Tweet
Advertisements
Mysticism; Belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies. (Bing).
ABSTRACT
Jurisprudential thought mistakenly presupposes human social behavior is manageable by law, in inadvertent disregard of and contradiction with how human conduct actually arises ontologically.
The magistrate, police/ prosecutorial officer, attorney, or John Q. Citizen, who deems himself determined, or, to be able to determine himself to act, by given language of law, is mistaken on the ontological plane; for, all determination to action is negation, and, law as a positive given identity, cannot get out of its being-in-itself in order to act, therefore, jurisprudence exhibits itself to be unintentionally dishonorable, by solemnly regarding language of law as a means of effecting origin of human action and inaction.
The viability of law as a motivational force exercised on a basis of punishment, purportedly efficient to make and maintain decent civil interpersonal conduct, is questionable in terms of the incorrectness of scholars of jurisprudence in regard to a supposedly conduct-originative law linguistic, whereby language of law is mistakenly deemed to be a conduct-determinative causal force among men, thus, both jurisprudential scholarship and extant language of law exhibit vacuity in regard to the actual ontological mode whereby a human act originates; hence all current jurisprudence/law clearly appears to be confused and unintelligible at the level of the ontological mode of the origination of a human act, and therefore, law, as a mistakenly presupposed determinative efficacy among men, is subject to being deemphasized to avoid ultimately being discarded as a non-viable means to having and doing civilizational civility.
LAW IS ONTOLOGICALLY UNINTELLIGIBLE
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.
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.
That human determination to action 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."
Human beings are ontologically barred from being determined to action or inaction by given states of affairs.
J. P. Sartre’s (1901-1980 ) examination of the ontological structure of the upsurge of a human act exhibits comprehension of Spinoza's dictum: “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.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943). 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.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943).
The intentional conduct of an individual human freedom cannot be determined and initiated by given law.
Civilization is currently predicated upon the putative rule of law and American civilization is founded upon the erroneous presupposition that language of law is determinative of both overt human conduct, and of human forbearance to act.
The venal jurisprudential attempt to monitor/control human conduct via language of law is a vain project unsuited to and in contradiction with the ontological structure of being a human being, wherein all determination is negation.
The world-wide presupposed efficacy of language of law as an originative determinative source of human conduct, is, when considered in the light of both Spinoza's dictum, and, of the human ontological structure of the upsurge of an act, a completely nonsensical presupposition..
Human existential absurdity designates givens as cause/motive/determinant of one’s action, while, all the while, human action exclusively originates ex nihilo, via consciousnesses’ nihilative capacity.
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.
America is currently suffering under radically rampant human misconduct, including daily mass mudrer, as a practico-inert consequence of attempting to constitute civilization via the ontologically unintelligible theoretical construct “law”; a “law” which is, in itself, defective and illusional human misconduct par excellence.
We Americans can exit practico-inert consequences of deeming law to be a means to civilization, and, actually achieve civilization by comprehending, and using, our human ontological structure as pattern for civilized adaptation to being sociosphereically human.
Mysticism; Belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies. (Bing).
ABSTRACT
Jurisprudential thought mistakenly presupposes human social behavior is manageable by law, in inadvertent disregard of and contradiction with how human conduct actually arises ontologically.
The magistrate, police/ prosecutorial officer, attorney, or John Q. Citizen, who deems himself determined, or, to be able to determine himself to act, by given language of law, is mistaken on the ontological plane; for, all determination to action is negation, and, law as a positive given identity, cannot get out of its being-in-itself in order to act, therefore, jurisprudence exhibits itself to be unintentionally dishonorable, by solemnly regarding language of law as a means of effecting origin of human action and inaction.
The viability of law as a motivational force exercised on a basis of punishment, purportedly efficient to make and maintain decent civil interpersonal conduct, is questionable in terms of the incorrectness of scholars of jurisprudence in regard to a supposedly conduct-originative law linguistic, whereby language of law is mistakenly deemed to be a conduct-determinative causal force among men, thus, both jurisprudential scholarship and extant language of law exhibit vacuity in regard to the actual ontological mode whereby a human act originates; hence all current jurisprudence/law clearly appears to be confused and unintelligible at the level of the ontological mode of the origination of a human act, and therefore, law, as a mistakenly presupposed determinative efficacy among men, is subject to being deemphasized to avoid ultimately being discarded as a non-viable means to having and doing civilizational civility.
LAW IS ONTOLOGICALLY UNINTELLIGIBLE
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.
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.
That human determination to action 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."
Human beings are ontologically barred from being determined to action or inaction by given states of affairs.
J. P. Sartre’s (1901-1980 ) examination of the ontological structure of the upsurge of a human act exhibits comprehension of Spinoza's dictum: “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.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943). 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.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943).
The intentional conduct of an individual human freedom cannot be determined and initiated by given law.
Civilization is currently predicated upon the putative rule of law and American civilization is founded upon the erroneous presupposition that language of law is determinative of both overt human conduct, and of human forbearance to act.
The venal jurisprudential attempt to monitor/control human conduct via language of law is a vain project unsuited to and in contradiction with the ontological structure of being a human being, wherein all determination is negation.
The world-wide presupposed efficacy of language of law as an originative determinative source of human conduct, is, when considered in the light of both Spinoza's dictum, and, of the human ontological structure of the upsurge of an act, a completely nonsensical presupposition..
Human existential absurdity designates givens as cause/motive/determinant of one’s action, while, all the while, human action exclusively originates ex nihilo, via consciousnesses’ nihilative capacity.
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.
America is currently suffering under radically rampant human misconduct, including daily mass mudrer, as a practico-inert consequence of attempting to constitute civilization via the ontologically unintelligible theoretical construct “law”; a “law” which is, in itself, defective and illusional human misconduct par excellence.
We Americans can exit practico-inert consequences of deeming law to be a means to civilization, and, actually achieve civilization by comprehending, and using, our human ontological structure as pattern for civilized adaptation to being sociosphereically human.
)
Comment