Ontological Disproof of Jehovah and Christ

[upsurgent]

ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF of the DEITY of YAHWEH JEHOVAH and JESUS CHRIST is a RAMIFICATION of BARUCH SPINOZA’S ‘’determiatio negatio est”, i.e., “determination is negation”. Duane Clinton Meehan
I.
a). The ‘determination’ considered herein is the mode whereby a person originates an intentional act. Spinoza’s “determinatio negatio est” sets forth that one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure; and, J.P. Sartre (1905-1980), has given us a detailed description of the actual doubly nihilative process whereby human action upsurges ex nihilo.
1. Judaeo-Christian theological error consists in deeming the Biblical Yahweh, Jehovah, and Christ, to be Deity which both created man, and, master and command men via written law and scripture.
2. An authentic Omnipotent Godhead, having made man, would not thereafter mistakenly demand man determine himself, in his acts and forbearance, by a deistically established and enforced language of law/ scripture; for to do so contravenes man’s authentically deistically created ontological mode of originating action and inaction; which human ontological mode of upsurge of action fundamentally pre-qualifies man for the possibility of constructing a non-legalistic mode of civilization, patterned upon the form provided by man’s overall personal ontological structure.
3. Yahweh/Jehovah/Christ, of Judaeo-Christian scripture, proclaiming man shall be determined in his acts, and his forbearance to act, by a language of law attendant upon holy scripture, thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action. If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined, in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture; thereby indicating Judaeo-Christian Deity, as described by Biblical Prophets, are inauthentic Deity, and, further, are inauthentic Deity which both practice mistake and exhibit ignorance regarding the genuine nihilative mode of originative upsurge of human action, and, of human forbearance to act.
4. Consciousness is prior to the theoretical construct "law", which law is mistakenly posited as determinative of conduct, by a series of human Biblical Prophetic consciousnesses, while, all the while, law-positing human consciousness, by virtue of its own ontological structure, cannot subsequently be determined to action, or inaction, by the self-same mistakenly posited language of "law".
Inauthentic Biblical Deity and Biblical Prophets insist men determine their conduct via existing “law” and “scripture”, while, all the while, determination is negation, meaning human action-origination proceeds purely on the basis of n o n-e x I s t a n t s, not on the basis of existing states of affairs like “law”, i.e., “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, Sartre 435).
5. If I entertain the possibility that my created consciousness is made in the image and likeness of Deity, then, to gain core familiarity with Deity, I simply need study the ontological structure of my Deity- reflecting consciousness.
6. Consciousness is the constant study, and, the entire subject matter of Jean Paul Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, 1943...
7. Sartre’s theory of origin of human action posits consciousness as upsurging acts via “the double nihilation”, a position predicated upon Baruch Spinoza’s (1632-1677) “determinatio negatio est”, thus:
II.
1. A profound error is transpiring in law, herein dubbed the “jurisprudential illusion”, which error is recognizable via the perspectival view afforded by J.P. Sartre’s theory of origin of human action, a theory predicated upon Baruch Spinoza’s “determinatio negatio est”, i.e., “determination is negation”.
2. Via Sartre’s model of the origin of human action, it is demonstrable that while upholding law, one cannot correctly claim given published language of law to be a means of determining one’s self to act in accordance with language of law; hence the subjoined explanation of how, via the Sartreian theory of origin of human action, description of jurisprudential illusion is possible.
3. Recent description of the ontological mode of originative upsurge of personal determination to act, presented consistently in works by J.P. Sartre (1905-1980), permits critique of American grassroots/legislative/jurisprudential/theological presupposition presuming enforced language of law to be determinative of human action/inaction, and/or, that persons determine themselves to action/inaction by the enforced language of published law.
4. We Americans perform our civilization in the mode of Constitutional determinism, bent upon police-prosecutorial-judicial enforcement of given language of law, i.e., legislative enactments and judicial decisions, which law, administered as a supreme and inviolable determinative force, is deemed to “rule” the conduct of human action as a “rule of law”; which “rule of law” is ultimately predicated upon a vast series of attendant violent “punishments”, for “violation of law”, up to, and including, death; —- while, all the while, human determination to action actually originates and transpires in keeping with Baruch Spinoza’s (1632-1677), “determinatio negatio est” (i.e., “ determination is negation”) (Spinoza, Letter 50 to Jareg Jelles, in Letters. Trans. Shirley. Hackell, 1995, p. 260.) —- i.e., human action/inaction originates ex nihilo, with the circumstances attendant upon the originative upsurge of human action being negative, e.g., absence; past; future; objective lack; double nihilation (“The Transcendence of the Ego” Sartre 98-99). —- Spinoza’s dictum is a terse original description of the human ontological mode of originative upsurge of human action, standing at the antipode of a positivist, materialist, causalist, mechanistic, enforced, punitive, language of law, which given language of law is an ontologically inaccurate; ontologically illegitimate; ontologically unintelligible; artificial; false; failing; failed; existentially absurd; incompetent attempt to determine/originate human action, and/or inaction, by givens.
5. The originative ontological modus operandi of the upsurge of human action, comprehension of which constitutes a person reflectively ontologically free, is the “double nihilation” (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 435,486). Original human ontological freedom is fundamentally the double nihilation.
6. When imagining doing an intentional act, consciousness performs the double nihilation; which is a thrust away from, an escape from, a given state of affairs, toward a not yet existing, future state of affairs. To “nihilate” means “to make nothing”. The nihilative movement of consciousness, since it is a refusal of a given state of affairs in the name of a non-existent, projected, future state of affairs, is doubly nihilative. Consciousness’ determination to flee the given toward the future makes the particular nothing which is a future/intended state of affairs, and, in the thrust toward that future nothingness, makes the given state of affairs nothing, as a surpassed past (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 431-434).
7. Only the double nihilation is the negation, i.e., the negative process, whereby human action originates/upsurges.
8. 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. (Sartre, J.P., “Being and Nothingness”, Part Four, entire).
9. 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.
Law arbitrarily designated by jurisprudence as determinative of human conduct is an existential ontological absurdity, for human determination is solely predicated upon negation, and, language of law is a presence, a given, a factual.
10. Positivist materialist determinist jurisprudentially oriented persons lack reflective consciousness of the human ontological fact that determination to action, or inaction, for original human freedom, upsurges only as two negative moments of the doubly nihilative movement of consciousness, vectoring unto an intended future.
11. The American legalistic jurisprudential illusion of ascribing to human action an origination in, and/or, by, given written law, is a mistaken, silent, absurd jurisprudential presupposition; consider thusly : “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”, Sartre, 477).
12. The in-authority of American legal authority consists in the jurisprudential illusion whereby said legal authority absurdly claims given language of law to be determinative of all actions by legal authority against persons, while, all the while, defense against the in-authoritative authority of American law consists in the human ontological reality that all human determination to action transpires only via doubly nihilative conscious moments, whereby each and every originally absolutely ontologically free human consciousness intentionally imagines and, intentionally upsurges unto an absent future.

13. One can possibly appear to determine to act in accord with given language of law, however, one cannot legitimately, accurately, and humanely claim and declare given language of law to be an ontologically authentic and correct basis for subjecting, for example, in one’s role as legislator or prosecutor, or magistrate, another human being to punishment; i.e., as a being for whom action originates and upsurges as a function of the doubly nihilative movement characterizable of the pursuit of one’s every conscious project, it is absurd, illusory, and in bad faith, as ex nihilo nihilative originator of one’s acts, to claim that one is determined to judicial action against another person by given language of law; therefore, ultimately, one cannot in fact legitimately act, is not in fact legitimately, honorably, acting against another human being on the basis of, and in accord with, one’s false notion that given published enforced language of law is determinative of one’s conduct.
14. The designation of given language of law as a means for punishing another human being is unjustifiably inconsistent with the sole ontological process whereby the originative upsurge of human action transpires.
15. No magistrate can in fact be determined to action, or, determine himself to action by law, therefore, any punishment which said magistrate declares against a person, in the name of “law”, is predicated upon the legal/jurisprudential error of mistakenly presupposing a determinative efficacy of law, which error constitutes ongoing legal malpractice of an inhumane and unethical jurisprudential illusion.

