > free. I say that we are all in this age unassailably free because
        it
        > was not an uninformed (absurd) choice that caused us to be.
        Literature
        > existed before us all in this age. We simply at this stage of human
        > development could not have arguably made an uninformed choice to be
        > what we are. We saw marks and meant in every way to make our own.
        For
        > the existentialist that means the ethical responsibility of
        dignifying
        > the life and death of the human being. It is absolutely about the
        > statement of human dignity. I have warts but I am human. I am a
        genius
        > but I am human. It is the question of dignity that defines ethics;
        > arisen of freedom, of choice, of individuality, and of solidarity –
        > altogether. We have the same fundamental empirical capacities
        common
        > to the species, but those capacites are so great that our views
        > diverge. Rockin'. We have not chosen to come to this life to agree
        > (control); but rather to dignify the choice. Dialectically this is
        > absurd, and conflict is other – thus Sartre's view. Thus my view –
        the
        > existentialist cannot be a philosopher because the first choice,
        that
        > was his life and death as a human being, was to not be a
        philosopher,
        > because that very choice was already a dialectical settlement.
        >
        > "Don't jump in the water;
        > if you can't swim.
        > Light like a feather.
        > Heavy as lead."
        >
        > Trinidad Cruz
        >
      • Albert
        Louise, If one is responsible for one s own actions, and if as you say, this is a facet of existentialism, then you imply implicitly that choice is also a
        Message 3 of 6 , Jul 3, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Louise,

          If one is responsible for one's own actions, and if as you say, this is a "facet" of existentialism, then you imply implicitly that choice is also a component of existentialism ? By component, I mean necessary part.
          I'm not convinced, that if what you say is correct, that Trinidad, or anyone else for that matter necessarily has the choice to be anything different to what they are now; and what they will be, by means of environment tomorrow.

          Albert.



          ----- Original Message -----
          From: louise
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 9:52 PM
          Subject: [existlist] Re: marking


          Trinidad,

          My past experience with you leads me to expect that whatever cogent
          argument and evidence I adduce will be selectively ignored according
          to whim. Some of what you write below I find appallingly violent by
          implication, and your statements about SK contradictory. You are
          also name-dropping in a most careless way. The fact that you have
          chips on both shoulders about your own race and others' beliefs only
          makes impossible any dialogue with you. Constant posting about US
          politics drags down the philosophical content of the list. This is
          a generalised complaint, and it will be my last. You and I have
          clashed for a long time, and now I wash my hands of all further
          attempt to reason. From my own point of view, I don't mind what you
          have to say about me. Skin has thickened now. I would prefer, of
          course, if I don't provoke a reaction that leads anyone, including
          yourself, to bring more moderation disputes to the list, but what is
          choice, after all?? How may one defend oneself against charges from
          those who do not believe in the duty of argument and counter-
          argument? Value-systems vary, and my own concepts of dignity most
          certainly differ from yours. One is responsible for one's own
          speech and actions, that is one facet of existentialism. Sadness
          and despair, however, weaken the human will, and such weakness is as
          destructive a force in our civilisations as are hubristic forms of
          strength.

