<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Newhandsweepstakes</title>
	<atom:link href="http://newhandsweepstakes.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://newhandsweepstakes.com</link>
	<description>hands, things, things</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 02:04:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Does anyone even read this? Surviving or striving by David</title>
		<link>http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/05/09/does-anyone-even-read-this-surviving-or-striving/#comment-1508</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 02:04:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newhandsweepstakes.com/?p=1611#comment-1508</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Be well, too, my friend. So glad that we can have meaningful exchanges like this one through the site--exchanges where we both have something new to contribute to one another&#039;s worldview, be that something new sad, pensive, joyous, ambiguous or otherwise. Know that I am here for you entirely, no matter how many miles away we are.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Be well, too, my friend. So glad that we can have meaningful exchanges like this one through the site&#8211;exchanges where we both have something new to contribute to one another&#8217;s worldview, be that something new sad, pensive, joyous, ambiguous or otherwise. Know that I am here for you entirely, no matter how many miles away we are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Does anyone even read this? Surviving or striving by Brian McElmurry</title>
		<link>http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/05/09/does-anyone-even-read-this-surviving-or-striving/#comment-1506</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brian McElmurry]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 18:19:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newhandsweepstakes.com/?p=1611#comment-1506</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dave, you&#039;re awesome. I read this many times, so that I could understand it, and I found it very comforting. I like the way you explore and pose your thoughts and ideas. Your second to last paragraph seems most apt to myself, in a practical terms, of alleviating such angst of &quot;just surviving&quot; as I have been going over in my mind &quot;a better way to live&quot; or &quot;what should I do&quot;. The idea of &quot;to adjust and cast-a-fresh&quot; these techniques to be more fulfilling, and the idea of building a house to grow in, that would nurture the soul, or mind, spirit, whatever you may call it, seem like such simple but beautiful ideas. Often it seems that bad moods, or dissatisfaction, causes questions to arise and answers to come out of them, so that pain, when looked back upon in safety, is often not as painful, and necessary to the growth you need to make as a person. Wow, thanks for your response, it brought a lot of insight and comfort (along with being so intelligently considered and communicated). Be well my friend!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dave, you&#8217;re awesome. I read this many times, so that I could understand it, and I found it very comforting. I like the way you explore and pose your thoughts and ideas. Your second to last paragraph seems most apt to myself, in a practical terms, of alleviating such angst of &#8220;just surviving&#8221; as I have been going over in my mind &#8220;a better way to live&#8221; or &#8220;what should I do&#8221;. The idea of &#8220;to adjust and cast-a-fresh&#8221; these techniques to be more fulfilling, and the idea of building a house to grow in, that would nurture the soul, or mind, spirit, whatever you may call it, seem like such simple but beautiful ideas. Often it seems that bad moods, or dissatisfaction, causes questions to arise and answers to come out of them, so that pain, when looked back upon in safety, is often not as painful, and necessary to the growth you need to make as a person. Wow, thanks for your response, it brought a lot of insight and comfort (along with being so intelligently considered and communicated). Be well my friend!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Does anyone even read this? Surviving or striving by David</title>
		<link>http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/05/09/does-anyone-even-read-this-surviving-or-striving/#comment-1504</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 06:52:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newhandsweepstakes.com/?p=1611#comment-1504</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you for your post. This is a difficult problem indeed: to determine whether and to what extent one is &quot;merely&quot; getting by, as opposed to striving in one&#039;s life. The question itself may only arise from a certain relatively privileged place--i.e., after one has been lucky enough to meet their basic needs of food, shelter and security--but it remains as valid a problem, existentially speaking, as any other. For, it seems, we do want to strive, and not merely survive. 

I suppose part of what makes the situation where this question would arise a sad situation is that we all want to strive and not merely survive. Or, at least, we all say that we do. But this leaves unexamined the question of what striving actually entails. 

Is surviving a precondition for striving? At least this question can be answered, and in the affirmative. It seems that one must first of all survive. Striving can only arise after one has successfully survived. Hence, techniques for striving, though distinct and of a different shape than those needed to survive, are not fundamentally at odds with those techniques needed to survive. Striving, therefore, may simply be a certain mode of surviving--perhaps a matter of &quot;surviving well.&quot;

On this interpretation (that striving is a matter of &quot;surviving well&quot;), all one need do, when one has reached a point of survival without striving, is to adjust and cast-afresh those means by which one survives, so as to yield new practices of striving. This could be a matter of eating things that you find meaning or real joy from eating, beyond merely having value in their sustaining you. Or, it could be a matter of establishing a home which not only shelters you, but provides you with a space where you feel compelled to better yourself, to move yourself in &quot;striving directions,&quot; and, perhaps, to &quot;grow&quot; as a striving individual. It may be that all of our techniques of survival--love, food, sleep, entertainment, etc--can be re-conceived and refashioned in this way, so as to yield real resources for striving-beyond-one&#039;s-surviving.