(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.
Human existential absurdity designates givens as cause/motive/determinant of one’s action, while, all the while, human action exclusively originates ex nihilo, from consciousness’ nihilative capacity. (Sartre, “Being and Nothingness”, Part Four)).
III.
1. American police and prosecutorial officers, jurors, magistrates, legislators, and executive officers, conduct themselves per the hitherto undescribed jurisprudential illusion, which illusion historically, and, currently, innervates both lawful legal punishment, and, rampant police-on-citizen crime/violence/murder.
2. The American jurisprudential practice of punishing/killing persons for failure to be determined to action and/or inaction, by enforced language of law, a practice predicated upon the defeasible and mistaken presupposition that enforced language of law is determinative of human conduct, is: Radical injustice performed in destructive disaccord with the actual human ontological mode of upsurge of human action.
IV.
a). The subjoined traces the Sartreian description/explanation of our authentic, original mode of human conduct/misconduct, and, thereby, posits an alternative and humanontological-mode of constituting/advancing American civilization; — a civilization constructed and conducted in harmony and accord with, not in disharmony/disaccord/war, with our deistically originated human ontological construction.
1. Americans are now too suffocated by “law” to become ontologically complete persons.
2. Currently unable to entirely realize their humanity, Americans grow increasingly anti- human and inhuman, under the unreflectively irresponsible, inauthoritatively authoritative, bumbling, misleading, impeding, incoherent reign of stunting jurisprudential illusion; — hence, an Emancipation, proclaimed thus :
3. Via an explanation of the negation whereby human action transpires, it is possible to uplift American personal ontological freedom from a pre-reflective*, to a reflective consciousness, of the originative ontological modus operandi of the upsurge of human action. Thereby rendered reflectively free, Americans will stand positioned to constitute what was originally intended, by pre-reflectively ontologically free founders, to be an ontologically free civilization.
4. The United States Bill of Rights of 1791 is a pro-ontological attempt to formalize a human ontological civilization. American ontological civilization was formally pioneered with the language of The Bill of Rights, as pro-ontological law, reserving human ontological freedoms immune from abridgement by enforced positivist materialist pseudo-determinative language of law; a civilization constructed and conducted in harmony and accord with, not in disharmony/disaccord/war with our Deistically originated human ontological construction.
5. An ontological in an ineluctable human act which one cannot choose not to be capable of; it is a human action-capacity which one is created to have, e.g., existentially, one is “condemned to be free” (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 435). A given human act is said to be ontological when the act is known by all persons to be absolutely part-and-parcel of being a human being; e.g., Deity worship is a universal human ontological phenomenon, (all persons live in pursuit of attaining to the ens causa sui by their own particular means, usually via achieving unity with Deity through religious practice). Likewise, keeping and bearing arms is a universal human ontological phenomenon. That which is ontological is what stands as an ineluctable ensemble of personal human action-capacities, to wit : Intentional future-oriented consciousness enacting double nihilations, i.e., Freedom; Lover; Killer; Weapon/Tool user; Linguist; Pursuer of ens causa sui/Deity worshiper; Holder of Common Sense Notions of Right Conduct; Wrongdoer; Thief; Enslaver; Avenger.
6. American language of law is posited and published by pre-reflectively free legislative and jurisprudential interests, confidently presupposing law to be determinative of human action, and/or, that human determination to act, or forbear action, transpires per given
legislative/decisional law, while, all the while, reflectively free personal ontological freedom reports: “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” Sartre 435).
Inauthoritative in regard to the all-important ontological mode of originative upsurge of human action, American inauthoritative authorities mistakenly deem language of law to be “…past determinations ruling men in the way that a cause rules its effects.” (“Search for a Method” 96).
7. Reflectively free personal ontological freedom reports : “…the cause, far from determining the action, appears only in and through the project of an action.” (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre” 448). In the course of the nihilitive upsurge of its act, consciousness chooses/designates/dictates, from among given phenomenon contained in the world, the cause/motive of the act; while, all the while, consciousness is not, cannot, be causally determined to originate its act, or, refusal to act.(“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 437).
8. Americans are thoroughly scientistically oriented, such that their intellectual
instrumentation is limited to seeing action phenomena strictly in terms of matter in motion moved in the mode of cause and effect, wherein external force vectors substance.
In keeping with their positivist materialist scientistic weltanschauung, American grassroots, police and prosecutorial officers, jurists and executive officers, deem originative upsurge of the human act subject to being vectored by the externality of a putatively determinative/authoritative linguistic “force of law”, while, all the while, human determination to action actually transpires ex nihilo, in the mode of Spinoza’s dictum, and, G.W.F. Hegel’s (1770-1831), “Omnis determinatio est negatio.”**, as the Sartreian “double nihilation”. (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 436).
The American positivist materialist scientistic weltanschauung, misconceptually presupposing human action origination subject to being set in motion moved by external force of language of law, wherein action origination is deemed to be causally correlative to the enforced language of law, errs regarding the actual ontological mode of upsurge of action. 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 law”.
11. Herein critique/polemic is directed toward the given as a purported determinative efficacy among persons, i.e., it is held, against extant belief, that given language of law has no determinative efficacy among men regarding the origination of an act or forbearance. —– It is unintentional pretense/masquerade/swindle for pre-reflectively free persons to claim language of law to be determinative of their actions and/or inactions.
At this juncture the reader is provided with some further reference to rationale regarding
action-origination posited by the Sartrean existentialist phenomenological ontology, which
ontology constitutes a theoretical stance efficient to describe the jurisprudential illusion of
action-origination in, and\ or, by, written law : “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…The 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” Sartre 477).
12. Herein is outlined a particular American “lived-contradiction” (Sartre), wherein
necessatarianistic language of law is employed in an American legalistic attempt to establish an ontologically free civilization, while, all the while, it is not, cannot be, by a given necessatarianistic language of pseudo-determinative law, that civilization is constituted; rather, it is simply by personally reflectively freely realizing and living raw human absolute ontological freedom, that ontological civilization is. The ontological unintelligibility of American language of law consists in the pathological
presupposition that given language of law is somehow determinative of human action/inaction, while, all the while, human action/inaction actually upsurges ex nihilo as a double nihilation, wherein the given is depassed and made nothing in pursuit of a future that is not yet.
We Americans now exist, regardless of a strong historical constitutional ideality assuring us vast individual liberty, a tyrannical and freedom-destructive absolutism of “law”, predicated upon the radically mistaken presupposition that given jurisprudentially posited language is determinative of human conduct.
Emancipatory relief, from the intensifying tyranny of American absolutistic language of law, begins via description of mistaken legalist presupposition constituting enforced jurisprudential illusion, and, ameliorative change transpires via a reflective transcendence of mistaken presupposition, along with adoption of an ontologically intelligible, ontologically civilized, mode of addressing human misconduct. If we Americans are to protect, preserve, even extend, our Constitutional ontological rights, it cannot be by mere “law”, for, our ruling inauthoritative authorities, being themselves ontologically free, are not really determined by any language of law; rather,
13. Our raw living personal ontological structure is ultimate regulatory ur-grund for an
American ontological civilization, transpiring peacefully, interpersonally, absent
anti-human/anti-ontological law; — for, what we freely are, as personal absolute ontological freedom, in its integral interpersonal totality, is completely sufficient to deter misconduct among all persons raised to the higher ontological dignity of being reflectively ontologically free.
+
The phrases: “…original freedom…”; “…reflective consciousness…”; and, “…double nihillation…” are J.P. Sartre’s; and, the dictum “All determination is negation.” is Hegelian.
* To have a pre-reflective knowledge of something is to live it absent an understanding of
precisely how its origin transpires, e.g., we currently possess a mere pre-reflective knowledge of cancer. To be reflectively conscious of something is to live it knowing the structure of the operation, and, the mode of origin thereof.
**
“All determination is negation.”
Works Cited
Spinoza, Baruch. Letter 50 to Jareg Jelles, in Letters. Trans. Samuel Shirley. Hackell. 1995.
Sartre, Jean Paul. The Transcendence of the Ego. Trans. Forrest Williams and Robert
Kirkpatrick. New York. Hill and Wang, 19 Sartre, Jean Paul. Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. Trans.
Hazel E. Barnes. Philosophical Library. New York. 1956.
Sartre, Jean Paul. Search for a Method. Trans. Hazel E. Barnes. Vintage Books. New York.
1960. 60.

[Eodnhoj7]

ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF of the DEITY of YAHWEH JEHOVAH and JESUS CHRIST is a RAMIFICATION of BARUCH SPINOZA’S ‘’determiatio negatio est”, i.e., “determination is negation”. Duane Clinton Meehan
I.
a). The ‘determination’ considered herein is the mode whereby a person originates an intentional act. Spinoza’s “determinatio negatio est” sets forth that one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure; and, J.P. Sartre (1905-1980), has given us a detailed description of the actual doubly nihilative process whereby human action upsurges ex nihilo.
1. Judaeo-Christian theological error consists in deeming the Biblical Yahweh, Jehovah, and Christ, to be Deity which both created man, and, master and command men via written law and scripture.
2. An authentic Omnipotent Godhead, having made man, would not thereafter mistakenly demand man determine himself, in his acts and forbearance, by a deistically established and enforced language of law/ scripture; for to do so contravenes man’s authentically deistically created ontological mode of originating action and inaction; which human ontological mode of upsurge of action fundamentally pre-qualifies man for the possibility of constructing a non-legalistic mode of civilization, patterned upon the form provided by man’s overall personal ontological structure.
3. Yahweh/Jehovah/Christ, of Judaeo-Christian scripture, proclaiming man shall be determined in his acts, and his forbearance to act, by a language of law attendant upon holy scripture, thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action. If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined, in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture; thereby indicating Judaeo-Christian Deity, as described by Biblical Prophets, are inauthentic Deity, and, further, are inauthentic Deity which both practice mistake and exhibit ignorance regarding the genuine nihilative mode of originative upsurge of human action, and, of human forbearance to act.
4. Consciousness is prior to the theoretical construct "law", which law is mistakenly posited as determinative of conduct, by a series of human Biblical Prophetic consciousnesses, while, all the while, law-positing human consciousness, by virtue of its own ontological structure, cannot subsequently be determined to action, or inaction, by the self-same mistakenly posited language of "law".
Inauthentic Biblical Deity and Biblical Prophets insist men determine their conduct via existing “law” and “scripture”, while, all the while, determination is negation, meaning human action-origination proceeds purely on the basis of n o n-e x I s t a n t s, not on the basis of existing states of affairs like “law”, i.e., “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, Sartre 435).
5. If I entertain the possibility that my created consciousness is made in the image and likeness of Deity, then, to gain core familiarity with Deity, I simply need study the ontological structure of my Deity- reflecting consciousness.
6. Consciousness is the constant study, and, the entire subject matter of Jean Paul Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, 1943...
7. Sartre’s theory of origin of human action posits consciousness as upsurging acts via “the double nihilation”, a position predicated upon Baruch Spinoza’s (1632-1677) “determinatio negatio est”, thus:
II.
1. A profound error is transpiring in law, herein dubbed the “jurisprudential illusion”, which error is recognizable via the perspectival view afforded by J.P. Sartre’s theory of origin of human action, a theory predicated upon Baruch Spinoza’s “determinatio negatio est”, i.e., “determination is negation”.
2. Via Sartre’s model of the origin of human action, it is demonstrable that while upholding law, one cannot correctly claim given published language of law to be a means of determining one’s self to act in accordance with language of law; hence the subjoined explanation of how, via the Sartreian theory of origin of human action, description of jurisprudential illusion is possible.
3. Recent description of the ontological mode of originative upsurge of personal determination to act, presented consistently in works by J.P. Sartre (1905-1980), permits critique of American grassroots/legislative/jurisprudential/theological presupposition presuming enforced language of law to be determinative of human action/inaction, and/or, that persons determine themselves to action/inaction by the enforced language of published law.
4. We Americans perform our civilization in the mode of Constitutional determinism, bent upon police-prosecutorial-judicial enforcement of given language of law, i.e., legislative enactments and judicial decisions, which law, administered as a supreme and inviolable determinative force, is deemed to “rule” the conduct of human action as a “rule of law”; which “rule of law” is ultimately predicated upon a vast series of attendant violent “punishments”, for “violation of law”, up to, and including, death; —- while, all the while, human determination to action actually originates and transpires in keeping with Baruch Spinoza’s (1632-1677), “determinatio negatio est” (i.e., “ determination is negation”) (Spinoza, Letter 50 to Jareg Jelles, in Letters. Trans. Shirley. Hackell, 1995, p. 260.) —- i.e., human action/inaction originates ex nihilo, with the circumstances attendant upon the originative upsurge of human action being negative, e.g., absence; past; future; objective lack; double nihilation (“The Transcendence of the Ego” Sartre 98-99). —- Spinoza’s dictum is a terse original description of the human ontological mode of originative upsurge of human action, standing at the antipode of a positivist, materialist, causalist, mechanistic, enforced, punitive, language of law, which given language of law is an ontologically inaccurate; ontologically illegitimate; ontologically unintelligible; artificial; false; failing; failed; existentially absurd; incompetent attempt to determine/originate human action, and/or inaction, by givens.
5. The originative ontological modus operandi of the upsurge of human action, comprehension of which constitutes a person reflectively ontologically free, is the “double nihilation” (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 435,486). Original human ontological freedom is fundamentally the double nihilation.
6. When imagining doing an intentional act, consciousness performs the double nihilation; which is a thrust away from, an escape from, a given state of affairs, toward a not yet existing, future state of affairs. To “nihilate” means “to make nothing”. The nihilative movement of consciousness, since it is a refusal of a given state of affairs in the name of a non-existent, projected, future state of affairs, is doubly nihilative. Consciousness’ determination to flee the given toward the future makes the particular nothing which is a future/intended state of affairs, and, in the thrust toward that future nothingness, makes the given state of affairs nothing, as a surpassed past (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 431-434).
7. Only the double nihilation is the negation, i.e., the negative process, whereby human action originates/upsurges.
8. 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. (Sartre, J.P., “Being and Nothingness”, Part Four, entire).
9. 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.
Law arbitrarily designated by jurisprudence as determinative of human conduct is an existential ontological absurdity, for human determination is solely predicated upon negation, and, language of law is a presence, a given, a factual.
10. Positivist materialist determinist jurisprudentially oriented persons lack reflective consciousness of the human ontological fact that determination to action, or inaction, for original human freedom, upsurges only as two negative moments of the doubly nihilative movement of consciousness, vectoring unto an intended future.
11. The American legalistic jurisprudential illusion of ascribing to human action an origination in, and/or, by, given written law, is a mistaken, silent, absurd jurisprudential presupposition; consider thusly : “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”, Sartre, 477).
12. The in-authority of American legal authority consists in the jurisprudential illusion whereby said legal authority absurdly claims given language of law to be determinative of all actions by legal authority against persons, while, all the while, defense against the in-authoritative authority of American law consists in the human ontological reality that all human determination to action transpires only via doubly nihilative conscious moments, whereby each and every originally absolutely ontologically free human consciousness intentionally imagines and, intentionally upsurges unto an absent future.