          Louise

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > No one fractures Sartre or derides SK more than I do; but I think,
          > like existentialism, they personally defy analysis. I often express
          > that I agree with Dennett and Dawkins and differ very little in
          view.
          > I actually hold their view to be safe for a dialectical approach to
          > meaning; something that Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger,
          Wittgenstein,
          > and the whole body of American analytical philosophy through Quine
          > including the radical empiricists like Mill and the later
          linguistic
          > bent of Searle and others could never lay claim to. The dialectical
          > approach is only harmless to human development when applied to
          natural
          > science. There is no science of "consciousness" or "spirit"
          or "soul".
          > Such claims are in fact simply literary phenomena and devices.
          Rorty
          > approaches my view but stops short of Heidegger or Lyotard in
          actually
          > announcing the death of metaphysics. Indeed he suggests the re-
          joining
          > of science and philosophy is inevitable. This is not quite at the
          > limit of the natural evolutionary view and a clean existentialism.
          It
          > is my view; that it is the action of literature, indeed literacy
          > itself, not philosophy, that will assimilate into a natural
          > presentation of the human species. It will become a natural part of
          > the human condition similar to a heartbeat or a breath; indeed
          > forgotten until one skips a beat, or struggles for breath. Modern
          > physics is absolutely heading the scientist into the role of
          > participant in the phenomena being observed. In such a position
          > dialectical analysis is moot. When Emerson refers to the
          philosopher's
          > garden, or even the biblical St. Paul to the cloud of witnesses,
          they
          > may not be far from future fact. If literature is a whole thing, a
          > bounded phenomenon, (which may be argued dialectically: we could
          not
          > actually make a visible mark without bounds) it might not be a non
          > sequitur that the whole of literature, the philospher's garden if
          you
          > will, is to become accessible naturally to the human being. In the
          > past I used some software called (I think) "Pointillist" ( a recent
          > post reminded me of that). The scientific basis of it was that the
          > human eye assimilates and the human brain dialectically processes
          > information faster than the brain can process it as literature
          > dialectically. I'm sure the same could be said of every human
          > empirical sense. There is no doubt that literature is a fixative
          of an
          > evolutionary plateau for the human species. The question that begs
          a
          > dialectic is: Should we boldy go, or step back. All sides
          (religion,
          > politics, philosophy, science, even poetry) seem to be
          dialectically
          > bent on boldly going. That gives me pause.
          >
          > Existentialism began as a repudiation of abstract rationalism. SK,
          > followed most recently by Deleuze's twisted humorous turn, rejected
          > the possibility that the human being will ever be satisfied by an
          all
          > embracing objective understanding of the universe deeply enough to
          > outweigh one's concern for their own life. As I have said, this
          utter
          > unabashed dignifying of the individual's life and death is the
          core of
          > the existentialist view. I would say, and Deleuze would probably
          agree
          > that: A human being cannot evolve beyond an objective view of the
          > universe without becoming an illusion (subjective) in that
          universe.
          > There is no all knowing. Heidegger would say that our way of being
          in
          > the world is objective activity. I would say that it is action that
          > mediates our personal existence. I like to think that Sartre would
          > maintain that the distance over which we experience is other than
          us
          > and other than what we are aware of as experience. Nietzche would
          call
          > it nothingness. Pinker would say that distance can only be other
          > "consciousness". Tillich would say it was: "the actual objective
          God
          > beyond the human subjective characterization of God". Rorty and
          > Dennett would both maintain it was a blank to fill in and becoming
          is
          > next - and that is the direction we are boldly going. I must say,
          as
          > an existentialist; I think it is cowardice and rejection of the
          > unpleasant (Onfray) that drives us to gambling away our dignity,
          our
          > statement, our existential panache. We should write our balls or
          > vagina off as the case may be, because it is literature that has
          fixed
          > us as what we are; and what we are is the most dignified thing we
          can
          > be. Still the existentialist cannot write dialectically without
          > sacrificing dignity.
          >
          > Sartre, boringly succinct, (and Berdyaev) state that the freedom of
          > the existentialist must ethically seek the freedom of other or not
          be
          > free. I say that we are all in this age unassailably free because
          it
          > was not an uninformed (absurd) choice that caused us to be.
          Literature
          > existed before us all in this age. We simply at this stage of human
          > development could not have arguably made an uninformed choice to be
          > what we are. We saw marks and meant in every way to make our own.
          For
          > the existentialist that means the ethical responsibility of
          dignifying
          > the life and death of the human being. It is absolutely about the
          > statement of human dignity. I have warts but I am human. I am a
          genius
          > but I am human. It is the question of dignity that defines ethics;
          > arisen of freedom, of choice, of individuality, and of solidarity -
          > altogether. We have the same fundamental empirical capacities
          common
          > to the species, but those capacites are so great that our views
          > diverge. Rockin'. We have not chosen to come to this life to agree
          > (control); but rather to dignify the choice. Dialectically this is
          > absurd, and conflict is other - thus Sartre's view. Thus my view -
          the
          > existentialist cannot be a philosopher because the first choice,
          that
          > was his life and death as a human being, was to not be a
          philosopher,
          > because that very choice was already a dialectical settlement.
          >
          > "Don't jump in the water;
          > if you can't swim.
          > Light like a feather.
          > Heavy as lead."
          >
          > Trinidad Cruz
          >






          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          No virus found in this incoming message.
          Checked by AVG Free Edition.
          Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date: 6/30/2006


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • louise
          Albert, Existentialists have varying beliefs. This is quite separate matter, conceptually, from our various experiences in life, the stuff of biography. Two
          Message 4 of 6 , Jul 3, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Albert,

            Existentialists have varying beliefs. This is quite separate
            matter, conceptually, from our various experiences in life, the
            stuff of biography. Two brothers, for instance, may pass through
            some similar experiences, yet hold quite different beliefs. If you
            believe in choice, you will always have choice. Like if you believe
            in the Christ, He will always be there for you, whether or no
            conscious awareness grants the confirmation. I don't believe in
            choice. Trinidad can speak for himself, and does, with eloquence.
            That I have never disputed. I believe in necessity. I had no
            choice about posting the message reproduced below. This does not
            mean I do not hold myself responsible whenever it drifts toward a
            boorish tone or slapdash expression. I stand by its substance,
            though.

