Thu 17 Nov, 2022 04:25 pm
CRIMINAL LAW is NOT DETERMINATIVE of HUMAN CONDUCT. CRIMINAL LAW EXAMINED in the LIGHT of the ACTUAL HUMAN ONTOLOGICAL MODE of ORIGINATION of ACTION/INACTION . PROLEGOMENA to ANOTHER APPROACH TO CIVILIZATION via ESTABLISHING ALL PERSONS as REFLECTIVELY FREE.
Neither citizens, nor magistrates, or police, nor prosecutorial officers, nor jurors, determine themselves to originate an act against, or for another person, on the basis of given criminal law; nor is anyone cinesiologically moved to act, nor to decline to act, by published language of criminal law.
The above statement surely appears to be absurd and nonsensical in this day and age, wherein law is historically deemed to be a supreme movent efficacy and, a radically powerful and indubitable determinative force; —nonetheless, recent scholarly reflection has realized that all human determination to act, or to decline to act, arises solely on the basis of purely absent/non-existing intended states of affairs, and not on the basis of given/existing states of affairs, and, law is a given extant state of affairs.
Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) gave us “...determinatio negatio est…”’ (determination is negation); George W. Hegel (1770-1831) posited “Omnis determinatio est negatio.” (All determination is negation.); J.P. Sartre (1905-1980), wrote “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 self toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” (Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. Jean-Paul Sartre. 1956. Hazel E. Barnes.)
A world inhabited by reflectively free persons will be the sphere of a totally new and different mode of civilization, wherein human ontological freedom is reflectively understood and freely practiced.
To be reflectively free is to understand that no given state of affairs whatsoever can possibly be determinative of a human act. It is to understand the doubly nihilitive originative mode of human action.
Living ontologically accurately/authentically is the basis of constructing a brand new ilk of free human civilization. The universal attempt to mediate and control human conduct by endlessly publishing/enforcing an infinite language of law, is actually ontologically impossible; for human ontological freedom is prior to, independent of, and, determinative of law, not the other way around; and, because determination upsurges as negation, not via given law, Law is not and cannot possibly be originative/determinative of human action or inaction. It is radically mistaken/illusional to deem man made law to be determinative of man’s conduct.
Human freedom can only be controlled by the individual human being in possession thereof, and not by the Other, who would dictate divers predetermined courses of conduct via a language of law. Hence, all persons require being educated to the point of possessing a reflective comprehension of the nihilitive mode of operation of their own ontological freedom, in order that they may both more forcefully assert that freedom and, more efficiently self-control personal freedom.
Our present radically evil and unethical habits of incessantly doing rampant anti-social misconduct and, ever mushrooming murderous conduct, is the practico inert resultant of our stupid vain attempt to subjugate, submerge, control and determine human conduct via an anti-ontological and ontologically incorrect language of law. We humans have so long and so thoroughly inadvertently lawfully striven against our very own ontological being, that we are become radically deviant violent miscreants, blindly assailing each other and lashing-out against the humanly created anti-ontological and anti-human legalistic sociosphere.
The tacit claim which police, prosecutorial officers, and magistrates continually make, i.e., that they act against persons by and on the basis of law, is ontologically impossible, untrue, and hence, unethical.
The radically miserable current state of affairs wherein civilization is now drowning in overwhelming sociopathic/murderous rampant crime, is, ironically, ascribable to our constituting, against ourselves, and against our very being, law; – for law is a construct which assails and inadvertantly attempts to alienate and overthrow the most fundamental operative structure of our human ontological freedom, which primally rudimentary ontological operative structure is what is known, since 1943, as the “double nihilation”.
“Nihilation’’ means to constitute, to make, nothing.
