LAW IS NEITHER OBEYED DISOBEYED NOR BROKEN / AN EXISTENTIAL ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF OF LAW

[bbyrd009]

009;
Link to what it claims 48 intensions of imo:
IMO - Slang/Internet Slang

when in doubt, just ignore them D, they are never pertinent to the sentence phrase ok, except possibly, "bc," because

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

when in doubt, just ignore them D, they are never pertinent to the sentence phrase ok, except possibly, "bc," because

 

[bbyrd009]

a synopsis to your point, if you would there, ty

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

a synopsis to your point, if you would there, ty

Law is a global religion, grounded upon the faith of pretending to know that language of law is a determinative force efficient to cause persons to do, or not do, prescribed and/or proscribed acts, while, in fact, human action arises only on the basis of the recognition of desideratum; thus, though law per se originates via recognizing divers desideratum, what law requires, i.e., that law be determinant of one's behavior, is actually not a possibility among human beings; hence, when we wonder why there is so much crime/sin, we fail to see that law artificially constructs and pretends crime and sin, within a state of affairs wherein pre-reflectively free and ignoble persons are simply doing what uneducated persons, living in ontological poverty, do; i.e., law is a pretense constructed primarily for the sake of jurisprudentially oriented persons who live via the practice/enforcement of law, contrived as a platform via which to eat-out-the-substance of all Others and, thereby, make themselves wealthy by practicing what is, in the final analysis, a nonsense of mistaken faith.

 

[bbyrd009]

Law is a global religion, grounded upon the faith of pretending to know that language of law is a determinative force efficient to cause persons to do, or not do, prescribed and/or proscribed acts, while, in fact, human action arises only on the basis of the recognition of desideratum; thus, though law per se originates via recognizing divers desideratum, what law requires, i.e., that law be determinant of one's behavior, is actually not a possibility among human beings; hence, when we wonder why there is so much crime/sin, we fail to see that law pretends crime and sin within a state of affairs wherein pre-reflectively free and ignoble persons are simply doing what uneducated persons living in ontological poverty do.

im not sure that the law requires that law be the determinant of our behavior, so much as a minimum standard of conduct? Iow bam behave in whatever manner seems best to you, so long as these minimums are not abrogated

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

im not sure that the law requires that law be the determinant of our behavior, so much as a minimum standard of conduct? Iow bam behave in whatever manner seems best to you, so long as these minimums are not abrogated

When you go in front of a magistrate, who himself absolutely thinks his actions regarding you are bound and determined by law, it will be clear to you that you too are deemed to have been bound and determined by given law, and/or, to have bound and determined yourself, by law, to do what is prescribed/proscribed by language of law. Law is a causalist, determinist state of affairs, wherein materialist-causalist-determinist persons think that they, and everyone else, are substances set in motion or at rest by the causal force of language of law...the magistrate is engaged in the language game of law when he mediates and pretends the charge that you have ''broken'' a law(s); which "law" you are ontologically unable to obey, disobey, or break, because your actions do not originate, ever, on the basis of given states of affairs, and, law is a given state of affairs.

 

[bbyrd009]

When you go in front of a magistrate...

ha well i suggest that in that case it is incumbent upon one to avoid going in front of magistrates, m meehan? After all, most ppl really have no trouble accomplishing that?

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

ha well i suggest that in that case it is incumbent upon one to avoid going in front of magistrates, m meehan? After all, most ppl really have no trouble accomplishing that?

Okay, lets. Replace the inauthoritative authority in the proposed scenario with a police officer, or, a constable...

 

[bbyrd009]

Okay, lets. Replace the inauthoritative authority in the proposed scenario with a police officer, or, a constable...

well again m meehan you are strictly suggesting situations in which agreed upon societal mores have been violated, right, thats usually why ppl find themselves in that situation, and while i am not completely unfamiliar with this feeling, as a complete Anarchist i once again find myself with this twilight zone feeling lol; maybe if you were to detail why i found myself in this situation in the first place?

But the only valid response to your concept imo is leave the world i think, else join it, and i still dont see how either of those has been denied us. If you dont want to be beholden to the law, there are places for that? Amish thru Survivalist, i mean we pretty much have every flavor?

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

well again m meehan you are strictly suggesting situations in which agreed upon societal mores have been violated, right, thats usually why ppl find themselves in that situation, and while i am not completely unfamiliar with this feeling, as a complete Anarchist i once again find myself with this twilight zone feeling lol; maybe if you were to detail why i found myself in this situation in the first place?