            Louise

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Albert" <al_d@...> wrote:
            >
            > Louise,
            >
            > If one is responsible for one's own actions, and if as you say,
            this is a "facet" of existentialism, then you imply implicitly that
            choice is also a component of existentialism ? By component, I mean
            necessary part.
            > I'm not convinced, that if what you say is correct, that Trinidad,
            or anyone else for that matter necessarily has the choice to be
            anything different to what they are now; and what they will be, by
            means of environment tomorrow.
            >
            > Albert.
            >
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: louise
            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 9:52 PM
            > Subject: [existlist] Re: marking
            >
            >
            > Trinidad,
            >
            > My past experience with you leads me to expect that whatever
            cogent
            > argument and evidence I adduce will be selectively ignored
            according
            > to whim. Some of what you write below I find appallingly violent
            by
            > implication, and your statements about SK contradictory. You are
            > also name-dropping in a most careless way. The fact that you
            have
            > chips on both shoulders about your own race and others' beliefs
            only
            > makes impossible any dialogue with you. Constant posting about
            US
            > politics drags down the philosophical content of the list. This
            is
            > a generalised complaint, and it will be my last. You and I have
            > clashed for a long time, and now I wash my hands of all further
            > attempt to reason. From my own point of view, I don't mind what
            you
            > have to say about me. Skin has thickened now. I would prefer, of
            > course, if I don't provoke a reaction that leads anyone,
            including
            > yourself, to bring more moderation disputes to the list, but
            what is
            > choice, after all?? How may one defend oneself against charges
            from
            > those who do not believe in the duty of argument and counter-
            > argument? Value-systems vary, and my own concepts of dignity
            most
            > certainly differ from yours. One is responsible for one's own
            > speech and actions, that is one facet of existentialism. Sadness
            > and despair, however, weaken the human will, and such weakness
            is as
            > destructive a force in our civilisations as are hubristic forms
            of
            > strength.
            >
            > Louise
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@>
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > No one fractures Sartre or derides SK more than I do; but I
            think,
            > > like existentialism, they personally defy analysis. I often
            express
            > > that I agree with Dennett and Dawkins and differ very little
            in
            > view.
            > > I actually hold their view to be safe for a dialectical
            approach to
            > > meaning; something that Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger,
            > Wittgenstein,
            > > and the whole body of American analytical philosophy through
            Quine
            > > including the radical empiricists like Mill and the later
            > linguistic
            > > bent of Searle and others could never lay claim to. The
            dialectical
            > > approach is only harmless to human development when applied to
            > natural
            > > science. There is no science of "consciousness" or "spirit"
            > or "soul".
            > > Such claims are in fact simply literary phenomena and devices.
            > Rorty
            > > approaches my view but stops short of Heidegger or Lyotard in
            > actually
            > > announcing the death of metaphysics. Indeed he suggests the re-
            > joining
            > > of science and philosophy is inevitable. This is not quite at
            the
            > > limit of the natural evolutionary view and a clean
            existentialism.
            > It
            > > is my view; that it is the action of literature, indeed
            literacy
            > > itself, not philosophy, that will assimilate into a natural
            > > presentation of the human species. It will become a natural
            part of
            > > the human condition similar to a heartbeat or a breath; indeed
            > > forgotten until one skips a beat, or struggles for breath.
            Modern
            > > physics is absolutely heading the scientist into the role of
            > > participant in the phenomena being observed. In such a position
            > > dialectical analysis is moot. When Emerson refers to the
            > philosopher's
            > > garden, or even the biblical St. Paul to the cloud of
            witnesses,
            > they
            > > may not be far from future fact. If literature is a whole
            thing, a
            > > bounded phenomenon, (which may be argued dialectically: we
            could
            > not
            > > actually make a visible mark without bounds) it might not be a
            non
            > > sequitur that the whole of literature, the philospher's garden
            if
            > you
            > > will, is to become accessible naturally to the human being. In
            the
            > > past I used some software called (I think) "Pointillist" ( a
            recent
            > > post reminded me of that). The scientific basis of it was that
            the
            > > human eye assimilates and the human brain dialectically
            processes
