Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed Nor Broken

[upsurgent]

Nothing(ness);

Can one not know: one ought not to believe x because it leads to y?

Yes.

[nothing]

Nothing(ness);

Can one not know: one ought not to believe x because it leads to y?

Yes.

If y exists, and x is known as the detrimental cause, can one not know one ought not to believe x?
Is it possible to derive an ought not from an is?

[upsurgent]

Can one not know: one ought not to believe x because it leads to y?

Yes.

If y exists, and x is known as the detrimental cause, can one not know one ought not to believe x?
Is it possible to derive an ought not from an is?

There is no causation entailed in the upsurge of human action. What is does not and cannot effectuate an act. Yes, one can not know something...

[nothing]

There is no causation entailed in the upsurge of human action. What is does not and cannot effectuate an act. Yes, one can not know something...

Try this:

What is, if known, can effectuate the cessation of an act.

Or in other words, let x be 'is' and in one of two possible states: known or unknown.
Let us say x exists (therefor is) but is unknown to a number of others wherein:
if x were known, certain acts would be ceased due to discovery.

Is this possible? If so:
one can derive an ought not from an is.

Could any believer know not to believe in their ideology anymore if they discovered evidence(s) which indicate it is certainly false?
If so, could this result in the cessation of any/all religious obligations/duties as called for by the religion?

The reason I am asking these is to establish that truth-by-way-of-negation is in-and-of-itself infallible only as far as the being who uses it is themselves infallible. Therefor, any fallibility that results from use of truth-by-way-of-negation method is of the being, and not of the method.

This method falsifies/negates any/all belief-based ignorance(s) while simultaneously "consuming" them for knowledge(s) as they pertain to any/all *not* to believe. Therefor it effectively renders the same: Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed Nor Broken because such "obedience" to any/all belief-based ideologies is inherently ignorant-in-and-of-themselves for believing a book to be "divide" Law.

[upsurgent]

There is no causation entailed in the upsurge of human action. What is does not and cannot effectuate an act. Yes, one can not know something...

Try this:

What is, if known, can effectuate the cessation of an act.

Or in other words, let x be 'is' and in one of two possible states: known or unknown.
Let us say x exists (therefor is) but is unknown to a number of others wherein:
if x were known, certain acts would be ceased due to discovery.

Is this possible? If so:
one can derive an ought not from an is.

Could any believer know not to believe in their ideology anymore if they discovered evidence(s) which indicate it is certainly false?
If so, could this result in the cessation of any/all religious obligations/duties as called for by the religion?

The reason I am asking these is to establish that truth-by-way-of-negation is in-and-of-itself infallible only as far as the being who uses it is themselves infallible. Therefor, any fallibility that results from use of truth-by-way-of-negation method is of the being, and not of the method.

This method falsifies/negates any/all belief-based ignorance(s) while simultaneously "consuming" them for knowledge(s) as they pertain to any/all *not* to believe. Therefor it effectively renders the same: Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed Nor Broken because such "obedience" to any/all belief-based ideologies is inherently ignorant-in-and-of-themselves for believing a book to be "divide" Law.

Nothing;
I can know something. I can know that if I do x y can happen. However, that does not constitute an efficacy to precipitate a human act on the part of what I know is the case. The origination/upsurge of my act is always predicated upon and transpiring via nothingness. I have not yet explained for you the double nihilation, whereby human action upsurges in the world. Here it is:

In the course of originating an act, consciousness projects and posits a not yet existing future state of affairs as its end goal, or objective, which it has not yet attained; i.e., in its project toward this as yet non-existent future, consciousness has, on the one hand, made the nothing which is a not yet realized and as yet absent future; and, the double, the other component, of the double nihilation, is, that, as consciousness upsurges toward its absent and unrealized future, consciousness refuses, abandons, and makes the present, i.e., the given or extant state of affairs, into the nothing that is the past; thus, we have the doubly nihilative movement of consciousness which is the double nihilation, whereby an intended human act originates and upsurges, as a particular, intentional, nihilistic engagement in the human sociosphere.

Double nihilation is always the conscious means whereby an act originates. What is is involved as that which is being surpassed and, since it is wholly concrete as being only what it is, does not possess the capacity to participate in the origination of an act. It is a mistake to name some thing as the cause of one's action or inaction, although we do so constantly ,i.e., we do speak of the cause of our acts; still, our human acts are not causally mediated by existing states of affairs, or, by existing objects in the world. Human freedom is acausal double nihilation.
Duane

[nothing]

Nothing;
I can know something. I can know that if I do x y can happen. However, that does not constitute an efficacy to precipitate a human act on the part of what I know is the case. The origination/upsurge of my act is always predicated upon and transpiring via nothingness. I have not yet explained for you the double nihilation, whereby human action upsurges in the world. Here it is:

I will try it.