Nihilation* is the conscious human act of imagining one’s intention to do a particular overt act in future, and, hence, the intended act, which is not yet, is negative in structure as a nothing; a non-being; an absence; a desideratum; a nothingness. Every intentional human act originates in a two part negation or negative movement, known as ‘’ double nihilation’’, wherein what is intended is, as yet, nothing, and, wherein one’s present state of affairs is transcended and made nothing/no longer/non-existent, by doing/realizing the intended state of affairs. Such is the doubly negative conscious movement whereby a human act upsurges into the world, and, wherein nothing whatsoever which exists (e.g., law), other than the imagining intentional consciousness doing the nihilation, participates.
When a one attains to understanding the nihilational structure of the origination of a human act, one is become “reflectively free”**, i.e., one knows how one’s acts arise via the conscious process of creating both the nothing that is the intended future and, the nothing which is the transcended past.
It is by gaining reflectively free citizens that we begin to thoughtfully transcend our existing, crippled, anti-ontological/anti-human, wrongfully crime-producing, law-oriented civilization; and, whereby citizens will no longer uphold the dishonest myth maintained by legislators, magistrates, police and prosecutorial officers, that their constant actions against the citizenry are justly determined, predicated upon, and mediated by existing language of law.
*A term coined by J.P. Sartre meaning to make nothing.
** A Sartreian phrase.
Retype it without drinking all those red bulls.
Spaces between paragraphs (carriage returns, that is) are determinative of whether anyone will actually take time out of their life to read your manifesto.
This site's hardware did that to my piece...
Reply with something of substance please. I do not drink red bull!
Your bootleg software more likely caused that.
I doubt we can blame the software.
Not a2k's software or "hardware". The poster is the source of his own problem.
I reposted in Free Will and it came out beautifully, then it just disappeared.
I am telling you it is the software.
Why is everyone going nuts over a technical problem which I have, unfortunately, encountered!?
Pay some attention to the revolutionary script that is there, no matter how bunched-up...
You are quite right that law doesn't deal with philosophy. Law tries to deal with the reality of human behaviours, attempts to keep the peace so that society & commerce can function.
Philosophy on the other hand, tries to work out why we do things, then wrings its hands over 'if only enough people understood this'...even though the evidence shows that enough people never will - hence the expectation of philosophers that enough people will ever adopt their philosophy is plainly delusional.
Also, if you actually want people to adopt your idea...then it is delusional to think you can achieve this by speaking in a language they don't understand.
You have an entire universe of human knowledge here at your fingertips via the internet. If you are not familiar with a certain term or concept, you can have its explanation shown instantly onscreen.
In order to present certain concepts the concepts have to be presented in the language whereby they are cast...feel free to ask me if there is something which puzzles you.
I never stated anything about law not dealing with philosophy...the view which legally oriented persons have of the world is basically irreal..and, indeed, from what I see law is precipitating insane human conduct.
It is so very very kind of you to repeatedly describe the work of ideaologists as delusional; however, you are very kind to provide your thoughtful response, thank you.
Good post mon ami, but I fear, quite possibly because I'm myopic, that the course of action you recommend would have the same result as blinding the entire human race.
In order to present certain concepts the concepts have to be presented in the language whereby they are cast
This is incorrect. Language allows expression of ideas in multiple forms. You have chosen a very lazy way of trying to communciate your ideas.
And it is you, rather than your audience who is trying to get an idea across - so the onus is on you to communicate in an way that your audience can understand. And not being yet invested in your idea, neither have they any reason to look up the meanings of what you are trying to say. Perhaps in your search for a complete philosophy, you can look into basic human motivation.
But, again, philosophy has never achieved the goal of wide acceptance, and to attempt to do it through writing that is incomprehensible to your audience is nonsensical. You can have the best thoughts in the world, and fail to communicate (which is a two way street) through not understanding your audience.
I never stated anything about law not dealing with philosophy...the view which legally oriented persons have of the world is basically irreal
Ugh, meaning I was able to infer from what you wrote that the law doesn't deal with philosophy, and here you are saying the same thing again 'my philosophy deals with the 'real' so law must deal with the irreal'
(ie. law doesn't deal with philosophy).
