Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed Nor Broken

[upsurgent]

Duane,

I don’t understand what you mean.

/Richard

Richard,
As consciousness, which is a nothingness, I am always an elsewhere, i.e., I never ever coincide with myself. I am always not what I am, and, I am what I am not. Whereas, a thing is an identity in the sense that it is fully and solely what it is as a concrete thing. Law is what it is, a concretion; not a consciousness capable of doing projects which it has not yet brought to fruition. Concrete being does not make determinations to do so and so; only consciousness can make a determination to do something which it has not yet accomplished...(This is all pure Sartreian description of the human ontological structure of action).
Duane

Thanks.

Only nothingness can make a determination. Sartre does not accept free will?

Richard;
Certainly Sartre accepts free will. I recommend you begin a read of Chapter 4 of Sartre's "Being and Nothingness", entitled "Freedom". Beautiful.
Duane

[upsurgent]

Duane,

I don’t understand what you mean.

/Richard

Richard,
As consciousness, which is a nothingness, I am always an elsewhere, i.e., I never ever coincide with myself. I am always not what I am, and, I am what I am not. Whereas, a thing is an identity in the sense that it is fully and solely what it is as a concrete thing. Law is what it is, a concretion; not a consciousness capable of doing projects which it has not yet brought to fruition. Concrete being does not make determinations to do so and so; only consciousness can make a determination to do something which it has not yet accomplished...(This is all pure Sartreian description of the human ontological structure of action).
Duane

Thanks.

Only nothingness can make a determination. Sartre does not accept free will?

Richard;
Certainly Sartre accepts free will. I recommend you begin a read of Chapter 4 of Sartre's "Being and Nothingness", entitled "Freedom". Beautiful.
Duane

[henry quirk]

More accurately, he said we were 'condemned' to be free. According to him, bein' free was the source of our angst, our dread.

I never really agreed with him on that.

[commonsense]

Richard,
As consciousness, which is a nothingness, I am always an elsewhere, i.e., I never ever coincide with myself. I am always not what I am, and, I am what I am not. Whereas, a thing is an identity in the sense that it is fully and solely what it is as a concrete thing. Law is what it is, a concretion; not a consciousness capable of doing projects which it has not yet brought to fruition. Concrete being does not make determinations to do so and so; only consciousness can make a determination to do something which it has not yet accomplished...(This is all pure Sartreian description of the human ontological structure of action).
Duane

Thanks.

Only nothingness can make a determination. Sartre does not accept free will?

Richard;
Certainly Sartre accepts free will. I recommend you begin a read of Chapter 4 of Sartre's "Being and Nothingness", entitled "Freedom". Beautiful.
Duane

Duane,
This has been a great appetizer. I’m interested in learning how nothingness and consciousness relate. Thanks for the stimulating preview.
Richard

[upsurgent]

More accurately, he said we were 'condemned' to be free. According to him, bein' free was the source of our angst, our dread.

I never really agreed with him on that.

Henry;
You're absolutely correct, condemned to an ineluctable freedom wherein we must constantly make ourselves via double nihilation, wherein we transcend the present and engage the not yet future; an unhappy consciousness sad because we can never be what we want to be, or, a for-itself-in-itself, i.e., an enscausasui/self-made god.
Duane

[upsurgent]

Thanks.

Only nothingness can make a determination. Sartre does not accept free will?

Richard;
Certainly Sartre accepts free will. I recommend you begin a read of Chapter 4 of Sartre's "Being and Nothingness", entitled "Freedom". Beautiful.
Duane

Duane,
This has been a great appetizer. I’m interested in learning how nothingness and consciousness relate. Thanks for the stimulating preview.
Richard

Richard;
Wow, cool. Glad that Nothing is of interest and stimulating to you.
Duane

[henry quirk]

More accurately, he said we were 'condemned' to be free. According to him, bein' free was the source of our angst, our dread.

I never really agreed with him on that.

Henry;
You're absolutely correct, condemned to an ineluctable freedom...

Well, as I say, I don't really agree with S on that. For one, I've never viewed my freedom as a burden, as a sentence. It's a most precious gift, in my view. For another, I got no angst. Troubles, yeah. Woes, sure. Dread? Nah.

[upsurgent]

More accurately, he said we were 'condemned' to be free. According to him, bein' free was the source of our angst, our dread.

I never really agreed with him on that.

Henry;
You're absolutely correct, condemned to an ineluctable freedom...

Well, as I say, I don't really agree with S on that. For one, I've never viewed my freedom as a burden, as a sentence. It's a most precious gift, in my view. For another, I got no angst. Troubles, yeah. Woes, sure. Dread? Nah.

Henry;
It is clear you are grounded in existential thought and are thus a rarity; I would appreciate if you would tell me what you think of my application of Spinoza's dictum and Sartre's extensions of that dictum to my maintaining that it is not actually possible to obey, disobey, or break/violate law ?
Duane

[commonsense]

Only nothingness can make a determination. Sartre does not accept free will?

No, nothingness is required in order to determine phenomena. We can define a thing most accurately by expressing that it is what it is not.

A table is a four-legged stand that has a flat surface that can support weight. Without nothingness to tell us otherwise, a sitting stool could be an example of a table since both have four legs and a flat surface that can support weight. We rely on nothingness to exclude all that is not a table.

The same is true for all of reality.