In the course of originating an act, consciousness projects and posits a not yet existing future state of affairs as its end goal, or objective, which it has not yet attained;

But, in doing so, from an existing 'state' which relies on the very impressions it has gathered needed to project anything at all. Consciousness can not project/posit anything unless it exists, and if it exists, is conditioned by the impressions it has encountered. To sever from these impressions is possible, but not a widespread or common discipline.

To try to remove the function/behavior of consciousness from an equation that itself relies on it... is difficult.

i.e., in its project toward this as yet non-existent future, consciousness has, on the one hand, made the nothing which is a not yet realized and as yet absent future; and, the double, the other component, of the double nihilation, is, that, as consciousness upsurges toward its absent and unrealized future, consciousness refuses, abandons, and makes the present, i.e., the given or extant state of affairs, into the nothing that is the past; thus, we have the doubly nihilative movement of consciousness which is the double nihilation, whereby an intended human act originates and upsurges, as a particular, intentional, nihilistic engagement in the human sociosphere.

I think I understand the sentiment: consciousness has to project into nothingness, then in moving towards it, make the present nothing. There is however an assumption here that is imposing a detrimental boundary that need not exist:

Consciousness need not refuse, abandon or make the present into nothing.
Present becomes future / future becomes present, regardless of the 'state' of consciousness
thus consciousness can accept, embrace the present as it transitions into the... ever-new present.

This highlights the immediacy of 'now' which must be a starting-point of any possible future(s) which is already true anyways, and we are left where we started from: people who disassociate from the present project into the future, pursue it and create a double nihilation. This would be a local condition(s) that certainly can/would (did) create a fixed 'state' which is intrinsically disassociated from reality: a belief-based ideology has severed from the reality by establishing a 'state' (ie. tautology) on a completely false premise. Therefor, the 'present' for them, is false, and any possible future they envision, is likewise false.

In this way Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed Nor Broken is still true: it is possible to make something out of nothing, like Law.

Now however...

Double nihilation is always the conscious means whereby an act originates. What is is involved as that which is being surpassed and, since it is wholly concrete as being only what it is, does not possess the capacity to participate in the origination of an act. It is a mistake to name some thing as the cause of one's action or inaction, although we do so constantly ,i.e., we do speak of the cause of our acts; still, our human acts are not causally mediated by existing states of affairs, or, by existing objects in the world. Human freedom is acausal double nihilation.
Duane

...see "double nihilation" is not always the conscious means whereby all acts originate. It can be: but I would equate this to the same as simply having no conscious knowledge of ones own self, thereby associating with their thought process or belief system which:

i. is a source of suffering
ii. is relied on to resolve the suffering, despite it being the problem, and
iii. one suffers in the present, thus focuses on the future instead

therefor this entire problem can be viewed from a different perspective: human suffering. If human beings did not suffer, they would not be projecting into the void of "future" for enjoying the present and having no need to project a better 'state', thus all focus/attention is on the present, and the future is the present modified according to need (as it would normally be under other circumstances). Because human beings suffer, and do not know the source of their suffering, they will be inclined to project for a better future.

The problem is not the future, or the past, because both are contained in the now.
The problem would begin when focus on the now is lost to the past/future, which are empty.

[upsurgent]

Nothing;
I can know something. I can know that if I do x y can happen. However, that does not constitute an efficacy to precipitate a human act on the part of what I know is the case. The origination/upsurge of my act is always predicated upon and transpiring via nothingness. I have not yet explained for you the double nihilation, whereby human action upsurges in the world. Here it is:

I will try it.

In the course of originating an act, consciousness projects and posits a not yet existing future state of affairs as its end goal, or objective, which it has not yet attained;

But, in doing so, from an existing 'state' which relies on the very impressions it has gathered needed to project anything at all. Consciousness can not project/posit anything unless it exists, and if it exists, is conditioned by the impressions it has encountered. To sever from these impressions is possible, but not a widespread or common discipline.

To try to remove the function/behavior of consciousness from an equation that itself relies on it... is difficult.

i.e., in its project toward this as yet non-existent future, consciousness has, on the one hand, made the nothing which is a not yet realized and as yet absent future; and, the double, the other component, of the double nihilation, is, that, as consciousness upsurges toward its absent and unrealized future, consciousness refuses, abandons, and makes the present, i.e., the given or extant state of affairs, into the nothing that is the past; thus, we have the doubly nihilative movement of consciousness which is the double nihilation, whereby an intended human act originates and upsurges, as a particular, intentional, nihilistic engagement in the human sociosphere.