            > > information faster than the brain can process it as literature
            > > dialectically. I'm sure the same could be said of every human
            > > empirical sense. There is no doubt that literature is a
            fixative
            > of an
            > > evolutionary plateau for the human species. The question that
            begs
            > a
            > > dialectic is: Should we boldy go, or step back. All sides
            > (religion,
            > > politics, philosophy, science, even poetry) seem to be
            > dialectically
            > > bent on boldly going. That gives me pause.
            > >
            > > Existentialism began as a repudiation of abstract rationalism.
            SK,
            > > followed most recently by Deleuze's twisted humorous turn,
            rejected
            > > the possibility that the human being will ever be satisfied by
            an
            > all
            > > embracing objective understanding of the universe deeply
            enough to
            > > outweigh one's concern for their own life. As I have said,
            this
            > utter
            > > unabashed dignifying of the individual's life and death is the
            > core of
            > > the existentialist view. I would say, and Deleuze would
            probably
            > agree
            > > that: A human being cannot evolve beyond an objective view of
            the
            > > universe without becoming an illusion (subjective) in that
            > universe.
            > > There is no all knowing. Heidegger would say that our way of
            being
            > in
            > > the world is objective activity. I would say that it is action
            that
            > > mediates our personal existence. I like to think that Sartre
            would
            > > maintain that the distance over which we experience is other
            than
            > us
            > > and other than what we are aware of as experience. Nietzche
            would
            > call
            > > it nothingness. Pinker would say that distance can only be
            other
            > > "consciousness". Tillich would say it was: "the actual
            objective
            > God
            > > beyond the human subjective characterization of God". Rorty and
            > > Dennett would both maintain it was a blank to fill in and
            becoming
            > is
            > > next - and that is the direction we are boldly going. I must
            say,
            > as
            > > an existentialist; I think it is cowardice and rejection of the
            > > unpleasant (Onfray) that drives us to gambling away our
            dignity,
            > our
            > > statement, our existential panache. We should write our balls
            or
            > > vagina off as the case may be, because it is literature that
            has
            > fixed
            > > us as what we are; and what we are is the most dignified thing
            we
            > can
            > > be. Still the existentialist cannot write dialectically without
            > > sacrificing dignity.
            > >
            > > Sartre, boringly succinct, (and Berdyaev) state that the
            freedom of
            > > the existentialist must ethically seek the freedom of other or
            not
            > be
            > > free. I say that we are all in this age unassailably free
            because
            > it
            > > was not an uninformed (absurd) choice that caused us to be.
            > Literature
            > > existed before us all in this age. We simply at this stage of
            human
            > > development could not have arguably made an uninformed choice
            to be
            > > what we are. We saw marks and meant in every way to make our
            own.
            > For
            > > the existentialist that means the ethical responsibility of
            > dignifying
            > > the life and death of the human being. It is absolutely about
            the
            > > statement of human dignity. I have warts but I am human. I am
            a
            > genius
            > > but I am human. It is the question of dignity that defines
            ethics;
            > > arisen of freedom, of choice, of individuality, and of
            solidarity -
            > > altogether. We have the same fundamental empirical capacities
            > common
            > > to the species, but those capacites are so great that our views
            > > diverge. Rockin'. We have not chosen to come to this life to
            agree
            > > (control); but rather to dignify the choice. Dialectically
            this is
            > > absurd, and conflict is other - thus Sartre's view. Thus my
            view -
            > the
            > > existentialist cannot be a philosopher because the first
            choice,
            > that
            > > was his life and death as a human being, was to not be a
            > philosopher,
            > > because that very choice was already a dialectical settlement.
            > >
            > > "Don't jump in the water;
            > > if you can't swim.
            > > Light like a feather.
            > > Heavy as lead."
            > >
            > > Trinidad Cruz
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > -------------------------------------------------------------------
            -----------
            >
            >
            > No virus found in this incoming message.
            > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
            > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date:
            6/30/2006
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • Albert
            Louise, You say you do not believe in choice, but hold yourself responsible for your actions nevertheless... Please clarify. Albert. ... From: louise To:
            Message 5 of 6 , Jul 3, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Louise,