All this being said, it is undeniable that the problem of how to strive, and of the status of striving within our lives and within our society, remains an open and perhaps unresolvable one. It may be that we never fully know what it means to strive. And yet, it seems to me that simply by raising the question, and by taking the question sufficiently seriously so as to effect changes in one&#039;s life according to it, we have done something in the direction of striving. Looking back many years from now, whether or not we will consider ourselves to &quot;have strived&quot; may depend upon this exact question and response today.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for your post. This is a difficult problem indeed: to determine whether and to what extent one is &#8220;merely&#8221; getting by, as opposed to striving in one&#8217;s life. The question itself may only arise from a certain relatively privileged place&#8211;i.e., after one has been lucky enough to meet their basic needs of food, shelter and security&#8211;but it remains as valid a problem, existentially speaking, as any other. For, it seems, we do want to strive, and not merely survive. </p>
<p>I suppose part of what makes the situation where this question would arise a sad situation is that we all want to strive and not merely survive. Or, at least, we all say that we do. But this leaves unexamined the question of what striving actually entails. </p>
<p>Is surviving a precondition for striving? At least this question can be answered, and in the affirmative. It seems that one must first of all survive. Striving can only arise after one has successfully survived. Hence, techniques for striving, though distinct and of a different shape than those needed to survive, are not fundamentally at odds with those techniques needed to survive. Striving, therefore, may simply be a certain mode of surviving&#8211;perhaps a matter of &#8220;surviving well.&#8221;</p>
<p>On this interpretation (that striving is a matter of &#8220;surviving well&#8221;), all one need do, when one has reached a point of survival without striving, is to adjust and cast-afresh those means by which one survives, so as to yield new practices of striving. This could be a matter of eating things that you find meaning or real joy from eating, beyond merely having value in their sustaining you. Or, it could be a matter of establishing a home which not only shelters you, but provides you with a space where you feel compelled to better yourself, to move yourself in &#8220;striving directions,&#8221; and, perhaps, to &#8220;grow&#8221; as a striving individual. It may be that all of our techniques of survival&#8211;love, food, sleep, entertainment, etc&#8211;can be re-conceived and refashioned in this way, so as to yield real resources for striving-beyond-one&#8217;s-surviving.</p>
<p>All this being said, it is undeniable that the problem of how to strive, and of the status of striving within our lives and within our society, remains an open and perhaps unresolvable one. It may be that we never fully know what it means to strive. And yet, it seems to me that simply by raising the question, and by taking the question sufficiently seriously so as to effect changes in one&#8217;s life according to it, we have done something in the direction of striving. Looking back many years from now, whether or not we will consider ourselves to &#8220;have strived&#8221; may depend upon this exact question and response today.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Human/Animal Explosions in the News &#8211; Part 1 by David</title>
		<link>http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/04/17/humananimal-explosions-in-the-news-part-1/#comment-1487</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:17:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newhandsweepstakes.com/?p=1581#comment-1487</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I remember hearing about this, but I&#039;d never seen a video of it! Craziness. Thanks for posting!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I remember hearing about this, but I&#8217;d never seen a video of it! Craziness. Thanks for posting!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Human/Animal Explosions in the News &#8211; Part 1 by David</title>
		<link>http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/04/17/humananimal-explosions-in-the-news-part-1/#comment-1486</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:16:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newhandsweepstakes.com/?p=1581#comment-1486</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks for the comment, Josh. It does indeed seem strange that exploding the carcasses would be logistically more feasible than something like cutting them up. For, what happens to all the exploded parts--are they simply left to decompose and/or be eaten by the still-living wildlife?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the comment, Josh. It does indeed seem strange that exploding the carcasses would be logistically more feasible than something like cutting them up. For, what happens to all the exploded parts&#8211;are they simply left to decompose and/or be eaten by the still-living wildlife?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Human/Animal Explosions in the News &#8211; Part 1 by ejones7</title>
		<link>http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/04/17/humananimal-explosions-in-the-news-part-1/#comment-1482</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ejones7]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:11:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newhandsweepstakes.com/?p=1581#comment-1482</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You know they blew up a whale in Oregon once, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vmnq5dBF7Y

It didn&#039;t go well.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You know they blew up a whale in Oregon once, right?</p>
<p><span style="text-align:center; display: block;"><a href="http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/04/17/humananimal-explosions-in-the-news-part-1/"><img src="http://img.youtube.com/vi/8Vmnq5dBF7Y/2.jpg" alt="" /></a></span></p>
<p>It didn&#8217;t go well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Human/Animal Explosions in the News &#8211; Part 1 by Joshua A Young</title>
		<link>http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/04/17/humananimal-explosions-in-the-news-part-1/#comment-1481</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joshua A Young]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:06:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newhandsweepstakes.com/?p=1581#comment-1481</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dave! Good find. I can&#039;t help but feel proud that Colorado made it into &quot;us and Canada&#039;s&quot; BBC news, even if it is just for cows. Or maybe because it&#039;s just for cows. I&#039;m not sure. 