It is so very very kind of you to repeatedly describe the work of ideaologists as delusional
This is not what I described as delusional. Philosophy has a very important place in the world (and quite frankly, in everyones lives). You will have to go back and re-read to understand what I was calling delusional.
Your ongoing and totally ad hominem reasoning here is getting tiresome. If you do not know what an ad hominem argument is, it is when you rail against the writer, the person, and not the writing per se. Which ad hominem arguing is just plain stupid.
Yes, it is relatively recent reasoning which I am describing in my treatise; but, it is up to you to work to comprehend it. You are too intellectually lazy, and, you would rather rag on the auteur than pursue the possibility of working to learn something radically new and revolutionary...
If I want to refer to "red" I have to employ the word 'red'. If I wish to speak regarding 'nihilation' I have to say ''nihilation'', it is simply that simple, and, that you disagree with that is absolutely absurd! Get off my back.
What on earth do you mean by blinding the entire human race via my proposition!?
Your ongoing and totally ad hominem reasoning here is getting tiresome. If you do not know what an ad hominem argument is,
You realise I wasn't talking about logic, but human motivation, right? Human motivation doesn't rely on 'logic' (people have many reasons, few of which are actually logical, rather then primal or emotional, when it comes to what motivates them), so logic flaws don't apply to vast swathes of human motivation.
it is up to you to work to comprehend it
Nope. Not how human motivation works.
You are too intellectually lazy, and, you would rather rag on the auteur than pursue the possibility of working to learn something radically new and revolutionary...
You're describing the vast majority of humans here. And because you are describing the vast majority, it is delusional to believe that sufficient
others will bother to attempt to understand what you are trying to say - in any circumstances....but even more so when you are too lazy to bother to explain it in their language (which by the way, is intrinsically disrespectful to your intended audience).
You can accept this or not, but if you don't understand it, and want to keep attempting to sell your philosophy, then you are in for a lifetime of frustration.
By the way, 'nihilation' was not what I was talking about. It is interesting you chose that sole word out of the entire babble that you produced... because it shows you know what I was talking about, but don't want to admit it. This then indicates you aren't anywhere near as far along on your philosophical journey as you think you are. Frankly, that this all has to be explained to you indicates the same.
Argumentum ad hominem ad infinitum.
Glad we agree on something (largely).
That you aren't as far along as you think is obvious (from the lack of understanding of human motivation & communication) and needs to be stated. That human motivation is related to primal and emotional drives is obvious and needs to be stated. Both would be ad hominems if
....I was making any argument at all on the veracity of your treatise. I was not.
I don't care one way or another about what you put in your 'treatise'. I was explaining why, particularly as relates to the communication style. I was also commenting on delusional expectations of idealogical adoption (rather than on philosophy itself, which I like)
Whenever one person is discussing a serious theoretical writing of another, and, instead of polemically opposing the constructs posited in the writing, the one person continually conjectures regarding the personal character and inherent lacks of the other, that form of flux is argumentum ad hominem; no matter what you purport to be pursuing in the name of motivation, or whatever...and, ad hominem argument is entirely inacceptable within discourse by world standard. You are under the necessity to wrestle with the constructs which I posit, not with my person. Fool.
person continually conjectures regarding the personal character and inherent lacks of the other, that form of flux is argumentum ad hominem
Nope. Ad Hominems are a logical fallacy when debating another persons topic. We have been talking about different topics
. You, your treatise. Me, your expectations, communication style, and human motivation.
To put is more bluntly, in terms that should be clear to you:
A = treatise
B = history of adoption of philosophy (of any kind)
C = communication style
D= human motivation
My subject was never A. My subject dealt with B-D. I was explaining why: anyone
with expectation of widespread adoption of their philosophy is delusional (specifically because of B. history of adoption), and; how you personally communicate is counterproductive to any form of adoption (C) because of how human motivation works (D)
If you can't understand how that deals not with your treatise but with philosophical adoption in general (B) and your audience (C & D), then, as I said, you face a long life of frustration.
Philosophy itself, is good for people, mind & soul.