Then you'll have to dig deeper, won't you?
You have yourself a nice day.
Printable View
Then you'll have to dig deeper, won't you?
You have yourself a nice day.
Okay, especially for you, cbg:
AMERICAN ONTOLOGICAL CIVILIZATION
There is that which is ontic and that which is ontological. What is ontic is concrete, is fully and completely what it is, is designated an identity as in a=a, having no difference from itself nor distance from itself. A stone is an example.
What is ontological is what it is not and is not what it is, in the sense that it possesses reason (logas) by which it is continually thrusting itself toward an outward horizon, across a distance from its present, out unto a not yet future. Hence what is ontological does not coincide with itself, is always other, always elsewhere. We humans are ontological, i.e., we consciously know that we exist, and, what we are is a constant otherness, thrusting toward that which we continually imagine ourselves to do and to be next, in a perpetual movement unto what is our not yet and purely imagined future. The ontological structure described above is freedom...
(How did you do with the above cbg? By the way, what is there to dig for when I have nothing to go on. Name a title of one of your publications please.)
I have been following this thread, and you are a seriously arrogant jerk. Since you find yourself to be so superior to everyone else here, then why not just go away and leave us alone? What you are is a petty little person who obviously has no self esteem, since you need to belittled others in order to make yourself feel better.
I think I can say that you are nothing like the average person but not for the reasons you have espoused in other threads about your self-perceived genius. You fancy yourself a philosopher and an academic that ponders phenomenology much of your waking life. You probably also dream about it.
You know what phenomenology is I'm sure. Phenomenology is the study of things as they appear in our experience, or the ways we experience things. Phenomenology studies conscious experience as experienced from the subjective or first person point of view.
The average person does not live in a totally subjective reality. It appears that you do. In an objective reality things are true even if they are not know to be true.
The average person has to strike a balance between what is true and what is known to be true and the subjective interpretation of the mind will not ever change what is true no matter how hard you try.
You are the pot calling the kettle black.
I merely give as I get.
You go away yourself; I am developing rapor with certain others here who possess infinitely more common decency than you, flake off chump!
You are completely and absolutely unable to comprehend that in debate it is out of bounds, and void, to do personal ad hominem attack against an interlocutor; which is all you appear to be able, unfortunately, to do. When you indicate that the world contains ''truth', you exhibit your self as being an innocent.
All theoretical and every other form of construct emerge out of human subjectivity; some prove to be invalid, zombie ideas, like ''the average person''; ''the mind''...'truth''.
You are so completely unread, uninformed, and lacking education, that it is vain to even attempt to communicate with you. Look up Jurgen Habermas' "objectivistic illusion'' ("Knowledge and Human Interests", Habermas, 1968, Beacon Press, Boston), since you are so innocent that you believe in objectivity; perhaps via Habermas you may gain some inkling that you use gibberish to do your assertions about ''average persons''; ''mind''; 'truth''; ''objectivity''. You dwell in darkness and your rank insults maintain you on my ignore list; I feel sorry for you.
I'm not sure because I am innocent, unread, uniformed, and lack education, but your post sure sounds like an ad hominem attack. Above all else, you are a hypocrite.
I'm glad someone out there feels sorry for me. On furlough from work, can't get through to UI, and no end in sight. Thank you. Warm fuzzy feelings.
Yes indeed my response was ad hominem, giving you precisely what I continually get from you, personal assail; however, there is no constructive debate/polemic happening between you and I, so, 'objectively', 'in fact', 'the truth' is, neither is there 'average' hypocrisy on my part.
One would think that a self proclaimed intellect could actually spell correctly.
From the Merriam Webster Dictionary:
rapport noun
rap·port | \ ra-ˈpȯr
Definition of rapport
: a friendly, harmonious relationship
especially : a relationship characterized by agreement, mutual understanding, or empathy that makes communication possible or easy
It also does not appear that you have developed a harmonious relationship with anyone here.
You are absolutely correct. I was too lazy to look the spelling up, and did doubt the accuracy of my spelling right when I used the term. Just because I am of superior intellect and a highly well-read quasi-deity, does not mean that I am a perfect person incapable of misspelling. After going through a spot of bother, RJR and I are cool; as with budwad; Taxing Matters, and others, (at this very instant I am in process of ameliorating matters with you).