              You say you do not believe in choice, but hold yourself responsible for your actions nevertheless...

              Please clarify.

              Albert.


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: louise
              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 10:50 AM
              Subject: [existlist] Re: marking


              Albert,

              Existentialists have varying beliefs. This is quite separate
              matter, conceptually, from our various experiences in life, the
              stuff of biography. Two brothers, for instance, may pass through
              some similar experiences, yet hold quite different beliefs. If you
              believe in choice, you will always have choice. Like if you believe
              in the Christ, He will always be there for you, whether or no
              conscious awareness grants the confirmation. I don't believe in
              choice. Trinidad can speak for himself, and does, with eloquence.
              That I have never disputed. I believe in necessity. I had no
              choice about posting the message reproduced below. This does not
              mean I do not hold myself responsible whenever it drifts toward a
              boorish tone or slapdash expression. I stand by its substance,
              though.

              Louise

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Albert" <al_d@...> wrote:
              >
              > Louise,
              >
              > If one is responsible for one's own actions, and if as you say,
              this is a "facet" of existentialism, then you imply implicitly that
              choice is also a component of existentialism ? By component, I mean
              necessary part.
              > I'm not convinced, that if what you say is correct, that Trinidad,
              or anyone else for that matter necessarily has the choice to be
              anything different to what they are now; and what they will be, by
              means of environment tomorrow.
              >
              > Albert.
              >
              >
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: louise
              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 9:52 PM
              > Subject: [existlist] Re: marking
              >
              >
              > Trinidad,
              >
              > My past experience with you leads me to expect that whatever
              cogent
              > argument and evidence I adduce will be selectively ignored
              according
              > to whim. Some of what you write below I find appallingly violent
              by
              > implication, and your statements about SK contradictory. You are
              > also name-dropping in a most careless way. The fact that you
              have
              > chips on both shoulders about your own race and others' beliefs
              only
              > makes impossible any dialogue with you. Constant posting about
              US
              > politics drags down the philosophical content of the list. This
              is
              > a generalised complaint, and it will be my last. You and I have
              > clashed for a long time, and now I wash my hands of all further
              > attempt to reason. From my own point of view, I don't mind what
              you
              > have to say about me. Skin has thickened now. I would prefer, of
              > course, if I don't provoke a reaction that leads anyone,
              including
              > yourself, to bring more moderation disputes to the list, but
              what is
              > choice, after all?? How may one defend oneself against charges
              from
              > those who do not believe in the duty of argument and counter-
              > argument? Value-systems vary, and my own concepts of dignity
              most
              > certainly differ from yours. One is responsible for one's own
              > speech and actions, that is one facet of existentialism. Sadness
              > and despair, however, weaken the human will, and such weakness
              is as
              > destructive a force in our civilisations as are hubristic forms
              of
              > strength.
              >
              > Louise
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@>
              > wrote:
              > >
              > > No one fractures Sartre or derides SK more than I do; but I
              think,
              > > like existentialism, they personally defy analysis. I often
              express
              > > that I agree with Dennett and Dawkins and differ very little
              in
              > view.
              > > I actually hold their view to be safe for a dialectical
              approach to
              > > meaning; something that Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger,
              > Wittgenstein,
              > > and the whole body of American analytical philosophy through
              Quine
              > > including the radical empiricists like Mill and the later
              > linguistic
              > > bent of Searle and others could never lay claim to. The
              dialectical
              > > approach is only harmless to human development when applied to
              > natural
              > > science. There is no science of "consciousness" or "spirit"
              > or "soul".
              > > Such claims are in fact simply literary phenomena and devices.
              > Rorty
              > > approaches my view but stops short of Heidegger or Lyotard in
              > actually
              > > announcing the death of metaphysics. Indeed he suggests the re-
              > joining
              > > of science and philosophy is inevitable. This is not quite at
              the
              > > limit of the natural evolutionary view and a clean
              existentialism.
              > It
              > > is my view; that it is the action of literature, indeed
              literacy
              > > itself, not philosophy, that will assimilate into a natural
              > > presentation of the human species. It will become a natural
              part of
              > > the human condition similar to a heartbeat or a breath; indeed
              > > forgotten until one skips a beat, or struggles for breath.
              Modern
              > > physics is absolutely heading the scientist into the role of
              > > participant in the phenomena being observed. In such a position
              > > dialectical analysis is moot. When Emerson refers to the
              > philosopher's
              > > garden, or even the biblical St. Paul to the cloud of
              witnesses,
              > they
              > > may not be far from future fact. If literature is a whole