I think I understand the sentiment: consciousness has to project into nothingness, then in moving towards it, make the present nothing. There is however an assumption here that is imposing a detrimental boundary that need not exist:

Consciousness need not refuse, abandon or make the present into nothing.
Present becomes future / future becomes present, regardless of the 'state' of consciousness
thus consciousness can accept, embrace the present as it transitions into the... ever-new present.

This highlights the immediacy of 'now' which must be a starting-point of any possible future(s) which is already true anyways, and we are left where we started from: people who disassociate from the present project into the future, pursue it and create a double nihilation. This would be a local condition(s) that certainly can/would (did) create a fixed 'state' which is intrinsically disassociated from reality: a belief-based ideology has severed from the reality by establishing a 'state' (ie. tautology) on a completely false premise. Therefor, the 'present' for them, is false, and any possible future they envision, is likewise false.

In this way Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed Nor Broken is still true: it is possible to make something out of nothing, like Law.

Now however...

Double nihilation is always the conscious means whereby an act originates. What is is involved as that which is being surpassed and, since it is wholly concrete as being only what it is, does not possess the capacity to participate in the origination of an act. It is a mistake to name some thing as the cause of one's action or inaction, although we do so constantly ,i.e., we do speak of the cause of our acts; still, our human acts are not causally mediated by existing states of affairs, or, by existing objects in the world. Human freedom is acausal double nihilation.
Duane

...see "double nihilation" is not always the conscious means whereby all acts originate. It can be: but I would equate this to the same as simply having no conscious knowledge of ones own self, thereby associating with their thought process or belief system which:

i. is a source of suffering
ii. is relied on to resolve the suffering, despite it being the problem, and
iii. one suffers in the present, thus focuses on the future instead

therefor this entire problem can be viewed from a different perspective: human suffering. If human beings did not suffer, they would not be projecting into the void of "future" for enjoying the present and having no need to project a better 'state', thus all focus/attention is on the present, and the future is the present modified according to need (as it would normally be under other circumstances). Because human beings suffer, and do not know the source of their suffering, they will be inclined to project for a better future.

The problem is not the future, or the past, because both are contained in the now.
The problem would begin when focus on the now is lost to the past/future, which are empty.

"But, in doing so, from an existing 'state' which relies on the very impressions it has gathered needed to project anything at all. Consciousness can not project/posit anything unless it exists, and if it exists, is conditioned by the impressions it has encountered."

One's knowledge/impressions of the world arise solely upon the basis of, and is the resultant of, the particular intended future, the project, which consciousness, (which is as nothingness), has chosen to bring to pass. It is in the light of my project to climb a slope up to the top that the slope is revealed to me as stressfully steep...Our impressions/knowledge are functions of our intended future projected being. If I have not formed a project to climb a hill, the difficult incline thereof is indifferent.

Nothing, you are a radically rapid thinker able to rapid-fire well thought out, extensive, interrogative formulations, in pursuit of your apparent goal to precipitate my possible submission to your notion that what is is an efficacy within the originative doing of a human act, and, as you may be beginning to see, you cannot possibly demonstrate, to me, any given factual state of affairs in this world to be an efficacy for the creation of a human act.

Yes, law originated via double nihilation, which, however, does not make the law an accurate take as means of either making acts or forbearances happen via language of law, as is currently, mistakenly, believed world-wide. ! Yes, everyone in the world is mistaken/deluded except me, Duane ? !

I will reflect upon the remainder of your extensive response at my leisure. I am gratified that you repeatedly write your agreement with my fundamental proposition that law is neither obeyed disobeyed nor broken/violated; thank you for that agreement...
Duane

[nothing]

One's knowledge/impressions of the world arise solely upon the basis of, and is the resultant of, the particular intended future, the project, which consciousness, (which is as nothingness), has chosen to bring to pass. It is in the light of my project to climb a slope up to the top that the slope is revealed to me as stressfully steep...Our impressions/knowledge are functions of our intended future projected being. If I have not formed a project to climb a hill, the difficult incline thereof is indifferent.

Please forgive my lacking ability to understand your meaning: I can only respond according to understanding.

I don't find it entirely sound that knowledge/impressions of the world necessarily arise by way of intended future: it assumes a future intended, which ignores the beings who are conscious, yet have no intentions as to the "future" for not believing in one!