13. One can possibly appear to determine to act in accord with given language of law, however, one cannot legitimately, accurately, and humanely claim and declare given language of law to be an ontologically authentic and correct basis for subjecting, for example, in one’s role as legislator or prosecutor, or magistrate, another human being to punishment; i.e., as a being for whom action originates and upsurges as a function of the doubly nihilative movement characterizable of the pursuit of one’s every conscious project, it is absurd, illusory, and in bad faith, as ex nihilo nihilative originator of one’s acts, to claim that one is determined to judicial action against another person by given language of law; therefore, ultimately, one cannot in fact legitimately act, is not in fact legitimately, honorably, acting against another human being on the basis of, and in accord with, one’s false notion that given published enforced language of law is determinative of one’s conduct.
14. The designation of given language of law as a means for punishing another human being is unjustifiably inconsistent with the sole ontological process whereby the originative upsurge of human action transpires.
15. No magistrate can in fact be determined to action, or, determine himself to action by law, therefore, any punishment which said magistrate declares against a person, in the name of “law”, is predicated upon the legal/jurisprudential error of mistakenly presupposing a determinative efficacy of law, which error constitutes ongoing legal malpractice of an inhumane and unethical jurisprudential illusion.

(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.
Human existential absurdity designates givens as cause/motive/determinant of one’s action, while, all the while, human action exclusively originates ex nihilo, from consciousness’ nihilative capacity. (Sartre, “Being and Nothingness”, Part Four)).
III.
1. American police and prosecutorial officers, jurors, magistrates, legislators, and executive officers, conduct themselves per the hitherto undescribed jurisprudential illusion, which illusion historically, and, currently, innervates both lawful legal punishment, and, rampant police-on-citizen crime/violence/murder.
2. The American jurisprudential practice of punishing/killing persons for failure to be determined to action and/or inaction, by enforced language of law, a practice predicated upon the defeasible and mistaken presupposition that enforced language of law is determinative of human conduct, is: Radical injustice performed in destructive disaccord with the actual human ontological mode of upsurge of human action.
IV.
a). The subjoined traces the Sartreian description/explanation of our authentic, original mode of human conduct/misconduct, and, thereby, posits an alternative and humanontological-mode of constituting/advancing American civilization; — a civilization constructed and conducted in harmony and accord with, not in disharmony/disaccord/war, with our deistically originated human ontological construction.
1. Americans are now too suffocated by “law” to become ontologically complete persons.
2. Currently unable to entirely realize their humanity, Americans grow increasingly anti- human and inhuman, under the unreflectively irresponsible, inauthoritatively authoritative, bumbling, misleading, impeding, incoherent reign of stunting jurisprudential illusion; — hence, an Emancipation, proclaimed thus :
3. Via an explanation of the negation whereby human action transpires, it is possible to uplift American personal ontological freedom from a pre-reflective*, to a reflective consciousness, of the originative ontological modus operandi of the upsurge of human action. Thereby rendered reflectively free, Americans will stand positioned to constitute what was originally intended, by pre-reflectively ontologically free founders, to be an ontologically free civilization.
4. The United States Bill of Rights of 1791 is a pro-ontological attempt to formalize a human ontological civilization. American ontological civilization was formally pioneered with the language of The Bill of Rights, as pro-ontological law, reserving human ontological freedoms immune from abridgement by enforced positivist materialist pseudo-determinative language of law; a civilization constructed and conducted in harmony and accord with, not in disharmony/disaccord/war with our Deistically originated human ontological construction.
5. An ontological in an ineluctable human act which one cannot choose not to be capable of; it is a human action-capacity which one is created to have, e.g., existentially, one is “condemned to be free” (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 435). A given human act is said to be ontological when the act is known by all persons to be absolutely part-and-parcel of being a human being; e.g., Deity worship is a universal human ontological phenomenon, (all persons live in pursuit of attaining to the ens causa sui by their own particular means, usually via achieving unity with Deity through religious practice). Likewise, keeping and bearing arms is a universal human ontological phenomenon. That which is ontological is what stands as an ineluctable ensemble of personal human action-capacities, to wit : Intentional future-oriented consciousness enacting double nihilations, i.e., Freedom; Lover; Killer; Weapon/Tool user; Linguist; Pursuer of ens causa sui/Deity worshiper; Holder of Common Sense Notions of Right Conduct; Wrongdoer; Thief; Enslaver; Avenger.
6. American language of law is posited and published by pre-reflectively free legislative and jurisprudential interests, confidently presupposing law to be determinative of human action, and/or, that human determination to act, or forbear action, transpires per given
legislative/decisional law, while, all the while, reflectively free personal ontological freedom reports: “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” Sartre 435).
Inauthoritative in regard to the all-important ontological mode of originative upsurge of human action, American inauthoritative authorities mistakenly deem language of law to be “…past determinations ruling men in the way that a cause rules its effects.” (“Search for a Method” 96).
7. Reflectively free personal ontological freedom reports : “…the cause, far from determining the action, appears only in and through the project of an action.” (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre” 448). In the course of the nihilitive upsurge of its act, consciousness chooses/designates/dictates, from among given phenomenon contained in the world, the cause/motive of the act; while, all the while, consciousness is not, cannot, be causally determined to originate its act, or, refusal to act.(“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 437).
8. Americans are thoroughly scientistically oriented, such that their intellectual
instrumentation is limited to seeing action phenomena strictly in terms of matter in motion moved in the mode of cause and effect, wherein external force vectors substance.
In keeping with their positivist materialist scientistic weltanschauung, American grassroots, police and prosecutorial officers, jurists and executive officers, deem originative upsurge of the human act subject to being vectored by the externality of a putatively determinative/authoritative linguistic “force of law”, while, all the while, human determination to action actually transpires ex nihilo, in the mode of Spinoza’s dictum, and, G.W.F. Hegel’s (1770-1831), “Omnis determinatio est negatio.”**, as the Sartreian “double nihilation”. (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 436).
The American positivist materialist scientistic weltanschauung, misconceptually presupposing human action origination subject to being set in motion moved by external force of language of law, wherein action origination is deemed to be causally correlative to the enforced language of law, errs regarding the actual ontological mode of upsurge of action. 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 law”.
11. Herein critique/polemic is directed toward the given as a purported determinative efficacy among persons, i.e., it is held, against extant belief, that given language of law has no determinative efficacy among men regarding the origination of an act or forbearance. —– It is unintentional pretense/masquerade/swindle for pre-reflectively free persons to claim language of law to be determinative of their actions and/or inactions.
At this juncture the reader is provided with some further reference to rationale regarding
action-origination posited by the Sartrean existentialist phenomenological ontology, which
ontology constitutes a theoretical stance efficient to describe the jurisprudential illusion of
action-origination in, and\ or, by, written law : “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…The 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” Sartre 477).
12. Herein is outlined a particular American “lived-contradiction” (Sartre), wherein
necessatarianistic language of law is employed in an American legalistic attempt to establish an ontologically free civilization, while, all the while, it is not, cannot be, by a given necessatarianistic language of pseudo-determinative law, that civilization is constituted; rather, it is simply by personally reflectively freely realizing and living raw human absolute ontological freedom, that ontological civilization is. The ontological unintelligibility of American language of law consists in the pathological
presupposition that given language of law is somehow determinative of human action/inaction, while, all the while, human action/inaction actually upsurges ex nihilo as a double nihilation, wherein the given is depassed and made nothing in pursuit of a future that is not yet.
We Americans now exist, regardless of a strong historical constitutional ideality assuring us vast individual liberty, a tyrannical and freedom-destructive absolutism of “law”, predicated upon the radically mistaken presupposition that given jurisprudentially posited language is determinative of human conduct.
Emancipatory relief, from the intensifying tyranny of American absolutistic language of law, begins via description of mistaken legalist presupposition constituting enforced jurisprudential illusion, and, ameliorative change transpires via a reflective transcendence of mistaken presupposition, along with adoption of an ontologically intelligible, ontologically civilized, mode of addressing human misconduct. If we Americans are to protect, preserve, even extend, our Constitutional ontological rights, it cannot be by mere “law”, for, our ruling inauthoritative authorities, being themselves ontologically free, are not really determined by any language of law; rather,
13. Our raw living personal ontological structure is ultimate regulatory ur-grund for an
American ontological civilization, transpiring peacefully, interpersonally, absent
anti-human/anti-ontological law; — for, what we freely are, as personal absolute ontological freedom, in its integral interpersonal totality, is completely sufficient to deter misconduct among all persons raised to the higher ontological dignity of being reflectively ontologically free.
+
The phrases: “…original freedom…”; “…reflective consciousness…”; and, “…double nihillation…” are J.P. Sartre’s; and, the dictum “All determination is negation.” is Hegelian.
* To have a pre-reflective knowledge of something is to live it absent an understanding of
precisely how its origin transpires, e.g., we currently possess a mere pre-reflective knowledge of cancer. To be reflectively conscious of something is to live it knowing the structure of the operation, and, the mode of origin thereof.
**
“All determination is negation.”
Works Cited
Spinoza, Baruch. Letter 50 to Jareg Jelles, in Letters. Trans. Samuel Shirley. Hackell. 1995.
Sartre, Jean Paul. The Transcendence of the Ego. Trans. Forrest Williams and Robert
Kirkpatrick. New York. Hill and Wang, 19 Sartre, Jean Paul. Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. Trans.
Hazel E. Barnes. Philosophical Library. New York. 1956.
Sartre, Jean Paul. Search for a Method. Trans. Hazel E. Barnes. Vintage Books. New York.
1960. 60.

How can you disprove anything when proof itself is subject to faith?

