Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 99
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    434

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    Then I submit that, your criticism of the current mode of regulating society via law notwithstanding, we currently have nothing better to replace it. Should you come up with a better way to do it, by all means share it when it is complete. You or someone else will need to be able to explain it in plain language if you expect all of society go along with it and adopt it.

    Like Dirty Harry said, "I hate the damn system, but until someone comes along with some changes that makes sense, I'll stick with it".

    Quote Quoting determinatio
    View Post
    ... We humans are ontologically structured such that civilization can function absent misconduct....perhaps RJR, who, for some reason felt compelled to find and read everything I have written on the web, can tell us if and where he saw my theory of ontological civilization as it now stands.
    I prefer the sweet and simple Philosophy of life.

    Love's Philosophy

    The fountains mingle with the river
    And the rivers with the ocean,
    The winds of heaven mix for ever
    With a sweet emotion;
    Nothing in the world is single,
    All things by a law divine
    In one another's being mingleŚ
    Why not I with thine?

    See the mountains kiss high heaven,
    And the waves clasp one another;
    No sister-flower would be forgiven
    If it disdain'd its brother;
    And the sunlight clasps the earth,
    And the moonbeams kiss the seaŚ
    What is all this sweet work worth
    If thou kiss not me?

    Percy Bysshe Shelley

  2. #32

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    It is not the case that immediately following American Revolution that there was no law. There was. Each state had its own law, as they still do, which they continued to apply and enforce. Most criminal law in the U.S. has been, and continues to be, state and local law, after all. Thus there always was law prohibiting and punishing murder, rape, theft and all the other variety of crimes that were then found in the common law. What we did not have right away was law from a national government regulating commerce as England had done for us before the Revolution.



    Then I submit that, your criticism of the current mode of regulating society via law notwithstanding, we currently have nothing better to replace it. Should you come up with a better way to do it, by all means share it when it is complete. You or someone else will need to be able to explain it in plain language if you expect all of society go along with it and adopt it.
    Excellent parry to Paine's claims Taxing Matters!
    Here is a highly condensed nutshell sketch of my proposed structuration of American civilization:

    V. Enhancing the Constitutional Amendment Approach of 1791 to Having a Live Ontologically Free American Civilization, is Attainable by Educationally Uplifting the Grassroots Unto Having Reflective Mastery of the Nihilative Modus Operandi of the Upsurge of Personal Ontological Freedom, by which Mastery the Coveted Freedoms Described by the 1791 Bill of Rights can be Forever Realized, Kryptonically Secured, Preserved, and Guaranteed Against Jurisprudential Impediment Thereto via Attempted Freedom Obviative, Anti-Constitutional ,Anti-Ontological, and Anti-Human Language of Law:

    32. An American civilization, patterned in accordance with, not in legalistic discord with, core human original freedoms, was formally pioneered with the penning of The United States Bill of Rights in 1791. The Bill of Rights is our first American attempt to impart immortality to designated and undesignated original human freedoms, by law, which, now, with the realization that language of law per se is not efficient to guarantee American conduct will always freely transpire in keeping with the original intent of Bill of Rights, the possibility of constructing an alternative means of assuring an everlasting freedom for primal grassroots original freedoms is, nonetheless, attainable by informing Americans about what personal reflective ontological freedom is. Guaranteeing human rights cannot realistically be assured by law, which is demonstrably not determinative of human behavior. However, the American original freedoms which are the foundation of American civilization, can be assured immortality by uplifting the American grassroots to a possession of reflective understanding of precisely what their primal original ontological freedom is and, of how said freedom naturally transpires, even without law; which uplift was outlined at X above.
    33. Twenty first century Americans cannot viably genealogically immortalize the living original ontological freedoms, currently being pursued via a historic Bill of Rights, without everyone stepping one’s knowledge of freedom up to the attainment of a reflective apprehension of the operative mode of one’s personal ontological freedom, whereby, original freedom can be lived in successful antipathy to inroads continually attempted by a merely pre-reflectively free and rampantly tyrannical American law, currently primarily structured against freedom for the sake of lawyer monetary gain.
    34. We Americans shall not, cannot, solve/dissolve our sociospheric problems by endlessly making laws. It is only by everyone attaining personal reflective knowledge of one’s absolute human original ontological freedom and, thereby, placing the pure nobility of our absolutely free human mode of originating our acts, at the forefront of our civilization, that, breathing free, our actions will honorably upsurge in keeping with our inherent human nobility, and will, thereby, transcend and leave an anti-human, suffocative, and destructive law/jurisprudence, marooned, abandoned, and alone, lost in an ignoble, slavish, sub-human legalistic depravity.