[henry quirk]

"LAW IS NEITHER OBEYED DISOBEYED NOR BROKEN No person in fact ever determines to act or forbear action on the basis of given published language of law"

I agree. When folks mind 'law' it's to avoid 'penalty', not they think 'law' is right or just.

#

"therefore, language of law, absolutely without originative connection with intentional human action/inaction, can, actually, be neither obeyed, disobeyed, nor broken."

I don't know about this. I'm thinkin' folks do obey (again, for fear of 'penalty'), and I disobey all the time (I'm a natural rights libertarian, so I got my own notions about law and law).

#

"All determination to action and inaction upsurges only on the basis of what is absent, is purely imagined, unaccomplished, and, has not yet intentionally transpired."

Sure. The powers that be declare X as illegal, and attach a 'penalty'. Folks imagine the 'penalty' levied against them and refrain from doin' X.

#

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

Sweet, sweet, freedom.

#

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

The best 'law' (law makers, law givers) can do is sway thinkin' and 'penalize' (and 'penalty' is always and only about hobblin' physically, it never touches the soul [though I suppose torture can test and torment the sturdiest spirit]).


There you go: my thinkin' on the subject.

[upsurgent]

Only nothingness can make a determination. Sartre does not accept free will?

We can define a thing most accurately by expressing that it is what it is not.

commonsense;
A concrete thing is a being-in-itself and fully coincides with itself in an identity A=A; it is fully and wholly coincident with itself and exhibits no hiatus within its being; it is what it is and cannot be characterized as being what it is not; only consciousness is what it is not... A consciousness is a being-for-itself which, according to Martin Heidegger, is like a coiled worm with nothingness lying at its heart. Only consciousness/being-for-itself is not what it is and is what it is not and, does not coincide with itself. There are three regions of being: being-in-itself; being-for-itself; and, being-for-itself-in-itself, or, the enscausasui, which we humans vainly pursue, wherein we would have both the concrete immortality of concrete being, and consciousness...
Duane

[upsurgent]

"LAW IS NEITHER OBEYED DISOBEYED NOR BROKEN No person in fact ever determines to act or forbear action on the basis of given published language of law"

I agree. When folks mind 'law' it's to avoid 'penalty', not they think 'law' is right or just.

#

"therefore, language of law, absolutely without originative connection with intentional human action/inaction, can, actually, be neither obeyed, disobeyed, nor broken."

I don't know about this. I'm thinkin' folks do obey (again, for fear of 'penalty'), and I disobey all the time (I'm a natural rights libertarian, so I got my own notions about law and law).

#

"All determination to action and inaction upsurges only on the basis of what is absent, is purely imagined, unaccomplished, and, has not yet intentionally transpired."

Sure. The powers that be declare X as illegal, and attach a 'penalty'. Folks imagine the 'penalty' levied against them and refrain from doin' X.

#

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

Sweet, sweet, freedom.

#

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

The best 'law' (law makers, law givers) can do is sway thinkin' and 'penalize' (and 'penalty' is always and only about hobblin' physically, it never touches the soul [though I suppose torture can test and torment the sturdiest spirit]).


There you go: my thinkin' on the subject.

Henry;
Thanks a million Henry for graciously taking all that time to respond to me point by point; and, you have helped me to see that I need to include a more in-depth explanation of what I am attempting to impart to Others in my opening statement.
Duane

[henry quirk]

"Thanks a million Henry for graciously taking all that time to respond to me point by point"



#

"you have helped me to see that I need to include a more in-depth explanation of what I am attempting to impart to Others in my opening statement."

I misread you that badly? If so, the fault is mine, not yours.

[commonsense]

Only nothingness can make a determination. Sartre does not accept free will?

We can define a thing most accurately by expressing that it is what it is not.

commonsense;
A concrete thing is a being-in-itself and fully coincides with itself in an identity A=A; it is fully and wholly coincident with itself and exhibits no hiatus within its being; it is what it is and cannot be characterized as being what it is not; only consciousness is what it is not... A consciousness is a being-for-itself which, according to Martin Heidegger, is like a coiled worm with nothingness lying at its heart. Only consciousness/being-for-itself is not what it is and is what it is not and, does not coincide with itself. There are three regions of being: being-in-itself; being-for-itself; and, being-for-itself-in-itself, or, the enscausasui, which we humans vainly pursue, wherein we would have both the concrete immortality of concrete being, and consciousness...
Duane

Duane,
Thanks for making in-itself and for-itself clearer for me. I still have much to read in the essay.
Richard

[upsurgent]

We can define a thing most accurately by expressing that it is what it is not.

commonsense;
A concrete thing is a being-in-itself and fully coincides with itself in an identity A=A; it is fully and wholly coincident with itself and exhibits no hiatus within its being; it is what it is and cannot be characterized as being what it is not; only consciousness is what it is not... A consciousness is a being-for-itself which, according to Martin Heidegger, is like a coiled worm with nothingness lying at its heart. Only consciousness/being-for-itself is not what it is and is what it is not and, does not coincide with itself. There are three regions of being: being-in-itself; being-for-itself; and, being-for-itself-in-itself, or, the enscausasui, which we humans vainly pursue, wherein we would have both the concrete immortality of concrete being, and consciousness...
Duane

Duane,
Thanks for making in-itself and for-itself clearer for me. I still have much to say read throughout the essay.
Richard

Richard;
You're welcome; its a pleasure. I totally appreciate your feedback and really look forward to any future thoughts you may share regarding my post.
Duane