But the only valid response to your concept imo is leave the world i think, else join it, and i still dont see how either of those has been denied us. If you dont want to be beholden to the law, there are places for that? Amish thru Survivalist, i mean we pretty much have every flavor?

I am not saying merely that I do not want to be beholden to law. I am saying, again and again, that law is not in fact an efficacy among men; that law is not in fact determinative of human conduct; nonetheless, we keep insisting persons determine themselves by law, or, be punished, up to being killed for not acting on the basis of a law which does not, cannot, move persons to action or inaction.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

well again m meehan you are strictly suggesting situations in which agreed upon societal mores have been violated, right, thats usually why ppl find themselves in that situation, and while i am not completely unfamiliar with this feeling, as a complete Anarchist i once again find myself with this twilight zone feeling lol; maybe if you were to detail why i found myself in this situation in the first place?

But the only valid response to your concept imo is leave the world i think, else join it, and i still dont see how either of those has been denied us. If you dont want to be beholden to the law, there are places for that? Amish thru Survivalist, i mean we pretty much have every flavor?

009;
''...maybe if you were to detail why i found myself in this situation in the first place?...'' You have been ''thrown'' into the situation in which you are being continually demanded and commanded, by both societal law and scripture, to act only on the basis of law and scripture, and you cannot choose otherwise without reprisal; the movement of history has situated you thus; such are the reasons ''why''. I am speaking of being thrown in the Heideggerian sense, i.e., you have been cast into a world of law and punishment by having been born into, and abandoned, within human culture. You are an absolute freedom living in an absolute absolutism, and, I am suggesting that we can emancipate ourselves from our thrownness by attaining to being reflectively free ( I have already explained what reflective freedom is).
Meehan

 

[bbyrd009]

009;
''...maybe if you were to detail why i found myself in this situation in the first place?...'' You have been ''thrown'' into the situation in which you are being continually demanded and commanded, by both societal law and scripture, to act only on the basis of law and scripture, and you cannot choose otherwise without reprisal; the movement of history has situated you thus; such are the reasons ''why''. I am speaking of being thrown in the Heideggerian sense, i.e., you have been cast into a world of law and punishment by having been born into, and abandoned, within human culture. You are an absolute freedom living in an absolute absolutism, and, I am suggesting that we can emancipate ourselves from our thrownness by attaining to being reflectively free ( I have already explained what reflective freedom is).
Meehan

oh, i chose reprisal a long time ago, Duane, and wadr i dont think most ppl want reflective freedom wadr. Slavery has a certain constancy to it, i guess, and fwiw in Christianity this seems to be expressed now by Jesus Worship, Jesus as Apollos, cult of Sol Invictus, or Mithraism, as google can elaborate. And we even have a practical test for it, as Jesus sent out 72 and then 12 to goto another town, stay in one house while you are there, eat what they feed you, etc, that no one even tries to do, even the Apollos worshippers who are after all promised "you will not run out of towns before I come again."

anyway, imo initially acting on the basis of law and Scripture is a great idea! Until one gets the hang of it at least? Otherwise you got basically loose cannons out there with no safety mechanism? Bc yes, i can do virtually anything and have done, i used to detest law myself, but law is deemed holy Duane, for a reason i guess, even as it is recognized to be inadequate.

the heir is under servants until he inherits and is no better than a slave, even though he is lord of all
would i guess be another way to express the belief. Leave the world is what we are told to do, although a brief trip through our forums here make it obvious that most ppl who ID as "Christian" wouldnt touch that with a ten foot pole either. So i mean best of luck to you...or no, sorry, you are doomed to failure on at least two counts, lack of respect for the holy law, and lack of insight into Mithraism, maybe, or rather ppls true ontological underpinnings. Idealism is great tho, ok, as a prod, imo, dont get me wrong.

 

[bbyrd009]

so, it occurs to me that there are at least 3 sets of laws one is called upon to follow, and really 4, if you add in cultural mores, bc i cant tell a 12 year old she has a nice butt or whatever right, even though that is not "illegal." Anyway, civil, physical, and spiritual, yeh? And i have been assuming we are discussing the civil ones, so far. But seems to me that ignoring any of them is only going to bring one trouble

 

[Renniks]

The viability of law as a motivational force exercised on a basis of punishment, purportedly efficient to make and maintain decent civil interpersonal conduct, is questionable in terms of the incorrectness of scholars of jurisprudence in regard to a supposedly conduct-originative law linguistic, whereby language of law is mistakenly deemed to be a conduct-determinative causal force among men, thus, both jurisprudential scholarship and extant language of law exhibit vacuity in regard to the actual ontological mode whereby a human act originates; hence all current jurisprudence/law clearly appears to be confused and unintelligible at the level of the ontological mode of the origination of a human act, and therefore, law, as a mistakenly presupposed determinative efficacy among men, is subject to being re-modeled to prevent ultimately being discarded as a non-viable means to having and doing civilizational civility:

LAW IS NEITHER OBEYED DISOBEYED NOR BROKEN / AN EXISTENTIAL ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF OF LAW

No person in fact ever determines to act or forbear action on the basis of given published language of law, and, therefore, language of law, absolutely without originative connection with intentional human action/inaction, can, actually, be neither obeyed, disobeyed, nor broken.