    Quote Quoting RJR
    View Post
    Like Dirty Harry said, "I hate the damn system, but until someone comes along with some changes that makes sense, I'll stick with it".



    I prefer the sweet and simple Philosophy of life.

    Love's Philosophy

    The fountains mingle with the river
    And the rivers with the ocean,
    The winds of heaven mix for ever
    With a sweet emotion;
    Nothing in the world is single,
    All things by a law divine
    In one another's being mingle—
    Why not I with thine?

    See the mountains kiss high heaven,
    And the waves clasp one another;
    No sister-flower would be forgiven
    If it disdain'd its brother;
    And the sunlight clasps the earth,
    And the moonbeams kiss the sea—
    What is all this sweet work worth
    If thou kiss not me?

    Percy Bysshe Shelley
    Dirty Harry had good common sense indeed. RJR, you are far more idealistic than I could ever be. Shelly is transcendently beautiful and absolutely correct.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    434

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    Quote Quoting determinatio
    View Post
    RJR, you are far more idealistic than I could ever be. Shelly is transcendently beautiful and absolutely correct.
    If he wrote Love's Philosophy for Mary, it had to have been before she wrote Frankenstein, or maybe it didn't matter to him! Now that's True Love!

  4. #34

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    Quote Quoting PayrolGuy
    View Post
    He wrote earlier in one of his other threads that he didn't want to pay a trash tax of some sort.
    You have it all twisted and are dead wrong on this. A homeowner on another site was battling with his homeowners association and remarked that he wished he had read my OP months ago. I have been writing and submitting my thinking regarding law on forums since years ago. My contention with a local mandated sanitation fee is a very recent difficulty wherein the local city council has made an ordinance without State Legislative authority; all ordinance must have State statutory authorization, and this ordinance does not. As my interchange with the person having a hard time with his HMA progressed, he asked me what horrid crime I would commit in order to get into court for the purpose of experimenting with my take on law in an actual courtroom situation. I told him I was not fool enough to do that because I would never see the light of day again ,after being jailed for contempt of court by jurisprudents who could never comprehend what the hell I am talking about. As he pressed me I said, though I could beat this illegal sanitation ordinance by making an ordinary affirmative defense, I could, top the defense off with a theoretical destruction of law itself, but, I actually do not have the money, the expertise, the expert witnesses, or the reckless courage to do so. So, quit saying that all of my ratiocinations regarding law are for the sake of coping with an illegal sanitation ordinance!

    Quote Quoting determinatio
    View Post
    LAW IS NOT DETERMINATIVE

    The legislator's thinking is causalist in regard to how human conduct arises, for he considers the given language of his law is capable of causing persons to do, or not do, what his law either prohibits or prescribes.

    The legislator is a positivist-materialist, because, he thinks the language of his law, which is existing language in the form of words printed in ink, published upon paper material, is an existent material thing capable of causally determining persons to act, or not to act.

    The legislator's world view is what is known as a positivist causalist materialist world view, and, another, recent, opposite, view of how a human act arises, has now come into the world, with the publication of Jean Paul Sartre's (1901-1980), ''Being and Nothingness: an Essay in Phenomenological Ontology'' (1943). (To be continued…)
    LAW is ONTOLOGICALLY UNINTELLIGIBLE

    With the publication of Jean Paul Sartre's (1901-1980) ''Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology'' (1943), an avant guard model of the mode of origin of human action upsurged via the language of non-being/nothingness/negation. Human action is described as arising ex nihilo, wherein all determination to action is of negative origin, in the sense that every human act is predicated upon desideratum, absence, lack, non-being, via a modus operandi dubbed the ''double nihilation''; and, it is via Sartre's radically negative theory of the nihilative origin of human action, whereby all positivist materialist causalist theory of the origin of a human act, including that entertained by the jurisprudence of decisional and legislated law, is rendered ontologically unintelligible nonsense.

    That human determination 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."

    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

    A human act does not, cannot, originate on the basis of given factual state(s) of affairs such as legislation or, case law precedent. Consider J. P. Sartre’s : “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.” 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.”

    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.

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

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

    Only the ''double nihilation'' is the negation, i.e., the negative process, the means, whereby human action originates/upsurges.