It takes a believer to believe in a future-to-begin. Therefor, the problem collapses into the matter(s) of belief-in-and-of-itself. Any/all belief-based ignorance(s) relating to "Law" exist in and/or by way of belief-in-and-of-itself. Now philosophy is presently dead holding the assertion:

All knowing is belief (?), but not all belief is knowing.

detrimentally, for failing to discern knowledge as having the potential to negate belief. Therefor, knowledge can not be belief:

All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.

Nothing, you are a radically rapid thinker able to rapid-fire well thought out, extensive, interrogative formulations, in pursuit of your apparent goal to precipitate my possible submission to your notion that what is is an efficacy within the originative doing of a human act, and, as you may be beginning to see, you cannot possibly demonstrate, to me, any given factual state of affairs in this world to be an efficacy for the creation of a human act.

Recall your responses:

Can one derive an ought from an is? NO.

Can one derive an ought not from an is? NO.

This is not necessarily true. One can derive an ought not from an is. I would argue it is imperative to consciousness: one performs an action (ie. sowing), it produces a poor "is" (ie. reaping) thus one modifies their choice(s) (ie. conscience) to consciously produce a better result.

This is why I tried to approach the problem differently: if a state is 'known' (ie. "is") and it can be known that the state ought not to be, it can have efficacy as it pertains to consciousness itself: especially if/when the 'state' of an antithetical dichotomous existence (ie. god/satan, good/evil) which relies on reciprocal inverses is involved, because they can be tried for their inverse to manifest the inverse of suffering. In such a case, acknowledgement of the "is" is required. By voiding the present, acknowledgement is also void, thus consciousness is void and the individual is in their own self-induced regress of denying the reality for what it is. This is not a solution to anything: it would be its own problem of escapism.

Having said that, this self-induced state of psychosomatic regress is certainly a characteristic of belief-based religious institutions whose very "Law" suffers the problem of the OP: neither obeyed disobeyed nor broken. However this should not merit any such disassociation from the reality: the reality contains the believed-in unreality that must be first acknowledged, then addressed accordingly. Anything less reduces into either escapism or disassociation, which is a fixed characteristic of the belief-based ideologies themselves, thus no better.

Yes, law originated via double nihilation, which, however, does not make the law an accurate take as means of either making acts or forbearances happen via language of law, as is currently, mistakenly, believed world-wide. ! Yes, everyone in the world is mistaken/deluded except me, Duane ? !

You might be surprised: most people living in the Piscean age are mistaken/deluded because they don't have a fundamental grasp on the problem of belief-in-and-of-itself as it relates to the conflation of good/evil (if even taking them as unknown). It would take a believer to believe evil is good, thus how can belief be a characteristic of both so-called god and satan?

If satan requires belief, god must be the inverse: knowledge of any/all not to believe. Now look again:

Can one derive an ought from an is? NO.

Can one derive an ought not from an is? NO.

Knowledge negates belief in the same way god would negate satan.
I know I ought not to believe because x is ... is valid.

I will reflect upon the remainder of your extensive response at my leisure. I am gratified that you repeatedly write your agreement with my fundamental proposition that law is neither obeyed disobeyed nor broken/violated; thank you for that agreement...
Duane

I'm sorry for being extensive - if keeping short and sweet were an art, it is not my art.

[upsurgent]

One's knowledge/impressions of the world arise solely upon the basis of, and is the resultant of, the particular intended future, the project, which consciousness, (which is as nothingness), has chosen to bring to pass. It is in the light of my project to climb a slope up to the top that the slope is revealed to me as stressfully steep...Our impressions/knowledge are functions of our intended future projected being. If I have not formed a project to climb a hill, the difficult incline thereof is indifferent.

Please forgive my lacking ability to understand your meaning: I can only respond according to understanding.

I don't find it entirely sound that knowledge/impressions of the world necessarily arise by way of intended future: it assumes a future intended, which ignores the beings who are conscious, yet have no intentions as to the "future" for not believing in one!

It takes a believer to believe in a future-to-begin. Therefor, the problem collapses into the matter(s) of belief-in-and-of-itself. Any/all belief-based ignorance(s) relating to "Law" exist in and/or by way of belief-in-and-of-itself. Now philosophy is presently dead holding the assertion:

All knowing is belief (?), but not all belief is knowing.

detrimentally, for failing to discern knowledge as having the potential to negate belief. Therefor, knowledge can not be belief:

All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.

Nothing, you are a radically rapid thinker able to rapid-fire well thought out, extensive, interrogative formulations, in pursuit of your apparent goal to precipitate my possible submission to your notion that what is is an efficacy within the originative doing of a human act, and, as you may be beginning to see, you cannot possibly demonstrate, to me, any given factual state of affairs in this world to be an efficacy for the creation of a human act.

