Previous document

Next document

gri_2003_m_46_b01_f05_020

Transcribers

  1. 65331690 - Peppa2
  2. 65425162 - not-logged-in-6759d112ebd631bdab1d
  3. WINNER - 65439226 - not-logged-in-c1681788486dc06f13ca
  4. 65442064 - vanderfb
  5. 65442126 - not-logged-in-d6d2371f4e6a12810027
  6. 65446987 - Lazrlite

65331690 - Peppa2

While I am on the subject of films (and you know how the subject tempts me) I want to refer back to Les Seux Sony Fait which I think we have not interpreted quite correctly. It seems that Sartre was not saying that only their outside pre-occupation separated the lovers but that (this is part of philosophy and not actually present in the film) they were bound to be separated, As the heavenly authorities knew, and as the last image so certainly displays. In love, Sartre says, one wishes to enter another's being and this he says is impossible, since man has no resource outside himself. And since man had to be "committed" as the man was in his film was on the side if the proletariat, love has no real chance. I don't know if that is clear. If not we shall talk about it when we meet. As in another letter about existentialism is so long winded, I'm afraid. Still I am determined to know all about it now things I'm afraid pleasure and surrealism and psychoanalysis and aesthetics mean more to me than Sartre's liberty. And I need not tell you of my reaction to Sartre's frustrated view of love. A student suggested to me in Paris that his view on this subject was conditioned of his own experiences, he is short and pudgy. Simone de Beauvoir his mistress, also existentialist, is open to the same charge apparently...

65425162 - not-logged-in-6759d112ebd631bdab1d

II
While I am on the subject of films
(and you know how the subject tempts
me) I want to refer back to Les Jeux
Sont Tait which I think we have not in-
terpreted quite correctly. It seems that
Sartre was not saying that only their
outside pre-occupations separated
the lovers but that (this is part of his
philosophy and not actually present
in the film) they were bound to be sep-
arated, as the heavenly authorities
knew, and as the last image so cert-
ainly displays. In love, Sartre says,
one wishes to enter another's being and
this he says is impossible, since man
has no resource outside himself. And
since man has to be "committed", as the
man in his film was on the side of the
proletariat, love has no real chance.
I don't know if that is clear. If no we
shall talk about it when we meet.
Or in another letter but existentialism
is so long winded, I'm afraid. Still I am
determined to know all about it now
though I'm afraid pleasure and surreal-
ism and psychoanalysis and aesthetics
mean more to me than Satre's liberty.
And I need not tell you of my react-
ion to Sartre's frustrated view of love.
A student suggest to me in Paris that
his view on this subject was conditioned
by his own experiences, he is short and pudgy
Simone de Beauvoir, his mistress, also
existentialist, is open to the same charge
apparently...

WINNER - 65439226 - not-logged-in-c1681788486dc06f13ca

II
While I am on the subject of films
(and you now how the subject tempts
me) I want to refer back to les jeux
sont fait which I think we have not in-
terpreted quite correctly. It seems our
Sartre was not saying that only their
outside pre-occupations separated
the lovers but that (this is part of his
philosophy and not actually present
in the film) they were bound to be sep-
arated, as the heavenly authorities
knew, and as the last image so cert-
ainly displays. In love, Sartre says,
one wishes to enter another's being and
this he says is impossible, since man
has no resource outside himself. And
since man has to be "committed", as the
man in his film was on the side of the
proletariat, love has no real chance.
I don't know if that is clear. If not we
shall talk about it when we meet.
Or in another letter but existentialism
is so long winded, I'm afraid. still I am
determined to know all about it now
though I'm afraid pleasure and surreal-
isme and psychoanalysis and aesthetics
mean more to me than Sartre's liberty.
And I need not tell you of my react-
ion to Sartre's frustrated view of love.
A student suggested to me in Paris that
his view on this subject was conditioned
by his own experiences, he is short and pudgy
Simone de Beauvoir his mistress, also
existentialist, is open to the same charge
apparently.

65442064 - vanderfb

II

While I am on the subject of films (and you know how the subject tempts me) I want to refer back to Les Jeux Sont Faits which I think we have not interpreted quite correctly. It seems that Sartre was not saying that only their outside preoccupations separated the loners but that (this is part of his philosophy and not actually present in the film) they were bound to be separated, as the heavenly authorities knew, and as the last image so certainly displays. In love, Sartre says, one wishes to enter another's being and this he says is impossible, since man has no resource outside himself. And since man has to be 'committed', as the man in his film was on the side of the proletariat, love has no real chance. I don't know if that is clear. If not we shall talk about it when we meet or in another letter but existentialism is so long winded, I'm afraid. Still I am determined to know all about it now though I'm afraid pleasure and surrealism and psychoanalysis and aesthetics mean more to me than Sartre's liberty. And I need not tell you of my reaction to Sartre's frustrated view of love. A student suggested to me in Paris that his view on this subject was conditioned by his own experiences, he is short and pudgy. Simone de Beauvoir's mistress, also existentialist, is open to the same charge apparently...

65442126 - not-logged-in-d6d2371f4e6a12810027

II
While I am on the subject of films (and you know how the subject tempts me) I want to refer back to the Jeux Sont Fait which I think we have not interpreted quite correctly. It seems that Sartre was not saying that only their outside me - occupations separated them from the lovers but that (this is part of his philosophy and not actually present in the film) they were bound to be separated, as the heavenly authorities knew, and as the last image so certainly displays. In love, Satre says, one wishes to enter another's being and this he says is impossible, since man has no resource outside himself. And since man has to be 'committed', as the man was on the side of the proletariat, love has no real chance. I don't know if that is clear. If no we shall talk about it when we meet. On in another letter aboutexistentialism is so long winded, I'm afraid. Still I am determined to know all about now though I'm afraid pleasure and surrealisme and psychoanalysis and aesthetics mean more to me than Sartre's liberty. And I need not tell you of my reaction to Sartre's frustrated view of love. A student suggested to me in Paris Oct his view on this subject was conditioned of his own experiences, he is short and pudgy. Simone de Beauvais his mistress, also existentialist, is open to the same charge apparently ....

65446987 - Lazrlite

While I am on the subject of film
(and you know how the subject tempts
me) I want to refer back to the Jeux
Sont Fait which I think we have not in-
terpreted quite correctly. It seems that
Sartre was not saying that only their
outside pre-occupation separated
the lovers but that (this is part of his
philosophy and not actually present
in the film) they were bound to be sep-
arated, as the heavenly authorities
knew, and as the last image so cert-
ainly displays. In love, Sartre says,
one wishes to enter another's being and
this he says is impossible, since man
has no resource outside himself. And
since man has to be "committed", as the
man in his film was on the side of the
proletariat, love has no real chance.
I con't know if that is clear. If not we
should talk about it when we meet.
Or in another letter our existentialism
is so long winded, I'm afraid. Still I am
determined to know all about it now
though I'm afraid pleasure and surreal-
isms and psychoanalysis and
mean more to me than Sartre's .
And I need not tell you of my react-
ion to Sartre's frustrated view of love.
A student suggested to me in Paris that
his view on this subject was conditioned
of his own experiences, he is short and pudgy.
Simone de Beauvoir his mistress, also
existentialist, is open to the same change
apparently...

Previous document

Next document