Law is Not Determinative

[cbg]

Then you'll have to dig deeper, won't you?

You have yourself a nice day.

[determinatio]

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.)

[llworking]

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.

[budwad]

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.

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.

[determinatio]

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.

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!

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 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''.

[budwad]

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''.

Point and set. Total gibberish.

[determinatio]

Point and set. Total gibberish.

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.

[budwad]

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.

[determinatio]

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.

[llworking]

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

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.