Nonetheless, it does not matter in the least what I, personally, am or am not; it matters whether or not you can dismantle my critique of law by employing rational reasoning against my ratiocination. Your are correct up to a point, there is a sense wherein it can justly be said that I should not be here rattling the cages of lesser educated persons, however, it is to jurisprudentially oriented persons which my critical thinking is directed, (they are not as erudite as they pretend to be as per their great legal sapientalities), hence it is my Socratic responsibility to act the part of a horsefly, biting the views of the predominant weltanschauung, to bring that predominant world view to a reflective awareness of the incorrectness of primal presupposition entailed within the jurisprudential intellectual instrumentation. The weakest and most vulnerable portions of any theoretical position is the presupposition(s) contained therein; and, law is a theoretical construct, not an absolute and final, indubitable, approach to doing civilizational civility. You have not been purely civil with me llworking, what's with that!?
I prefer the stylistic brilliant diction of Emily Dickinson. Some consider her too far out of their literature league to understand what she is actually trying to say, and at times found it uneasy to converse with her.
In a letter of response to Thomas Wentworth Higginson (who was one of the Secret Six) where he hinted she delay her desire to publish, she responded as such.
She found the "outside world" not really absorbing to her individual preference, thus her seclusive life mostly.Quote:
I smile when you suggest that I delay "to publish"-that being foreign to my thought, as Firmament to Fin- If fame belonged to me, I could not escape her- if she did not, the longest day would pass me on the chase-and the approbation of my Dog, would forsake me-then-My Barefoot-Rank is better- You think my gait "spasmodic" -I am in danger-Sir-
I have not been purely civil to you, because you have not been purely civil to others. I am also quite well educated, very well read, and have a quite high IQ. I do not deliberately use the type of verbiage you are deliberately employing even though I could. I find your choice to do so to be arrogant and a bit insufferable. You have already demonstrated that you are capable of discussing matters using standard English therefore it is your deliberate choice not to do so.
The others you deem me having been uncivil to got what they repeatedly gave to me first, incivility in the way of brutal insult and abuse. You do not need to be a knight in shining armor against me on account of the misconduct of savage others. It is radically fun to write freely employing terms perfectly tailored to speak efficiently, too bad for persons too limited to follow, due to their own intellectual weakness. I grew up reading, not playing computer games, and, my employment of wording wholly unfamiliar to dummies, is a resultant of growing up in the 1950's/60's. What other possible way can one speak of mistaken presupposition without employing the term 'presupposition'!? No way. What other possible way 'ontological'; 'theoretical'; 'jurisprudential'; 'unintelligible'!? It borders on flippant absurdity to insist one continually employ baby talk in the course of doing/discussing viable theoretical critique of law per se, a nut not to be cracked via softly cooing. It is okay if you are experiencing a bit of nausea via reading my absolutely arrogant destruction of jurisprudential illusion. I condescend from my sphere of superior ratiocination, to address a jurisprudential rabble, in the inscrutably intelligible fashion of a quasi-deity; only the most toughminded can follow, though, bit by bit, allowance is being contemplated for the dullards, in language fashioned for children...
Jurisprudentially-oriented persons, who deem me verbose and insufferable by employing language too high-minded, and, mediate, by profession, an infinitely vast language of law, absolutely unintelligible/inscrutable to the grassroots, are, in this instance, the pot calling the kettle black! If language of law were written in plain common English, which, if you are to be consistent with your argument against my writing, should plainly be done for the sake of your common man, jurisprudents would be far fewer and under-employed, thus, language of law remains generally unintelligible!
A great deal of my vocabulary was learned from exposure to literature by Defoe; Emerson; Thoreau; Kipling; Poe; Goethe; Bowditch; Hugo; Nietzsche; Captain Cook; London; Blackstone; Spencer; Darwin, et.al., whom I read in 50's/60's, while those auteurs wrote before and during the nineteenth and, very early twentieth centuries, using flowery sophisticated vocabularies. The 70's; 80's;90's; 2000's, brought ingrained fluency gleaned via studying dozens of other scholarly writers of every ilk.
It's interesting what's happened here. You made a statement that attributed your particular style of communication to the decades in which you "grew up." But, what you meant to say, I think, was:
"In the 50s and 60s, I spent my time reading books written by people who used flowerly sophisticated vocabularies, such as [list a few, but not 14.] Those authors had a significant impact on how I use language today."
(As an aside, having read all of the authors you listed, I strongly disagree that all of them relied on "flowery sophisticated vocabularies.")
What continues to fascinate me about your interactions is that you are, as I've said before, clearly intelligent. You are communicating, via this forum, with other people who are also intelligent. That said, your particular style of communication is not representative of anything the majority (if not all) of us are used to. Because most people who are on the higher end of intelligence have learned how to communicate in a way that makes them easy to understand.
Regarding the language of the law, you might be interested in this. You're assessment that law, historically, tended to be written in a way that made it accessible for the general public to read.
The irony is that you are talking about that fact using language that's rejected by highly intelligent people...... mostly because I think they think you should know better.
When I acquired his collected stories years ago, reading the "Pit and the Pendulum" actually made me wish to become more acquainted with his wit. IMO, no author since has equalled his style, and at times he was even too hard to read like Sir Thomas Browne was. No author since, IMO, has equalled his wordsmithing.
I have the book The EVERYTHING guide to Edgar Allan Poe (subtitled: The life, times, and work of a tormented genius) by Shelley Costa Bloomfield, Ph.D.
One example of his writing in the book.
--- Poe on the DivineQuote:
After reading all that has been written, and after thinking all that can be thought, on the topics of God and the soul, the man has a right to say that he thinks at all, will find himself face to face with the conclusion that, on these topics, the most profound thought is that which can be the least easily distinguished from the most superficial sentiment.
After the death of his bride Virginia Clemm, his cousin, who he married when she was 13, he collapsed and later attempted suicide. Being brilliant does not relieve someone of being human.
Oh, I will add, the regular posters here are not without a life span of knowledge, however I do not believe anyone has engaged in the sole sought after academic discipline of Philosophy for 40 years except you.
I do not wish too, could I, no doubt, but it serves no purpose to be any more intellectual than I am or try to be,
and I have no desire, and I think I can speak for most here, to live a lifestyle of only Intellect and not engage in just plain human "fun"!
darwinrules;
I am saying the 50's and 60's in themselves were characterizable as being peopled by persons who employed a vocabulary more sophisticated than persons commonly do in this day, i.e. a general atmosphere of articulate erudition being prevalent among adults and teachers; and, that authors I encountered minimally partially conditioned the oldest portion of my vocabulary, which I can still draw upon now; the remainder of my historicity entails a forty three year period of matriculation in colleges and universities, which has had a stupendous influence upon the intellectual instruments I possess and wield, and, proffered me a further vocabulary.
What are you, the thought/writing police, who would limit the number of authors I recall reading and demandingly prescribe that I should think and write alike everyone else you know, unacceptably being myself!? This rut members make wherein my thread is about my person and not my position is ill advised/incorrect/misdirected. The gov't employee plain language movement regarding publications is great, however, it does not appear to be addressed to legislators who write law or judges who write opinion.
Beautiful RJR. I had a copy of one of Poe's books entitled "Marginalia", really incredible, bet you've never seen or heard of it. I have tons of fun among friends so funny one laughs for days after seeing them!
The TL;DR really could just be "I condescend from my sphere of superior ratiocination"
Your constant obsession with criticizing my person, which has nothing to do with the validity of my OP, and your inability to address my theoretical position, regarding the ontological unintelligibility of law, blatantly exhibit the questionable caliber of your own psyche; and you condemn me for being a jerk precisely while you conduct yourself as an insulting jerk, who cannot possibly pursue considerations other that those of mistaken adolescent ascriptions of personality dysfunction, while, all the while, you dysfunction via a blind and senseless hatred against a person merely charitably, nobly, attempting to relieve you of your own personal jurisprudential illusion.
The constant and ongoing brutal insulting and belittling misconduct undertaken by you, and most other responding members, has degenerated what I began as a noble scholarly critique of law per se, addressed to persons lacking self-awareness of the mistakenness of the presupposition whereupon sociospheric law is predicated, into a mere savage and stupid inter-insult continuum wherein, indeed, I am reduced to precisely the self-same ilk of stupid bully, as you, and most of the vacuous others responding here. I am going to have to keep you caged-up in the ignore option, if I am going to get any possible peace here, to pursue the high-minded objective of illuminating, for jurisprudentially oriented persons, the structure of their delusion regarding the putative efficacy of language of law. And, of course, the constant stupid ad hominem attacks are grinding me down, and it is anyone's guess whether or not I don't let the bastards grind me down, via their irrational and destructive hatred, exercised in lieu of rationally reasoned response to a profound and indefeasible criticism of the central presupposition employed by the jurisprudential weltanschauung.