    To ''nihilate'' is to make nothing. Within the double nihilation are contained two negative moments wherein nothing is made such that on the one hand, the present is made nothing by transcending it toward the intended project, and, the intended project, as an absent, lacking, unaccomplished objective, constitutes the other negative moment which is precisely the moment wherein consciousness makes the nothing which is the not yet achieved objective of the intended project; and, that describes double nihilation.

    Human existential absurdity designates givens as cause/motive/determinant of one’s action, while, in reality, human action exclusively originates ex nihilo,via consciousnesses’ nihilative capacity. (Sartre, J.P., “Being and Nothingness”, Part Four).

    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.

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    the overly verbose style you usually employ (which makes your posts less readable than you apparently appreciate)
    I truly appreciate your fine advice which points out that of which I appear to be unawares. However, I now realize that what I am doing is writing very long thoughts in several sentences within the OP, where most of the sentences are very very short; and, it is the long thoughts which my language expresses which is tiresome for persons who do not think in such long language; hence, I am not "verbose" (which is an insult), and, language is thought, my long sentences are language which is simply thoughts which are longer than other persons can readily tolerate; however, long thought is requisite to undertake something as challenging as doing a theoretical destruction of law.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,519

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    As I told you on the other thread, the first rule of writing is Keep it short and simple.

    Think all the long thoughts you want, but when you write, you need to cut it down.

  6. #36

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    Quote Quoting cbg
    View Post
    As I told you on the other thread, the first rule of writing is Keep it short and simple.

    Think all the long thoughts you want, but when you write, you need to cut it down.
    Study your Wittgenstein, i.e., "Language is thought." If I have a complex thought that thought is language. If that complex thought is long, that long complex thought is language. Hence, given that one wishes to enunciate that long complex thought, one is under the necessity of writing that thought in the precise language wherein that thought is thought, and, which precisely expresses said thought.
    I am thinking original long/complex thought, and, you, who know best under all circumstances, would truncate that thought based on your particular limited theory of writing, which maintains that all thought is reducible to "short and simple"!? It is not so.
    I am use to it taking decades to fathom the writers I have had to read, thus I know it can be so that what at first appears unintelligible is not in fact unintelligible, it simply takes time and study to finally comprehend. Taxing Matters makes a more precise point, that I , in his opinion, am losing readers due to an apparent verbosity, which, is merely a function of the weakmindedness of the readers, however, I have long been constantly striving to reduce complexity, and, believe it or not, the current OP is simplified and reduced in size, I swear it.

    Look at what I just posted at #32, which is a theory suggesting an alternate mode of human civilization, and, is, as it now stands, most likely, from a reader's perspective, apparently unintelligible; it is, nonetheless, based in historically established and accepted theory, and, thus, it not incomprehensible per se, even in its present form; however, Taxing Matters is correct, is should certainly be rewritten for the common man in ordinary language, which is easier said that done; however, it will be done, perhaps only via the kind of polemical interaction which we are doing now...

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,519

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    Fine then. Do it your way. But don't expect anyone to read it. If you can't make it understandable to the common man, your writing skills can't be that good.

    BTW, my degree is in Writing and I've had several things published. I know whereof I speak.

  8. #38

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    Quote Quoting cbg
    View Post
    Fine then. Do it your way. But don't expect anyone to read it. If you can't make it understandable to the common man, your writing skills can't be that good.

    BTW, my degree is in Writing and I've had several things published. I know whereof I speak.
    My writing skills are superlative, and, not all readers are intellectual weaklings unwilling to do the research required to understand existential ontology. I have already agreed, my alternate theory of American civilization should be cast in ordinary language ,and explained step by step to the reader. I was merely saying that it is actually intelligible now for toughminded existentialists.
    Please provide me with links to descriptions of your publications if you consent, please.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,519

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    You can find my two books on Amazon and the column I used to write by Googling the extinct periodical I wrote it for.

    You may think what you like of your writing skills. Until I see some evidence that you are capable of making your "long thoughts" into ideas that are readable by the average person, I will continue to hold my own opinion.

  10. #40

    Default Re: Law is Not Determinative

    Quote Quoting cbg
    View Post
    You can find my two books on Amazon and the column I used to write by Googling the extinct periodical I wrote it for.

    You may think what you like of your writing skills. Until I see some evidence that you are capable of making your "long thoughts" into ideas that are readable by the average person, I will continue to hold my own opinion.
    There is actually no such thing as "the average person", no matter how one writes in the existential phenomenological mode, people will cry like little sissies, except for some existentialists. Thank you for your fine encouragement. We'll see...

    You have not given enough clues to find your Amazon writings.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources