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.
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.
Simply quit accosting me and, that will be it, it will be ended; nonetheless, members keep on and on...
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.
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.