Recall your responses:

Can one derive an ought from an is? NO.

Can one derive an ought not from an is? NO.

This is not necessarily true. One can derive an ought not from an is. I would argue it is imperative to consciousness: one performs an action (ie. sowing), it produces a poor "is" (ie. reaping) thus one modifies their choice(s) (ie. conscience) to consciously produce a better result.

This is why I tried to approach the problem differently: if a state is 'known' (ie. "is") and it can be known that the state ought not to be, it can have efficacy as it pertains to consciousness itself: especially if/when the 'state' of an antithetical dichotomous existence (ie. god/satan, good/evil) which relies on reciprocal inverses is involved, because they can be tried for their inverse to manifest the inverse of suffering. In such a case, acknowledgement of the "is" is required. By voiding the present, acknowledgement is also void, thus consciousness is void and the individual is in their own self-induced regress of denying the reality for what it is. This is not a solution to anything: it would be its own problem of escapism.

Having said that, this self-induced state of psychosomatic regress is certainly a characteristic of belief-based religious institutions whose very "Law" suffers the problem of the OP: neither obeyed disobeyed nor broken. However this should not merit any such disassociation from the reality: the reality contains the believed-in unreality that must be first acknowledged, then addressed accordingly. Anything less reduces into either escapism or disassociation, which is a fixed characteristic of the belief-based ideologies themselves, thus no better.

Yes, law originated via double nihilation, which, however, does not make the law an accurate take as means of either making acts or forbearances happen via language of law, as is currently, mistakenly, believed world-wide. ! Yes, everyone in the world is mistaken/deluded except me, Duane ? !

You might be surprised: most people living in the Piscean age are mistaken/deluded because they don't have a fundamental grasp on the problem of belief-in-and-of-itself as it relates to the conflation of good/evil (if even taking them as unknown). It would take a believer to believe evil is good, thus how can belief be a characteristic of both so-called god and satan?

If satan requires belief, god must be the inverse: knowledge of any/all not to believe. Now look again:

Can one derive an ought from an is? NO.

Can one derive an ought not from an is? NO.

Knowledge negates belief in the same way god would negate satan.
I know I ought not to believe because x is ... is valid.

I will reflect upon the remainder of your extensive response at my leisure. I am gratified that you repeatedly write your agreement with my fundamental proposition that law is neither obeyed disobeyed nor broken/violated; thank you for that agreement...
Duane

I'm sorry for being extensive - if keeping short and sweet were an art, it is not my art.

Nothing;
All your ratiocinations arguing for the derivation of the nothing that is an ought from an is, constitutes a self-inconsistent and overall contradictory state of affairs wherein you both accept the nihilative reasoning behind my thesis that law is neither obeyed disobeyed nor broken, and, then, you proceed to maintain the direct contrary thereof, by simultaneously insisting that the nothing that is an ought can be made from what is.

In the course of the doubly nihilative thrust of your consciousness, you are performing a nihilation whereby, ex nihilo, via your project to insist a given is is productive of an ideal ought, you are, without seeing so, precisely the nothing which derives your ''ought from is'' from naught. You are precisely a nothing which nothings, i.e., you make, precisely from nothing, your incorrect notion that ought is derivable from is. Heidegger coined the phrase "nothing nothings". Likewise, the mistaken notion that language of law is a determinative efficacy among men, is manufactured precisely via the doubly nihilative nothing whereby consciousness nihilatively nothings. All positivist materialist determinism has origin via doubly nihilative consciousnesses which are not reflectively cognizant of the fact that their particular ilk of determinism has nothingness as originative source!

Your ''ought from is'' originates out of nothing; out of you're nothingness.
Duane

[nothing]

Nothing;
All your ratiocinations arguing for the derivation of the nothing that is an ought from an is, constitutes a self-inconsistent and overall contradictory state of affairs wherein you both accept the nihilative reasoning behind my thesis that law is neither obeyed disobeyed nor broken, and, then, you proceed to maintain the direct contrary thereof, by simultaneously insisting that the nothing that is an ought can be made from what is.

I am not arguing "for the derivation of the nothing that is an ought from an is."
I am arguing for the derivation of ought not from an is.

Do you understand the difference between ought and ought not?

It is a point of contention upon which your entire response rests: if you are conflating my intended latter 'ought not' with your own 'ought' then the problem is one of a misunderstanding on your end.