At any rate, why do you suppose they aren&#039;t able to use chainsaws? I thought maybe they didn&#039;t want to spook the wilderness, but they seem perfectly willing to blow them cows up.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dave! Good find. I can&#8217;t help but feel proud that Colorado made it into &#8220;us and Canada&#8217;s&#8221; BBC news, even if it is just for cows. Or maybe because it&#8217;s just for cows. I&#8217;m not sure. </p>
<p>At any rate, why do you suppose they aren&#8217;t able to use chainsaws? I thought maybe they didn&#8217;t want to spook the wilderness, but they seem perfectly willing to blow them cows up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on My New Favorite Band by Brian McElmurry</title>
		<link>http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/04/08/my-current-favorite-band/#comment-1480</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brian McElmurry]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 23:57:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/04/08/my-current-favorite-band/#comment-1480</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[cool band and video. liked how they&#039;re reading instructions from the spray paint and the skateboarding. Are they a local band or like national?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>cool band and video. liked how they&#8217;re reading instructions from the spray paint and the skateboarding. Are they a local band or like national?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Beach Sloth gets William Gaddis&#8217;d by Brian McElmurry</title>
		<link>http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/04/11/beach-sloth-gets-william-gaddisd/#comment-1477</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brian McElmurry]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:45:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newhandsweepstakes.com/?p=1585#comment-1477</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I know nothing. Life makes little sense. I shit words. I need Jesus.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know nothing. Life makes little sense. I shit words. I need Jesus.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Beach Sloth gets William Gaddis&#8217;d by David</title>
		<link>http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/04/11/beach-sloth-gets-william-gaddisd/#comment-1470</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 08:25:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newhandsweepstakes.com/?p=1585#comment-1470</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A tour de force of your views on the contemporary &quot;internet lit&quot; scene. A nice introduction for the uninitiated but willing (like myself). Thanks for posting!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A tour de force of your views on the contemporary &#8220;internet lit&#8221; scene. A nice introduction for the uninitiated but willing (like myself). Thanks for posting!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Exploring the Hypothesis that Philosophy is an Exclusively Linguistic Enterprise by David</title>
		<link>http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/04/06/exploring-the-hypothesis-that-philosophy-is-an-exclusively-linguistic-enterprise/#comment-1467</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:01:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/04/06/exploring-the-hypothesis-that-philosophy-is-an-exclusively-linguistic-enterprise/#comment-1467</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is a great corrective to my remarks. However, I struggle to identify what precisely is non-linguistic but still philosophical about Zen Buddhism. This likely reflects my lack of expertise with Zen Buddhism more than anything else. Still, if one takes &quot;linguistic&quot; in the broad sense I would endorse (which is wider than any saying or writing), then even meditation might be considered as linguistic. A response to this I can anticipate would be that Zen Buddhist meditation is precisely about exiting any mental/conceptual determination, and instead vacating oneself of all &quot;intentionality,&quot; &quot;meaning making,&quot; and the like. However, in this case I am not sure if we would still be referring to the precisely philosophical dimension of Zen Buddhism--but perhaps to its anti-philosophy (and hence to its anti-linguistic element). Thanks so much for your reply!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a great corrective to my remarks. However, I struggle to identify what precisely is non-linguistic but still philosophical about Zen Buddhism. This likely reflects my lack of expertise with Zen Buddhism more than anything else. Still, if one takes &#8220;linguistic&#8221; in the broad sense I would endorse (which is wider than any saying or writing), then even meditation might be considered as linguistic. A response to this I can anticipate would be that Zen Buddhist meditation is precisely about exiting any mental/conceptual determination, and instead vacating oneself of all &#8220;intentionality,&#8221; &#8220;meaning making,&#8221; and the like. However, in this case I am not sure if we would still be referring to the precisely philosophical dimension of Zen Buddhism&#8211;but perhaps to its anti-philosophy (and hence to its anti-linguistic element). Thanks so much for your reply!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Exploring the Hypothesis that Philosophy is an Exclusively Linguistic Enterprise by Sarah LaChance Adams</title>