[upsurgent]

ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF of the DEITY of YAHWEH JEHOVAH and JESUS CHRIST is a RAMIFICATION of BARUCH SPINOZA’S ‘’determiatio negatio est”, i.e., “determination is negation”. Duane Clinton Meehan
I.
a). The ‘determination’ considered herein is the mode whereby a person originates an intentional act. Spinoza’s “determinatio negatio est” sets forth that one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure; and, J.P. Sartre (1905-1980), has given us a detailed description of the actual doubly nihilative process whereby human action upsurges ex nihilo.
1. Judaeo-Christian theological error consists in deeming the Biblical Yahweh, Jehovah, and Christ, to be Deity which both created man, and, master and command men via written law and scripture.
2. An authentic Omnipotent Godhead, having made man, would not thereafter mistakenly demand man determine himself, in his acts and forbearance, by a deistically established and enforced language of law/ scripture; for to do so contravenes man’s authentically deistically created ontological mode of originating action and inaction; which human ontological mode of upsurge of action fundamentally pre-qualifies man for the possibility of constructing a non-legalistic mode of civilization, patterned upon the form provided by man’s overall personal ontological structure.
3. Yahweh/Jehovah/Christ, of Judaeo-Christian scripture, proclaiming man shall be determined in his acts, and his forbearance to act, by a language of law attendant upon holy scripture, thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action. If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined, in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture; thereby indicating Judaeo-Christian Deity, as described by Biblical Prophets, are inauthentic Deity, and, further, are inauthentic Deity which both practice mistake and exhibit ignorance regarding the genuine nihilative mode of originative upsurge of human action, and, of human forbearance to act.
4. Consciousness is prior to the theoretical construct "law", which law is mistakenly posited as determinative of conduct, by a series of human Biblical Prophetic consciousnesses, while, all the while, law-positing human consciousness, by virtue of its own ontological structure, cannot subsequently be determined to action, or inaction, by the self-same mistakenly posited language of "law".
Inauthentic Biblical Deity and Biblical Prophets insist men determine their conduct via existing “law” and “scripture”, while, all the while, determination is negation, meaning human action-origination proceeds purely on the basis of n o n-e x I s t a n t s, not on the basis of existing states of affairs like “law”, i.e., “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, Sartre 435).
5. If I entertain the possibility that my created consciousness is made in the image and likeness of Deity, then, to gain core familiarity with Deity, I simply need study the ontological structure of my Deity- reflecting consciousness.
6. Consciousness is the constant study, and, the entire subject matter of Jean Paul Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, 1943...
7. Sartre’s theory of origin of human action posits consciousness as upsurging acts via “the double nihilation”, a position predicated upon Baruch Spinoza’s (1632-1677) “determinatio negatio est”, thus:
II.
1. A profound error is transpiring in law, herein dubbed the “jurisprudential illusion”, which error is recognizable via the perspectival view afforded by J.P. Sartre’s theory of origin of human action, a theory predicated upon Baruch Spinoza’s “determinatio negatio est”, i.e., “determination is negation”.
2. Via Sartre’s model of the origin of human action, it is demonstrable that while upholding law, one cannot correctly claim given published language of law to be a means of determining one’s self to act in accordance with language of law; hence the subjoined explanation of how, via the Sartreian theory of origin of human action, description of jurisprudential illusion is possible.
3. Recent description of the ontological mode of originative upsurge of personal determination to act, presented consistently in works by J.P. Sartre (1905-1980), permits critique of American grassroots/legislative/jurisprudential/theological presupposition presuming enforced language of law to be determinative of human action/inaction, and/or, that persons determine themselves to action/inaction by the enforced language of published law.
4. We Americans perform our civilization in the mode of Constitutional determinism, bent upon police-prosecutorial-judicial enforcement of given language of law, i.e., legislative enactments and judicial decisions, which law, administered as a supreme and inviolable determinative force, is deemed to “rule” the conduct of human action as a “rule of law”; which “rule of law” is ultimately predicated upon a vast series of attendant violent “punishments”, for “violation of law”, up to, and including, death; —- while, all the while, human determination to action actually originates and transpires in keeping with Baruch Spinoza’s (1632-1677), “determinatio negatio est” (i.e., “ determination is negation”) (Spinoza, Letter 50 to Jareg Jelles, in Letters. Trans. Shirley. Hackell, 1995, p. 260.) —- i.e., human action/inaction originates ex nihilo, with the circumstances attendant upon the originative upsurge of human action being negative, e.g., absence; past; future; objective lack; double nihilation (“The Transcendence of the Ego” Sartre 98-99). —- Spinoza’s dictum is a terse original description of the human ontological mode of originative upsurge of human action, standing at the antipode of a positivist, materialist, causalist, mechanistic, enforced, punitive, language of law, which given language of law is an ontologically inaccurate; ontologically illegitimate; ontologically unintelligible; artificial; false; failing; failed; existentially absurd; incompetent attempt to determine/originate human action, and/or inaction, by givens.
5. The originative ontological modus operandi of the upsurge of human action, comprehension of which constitutes a person reflectively ontologically free, is the “double nihilation” (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 435,486). Original human ontological freedom is fundamentally the double nihilation.
6. When imagining doing an intentional act, consciousness performs the double nihilation; which is a thrust away from, an escape from, a given state of affairs, toward a not yet existing, future state of affairs. To “nihilate” means “to make nothing”. The nihilative movement of consciousness, since it is a refusal of a given state of affairs in the name of a non-existent, projected, future state of affairs, is doubly nihilative. Consciousness’ determination to flee the given toward the future makes the particular nothing which is a future/intended state of affairs, and, in the thrust toward that future nothingness, makes the given state of affairs nothing, as a surpassed past (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 431-434).
7. Only the double nihilation is the negation, i.e., the negative process, whereby human action originates/upsurges.
8. 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. (Sartre, J.P., “Being and Nothingness”, Part Four, entire).
9. 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.
Law arbitrarily designated by jurisprudence as determinative of human conduct is an existential ontological absurdity, for human determination is solely predicated upon negation, and, language of law is a presence, a given, a factual.
10. Positivist materialist determinist jurisprudentially oriented persons lack reflective consciousness of the human ontological fact that determination to action, or inaction, for original human freedom, upsurges only as two negative moments of the doubly nihilative movement of consciousness, vectoring unto an intended future.
11. The American legalistic jurisprudential illusion of ascribing to human action an origination in, and/or, by, given written law, is a mistaken, silent, absurd jurisprudential presupposition; consider thusly : “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”, Sartre, 477).
12. The in-authority of American legal authority consists in the jurisprudential illusion whereby said legal authority absurdly claims given language of law to be determinative of all actions by legal authority against persons, while, all the while, defense against the in-authoritative authority of American law consists in the human ontological reality that all human determination to action transpires only via doubly nihilative conscious moments, whereby each and every originally absolutely ontologically free human consciousness intentionally imagines and, intentionally upsurges unto an absent future.

13. One can possibly appear to determine to act in accord with given language of law, however, one cannot legitimately, accurately, and humanely claim and declare given language of law to be an ontologically authentic and correct basis for subjecting, for example, in one’s role as legislator or prosecutor, or magistrate, another human being to punishment; i.e., as a being for whom action originates and upsurges as a function of the doubly nihilative movement characterizable of the pursuit of one’s every conscious project, it is absurd, illusory, and in bad faith, as ex nihilo nihilative originator of one’s acts, to claim that one is determined to judicial action against another person by given language of law; therefore, ultimately, one cannot in fact legitimately act, is not in fact legitimately, honorably, acting against another human being on the basis of, and in accord with, one’s false notion that given published enforced language of law is determinative of one’s conduct.
14. The designation of given language of law as a means for punishing another human being is unjustifiably inconsistent with the sole ontological process whereby the originative upsurge of human action transpires.
15. No magistrate can in fact be determined to action, or, determine himself to action by law, therefore, any punishment which said magistrate declares against a person, in the name of “law”, is predicated upon the legal/jurisprudential error of mistakenly presupposing a determinative efficacy of law, which error constitutes ongoing legal malpractice of an inhumane and unethical jurisprudential illusion.