              thing, a
              > > bounded phenomenon, (which may be argued dialectically: we
              could
              > not
              > > actually make a visible mark without bounds) it might not be a
              non
              > > sequitur that the whole of literature, the philospher's garden
              if
              > you
              > > will, is to become accessible naturally to the human being. In
              the
              > > past I used some software called (I think) "Pointillist" ( a
              recent
              > > post reminded me of that). The scientific basis of it was that
              the
              > > human eye assimilates and the human brain dialectically
              processes
              > > information faster than the brain can process it as literature
              > > dialectically. I'm sure the same could be said of every human
              > > empirical sense. There is no doubt that literature is a
              fixative
              > of an
              > > evolutionary plateau for the human species. The question that
              begs
              > a
              > > dialectic is: Should we boldy go, or step back. All sides
              > (religion,
              > > politics, philosophy, science, even poetry) seem to be
              > dialectically
              > > bent on boldly going. That gives me pause.
              > >
              > > Existentialism began as a repudiation of abstract rationalism.
              SK,
              > > followed most recently by Deleuze's twisted humorous turn,
              rejected
              > > the possibility that the human being will ever be satisfied by
              an
              > all
              > > embracing objective understanding of the universe deeply
              enough to
              > > outweigh one's concern for their own life. As I have said,
              this
              > utter
              > > unabashed dignifying of the individual's life and death is the
              > core of
              > > the existentialist view. I would say, and Deleuze would
              probably
              > agree
              > > that: A human being cannot evolve beyond an objective view of
              the
              > > universe without becoming an illusion (subjective) in that
              > universe.
              > > There is no all knowing. Heidegger would say that our way of
              being
              > in
              > > the world is objective activity. I would say that it is action
              that
              > > mediates our personal existence. I like to think that Sartre
              would
              > > maintain that the distance over which we experience is other
              than
              > us
              > > and other than what we are aware of as experience. Nietzche
              would
              > call
              > > it nothingness. Pinker would say that distance can only be
              other
              > > "consciousness". Tillich would say it was: "the actual
              objective
              > God
              > > beyond the human subjective characterization of God". Rorty and
              > > Dennett would both maintain it was a blank to fill in and
              becoming
              > is
              > > next - and that is the direction we are boldly going. I must
              say,
              > as
              > > an existentialist; I think it is cowardice and rejection of the
              > > unpleasant (Onfray) that drives us to gambling away our
              dignity,
              > our
              > > statement, our existential panache. We should write our balls
              or
              > > vagina off as the case may be, because it is literature that
              has
              > fixed
              > > us as what we are; and what we are is the most dignified thing
              we
              > can
              > > be. Still the existentialist cannot write dialectically without
              > > sacrificing dignity.
              > >
              > > Sartre, boringly succinct, (and Berdyaev) state that the
              freedom of
              > > the existentialist must ethically seek the freedom of other or
              not
              > be
              > > free. I say that we are all in this age unassailably free
              because
              > it
              > > was not an uninformed (absurd) choice that caused us to be.
              > Literature
              > > existed before us all in this age. We simply at this stage of
              human
              > > development could not have arguably made an uninformed choice
              to be
              > > what we are. We saw marks and meant in every way to make our
              own.
              > For
              > > the existentialist that means the ethical responsibility of
              > dignifying
              > > the life and death of the human being. It is absolutely about
              the
              > > statement of human dignity. I have warts but I am human. I am
              a
              > genius
              > > but I am human. It is the question of dignity that defines
              ethics;
              > > arisen of freedom, of choice, of individuality, and of
              solidarity -
              > > altogether. We have the same fundamental empirical capacities
              > common
              > > to the species, but those capacites are so great that our views
              > > diverge. Rockin'. We have not chosen to come to this life to
              agree
              > > (control); but rather to dignify the choice. Dialectically
              this is
              > > absurd, and conflict is other - thus Sartre's view. Thus my
              view -
              > the
              > > existentialist cannot be a philosopher because the first
              choice,
              > that
              > > was his life and death as a human being, was to not be a
              > philosopher,
              > > because that very choice was already a dialectical settlement.
              > >
              > > "Don't jump in the water;
              > > if you can't swim.
              > > Light like a feather.
              > > Heavy as lead."
              > >
              > > Trinidad Cruz
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ----------------------------------------------------------
              -----------
              >
              >
              > No virus found in this incoming message.
              > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
              > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date:
              6/30/2006
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >






              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


              No virus found in this incoming message.
              Checked by AVG Free Edition.
              Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date: 6/30/2006


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • louise
              Albert, I have been striving to do just that [clarify what I mean by necessity] for the last two years. It is going to take time. Having received no formal
              Message 6 of 6 , Jul 3, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Albert,

                I have been striving to do just that [clarify what I mean by
                necessity] for the last two years. It is going to take time.
                Having received no formal training in philosophy, I must proceed in
                rather spasmodic fashion. For me, those answers will be found in
                the works of Heidegger and Nietzsche, in the context of
                civilisations evolved at the clashing-point between Biblical ethics
                and other evaluative systems of culture (Hellenic, Arabic, Indo-
                European, etc.). That sounds rather grand and vague. If I can
                express myself more simply, in my own words, I shall do so.
                However, there is a need, for my sensibility, to 'feel at home' with
                those who read my contributions. If there be certain kinds of
                challenge, I need to provide historical quotations as a form of
                bulwark for my intellect, though always hopeful others will find
                such matter of interest.

                Louise


                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Albert" <al_d@...> wrote:
                >
                > Louise,
                >
                > You say you do not believe in choice, but hold yourself
                responsible for your actions nevertheless...
                >
                > Please clarify.
                >
                > Albert.
                >
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: louise
                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 10:50 AM
                > Subject: [existlist] Re: marking
                >
                >
                > Albert,
                >
                > Existentialists have varying beliefs. This is quite separate
                > matter, conceptually, from our various experiences in life, the
                > stuff of biography. Two brothers, for instance, may pass through
                > some similar experiences, yet hold quite different beliefs. If
                you
                > believe in choice, you will always have choice. Like if you
                believe
                > in the Christ, He will always be there for you, whether or no
                > conscious awareness grants the confirmation. I don't believe in
                > choice. Trinidad can speak for himself, and does, with
                eloquence.
                > That I have never disputed. I believe in necessity. I had no
                > choice about posting the message reproduced below. This does not
                > mean I do not hold myself responsible whenever it drifts toward
                a
                > boorish tone or slapdash expression. I stand by its substance,
                > though.
                >
                > Louise
                >
                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Albert" <al_d@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Louise,
                > >
                > > If one is responsible for one's own actions, and if as you
                say,
                > this is a "facet" of existentialism, then you imply implicitly
                that
                > choice is also a component of existentialism ? By component, I
                mean
                > necessary part.
                > > I'm not convinced, that if what you say is correct, that
                Trinidad,
                > or anyone else for that matter necessarily has the choice to be
                > anything different to what they are now; and what they will be,
                by
                > means of environment tomorrow.
                > >
                > > Albert.
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > ----- Original Message -----
                > > From: louise
                > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > > Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 9:52 PM
                > > Subject: [existlist] Re: marking
                > >
                > >
                > > Trinidad,
                > >
                > > My past experience with you leads me to expect that whatever
                > cogent
                > > argument and evidence I adduce will be selectively ignored
                > according
                > > to whim. Some of what you write below I find appallingly
                violent
                > by
                > > implication, and your statements about SK contradictory. You
                are
                > > also name-dropping in a most careless way. The fact that you
                > have
                > > chips on both shoulders about your own race and others'
                beliefs
                > only
                > > makes impossible any dialogue with you. Constant posting about
                > US
                > > politics drags down the philosophical content of the list.
                This
                > is
                > > a generalised complaint, and it will be my last. You and I
                have
                > > clashed for a long time, and now I wash my hands of all
                further
                > > attempt to reason. From my own point of view, I don't mind
                what
                > you
                > > have to say about me. Skin has thickened now. I would prefer,
                of
                > > course, if I don't provoke a reaction that leads anyone,
                > including
                > > yourself, to bring more moderation disputes to the list, but
                > what is
                > > choice, after all?? How may one defend oneself against charges
                > from
                > > those who do not believe in the duty of argument and counter-
                > > argument? Value-systems vary, and my own concepts of dignity
                > most
                > > certainly differ from yours. One is responsible for one's own
                > > speech and actions, that is one facet of existentialism.
                Sadness
                > > and despair, however, weaken the human will, and such weakness
                > is as
                > > destructive a force in our civilisations as are hubristic
                forms
                > of
                > > strength.
                > >
                > > Louise
                > >
                > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@>
                > > wrote:
                > > >
                > > > No one fractures Sartre or derides SK more than I do; but I
                > think,
                > > > like existentialism, they personally defy analysis. I often
                > express
                > > > that I agree with Dennett and Dawkins and differ very little
                > in
                > > view.
                > > > I actually hold their view to be safe for a dialectical
                > approach to
                > > > meaning; something that Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger,
                > > Wittgenstein,
                > > > and the whole body of American analytical philosophy through
                > Quine
                > > > including the radical empiricists like Mill and the later
                > > linguistic
                > > > bent of Searle and others could never lay claim to. The
                > dialectical
                > > > approach is only harmless to human development when applied
                to
                > > natural
                > > > science. There is no science of "consciousness" or "spirit"
                > > or "soul".
                > > > Such claims are in fact simply literary phenomena and
                devices.
                > > Rorty
                > > > approaches my view but stops short of Heidegger or Lyotard
                in
                > > actually
                > > > announcing the death of metaphysics. Indeed he suggests the
                re-
                > > joining
                > > > of science and philosophy is inevitable. This is not quite
                at
                > the
                > > > limit of the natural evolutionary view and a clean
                > existentialism.
                > > It