In the course of the doubly nihilative thrust of your consciousness, you are performing a nihilation whereby, ex nihilo, via your project to insist a given is is productive of an ideal ought, you are, without seeing so, precisely the nothing which derives your ''ought from is' (?)' from naught. You are precisely a nothing which nothings, i.e., you make, precisely from nothing, your incorrect notion that ought is derivable from is. Heidegger coined the phrase "nothing nothings". Likewise, the mistaken notion that language of law is a determinative efficacy among men, is manufactured precisely via the doubly nihilative nothing whereby consciousness nihilatively nothings. All positivist materialist determinism has origin via doubly nihilative consciousnesses which are not reflectively cognizant of the fact that their particular ilk of determinism has nothingness as originative source!

This is all rooted in the same confusion.

Look at it this way (as a circle):

-1 Know
+2 of any/all <-*creation
-2 *not to* <-*destruction
+1 Believe
0 I am (willing to...) <-*being with equal propensity for good/evil
__________________________
0 - 1 + 2 - 2 + 1 = 0 I am willing to KNOW of any/all *not to* BELIEVE
0 + 1 - 2 + 2 - 1 = 0 I am willing to BELIEVE *not to* of any/all KNOW

and notice how 2 and -2 are creation/destruction. So, in order to "create", you have to destroy what is already there. This requires acknowledgement of what is already there: in order to create, it must begin with the destruction of what is there. Therefor, one not only can derive an ought not from an is, one must derive an ought not from an is in order to create anything (!).

So it is required to acknowledge the present as-is, which is all that exists anyways: the past/future are as projections, and the belief-based ideologies clinging to past belief-systems worshiping books (ie. the tongues of dead men) and dead men are relics of the ignorance of man. In this your assertion stands: Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed Nor Broken.

However to sever from the reality of human suffering is just as egregious a crime as any crime could possibly be: a complete controversy for committing the same crime such an assertion is intended to highlight! That would be absurd: as-is can never be denied, but must be acknowledged as-is. What that as-is, is, is relative to the observer (as time anyways is).

Therefor:

Your ''ought from is'' originates out of nothing; out of you're nothingness.
Duane

Your "ought from is" originates out of nothing but your own lack of understanding.

You can not get an ought from an is.
You can get an ought not from an is.

One must acknowledge whatever 'is' even if that happens to have a foundation of 'nothing': that human suffering 'is' something-in-and-of-itself, regardless of (empty) context, thus to deny the ever-present *is* (of which human suffering is an ever-present reality) is just as irresponsible and ignorant as any/all ignorance can possibly permit, including the ignorance(s) addressed by the essence of your own assertion.

[upsurgent]

Nothing;
All your ratiocinations arguing for the derivation of the nothing that is an ought from an is, constitutes a self-inconsistent and overall contradictory state of affairs wherein you both accept the nihilative reasoning behind my thesis that law is neither obeyed disobeyed nor broken, and, then, you proceed to maintain the direct contrary thereof, by simultaneously insisting that the nothing that is an ought can be made from what is.

I am not arguing "for the derivation of the nothing that is an ought from an is."
I am arguing for the derivation of ought not from an is.

Do you understand the difference between ought and ought not?

It is a point of contention upon which your entire response rests: if you are conflating my intended latter 'ought not' with your own 'ought' then the problem is one of a misunderstanding on your end.

In the course of the doubly nihilative thrust of your consciousness, you are performing a nihilation whereby, ex nihilo, via your project to insist a given is is productive of an ideal ought, you are, without seeing so, precisely the nothing which derives your ''ought from is' (?)' from naught. You are precisely a nothing which nothings, i.e., you make, precisely from nothing, your incorrect notion that ought is derivable from is. Heidegger coined the phrase "nothing nothings". Likewise, the mistaken notion that language of law is a determinative efficacy among men, is manufactured precisely via the doubly nihilative nothing whereby consciousness nihilatively nothings. All positivist materialist determinism has origin via doubly nihilative consciousnesses which are not reflectively cognizant of the fact that their particular ilk of determinism has nothingness as originative source!

This is all rooted in the same confusion.

Look at it this way (as a circle):

-1 Know
+2 of any/all <-*creation
-2 *not to* <-*destruction
+1 Believe
0 I am (willing to...) <-*being with equal propensity for good/evil
__________________________
0 - 1 + 2 - 2 + 1 = 0 I am willing to KNOW of any/all *not to* BELIEVE
0 + 1 - 2 + 2 - 1 = 0 I am willing to BELIEVE *not to* of any/all KNOW

and notice how 2 and -2 are creation/destruction. So, in order to "create", you have to destroy what is already there. This requires acknowledgement of what is already there: in order to create, it must begin with the destruction of what is there. Therefor, one not only can derive an ought not from an is, one must derive an ought not from an is in order to create anything (!).