(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.
Human existential absurdity designates givens as cause/motive/determinant of one’s action, while, all the while, human action exclusively originates ex nihilo, from consciousness’ nihilative capacity. (Sartre, “Being and Nothingness”, Part Four)).
III.
1. American police and prosecutorial officers, jurors, magistrates, legislators, and executive officers, conduct themselves per the hitherto undescribed jurisprudential illusion, which illusion historically, and, currently, innervates both lawful legal punishment, and, rampant police-on-citizen crime/violence/murder.
2. The American jurisprudential practice of punishing/killing persons for failure to be determined to action and/or inaction, by enforced language of law, a practice predicated upon the defeasible and mistaken presupposition that enforced language of law is determinative of human conduct, is: Radical injustice performed in destructive disaccord with the actual human ontological mode of upsurge of human action.
IV.
a). The subjoined traces the Sartreian description/explanation of our authentic, original mode of human conduct/misconduct, and, thereby, posits an alternative and humanontological-mode of constituting/advancing American civilization; — a civilization constructed and conducted in harmony and accord with, not in disharmony/disaccord/war, with our deistically originated human ontological construction.
1. Americans are now too suffocated by “law” to become ontologically complete persons.
2. Currently unable to entirely realize their humanity, Americans grow increasingly anti- human and inhuman, under the unreflectively irresponsible, inauthoritatively authoritative, bumbling, misleading, impeding, incoherent reign of stunting jurisprudential illusion; — hence, an Emancipation, proclaimed thus :
3. Via an explanation of the negation whereby human action transpires, it is possible to uplift American personal ontological freedom from a pre-reflective*, to a reflective consciousness, of the originative ontological modus operandi of the upsurge of human action. Thereby rendered reflectively free, Americans will stand positioned to constitute what was originally intended, by pre-reflectively ontologically free founders, to be an ontologically free civilization.
4. The United States Bill of Rights of 1791 is a pro-ontological attempt to formalize a human ontological civilization. American ontological civilization was formally pioneered with the language of The Bill of Rights, as pro-ontological law, reserving human ontological freedoms immune from abridgement by enforced positivist materialist pseudo-determinative language of law; a civilization constructed and conducted in harmony and accord with, not in disharmony/disaccord/war with our Deistically originated human ontological construction.
5. An ontological in an ineluctable human act which one cannot choose not to be capable of; it is a human action-capacity which one is created to have, e.g., existentially, one is “condemned to be free” (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 435). A given human act is said to be ontological when the act is known by all persons to be absolutely part-and-parcel of being a human being; e.g., Deity worship is a universal human ontological phenomenon, (all persons live in pursuit of attaining to the ens causa sui by their own particular means, usually via achieving unity with Deity through religious practice). Likewise, keeping and bearing arms is a universal human ontological phenomenon. That which is ontological is what stands as an ineluctable ensemble of personal human action-capacities, to wit : Intentional future-oriented consciousness enacting double nihilations, i.e., Freedom; Lover; Killer; Weapon/Tool user; Linguist; Pursuer of ens causa sui/Deity worshiper; Holder of Common Sense Notions of Right Conduct; Wrongdoer; Thief; Enslaver; Avenger.
6. American language of law is posited and published by pre-reflectively free legislative and jurisprudential interests, confidently presupposing law to be determinative of human action, and/or, that human determination to act, or forbear action, transpires per given
legislative/decisional law, while, all the while, reflectively free personal ontological freedom reports: “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” Sartre 435).
Inauthoritative in regard to the all-important ontological mode of originative upsurge of human action, American inauthoritative authorities mistakenly deem language of law to be “…past determinations ruling men in the way that a cause rules its effects.” (“Search for a Method” 96).
7. Reflectively free personal ontological freedom reports : “…the cause, far from determining the action, appears only in and through the project of an action.” (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre” 448). In the course of the nihilitive upsurge of its act, consciousness chooses/designates/dictates, from among given phenomenon contained in the world, the cause/motive of the act; while, all the while, consciousness is not, cannot, be causally determined to originate its act, or, refusal to act.(“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 437).
8. Americans are thoroughly scientistically oriented, such that their intellectual
instrumentation is limited to seeing action phenomena strictly in terms of matter in motion moved in the mode of cause and effect, wherein external force vectors substance.
In keeping with their positivist materialist scientistic weltanschauung, American grassroots, police and prosecutorial officers, jurists and executive officers, deem originative upsurge of the human act subject to being vectored by the externality of a putatively determinative/authoritative linguistic “force of law”, while, all the while, human determination to action actually transpires ex nihilo, in the mode of Spinoza’s dictum, and, G.W.F. Hegel’s (1770-1831), “Omnis determinatio est negatio.”**, as the Sartreian “double nihilation”. (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 436).
The American positivist materialist scientistic weltanschauung, misconceptually presupposing human action origination subject to being set in motion moved by external force of language of law, wherein action origination is deemed to be causally correlative to the enforced language of law, errs regarding the actual ontological mode of upsurge of action. 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 law”.
11. Herein critique/polemic is directed toward the given as a purported determinative efficacy among persons, i.e., it is held, against extant belief, that given language of law has no determinative efficacy among men regarding the origination of an act or forbearance. —– It is unintentional pretense/masquerade/swindle for pre-reflectively free persons to claim language of law to be determinative of their actions and/or inactions.
At this juncture the reader is provided with some further reference to rationale regarding
action-origination posited by the Sartrean existentialist phenomenological ontology, which
ontology constitutes a theoretical stance efficient to describe the jurisprudential illusion of
action-origination in, and\ or, by, written law : “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…The 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” Sartre 477).
12. Herein is outlined a particular American “lived-contradiction” (Sartre), wherein
necessatarianistic language of law is employed in an American legalistic attempt to establish an ontologically free civilization, while, all the while, it is not, cannot be, by a given necessatarianistic language of pseudo-determinative law, that civilization is constituted; rather, it is simply by personally reflectively freely realizing and living raw human absolute ontological freedom, that ontological civilization is. The ontological unintelligibility of American language of law consists in the pathological
presupposition that given language of law is somehow determinative of human action/inaction, while, all the while, human action/inaction actually upsurges ex nihilo as a double nihilation, wherein the given is depassed and made nothing in pursuit of a future that is not yet.
We Americans now exist, regardless of a strong historical constitutional ideality assuring us vast individual liberty, a tyrannical and freedom-destructive absolutism of “law”, predicated upon the radically mistaken presupposition that given jurisprudentially posited language is determinative of human conduct.
Emancipatory relief, from the intensifying tyranny of American absolutistic language of law, begins via description of mistaken legalist presupposition constituting enforced jurisprudential illusion, and, ameliorative change transpires via a reflective transcendence of mistaken presupposition, along with adoption of an ontologically intelligible, ontologically civilized, mode of addressing human misconduct. If we Americans are to protect, preserve, even extend, our Constitutional ontological rights, it cannot be by mere “law”, for, our ruling inauthoritative authorities, being themselves ontologically free, are not really determined by any language of law; rather,
13. Our raw living personal ontological structure is ultimate regulatory ur-grund for an
American ontological civilization, transpiring peacefully, interpersonally, absent
anti-human/anti-ontological law; — for, what we freely are, as personal absolute ontological freedom, in its integral interpersonal totality, is completely sufficient to deter misconduct among all persons raised to the higher ontological dignity of being reflectively ontologically free.
+
The phrases: “…original freedom…”; “…reflective consciousness…”; and, “…double nihillation…” are J.P. Sartre’s; and, the dictum “All determination is negation.” is Hegelian.
* To have a pre-reflective knowledge of something is to live it absent an understanding of
precisely how its origin transpires, e.g., we currently possess a mere pre-reflective knowledge of cancer. To be reflectively conscious of something is to live it knowing the structure of the operation, and, the mode of origin thereof.
**
“All determination is negation.”
Works Cited
Spinoza, Baruch. Letter 50 to Jareg Jelles, in Letters. Trans. Samuel Shirley. Hackell. 1995.
Sartre, Jean Paul. The Transcendence of the Ego. Trans. Forrest Williams and Robert
Kirkpatrick. New York. Hill and Wang, 19 Sartre, Jean Paul. Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. Trans.
Hazel E. Barnes. Philosophical Library. New York. 1956.
Sartre, Jean Paul. Search for a Method. Trans. Hazel E. Barnes. Vintage Books. New York.
1960. 60.

How can you disprove anything when proof itself is subject to faith?

My disproof proceeds via the reason attendant upon existential ontological description of the originative mode of human action, predicated upon Spinoza's indefeasible dictum ''negatio determinatio est''. I hold Spinoza's dictum cannot be overthrown.
Duane

[Eodnhoj7]

ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF of the DEITY of YAHWEH JEHOVAH and JESUS CHRIST is a RAMIFICATION of BARUCH SPINOZA’S ‘’determiatio negatio est”, i.e., “determination is negation”. Duane Clinton Meehan
I.
a). The ‘determination’ considered herein is the mode whereby a person originates an intentional act. Spinoza’s “determinatio negatio est” sets forth that one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure; and, J.P. Sartre (1905-1980), has given us a detailed description of the actual doubly nihilative process whereby human action upsurges ex nihilo.
1. Judaeo-Christian theological error consists in deeming the Biblical Yahweh, Jehovah, and Christ, to be Deity which both created man, and, master and command men via written law and scripture.
2. An authentic Omnipotent Godhead, having made man, would not thereafter mistakenly demand man determine himself, in his acts and forbearance, by a deistically established and enforced language of law/ scripture; for to do so contravenes man’s authentically deistically created ontological mode of originating action and inaction; which human ontological mode of upsurge of action fundamentally pre-qualifies man for the possibility of constructing a non-legalistic mode of civilization, patterned upon the form provided by man’s overall personal ontological structure.
3. Yahweh/Jehovah/Christ, of Judaeo-Christian scripture, proclaiming man shall be determined in his acts, and his forbearance to act, by a language of law attendant upon holy scripture, thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action. If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined, in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture; thereby indicating Judaeo-Christian Deity, as described by Biblical Prophets, are inauthentic Deity, and, further, are inauthentic Deity which both practice mistake and exhibit ignorance regarding the genuine nihilative mode of originative upsurge of human action, and, of human forbearance to act.
4. Consciousness is prior to the theoretical construct "law", which law is mistakenly posited as determinative of conduct, by a series of human Biblical Prophetic consciousnesses, while, all the while, law-positing human consciousness, by virtue of its own ontological structure, cannot subsequently be determined to action, or inaction, by the self-same mistakenly posited language of "law".
Inauthentic Biblical Deity and Biblical Prophets insist men determine their conduct via existing “law” and “scripture”, while, all the while, determination is negation, meaning human action-origination proceeds purely on the basis of n o n-e x I s t a n t s, not on the basis of existing states of affairs like “law”, i.e., “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, Sartre 435).
5. If I entertain the possibility that my created consciousness is made in the image and likeness of Deity, then, to gain core familiarity with Deity, I simply need study the ontological structure of my Deity- reflecting consciousness.
6. Consciousness is the constant study, and, the entire subject matter of Jean Paul Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, 1943...
7. Sartre’s theory of origin of human action posits consciousness as upsurging acts via “the double nihilation”, a position predicated upon Baruch Spinoza’s (1632-1677) “determinatio negatio est”, thus:
II.
1. A profound error is transpiring in law, herein dubbed the “jurisprudential illusion”, which error is recognizable via the perspectival view afforded by J.P. Sartre’s theory of origin of human action, a theory predicated upon Baruch Spinoza’s “determinatio negatio est”, i.e., “determination is negation”.
2. Via Sartre’s model of the origin of human action, it is demonstrable that while upholding law, one cannot correctly claim given published language of law to be a means of determining one’s self to act in accordance with language of law; hence the subjoined explanation of how, via the Sartreian theory of origin of human action, description of jurisprudential illusion is possible.
3. Recent description of the ontological mode of originative upsurge of personal determination to act, presented consistently in works by J.P. Sartre (1905-1980), permits critique of American grassroots/legislative/jurisprudential/theological presupposition presuming enforced language of law to be determinative of human action/inaction, and/or, that persons determine themselves to action/inaction by the enforced language of published law.
4. We Americans perform our civilization in the mode of Constitutional determinism, bent upon police-prosecutorial-judicial enforcement of given language of law, i.e., legislative enactments and judicial decisions, which law, administered as a supreme and inviolable determinative force, is deemed to “rule” the conduct of human action as a “rule of law”; which “rule of law” is ultimately predicated upon a vast series of attendant violent “punishments”, for “violation of law”, up to, and including, death; —- while, all the while, human determination to action actually originates and transpires in keeping with Baruch Spinoza’s (1632-1677), “determinatio negatio est” (i.e., “ determination is negation”) (Spinoza, Letter 50 to Jareg Jelles, in Letters. Trans. Shirley. Hackell, 1995, p. 260.) —- i.e., human action/inaction originates ex nihilo, with the circumstances attendant upon the originative upsurge of human action being negative, e.g., absence; past; future; objective lack; double nihilation (“The Transcendence of the Ego” Sartre 98-99). —- Spinoza’s dictum is a terse original description of the human ontological mode of originative upsurge of human action, standing at the antipode of a positivist, materialist, causalist, mechanistic, enforced, punitive, language of law, which given language of law is an ontologically inaccurate; ontologically illegitimate; ontologically unintelligible; artificial; false; failing; failed; existentially absurd; incompetent attempt to determine/originate human action, and/or inaction, by givens.
5. The originative ontological modus operandi of the upsurge of human action, comprehension of which constitutes a person reflectively ontologically free, is the “double nihilation” (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 435,486). Original human ontological freedom is fundamentally the double nihilation.
6. When imagining doing an intentional act, consciousness performs the double nihilation; which is a thrust away from, an escape from, a given state of affairs, toward a not yet existing, future state of affairs. To “nihilate” means “to make nothing”. The nihilative movement of consciousness, since it is a refusal of a given state of affairs in the name of a non-existent, projected, future state of affairs, is doubly nihilative. Consciousness’ determination to flee the given toward the future makes the particular nothing which is a future/intended state of affairs, and, in the thrust toward that future nothingness, makes the given state of affairs nothing, as a surpassed past (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 431-434).
7. Only the double nihilation is the negation, i.e., the negative process, whereby human action originates/upsurges.
8. 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. (Sartre, J.P., “Being and Nothingness”, Part Four, entire).
9. 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.
Law arbitrarily designated by jurisprudence as determinative of human conduct is an existential ontological absurdity, for human determination is solely predicated upon negation, and, language of law is a presence, a given, a factual.
10. Positivist materialist determinist jurisprudentially oriented persons lack reflective consciousness of the human ontological fact that determination to action, or inaction, for original human freedom, upsurges only as two negative moments of the doubly nihilative movement of consciousness, vectoring unto an intended future.
11. The American legalistic jurisprudential illusion of ascribing to human action an origination in, and/or, by, given written law, is a mistaken, silent, absurd jurisprudential presupposition; consider thusly : “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”, Sartre, 477).
12. The in-authority of American legal authority consists in the jurisprudential illusion whereby said legal authority absurdly claims given language of law to be determinative of all actions by legal authority against persons, while, all the while, defense against the in-authoritative authority of American law consists in the human ontological reality that all human determination to action transpires only via doubly nihilative conscious moments, whereby each and every originally absolutely ontologically free human consciousness intentionally imagines and, intentionally upsurges unto an absent future.