All determination to action and inaction upsurges only on the basis of what is absent, is purely imagined, is an unaccomplished desideratum, and, has not yet intentionally transpired.

That human determination to action arises ex nihilo was first realized and enunciated by Baruch Spinoza (1632 -1677 ), as "...determinatio negatio est…" i.e., ...determination is negation...(1674); and was, subsequently, restated by G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) as "Omnis determinatio est negatio.", i.e., "All determination is negation."

Human beings are ontologically barred from being determined to action or inaction by given states of affairs.

J. P. Sartre’s (1901-1980 ) examination of the ontological structure of the upsurge of a human act exhibits comprehension of Spinoza's dictum: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943). And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action. If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or itself, this amounts to putting a given at the beginning of the series. Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements...The existence of the act implies its autonomy...Furthermore, if the act is not pure motion, it must be defined by an

intention. No matter how this intention is considered, it can be only a surpassing of the given toward a result to be attained. This given, in fact, since it is pure presence, can not get out of itself. Precisely because it is, it is fully and solely what it is. Therefore it can not provide the reason for a phenomenon which derives all its meaning from a result to be attained; that is, from a non-existent… This intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943).

The intentional conduct of an individual human freedom cannot be determined and initiated by given law.

Civilization is currently predicated upon the putative rule of law and American civilization is founded upon the erroneous presupposition that language of law is determinative of both overt human conduct, and of human forbearance to act.

The venal jurisprudential attempt to monitor/control human conduct via language of law is a vain project unsuited to and in contradiction with the ontological structure of being a human being, wherein all determination is negation.

The world-wide presupposed efficacy of language of law as an originative determinative source of human conduct, is, when considered in the light of both Spinozas dictum, and, of the human ontological structure of the upsurge of an act, a completely nonsensical presupposition..


Human existential absurdity designates givens as cause/motive/determinant of one’s action, while, all the while, human action exclusively originates ex nihilo, via consciousnesses’ nihilative capacity.


Jurisprudential illusion is an instance of human existential absurdity wherein the illusion consists in blindly, mistakenly, presupposing given language of law to be determinative of human action and inaction; --- jurisprudential illusion is the ontologically unintelligible misconception of mistakenly presupposing given language of law determines one’s acts, and/or, that one determines one’s self to act, or forbear action, by given law.

America is currently suffering under radically rampant human misconduct, including daily mass mudrer, as a practico-inert consequence of attempting to constitute civilization via the ontologically unintelligible theoretical construct “law”; a “law” which is, in itself, defective and illusional human misconduct par excellence.

We Americans can exit practico-inert consequences of deeming law to be a means to civilization, and, actually achieve civilization by comprehending, and using, our human ontological structure as pattern for civilized adaptation to being human...

I think you are right and wrong if I actually understand what you mean. Law doesn't cause actions, correct. But it certainly can influence decisions that lead to actions. Besides, as far as I can see you haven't given us an alternative.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

I think you are right and wrong if I actually understand what you mean. Law doesn't cause actions, correct. But it certainly can influence decisions that lead to actions. Besides, as far as I can see you haven't given us an alternative.

Renniks;
Ì am speaking of human determination; of human determination to act, or not to act.

The alternative to law being determinative/originative of human conduct, I set forth as being Spinoza's dictum ''determinatio negatio est". i.e., determination is negation. All decisions (intentions) to act are determinations and thus are negations. Law is a given, not an absence; not a negative; not a lack; not a desideratum. All human determination arises on the basis of the recognition of negation, which is recognition of a particular desideratum; no given state of affairs, e.g., law, since it is a given/established linguistic state of affairs, is an identity, it is what it is, and, being merely what it is, does not act/influence, does not, cannot, ''do'' anything.(My position regarding law is grounded in J.P. Sartre's (1901-1978) use is Spinoza's dictum; Sartre did not discuss law; I have merely applied the ontological constructs which Sartre derived from Spinoza's dictum, to the human attempt to constitute civilization by law. Thus I am able to say that language of law is not, cannot be, a determinative force among human beings, for human conduct originates on a basis totally other than what law/jurisprudence currently proposes).
Duane

 

[Renniks]

Renniks;
Ì am speaking of human determination; of human determination to act, or not to act.