So it is required to acknowledge the present as-is, which is all that exists anyways: the past/future are as projections, and the belief-based ideologies clinging to past belief-systems worshiping books (ie. the tongues of dead men) and dead men are relics of the ignorance of man. In this your assertion stands: Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed Nor Broken.

However to sever from the reality of human suffering is just as egregious a crime as any crime could possibly be: a complete controversy for committing the same crime such an assertion is intended to highlight! That would be absurd: as-is can never be denied, but must be acknowledged as-is. What that as-is, is, is relative to the observer (as time anyways is).

Therefor:

Your ''ought from is'' originates out of nothing; out of you're nothingness.
Duane

Your "ought from is" originates out of nothing but your own lack of understanding.

You can not get an ought from an is.
You can get an ought not from an is.

One must acknowledge whatever 'is' even if that happens to have a foundation of 'nothing': that human suffering 'is' something-in-and-of-itself, regardless of (empty) context, thus to deny the ever-present *is* (of which human suffering is an ever-present reality) is just as irresponsible and ignorant as any/all ignorance can possibly permit, including the ignorance(s) addressed by the essence of your own assertion.

Nothing;
It is indifferent whether you think you are deriving an ought or a ought not from an is, human determination is not, cannot,be predicated upon what is, whether you call what is the present of whatever...ALL DETERMINATION IS NEGATION, not positivity.
Duane

[Atla]

Maybe it's not just word salad, it's necrophilia. Western philosophy is pretty dead already, especially most of French philosophy, but some people just can't resist the urge to.. ah whatever

[nothing]

Nothing;
It is indifferent whether you think you are deriving an ought or a ought not from an is, human determination is not, cannot,be predicated upon what is, whether you call what is the present of whatever...ALL DETERMINATION IS NEGATION, not positivity.
Duane

Two points Duane.

First:
It is not indifferent: if you would believe that human determination (via. ought not to) can not be / is not predicated upon what is (if even known to cause pain/suffering), it is lunacy no less than the kind addressed by the essence of your assertion.

It would necessitate that any/all acknowledgement of human suffering is null and void thus of no real practical consequence/concern. It effectively severs one from the existence by way of sweeping escapist denialism.

Second:

ALL DETERMINATION IS NEGATION

-1 Know
+2 of any/all <-*creation
-2 *not to* <-*destruction
+1 Believe
0 I am (willing to...) <-*being with equal propensity for good/evil
__________________________
(+) 0 + 1 - 2 + 2 - 1 = 0 I am willing to BELIEVE *not to* of any/all KNOW
(-) 0 - 1 + 2 - 2 + 1 = 0 I am willing to KNOW of any/all *not to* BELIEVE

(+) Did you not see belief is (+) "positive"?
(-) Did you not see knowledge is (-) "negation" of belief(-based ignorance)?

(+) One has a body of ignorance
(-) One negates it with knowledge

(+) One can not derive an ought from an is.
(-) One can derive an ought not from an is.

Hence the absurdity of somehow not (?) being able to derive an ought not from an is:
any/all belief-based ignorance(s) ever reconciled due to: any attaining to knowledge is such a negation transaction: to know (-) not to believe (+).
It is therefor integral to consciousness itself - to attempt to deny/remove it would be a blunder (!)

So, again, I find:

ALL DETERMINATION IS NEGATION

as sound as

KNOWLEDGE IS NEGATION

and obviously if one is determined to know any/all not to believe, they approach any possible all-knowing god by necessity.

[upsurgent]

Nothing;
It is indifferent whether you think you are deriving an ought or a ought not from an is, human determination is not, cannot,be predicated upon what is, whether you call what is the present of whatever...ALL DETERMINATION IS NEGATION, not positivity.
Duane

Two points Duane.

First:
It is not indifferent: if you would believe that human determination (via. ought not to) can not be / is not predicated upon what is (if even known to cause pain/suffering), it is lunacy no less than the kind addressed by the essence of your assertion.

It would necessitate that any/all acknowledgement of human suffering is null and void thus of no real practical consequence/concern. It effectively severs one from the existence by way of sweeping escapist denialism.

Second:

ALL DETERMINATION IS NEGATION

-1 Know
+2 of any/all <-*creation
-2 *not to* <-*destruction
+1 Believe
0 I am (willing to...) <-*being with equal propensity for good/evil
__________________________
(+) 0 + 1 - 2 + 2 - 1 = 0 I am willing to BELIEVE *not to* of any/all KNOW
(-) 0 - 1 + 2 - 2 + 1 = 0 I am willing to KNOW of any/all *not to* BELIEVE

(+) Did you not see belief is (+) "positive"?
(-) Did you not see knowledge is (-) "negation" of belief(-based ignorance)?