13. One can possibly appear to determine to act in accord with given language of law, however, one cannot legitimately, accurately, and humanely claim and declare given language of law to be an ontologically authentic and correct basis for subjecting, for example, in one’s role as legislator or prosecutor, or magistrate, another human being to punishment; i.e., as a being for whom action originates and upsurges as a function of the doubly nihilative movement characterizable of the pursuit of one’s every conscious project, it is absurd, illusory, and in bad faith, as ex nihilo nihilative originator of one’s acts, to claim that one is determined to judicial action against another person by given language of law; therefore, ultimately, one cannot in fact legitimately act, is not in fact legitimately, honorably, acting against another human being on the basis of, and in accord with, one’s false notion that given published enforced language of law is determinative of one’s conduct.
14. The designation of given language of law as a means for punishing another human being is unjustifiably inconsistent with the sole ontological process whereby the originative upsurge of human action transpires.
15. No magistrate can in fact be determined to action, or, determine himself to action by law, therefore, any punishment which said magistrate declares against a person, in the name of “law”, is predicated upon the legal/jurisprudential error of mistakenly presupposing a determinative efficacy of law, which error constitutes ongoing legal malpractice of an inhumane and unethical jurisprudential illusion.

(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.
Human existential absurdity designates givens as cause/motive/determinant of one’s action, while, all the while, human action exclusively originates ex nihilo, from consciousness’ nihilative capacity. (Sartre, “Being and Nothingness”, Part Four)).
III.
1. American police and prosecutorial officers, jurors, magistrates, legislators, and executive officers, conduct themselves per the hitherto undescribed jurisprudential illusion, which illusion historically, and, currently, innervates both lawful legal punishment, and, rampant police-on-citizen crime/violence/murder.
2. The American jurisprudential practice of punishing/killing persons for failure to be determined to action and/or inaction, by enforced language of law, a practice predicated upon the defeasible and mistaken presupposition that enforced language of law is determinative of human conduct, is: Radical injustice performed in destructive disaccord with the actual human ontological mode of upsurge of human action.
IV.
a). The subjoined traces the Sartreian description/explanation of our authentic, original mode of human conduct/misconduct, and, thereby, posits an alternative and humanontological-mode of constituting/advancing American civilization; — a civilization constructed and conducted in harmony and accord with, not in disharmony/disaccord/war, with our deistically originated human ontological construction.
1. Americans are now too suffocated by “law” to become ontologically complete persons.
2. Currently unable to entirely realize their humanity, Americans grow increasingly anti- human and inhuman, under the unreflectively irresponsible, inauthoritatively authoritative, bumbling, misleading, impeding, incoherent reign of stunting jurisprudential illusion; — hence, an Emancipation, proclaimed thus :
3. Via an explanation of the negation whereby human action transpires, it is possible to uplift American personal ontological freedom from a pre-reflective*, to a reflective consciousness, of the originative ontological modus operandi of the upsurge of human action. Thereby rendered reflectively free, Americans will stand positioned to constitute what was originally intended, by pre-reflectively ontologically free founders, to be an ontologically free civilization.
4. The United States Bill of Rights of 1791 is a pro-ontological attempt to formalize a human ontological civilization. American ontological civilization was formally pioneered with the language of The Bill of Rights, as pro-ontological law, reserving human ontological freedoms immune from abridgement by enforced positivist materialist pseudo-determinative language of law; a civilization constructed and conducted in harmony and accord with, not in disharmony/disaccord/war with our Deistically originated human ontological construction.
5. An ontological in an ineluctable human act which one cannot choose not to be capable of; it is a human action-capacity which one is created to have, e.g., existentially, one is “condemned to be free” (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 435). A given human act is said to be ontological when the act is known by all persons to be absolutely part-and-parcel of being a human being; e.g., Deity worship is a universal human ontological phenomenon, (all persons live in pursuit of attaining to the ens causa sui by their own particular means, usually via achieving unity with Deity through religious practice). Likewise, keeping and bearing arms is a universal human ontological phenomenon. That which is ontological is what stands as an ineluctable ensemble of personal human action-capacities, to wit : Intentional future-oriented consciousness enacting double nihilations, i.e., Freedom; Lover; Killer; Weapon/Tool user; Linguist; Pursuer of ens causa sui/Deity worshiper; Holder of Common Sense Notions of Right Conduct; Wrongdoer; Thief; Enslaver; Avenger.
6. American language of law is posited and published by pre-reflectively free legislative and jurisprudential interests, confidently presupposing law to be determinative of human action, and/or, that human determination to act, or forbear action, transpires per given
legislative/decisional law, while, all the while, reflectively free personal ontological freedom reports: “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” Sartre 435).
Inauthoritative in regard to the all-important ontological mode of originative upsurge of human action, American inauthoritative authorities mistakenly deem language of law to be “…past determinations ruling men in the way that a cause rules its effects.” (“Search for a Method” 96).
7. Reflectively free personal ontological freedom reports : “…the cause, far from determining the action, appears only in and through the project of an action.” (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre” 448). In the course of the nihilitive upsurge of its act, consciousness chooses/designates/dictates, from among given phenomenon contained in the world, the cause/motive of the act; while, all the while, consciousness is not, cannot, be causally determined to originate its act, or, refusal to act.(“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 437).
8. Americans are thoroughly scientistically oriented, such that their intellectual
instrumentation is limited to seeing action phenomena strictly in terms of matter in motion moved in the mode of cause and effect, wherein external force vectors substance.
In keeping with their positivist materialist scientistic weltanschauung, American grassroots, police and prosecutorial officers, jurists and executive officers, deem originative upsurge of the human act subject to being vectored by the externality of a putatively determinative/authoritative linguistic “force of law”, while, all the while, human determination to action actually transpires ex nihilo, in the mode of Spinoza’s dictum, and, G.W.F. Hegel’s (1770-1831), “Omnis determinatio est negatio.”**, as the Sartreian “double nihilation”. (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 436).
The American positivist materialist scientistic weltanschauung, misconceptually presupposing human action origination subject to being set in motion moved by external force of language of law, wherein action origination is deemed to be causally correlative to the enforced language of law, errs regarding the actual ontological mode of upsurge of action. 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 law”.
11. Herein critique/polemic is directed toward the given as a purported determinative efficacy among persons, i.e., it is held, against extant belief, that given language of law has no determinative efficacy among men regarding the origination of an act or forbearance. —– It is unintentional pretense/masquerade/swindle for pre-reflectively free persons to claim language of law to be determinative of their actions and/or inactions.
At this juncture the reader is provided with some further reference to rationale regarding
action-origination posited by the Sartrean existentialist phenomenological ontology, which
ontology constitutes a theoretical stance efficient to describe the jurisprudential illusion of
action-origination in, and\ or, by, written law : “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…The 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” Sartre 477).
12. Herein is outlined a particular American “lived-contradiction” (Sartre), wherein
necessatarianistic language of law is employed in an American legalistic attempt to establish an ontologically free civilization, while, all the while, it is not, cannot be, by a given necessatarianistic language of pseudo-determinative law, that civilization is constituted; rather, it is simply by personally reflectively freely realizing and living raw human absolute ontological freedom, that ontological civilization is. The ontological unintelligibility of American language of law consists in the pathological
presupposition that given language of law is somehow determinative of human action/inaction, while, all the while, human action/inaction actually upsurges ex nihilo as a double nihilation, wherein the given is depassed and made nothing in pursuit of a future that is not yet.
We Americans now exist, regardless of a strong historical constitutional ideality assuring us vast individual liberty, a tyrannical and freedom-destructive absolutism of “law”, predicated upon the radically mistaken presupposition that given jurisprudentially posited language is determinative of human conduct.
Emancipatory relief, from the intensifying tyranny of American absolutistic language of law, begins via description of mistaken legalist presupposition constituting enforced jurisprudential illusion, and, ameliorative change transpires via a reflective transcendence of mistaken presupposition, along with adoption of an ontologically intelligible, ontologically civilized, mode of addressing human misconduct. If we Americans are to protect, preserve, even extend, our Constitutional ontological rights, it cannot be by mere “law”, for, our ruling inauthoritative authorities, being themselves ontologically free, are not really determined by any language of law; rather,
13. Our raw living personal ontological structure is ultimate regulatory ur-grund for an
American ontological civilization, transpiring peacefully, interpersonally, absent
anti-human/anti-ontological law; — for, what we freely are, as personal absolute ontological freedom, in its integral interpersonal totality, is completely sufficient to deter misconduct among all persons raised to the higher ontological dignity of being reflectively ontologically free.
+
The phrases: “…original freedom…”; “…reflective consciousness…”; and, “…double nihillation…” are J.P. Sartre’s; and, the dictum “All determination is negation.” is Hegelian.
* To have a pre-reflective knowledge of something is to live it absent an understanding of
precisely how its origin transpires, e.g., we currently possess a mere pre-reflective knowledge of cancer. To be reflectively conscious of something is to live it knowing the structure of the operation, and, the mode of origin thereof.
**
“All determination is negation.”
Works Cited
Spinoza, Baruch. Letter 50 to Jareg Jelles, in Letters. Trans. Samuel Shirley. Hackell. 1995.
Sartre, Jean Paul. The Transcendence of the Ego. Trans. Forrest Williams and Robert
Kirkpatrick. New York. Hill and Wang, 19 Sartre, Jean Paul. Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. Trans.
Hazel E. Barnes. Philosophical Library. New York. 1956.
Sartre, Jean Paul. Search for a Method. Trans. Hazel E. Barnes. Vintage Books. New York.
1960. 60.

How can you disprove anything when proof itself is subject to faith?

My disproof proceeds via the reason attendant upon existential ontological description of the originative mode of human action, predicated upon Spinoza's indefeasible dictum ''negatio determinatio est''. I hold Spinoza's dictum cannot be overthrown.
Duane

Wow...I can see you're super duper serious, with all of your authority an all...or whatever it is you possess.