		<link>http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/04/06/exploring-the-hypothesis-that-philosophy-is-an-exclusively-linguistic-enterprise/#comment-1466</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sarah LaChance Adams]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:56:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/04/06/exploring-the-hypothesis-that-philosophy-is-an-exclusively-linguistic-enterprise/#comment-1466</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Zen Buddhism, most definitely philosophy, and largely non-linguistic.  Sitting and doing nothing is much more important than anything ever said in Zen.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Zen Buddhism, most definitely philosophy, and largely non-linguistic.  Sitting and doing nothing is much more important than anything ever said in Zen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on My New Favorite Band by Sarah LaChance Adams</title>
		<link>http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/04/08/my-current-favorite-band/#comment-1465</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sarah LaChance Adams]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:53:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/04/08/my-current-favorite-band/#comment-1465</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Awesome.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Awesome.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Exploring the Hypothesis that Philosophy is an Exclusively Linguistic Enterprise by David</title>
		<link>http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/04/06/exploring-the-hypothesis-that-philosophy-is-an-exclusively-linguistic-enterprise/#comment-1461</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 16:26:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/04/06/exploring-the-hypothesis-that-philosophy-is-an-exclusively-linguistic-enterprise/#comment-1461</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks so much for the quick and considerate reply, Brian! The notion that our cognition processes (including both &quot;conscious&quot; thoughts/ideas and &quot;unconscious&quot; internal mechanism) can be understood on the model of language is a relatively recent one in philosophy and linguistics (mid-twentieth-century in origin), but it it totally fascinating. My own research interests have only recently begun intersecting with these ideas, but I am excited to explore them further. Good to hear from you, and hope to see you before long.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks so much for the quick and considerate reply, Brian! The notion that our cognition processes (including both &#8220;conscious&#8221; thoughts/ideas and &#8220;unconscious&#8221; internal mechanism) can be understood on the model of language is a relatively recent one in philosophy and linguistics (mid-twentieth-century in origin), but it it totally fascinating. My own research interests have only recently begun intersecting with these ideas, but I am excited to explore them further. Good to hear from you, and hope to see you before long.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Exploring the Hypothesis that Philosophy is an Exclusively Linguistic Enterprise by Brian McElmurry</title>
		<link>http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/04/06/exploring-the-hypothesis-that-philosophy-is-an-exclusively-linguistic-enterprise/#comment-1460</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brian McElmurry]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 15:59:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newhandsweepstakes.com/2012/04/06/exploring-the-hypothesis-that-philosophy-is-an-exclusively-linguistic-enterprise/#comment-1460</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Interesting Dave. Including cognition into linguistic (which makes perfect sense to me) would definately make philosophy a linguistic enterprise. I find the idea of including cognition into linguistics as very interesting (I&#039;m a college dropout so I didn&#039;t know how it is considered). I considered how we think as we speak, in ways, much like talking in our own head, and how social situations that have a unspoken rule of behavior we all conform to without even discussing them, very often, or even considering the underlying philosophy that guides it. Possibly the unconscious mind, or possibly a spiritual &quot;vision&quot;, or physiological response leads to a discovery of an idea; the &quot;visionary experience&quot; could lead to insight, but then the linguistic mind will then deal with it. Who knows where an idea comes from, but it must be dealt with linguistically. I like this. Philosophy is so complex.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting Dave. Including cognition into linguistic (which makes perfect sense to me) would definately make philosophy a linguistic enterprise. I find the idea of including cognition into linguistics as very interesting (I&#8217;m a college dropout so I didn&#8217;t know how it is considered). I considered how we think as we speak, in ways, much like talking in our own head, and how social situations that have a unspoken rule of behavior we all conform to without even discussing them, very often, or even considering the underlying philosophy that guides it. Possibly the unconscious mind, or possibly a spiritual &#8220;vision&#8221;, or physiological response leads to a discovery of an idea; the &#8220;visionary experience&#8221; could lead to insight, but then the linguistic mind will then deal with it. Who knows where an idea comes from, but it must be dealt with linguistically. I like this. Philosophy is so complex.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