You are precisely the type of intolerant/hate-filled person, who would have readily participated in the process and the act of Christ's murder at the cross.
"When a debate seems intractable, with little agreement as to how one might proceed towards a resolution, it is understandable that the philosopher should consider whether something might be amiss with the debate itself. Famously, in the last century, philosophers of various stripes explored in various ways the possibility that at least certain philosophical debates are in some manner deficient in sense. Such moves are no longer so much in vogue. For one thing, the particular ways they have been made have themselves undergone much critical scrutiny, so that many philosophers now feel that there is, for example, a Quinean response to Carnap, a Cricean reply to Austin, and a diluting proliferation of Wittgenstein interpretations."
Gross, Steven. “Putnam, Context, and Ontology.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 34, no. 4, Dec. 2004, pp. 507–554.
You are, of course, free to continue your high-minded discharge of superlative condescending garrulous superficial pleonasms from high atop your sphere of superior ratiocination upon the vacuous ilk with psyches of questionable character who frequent the Expert Law forums. There are no laws, intractably onotologically unintelligible or written clearly and concisely, to stop you.
By all means, leverage the forum's "block" functionality. Clearly, any form of negative feedback elicits such a strong response from you. You've responded ferociously to comments that you've characterized as ad-hominem, when they were clearly not. Eventually, who knows - maybe you'll begin arguing with yourself.
Wittgenstein's statement that “A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push.” seems particularly apt in this situation.
We really need a like button.
That's just it, there has been no rational debate, only antisocial attack against my person, which indicates that those responding to me, thus far, cannot do debate, doing only personal attack/insult, which sites with integrity do not tolerate. The invariant personal insult is clear indication that I am completely wasting my time here among what are predominantly stupid savages, who cannot possibly do reasoned polemic, and only do brutal derogation of persons whom they bait, by continual ignorant insult, into intractable and futile petty arguing! Radically and incredibly horrid imbecile persons constitute the membership of this forum, and, their conduct is possibly worse that that of atheist forums, which is quite an accomplishment in depravity! The ongoing retarded,brain dead, and hateful misconduct, exhibited by constituents of this legal help site, reflects absolutely poorly upon American jurisprudence, and casts signifiant doubt upon the authenticity of persons here, who deem themselves to be a philanthropic set of benign individuals doing right for and by others! What a tremendous joke...
There can be no rational debate because there is nothing we can write here that you don't either ignore or label as a personal attack on you.
Yet, strangely, here you are - in a forum that does permit what you perceive to be personal attacks or insults.
Since this is the outlier in your experience, why do you remain here if you know that other forums are more receptive to you?
Yet, you continue to waste your time. Why?
OK, I guess you should avoid the "atheist forums" as they don't seem to enjoy your presence either.
Is that self-referential?
So, then, if you think there can be debate, take a position, any rational position, against anything whatsoever contained in the OP, in the fashion of a gentleman.
creepy;
I have already extensively explained why I have remained here, i.e., because legally oriented persons are the persons I would like to interact with. No, no self-reference; do not pretend that you do not understand that I am referring to the mission of this site, i.e., helping persons with legal matters, as being made a travesty, by the supreme misconduct continually exhibited against me, a person pursuing certain legal considerations, by those who are the constituent members of this putative help site.
Well, 71 posts later over the course of less than two weeks and it doesn't seem like you've found much success.
You've made it clear that, in your opinion, you've been unsuccessful in your quest for meaningful debate because of the misconduct exhibited against you by the members of this site. It's not you - no, it's everyone else.
Why, then, do you continue here? There are countless other forums where you'll likely find people more interested in debating with you?
I came here with a theoretical challenge to jurisprudence presented to jurisprudentially minded persons, and, it turns out to be an insult thread instead of an actual debate thread. I am so astonished at the class status of the constituents constituting this site, they clearly have a lot of class, all of it exceedingly low. It is an incredible state of affairs, that persons deeming themselves so exhalted, as persons who mediate law, acting so miserably mean toward another human being, simply because they are incapable of either comprehending or responding via reason to his OP. PayrolGuy has been issued a kindly challenge due to tacit indication that he thinks debate, not pure insult, can happen...I await his pleasure. I am here testing your metal...
darwinrules;
The concept of jurisprudential illusion actually is not all that difficult to understand. The membership here actually cannot afford either to participate in, nor to appear to realize the ineluctable necessity to consent to the correctness of the jurisprudential illusion construct; lifetimes of blind subscription to the ontological nonsense of law are at stake, hence, the membership is in bad faith concerning the fact that they do indeed live in jurisprudential illusion, and, have been unwittingly misleading themselves and others for a very long time. Members cannot possibly be honorable and honest and openly admit that, ontologically, law is nonsensical, that is precisely why there is no discussion, no debate, concerning the notion of jurisprudential illusion, not that persons here do not understand the notion. The constant focus on brutalizing me and repeatedly insisting that I simply go away, testifies to the actual state of affairs wherein members are face to face with a radically ugly disillusionment, which they are too sissy to face up to and admit.