That's cute...good for you, go get em tiger...people are too intellectually lazy now a days.

Anyhow:

"I hold Spinoza's dictum cannot be overthrown" is a perspective, and subject to not just perspectivism but fallacy. You are not an authority, and even if you where your stance of authority is still a fallacy. You are building your foundations on a fallacy.

Determination as negation negates itself as any progressive axiom eventually results in a variation of the original axiom thus causing the original axiom to still exist albeit a different form, thus while determination is negation it dually manifests a sense of intrinsic order regardless.

Determination as negation differs little from analysis, as a matter of fact you can argue it is a complex way of wording "analysis".

Your disproof requires a negation of proof. Nothing deep. But what you hold as proof is merely a tautological story (Ie Abrahamic God in this example). Tautological story being defined as how it sounds...a tautology of stories.

So you are negating a myth, a tautology, with what? Another myth or tautology? And what is that "ontology"? That is just a myth as well, devoid of anthropomorphic principles so be it, but a myth none the less.

Your argument is grounded basically in you saying:

"Fu"" it, I am going to over analyze this myth because I don't like it. I will change the world and be an intellectual hero." The problem of course is that myths are tautological, one myth breeds another myth and one interpretation breeds another interpretation. Now this causes a structural problem for you.

You can attack what your percieve as the core axiom but so many interpretations have stemmed from it that you will have to attack those interpretations as well considering they in fact do carry the story on.

Proofs are retroactive. You can attack the core assumption but the new proof effectively acts as an assumption itself that just leads to the original assumption. That is because all arguments are circular, or maybe more accurately put "circular". You can stomp out one side of the equation, but then the other side results in an axiom that leads to the original equation. You can stomp put that side too, but then you are left with another mirror image and the process just repeats.

I can negate (A-->B) but if A contains as an element (A1--->Ax) and B contains as an element. (B1-->Bx) you have to stomp those out as well. Now you can stomp out all of those until (A-->B) is an element of (AA-->BB)... and the process continues.

Effectively you are left with continually negating a series of contexts with contexts, but it never really happens as what defines the context is it looping form. Thus all tautologies are just abstract forms and you cannot negate a form without using a form.

[nothing]

negatio determinatio est

one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure; and, J.P. Sartre (1905-1980), has given us a detailed description of the actual doubly nihilative process whereby human action upsurges ex nihilo.

This is not a problem. I know it might beg itself as one, but it is just as much a solution as it is a problem.

One's determination to action, if even being an entirely negative procedure, by necessity must acknowledge what manifestly is.

+P -> -P
_______
wherein +P is all present manifest ignorance(s) incl. the Judeo-Christian (ie. Islamic) Law
and -P is all negative procedure(s) negating any/all efficacy of +P (ie. ongoing ignorance causing suffering/death)

To deny the manifest is catastrophic.

One can not derive an ought from an is.
One can (must) derive an ought not from an is.

Do not take this as a general disagreement to your direction: it is true that Judaism/Christianity/Islam ignorantly bind themselves blindly to man-made 'language of law' thus attribute the sufferings of themselves as resulting from:

lack of adherence to,
rather than
adherence to,

their belief-based dogmas. The problem is thus invariably contained in belief-in-and-of-itself: that a believer would willingly believe the opposite of what is manifestly (un)true, requires belief-in-and-of-itself. As a practical example of the above, consider a framework tautology with these two inverse possibilities:

1 suffering Muslim +P believes the Qur'an is Law
2 suffering Muslim +P believes suffering of self/other is due to: lack of adherence to Qur'an as Law
3 suffering Muslim -P knows not: suffering of self/other is due to: adherence to Qur'an as Law (!)
4 suffering Muslim +P believes the opposite of what is true

which defines a 'singularity' that can be used to define all ignorant believers: as being subject to believing the opposite of what they themselves believe to be true. This means that "creation" is actually the "stage" in-on which any/all possible belief-based ignorance(s) act on a conscious being(s) so long as either happen to 'exist'.

Under your contention: ever coming to know/discover ones own existing belief-based ignorance(s) (requiring acknowledgement of the same) would be impossible:

0 Belief-based ignorance(s) exist.
+P: "I believe I am not ignorant."
-P: "I know I may be ignorant."

Now take this and impose it on the tautology above:

0 Belief-based ignorance(s) exist
+P: "I believe I am not ignorant."
-P: "I know I may possibly be ignorant."
1 suffering Muslim +P believes the Qur'an is Law

+1 leads to: suffering/death ad infinitum
-1 leads to: any/all possible acknowledgement of belief-based ignorance(s), and any/all possible 'state' therefrom less suffering/death
________________________________________________________________
wherein:
+1 is the ever-present 'now' containing any/all belief-based ignorance(s) and their associated gravity, and
-1 is creation ex nihilo: to create a new 'state' based on the negation of another

and returning to:

negatio determinatio est

one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure; and, J.P. Sartre (1905-1980), has given us a detailed description of the actual doubly nihilative process whereby human action upsurges ex nihilo.

if you can prove that creation-in-and-of-itself requires the negation of any/all belief-based ignorance(s) which certainly exist in Judaism/Christianity/Islam (despite any/all "belief" to the contrary) in a way the religions would themselves:

i. acknowledge
ii. try
iii. concede to

then a three-way collapse of Judaism/Christianity/Islam could lead to something that places truth over authority, rather than authority over truth which is what the concerned are. It needs an inversion from belief-in-and-of-itself to knowledge-negating-belief allowing the destruction/creation. In this, nothing is gained/lost except the existential occurrence of the collapsing of existing form(s) to produce a new one(s) that eventually result in the cessation of any/all suffering. In any event: the destruction/creation begins with the acknowledgement of the existence of human suffering.

[upsurgent]

How can you disprove anything when proof itself is subject to faith?

My disproof proceeds via the reason attendant upon existential ontological description of the originative mode of human action, predicated upon Spinoza's indefeasible dictum ''negatio determinatio est''. I hold Spinoza's dictum cannot be overthrown.
Duane

Wow...I can see you're super duper serious, with all of your authority an all...or whatever it is you possess.


That's cute...good for you, go get em tiger...people are too intellectually lazy now a days.

Anyhow:

"I hold Spinoza's dictum cannot be overthrown" is a perspective, and subject to not just perspectivism but fallacy. You are not an authority, and even if you where your stance of authority is still a fallacy. You are building your foundations on a fallacy.

Determination as negation negates itself as any progressive axiom eventually results in a variation of the original axiom thus causing the original axiom to still exist albeit a different form, thus while determination is negation it dually manifests a sense of intrinsic order regardless.

Determination as negation differs little from analysis, as a matter of fact you can argue it is a complex way of wording "analysis".

Your disproof requires a negation of proof. Nothing deep. But what you hold as proof is merely a tautological story (Ie Abrahamic God in this example). Tautological story being defined as how it sounds...a tautology of stories.

So you are negating a myth, a tautology, with what? Another myth or tautology? And what is that "ontology"? That is just a myth as well, devoid of anthropomorphic principles so be it, but a myth none the less.

Your argument is grounded basically in you saying:

"Fu"" it, I am going to over analyze this myth because I don't like it. I will change the world and be an intellectual hero." The problem of course is that myths are tautological, one myth breeds another myth and one interpretation breeds another interpretation. Now this causes a structural problem for you.

You can attack what your percieve as the core axiom but so many interpretations have stemmed from it that you will have to attack those interpretations as well considering they in fact do carry the story on.

Proofs are retroactive. You can attack the core assumption but the new proof effectively acts as an assumption itself that just leads to the original assumption. That is because all arguments are circular, or maybe more accurately put "circular". You can stomp out one side of the equation, but then the other side results in an axiom that leads to the original equation. You can stomp put that side too, but then you are left with another mirror image and the process just repeats.

I can negate (A-->B) but if A contains as an element (A1--->Ax) and B contains as an element. (B1-->Bx) you have to stomp those out as well. Now you can stomp out all of those until (A-->B) is an element of (AA-->BB)... and the process continues.

Effectively you are left with continually negating a series of contexts with contexts, but it never really happens as what defines the context is it looping form. Thus all tautologies are just abstract forms and you cannot negate a form without using a form.

Upon reading and re-reading your response it appears to be predominantly a flippant argumentum ad hominem; and, a rambling and somewhat unintelligible exercise in Introductory Logic 101, whereby you posit mere confused pure assertions. Though, indubitably, I appreciate the compliment and, the go-get-um-tiger encouragement; however, never mind the wholly irrelevant what-I-may-or-may-not-be! It is your office to posit reason, whereby you might intelligibly refute the positions which I predicate upon one radically rich, efficient, and highly respected seventeenth century dictum, impactfully employed by a very successful twentieth century ideaologist…

Eodnhoj7, I have overthrown your Christian weltanschauung via indefeasible reasoning, not because I hate that world-wide world view, rather, because it is radically mistaken, incorrect, and, a hindrance to the healthy realization/exercise of our future human ontological freedom; i.e., law, any sociospheric law, is predominantly erosive/destructive of human freedom, and, is grounded upon naught but devastating violence.
Duane

[Eodnhoj7]

My disproof proceeds via the reason attendant upon existential ontological description of the originative mode of human action, predicated upon Spinoza's indefeasible dictum ''negatio determinatio est''. I hold Spinoza's dictum cannot be overthrown.
Duane

Wow...I can see you're super duper serious, with all of your authority an all...or whatever it is you possess.


That's cute...good for you, go get em tiger...people are too intellectually lazy now a days.

Anyhow:

"I hold Spinoza's dictum cannot be overthrown" is a perspective, and subject to not just perspectivism but fallacy. You are not an authority, and even if you where your stance of authority is still a fallacy. You are building your foundations on a fallacy.

Determination as negation negates itself as any progressive axiom eventually results in a variation of the original axiom thus causing the original axiom to still exist albeit a different form, thus while determination is negation it dually manifests a sense of intrinsic order regardless.

Determination as negation differs little from analysis, as a matter of fact you can argue it is a complex way of wording "analysis".

Your disproof requires a negation of proof. Nothing deep. But what you hold as proof is merely a tautological story (Ie Abrahamic God in this example). Tautological story being defined as how it sounds...a tautology of stories.

So you are negating a myth, a tautology, with what? Another myth or tautology? And what is that "ontology"? That is just a myth as well, devoid of anthropomorphic principles so be it, but a myth none the less.

Your argument is grounded basically in you saying:

"Fu"" it, I am going to over analyze this myth because I don't like it. I will change the world and be an intellectual hero." The problem of course is that myths are tautological, one myth breeds another myth and one interpretation breeds another interpretation. Now this causes a structural problem for you.

You can attack what your percieve as the core axiom but so many interpretations have stemmed from it that you will have to attack those interpretations as well considering they in fact do carry the story on.

Proofs are retroactive. You can attack the core assumption but the new proof effectively acts as an assumption itself that just leads to the original assumption. That is because all arguments are circular, or maybe more accurately put "circular". You can stomp out one side of the equation, but then the other side results in an axiom that leads to the original equation. You can stomp put that side too, but then you are left with another mirror image and the process just repeats.