The alternative to law being determinative/originative of human conduct, I set forth as being Spinoza's dictum ''determinatio negatio est". i.e., determination is negation. All decisions (intentions) to act are determinations and thus are negations. Law is a given, not an absence; not a negative; not a lack; not a desideratum. All human determination arises on the basis of the recognition of negation, which is recognition of a particular desideratum; no given state of affairs, e.g., law, since it is a given/established linguistic state of affairs, is an identity, it is what it is, and, being merely what it is, does not act/influence, does not, cannot, ''do'' anything.(My position regarding law is grounded in J.P. Sartre's (1901-1978) use is Spinoza's dictum; Sartre did not discuss law; I have merely applied the ontological constructs which Sartre derived from Spinoza's dictum, to the human attempt to constitute civilization by law. Thus I am able to say that language of law is not, cannot be, a determinative force among human beings, for human conduct originates on a basis totally other than what law/jurisprudence currently proposes).
Duane

Honestly I have no idea what you're talking about... I'm not even sure what you mean by law.

 

[Renniks]

I am not saying merely that I do not want to be beholden to law. I am saying, again and again, that law is not in fact an efficacy among men; that law is not in fact determinative of human conduct; nonetheless, we keep insisting persons determine themselves by law, or, be punished, up to being killed for not acting on the basis of a law which does not, cannot, move persons to action or inaction.

Well I darn sure am gonna modify my behavior if there's a speed trap up ahead, so I don't agree.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Honestly I have no idea what you're talking about... I'm not even sure what you mean by law.

Law is the language published in ink on paper in Statute books; Legislative enactments; Judicial decisions; County ordinances.

Fine, the fact that you personally have no idea what I am talking about does not establish that my propositions are nonsensical or unintelligible; I am talking about existential ontological constructs employed in existential phenomenology, which describe how a human act originates; and, since you have little possibility of following the explanation which I can give you regarding your conduct upon spotting a speed trap, I will not attempt it. I have already explained to bbryd009 "why'' he now exists in a state of affairs wherein everyone mistakenly thinks he or she is determined in his or her actions by law. I am merely pointing out that you guys are mistaken, and why; but there is little point in giving you detailed explanations of my positions, for, you cannot follow said explanations, e.g., 009 never responded to my explanation of his current position within his law-oriented civilization, because he cannot...

I cannot be responsible for the fact that you have no idea what on earth I am talking about, that is a function of the current structure of your education, whereas, mine is a lifetime of the study of philosophy, with degrees in both the humanities and philosophy...Nonetheless, it is my responsibility to inform you of your error; it is entirely up to you to attain an understanding of the kind of philosophical reasoning which I employ, in order to describe the very error which I am concerned with describing.
Duane
Duane

 

[Renniks]

cannot be responsible for the fact that you have no idea what on earth I am talking about, that is a function of the current structure of your education, whereas, mine is a lifetime of the study of philosophy, with degrees in both the humanities and philosophy...Nonetheless, it is my responsibility to inform you of your error; it is entirely up to you to attain an understanding of the kind of philosophical reasoning which I employ, in order to describe the very error which I am concerned with describing.
Duane

Lol, maybe if you spoke English you would get more answers... we all live in a Land of laws. Probably because history has shown us the alternative, some of us become beasts with out laws.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

so, it occurs to me that there are at least 3 sets of laws one is called upon to follow, and really 4, if you add in cultural mores, bc i cant tell a 12 year old she has a nice butt or whatever right, even though that is not "illegal." Anyway, civil, physical, and spiritual, yeh? And i have been assuming we are discussing the civil ones, so far. But seems to me that ignoring any of them is only going to bring one trouble

009;
''Following'' law is, for the most part, doing absolutely nothing. That you choose to do nothing in regard to making comment concerning a particular female anatomical feature,is a particular instance of doing nothing, and, cannot necessarily be deemed to be obeying law, when, it is simply an instance of you're doing nothing. I would say it is your inborn ontological sense of decency in operation and you are living-out your personal project to never be indecent to young female beings.

I am questioning the notion that a human being can ''follow'' law, which following is purportedly grounded upon a language of law which, in itself, cannot move persons to do or not do actions/inactions. A human being cannot actually follow law, because law is a given and human conduct does not originate on the basis of givens, only on the basis of desideratum...and, in no case can a given in fact be the reason for one's acts.
Duane