(+) One has a body of ignorance
(-) One negates it with knowledge

(+) One can not derive an ought from an is.
(-) One can derive an ought not from an is.

Hence the absurdity of somehow not (?) being able to derive an ought not from an is:
any/all belief-based ignorance(s) ever reconciled due to: any attaining to knowledge is such a negation transaction: to know (-) not to believe (+).
It is therefor integral to consciousness itself - to attempt to deny/remove it would be a blunder (!)

So, again, I find:

ALL DETERMINATION IS NEGATION

as sound as

KNOWLEDGE IS NEGATION

and obviously if one is determined to know any/all not to believe, they approach any possible all-knowing god by necessity.

Nothing;
A great deal of language of law asserts that we ought not to do X, and, thus far, you have agreed that law cannot determine human behavior, which is a failure of the is that is law to determine persons not to do X, thus law per se provides us with demonstration that an is cannot determine persons not to do X.
Duane

[nothing]

Nothing;
A great deal of language of law asserts that we ought not to do X,

First and foremost (and of principle concern) the conscience does this. From there, 'language of law' derives (as does all manner of conscious experience) which is as fallible as the nature of any conscience.

Hence: Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed Nor Broken is sound insofar as 'law' is subject to/by the conscience itself, having been derivative therefrom.

Take Islam: Muslims believe universal law to be embedded in/as the Qur'an alone.
The Muslims believe the Qur'an is perfect/infallible, thus have no knowledge it is fallible.
Hundreds of millions of people are dead and the House of Islam scapegoats/blames all others.

This is because the 'law' of Islam is itself man-made and subject to the fallacious conscience of the idol of Islam Muhammad: Muslims having no conscious knowledge they worship this man as an idol-god (viz. spilling blood over criticisms of) and believe others to be idol worshipers. In the reality: Islam is the most idolatrous/genocidal 'state' on the planet, and it takes any/all manner of belief to believe otherwise.

Hence, Islam is a humanitarian crisis according to Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed Nor Broken.

and, thus far, you have agreed that law cannot determine human behavior,

Belief-based ignorance taken as law (ie. Islam) can determine human behavior viz. ought not.

One can know one ought not to any longer believe.

which is a failure of the is that is law to determine persons not to do X,

It's a failure of the (conscience of the) ignorant being: in the case of Islam, the Muslim for not trying their own belief-based ignorance, having no knowledge of it. They religiously believe any/all others to be ignorant, yet Islam is the most ignorant 'state' on the planet and they whine and squeal like pigs about this: they worship an infidel man whose "example" is not the best, but the worst.

In a worst case scenario, any believer could believe the particular opposite of what is actually true, if completely ignorant. Now look at Islam and Muslims believing Islam means 'peace'. In the manifest reality, ~270 000 000 are dead and Islam is really nothing but perpetual conflict viz. believer vs. unbeliever division that Islam blames on everyone else.

thus law per se provides us with demonstration that an is cannot determine persons not to do X.
Duane

Yes: belief-based law that is not real law.

Gravity is a law that IS Obeyed: it can not be disobeyed even if willing. It can only be known (of) or not known of. This is the only dual 'state' regarding any real "law": knowledge of / ignorance of.

I will tell you a secret the modern-day philosophers can not / will not see.

All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.

Is a monumental blunder. Knowledge is the opposite of belief: it negates it, just as Muslims' belief-based ignorance would be negated by the knowledge of not to believe in Islam. They do not "know" any better, hence the two Edenic trees.

TREE OF DEATH I am willing to BELIEVE *not to* of any/all KNOW
TREE OF LIFE I am willing to KNOW of any/all *not to* BELIEVE

Whereas Muslim is the former, the people they are killing are the latter therefor Islam is monumentally ignorant-in-and-of-itself: committing the first 'sin' their own alleged god ever warned Adam "first Muslim" about:

GENESIS 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

It takes a believer to believe evil is good: both Islam and Satan require belief. Under your terms, Muslims would never know not to believe Law IS Obeyed/Disobeyed/Broken, which is their own belief-based ignorance responsible for the death of ~270 000 000 in agreement to the warning they themselves claim as authoritative. It catches them in their own bind: not to mention one can not even join Islam without violating one of the ten commandments.

The ought not to believe negates any/all possible belief-based ignorance(s), and belief-based ignorance is (ie. exists).