                > > > is my view; that it is the action of literature, indeed
                > literacy
                > > > itself, not philosophy, that will assimilate into a natural
                > > > presentation of the human species. It will become a natural
                > part of
                > > > the human condition similar to a heartbeat or a breath;
                indeed
                > > > forgotten until one skips a beat, or struggles for breath.
                > Modern
                > > > physics is absolutely heading the scientist into the role of
                > > > participant in the phenomena being observed. In such a
                position
                > > > dialectical analysis is moot. When Emerson refers to the
                > > philosopher's
                > > > garden, or even the biblical St. Paul to the cloud of
                > witnesses,
                > > they
                > > > may not be far from future fact. If literature is a whole
                > thing, a
                > > > bounded phenomenon, (which may be argued dialectically: we
                > could
                > > not
                > > > actually make a visible mark without bounds) it might not be
                a
                > non
                > > > sequitur that the whole of literature, the philospher's
                garden
                > if
                > > you
                > > > will, is to become accessible naturally to the human being.
                In
                > the
                > > > past I used some software called (I think) "Pointillist" ( a
                > recent
                > > > post reminded me of that). The scientific basis of it was
                that
                > the
                > > > human eye assimilates and the human brain dialectically
                > processes
                > > > information faster than the brain can process it as
                literature
                > > > dialectically. I'm sure the same could be said of every human
                > > > empirical sense. There is no doubt that literature is a
                > fixative
                > > of an
                > > > evolutionary plateau for the human species. The question
                that
                > begs
                > > a
                > > > dialectic is: Should we boldy go, or step back. All sides
                > > (religion,
                > > > politics, philosophy, science, even poetry) seem to be
                > > dialectically
                > > > bent on boldly going. That gives me pause.
                > > >
                > > > Existentialism began as a repudiation of abstract
                rationalism.
                > SK,
                > > > followed most recently by Deleuze's twisted humorous turn,
                > rejected
                > > > the possibility that the human being will ever be satisfied
                by
                > an
                > > all
                > > > embracing objective understanding of the universe deeply
                > enough to
                > > > outweigh one's concern for their own life. As I have said,
                > this
                > > utter
                > > > unabashed dignifying of the individual's life and death is
                the
                > > core of
                > > > the existentialist view. I would say, and Deleuze would
                > probably
                > > agree
                > > > that: A human being cannot evolve beyond an objective view
                of
                > the
                > > > universe without becoming an illusion (subjective) in that
                > > universe.
                > > > There is no all knowing. Heidegger would say that our way of
                > being
                > > in
                > > > the world is objective activity. I would say that it is
                action
                > that
                > > > mediates our personal existence. I like to think that Sartre
                > would
                > > > maintain that the distance over which we experience is other
                > than
                > > us
                > > > and other than what we are aware of as experience. Nietzche
                > would
                > > call
                > > > it nothingness. Pinker would say that distance can only be
                > other
                > > > "consciousness". Tillich would say it was: "the actual
                > objective
                > > God
                > > > beyond the human subjective characterization of God". Rorty
                and
                > > > Dennett would both maintain it was a blank to fill in and
                > becoming
                > > is
                > > > next - and that is the direction we are boldly going. I must
                > say,
                > > as
                > > > an existentialist; I think it is cowardice and rejection of
                the
                > > > unpleasant (Onfray) that drives us to gambling away our
                > dignity,
                > > our
                > > > statement, our existential panache. We should write our
                balls
                > or
                > > > vagina off as the case may be, because it is literature that
                > has
                > > fixed
                > > > us as what we are; and what we are is the most dignified
                thing
                > we
                > > can
                > > > be. Still the existentialist cannot write dialectically
                without
                > > > sacrificing dignity.
                > > >
                > > > Sartre, boringly succinct, (and Berdyaev) state that the
                > freedom of
                > > > the existentialist must ethically seek the freedom of other
                or
                > not
                > > be
                > > > free. I say that we are all in this age unassailably free
                > because
                > > it
                > > > was not an uninformed (absurd) choice that caused us to be.
                > > Literature
                > > > existed before us all in this age. We simply at this stage
                of
                > human
                > > > development could not have arguably made an uninformed
                choice
                > to be
                > > > what we are. We saw marks and meant in every way to make our
                > own.
                > > For
                > > > the existentialist that means the ethical responsibility of
                > > dignifying
                > > > the life and death of the human being. It is absolutely
                about
                > the
                > > > statement of human dignity. I have warts but I am human. I
                am
                > a
                > > genius
                > > > but I am human. It is the question of dignity that defines
                > ethics;
                > > > arisen of freedom, of choice, of individuality, and of
                > solidarity -
                > > > altogether. We have the same fundamental empirical
                capacities
                > > common
                > > > to the species, but those capacites are so great that our
                views
                > > > diverge. Rockin'. We have not chosen to come to this life to
                > agree
                > > > (control); but rather to dignify the choice. Dialectically
                > this is
                > > > absurd, and conflict is other - thus Sartre's view. Thus my
                > view -
                > > the
                > > > existentialist cannot be a philosopher because the first
                > choice,
                > > that
                > > > was his life and death as a human being, was to not be a
                > > philosopher,
                > > > because that very choice was already a dialectical
                settlement.
                > > >
                > > > "Don't jump in the water;
                > > > if you can't swim.
                > > > Light like a feather.
                > > > Heavy as lead."
                > > >
                > > > Trinidad Cruz
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > ----------------------------------------------------------
                > -----------
                > >
                > >
                > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date:
                > 6/30/2006
                > >
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                -----------
                >
                >
                > No virus found in this incoming message.
                > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date:
                6/30/2006
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.