Burying members heads in the sand ultimately will not work, the thesis is going to be worked and worked and re-worked into language whereby it will go into print, and, ultimately, into common knowledge worldwide. All it amounts to is an honest criticism of law, which no one else has ever thought of or is able to do, and, hiding from the dread will not, cannot, serve cowards who prefer to attempt to run away.
You don't read so well. Most of us are NOT attorneys so have no dog in the fight that you assume we do. This has been stated numerous times but you're too invested in the idea that our livelihood is tied up in the law.
In the above post you make your own ad hominem attack on the entirety of the membership here. You cry and complain abut how you've been treated but you continue to hurl far more bile and invective than anyone else has.
You are just a garden variety bully. you call people names because they are unwilling to play your games and hew to the style of language that you claim is your everyday lexicon and I just don't buy it. no one would listen to a word that you have to say due to time and boredom.
You make a great deal of assumptions regarding the superiority of your argument but the great thing about philosophy is that you can have pointless arguments that accomplish little. While I do believe that studying behavior, where is stems from, and how ideas influence our actions I'm not willing to discuss it in the manner that you insist and my (and others) unwillingness to do it your way has led to nothing but nasty name calling. I've certainly called you names....like pillock.
So sit in your blanket fort and preen. You are superior to us plebes and proles. Your vaunted ability to understand such lofty concepts is simply beyond us.
By the way, next time we can discuss electron theory and how it's applied to RF, transmission lines and wave propagation in these times of little to no solar activity. We can cram it full of technical jargon, discussion of far field plots, Smith charts, the merits of dipole antennas vs. vertical and more....oh, wait, this is a forum about law. Not radio, electricity or philosophy unlike If you want to discuss ontology, epistemology or more then you should go there and stop your kvetching and kvelling here.
It does not matter whether or not you are attorneys, you, nonetheless, deem law an efficacy. You totally dismiss my propositions as ''philosophy", and, since you deem what I am doing philosophy, find it inacceptable upon this forum, while, all the while, I am simply doing critical thinking. I have never ever employed filthy anal insults as most, including yourself, have done. You make me angry via your brutal misconduct and,then wine when I return your own medicine, you cannot handle it. You are the most stupidly brutal of the lot, and, in response, I have,unhappily, become totally brutal and savage myself, however, I started out in peace with the benign purpose of raising the consciousness of persons who blindly mistakenly believe language of law is determinative among humans.
Simply quit accosting me and, that will be it, it will be ended; nonetheless, members keep on and on...
There is no one here that can't handle as you try to return our own medicine. Nobody here is buying you line o' crap or spending the time you think is sufficient to counter it. This is making you angry but instead of leaving the forum to troll elsewhere, you whine about those here being bullies.
What I really think bothers you is the fact that your theory can be countered with so few words that it casts a light on the fact that your theory is simply BS to begin with.
So, then, sensibly counter with your few words.
The attempt to engage in rational polemic among what turns out to be ignorant dummies,is always labelled as trolling by the dummies, who cannot possibly do rational debate.
I keep challenging you to rationally counter the original OP entitled Law is Ontologically Unintelligible, however, you do not and cannot, though I wish you would try; I will be kind and consider your attempt with compassionate response. All you ever do is assert this and assert that, without reasoned explanation.
I'm the most stupidly brutal of the lot? Thanks! I'm touched! And you're the most asinine, thin-skinned, arrogant, sanctimonious, pedantic pseudo-intellectual it's been my misfortune to quarrel with on this board.
So, go soak your head and get a grip. You are not the smartest person in the room, you don't lend yourself to rational debate and you continue to prate the same nonsense over and over again.
Before you go on about your treatment at my hands bear in mind that you claimed I'm the most stupidly brutal of the lot so I'll require you to use simple small words. I can't comprehend beyond 2 or three syllables.