I can negate (A-->B) but if A contains as an element (A1--->Ax) and B contains as an element. (B1-->Bx) you have to stomp those out as well. Now you can stomp out all of those until (A-->B) is an element of (AA-->BB)... and the process continues.

Effectively you are left with continually negating a series of contexts with contexts, but it never really happens as what defines the context is it looping form. Thus all tautologies are just abstract forms and you cannot negate a form without using a form.

Upon reading and re-reading your response it appears to be predominantly a flippant argumentum ad hominem; and, a rambling and somewhat unintelligible exercise in Introductory Logic 101, whereby you posit mere confused pure assertions. Though, indubitably, I appreciate the compliment and, the go-get-um-tiger encouragement; however, never mind the wholly irrelevant what-I-may-or-may-not-be! It is your office to posit reason, whereby you might intelligibly refute the positions which I predicate upon one radically rich, efficient, and highly respected seventeenth century dictum, impactfully employed by a very successful twentieth century ideaologist…

Eodnhoj7, I have overthrown your Christian weltanschauung via indefeasible reasoning, not because I hate that world-wide world view, rather, because it is radically mistaken, incorrect, and, a hindrance to the healthy realization/exercise of our future human ontological freedom; i.e., law, any sociospheric law, is predominantly erosive/destructive of human freedom, and, is grounded upon naught but devastating violence.
Duane

Why so serious?

Wow...human freedom...I can see you are looking for a deep word that is way over used in the 21st century. A word used by propagandists.

Of course there is an an ad-hominum. Why? Because the stereotypical "anti-religious whatever" is so over beaten online in light of religion already being dead that it is borderline a fad on the internet. It doesn't get anywhere. It is like everyone looking for a reason to blame their problems and look cool goes right to the same subject over and over again: church.

Really? The churches are empty of millenials and boomers.

And it's really hypocritical as well. What about the pagans during the same time period? What about their violence? Or what about the atheists?

Do you know communist China is currently having a crackdown on western religions and are persecuting them? China is currently butchering and imprisoning muslims right now. Stalin? Have your heard of him? Do the research.

Are you pro-genocide? You come off as a fascist (whether you are actually one who knows). You also come off as a Nazj supporter in light of Spinoza having a large influence on the later Nazi movement through Neitzche.

In short and clear terms, the ad- hominum is strictly the same old anti-religious bullsh"" that clutters the internet...and boomers and millenials don't even have a religion lol!


But it really doesn't stop there. I actually address why your argument does not work.

But you "convenentially" ignore it .

And why it does not work is not really subject to any pro or anti religious stance on my part.

The "dictum" itself does not work.

But you convenentially ignore this, and address the ad-hominum alone...which is a fallacy as it really does not negate the second portion of my stance.

Your argument begins with a statement of perspective, as I have pointed out. Your "dictum" is an assertion of point of view, admitted by you. It is an assertion...remember that. It has no grounds but assumption and this assumption is justified by further assumptions.

Look up the fallacy of agrippa.

Spinoza does not work. I address the problem of negation on multiple threads and subjects long before you probably even wrote your point. I also address it in this argument...which you ignore .

**********
You cannot negate anything without creating and necessitating a positive. Negation not only necessitates a positive but in any continuum negates itself as well.
**********




Spinoza is dead, but worse spinoza is boring and sucks dictum.

[upsurgent]

One's determination to action, if even being an entirely negative procedure, by necessity must acknowledge what manifestly is.
.

Under your contention: ever coming to know/discover ones own existing belief-based ignorance(s) (requiring acknowledgement of the same) would be impossible:

Surely one acknowledges what is, in so far as one apprehends what is from one's own particular perspectival view. My writing acknowledges what I see to be the extant state of affairs, world-wide, in regard to the vain and mistaken attempt to mediate civilization via law posited against man, instead of by comprehending and patterning civilization after, and for the sake of, furthering our own human ontological being.

No, on the contrary, my precise step-by-step explanation of why our commonplace ascriptions of deity to certain Biblical figures, provides the mistaken believer with an intellectual instrumentation whereby he may readily exit unfounded belief in law and commonplace inauthentic deity; which deity would subjugate him, via language of law, which language is not in fact truly efficient to determine persons, or, as a means of persons determining themselves to do, or not do, anything whatsoever.
Duane

[upsurgent]

Wow...I can see you're super duper serious, with all of your authority an all...or whatever it is you possess.


That's cute...good for you, go get em tiger...people are too intellectually lazy now a days.

Anyhow:

"I hold Spinoza's dictum cannot be overthrown" is a perspective, and subject to not just perspectivism but fallacy. You are not an authority, and even if you where your stance of authority is still a fallacy. You are building your foundations on a fallacy.

Determination as negation negates itself as any progressive axiom eventually results in a variation of the original axiom thus causing the original axiom to still exist albeit a different form, thus while determination is negation it dually manifests a sense of intrinsic order regardless.

Determination as negation differs little from analysis, as a matter of fact you can argue it is a complex way of wording "analysis".

Your disproof requires a negation of proof. Nothing deep. But what you hold as proof is merely a tautological story (Ie Abrahamic God in this example). Tautological story being defined as how it sounds...a tautology of stories.

So you are negating a myth, a tautology, with what? Another myth or tautology? And what is that "ontology"? That is just a myth as well, devoid of anthropomorphic principles so be it, but a myth none the less.

Your argument is grounded basically in you saying:

"Fu"" it, I am going to over analyze this myth because I don't like it. I will change the world and be an intellectual hero." The problem of course is that myths are tautological, one myth breeds another myth and one interpretation breeds another interpretation. Now this causes a structural problem for you.

You can attack what your percieve as the core axiom but so many interpretations have stemmed from it that you will have to attack those interpretations as well considering they in fact do carry the story on.

Proofs are retroactive. You can attack the core assumption but the new proof effectively acts as an assumption itself that just leads to the original assumption. That is because all arguments are circular, or maybe more accurately put "circular". You can stomp out one side of the equation, but then the other side results in an axiom that leads to the original equation. You can stomp put that side too, but then you are left with another mirror image and the process just repeats.

I can negate (A-->B) but if A contains as an element (A1--->Ax) and B contains as an element. (B1-->Bx) you have to stomp those out as well. Now you can stomp out all of those until (A-->B) is an element of (AA-->BB)... and the process continues.

Effectively you are left with continually negating a series of contexts with contexts, but it never really happens as what defines the context is it looping form. Thus all tautologies are just abstract forms and you cannot negate a form without using a form.

Upon reading and re-reading your response it appears to be predominantly a flippant argumentum ad hominem; and, a rambling and somewhat unintelligible exercise in Introductory Logic 101, whereby you posit mere confused pure assertions. Though, indubitably, I appreciate the compliment and, the go-get-um-tiger encouragement; however, never mind the wholly irrelevant what-I-may-or-may-not-be! It is your office to posit reason, whereby you might intelligibly refute the positions which I predicate upon one radically rich, efficient, and highly respected seventeenth century dictum, impactfully employed by a very successful twentieth century ideaologist…

Eodnhoj7, I have overthrown your Christian weltanschauung via indefeasible reasoning, not because I hate that world-wide world view, rather, because it is radically mistaken, incorrect, and, a hindrance to the healthy realization/exercise of our future human ontological freedom; i.e., law, any sociospheric law, is predominantly erosive/destructive of human freedom, and, is grounded upon naught but devastating violence.
Duane

Why so serious?

Wow...human freedom...I can see you are looking for a deep word that is way over used in the 21st century. A word used by propagandists.

Of course there is an an ad-hominum. Why? Because the stereotypical "anti-religious whatever" is so over beaten online in light of religion already being dead that it is borderline a fad on the internet. It doesn't get anywhere. It is like everyone looking for a reason to blame their problems and look cool goes right to the same subject over and over again: church.

Really? The churches are empty of millenials and boomers.

And it's really hypocritical as well. What about the pagans during the same time period? What about their violence? Or what about the atheists?

Do you know communist China is currently having a crackdown on western religions and are persecuting them? China is currently butchering and imprisoning muslims right now. Stalin? Have your heard of him? Do the research.

Are you pro-genocide? You come off as a fascist (whether you are actually one who knows). You also come off as a Nazj supporter in light of Spinoza having a large influence on the later Nazi movement through Neitzche.

In short and clear terms, the ad- hominum is strictly the same old anti-religious bullsh"" that clutters the internet...and boomers and millenials don't even have a religion lol!


But it really doesn't stop there. I actually address why your argument does not work.

But you "convenentially" ignore it .

And why it does not work is not really subject to any pro or anti religious stance on my part.

The "dictum" itself does not work.

But you convenentially ignore this, and address the ad-hominum alone...which is a fallacy as it really does not negate the second portion of my stance.

Your argument begins with a statement of perspective, as I have pointed out. Your "dictum" is an assertion of point of view, admitted by you. It is an assertion...remember that. It has no grounds but assumption and this assumption is justified by further assumptions.

Look up the fallacy of agrippa.

Spinoza does not work. I address the problem of negation on multiple threads and subjects long before you probably even wrote your point. I also address it in this argument...which you ignore .

**********
You cannot negate anything without creating and necessitating a positive. Negation not only necessitates a positive but in any continuum negates itself as well.
**********




Spinoza is dead, but worse spinoza is boring and sucks dictum.

You are a totally vacuous and mean person, and, I wholeheartedly implore you to leave me totally alone; you're rambling pure senseless and mindless attacks/assertions are radically nauseating! GET OFF MY BACK!

[nothing]

Surely one acknowledges what is, in so far as one apprehends what is from one's own particular perspectival view. My writing acknowledges what I see to be the extant state of affairs, world-wide, in regard to the vain and mistaken attempt to mediate civilization via law posited against man, instead of by comprehending and patterning civilization after, and for the sake of, furthering our own human ontological being.

CKIIT is in similar pursuit.

No, on the contrary, my precise step-by-step explanation of why our commonplace ascriptions of deity to certain Biblical figures, provides the mistaken believer with an intellectual instrumentation whereby he may readily exit unfounded belief in law and commonplace inauthentic deity; which deity would subjugate him, via language of law, which language is not in fact truly efficient to determine persons, or, as a means of persons determining themselves to do, or not do, anything whatsoever.
Duane

Again a similar pursuit: my intention is to develop a model that fits in/on the hand such: if given to the "believer", they will always "know" to at least try the damned belief, including its inverse, for belief-based ignorance in case the opposite is true.

0 thumb = (I) will
1 index: know
2 middle: any/all
3 ring: *not to*
4 pinky: believe
___________________________________
0-1-2-3-4 = tends towards all-knowing (of) belief-based ignorance(s)
0-4-3-2-1 = tends towards all-belief-based ignorance(s) less knowing

and a mere finger-tip-touching in both directions suffices, with will being common either way. Perhaps it can serve the lesser intelligent that can not see the craftsmanship of the explanation you provide. In lieu of for the sake of the illiterate ignorant (many believers being such), any possible all-knowing god must know any/all not to believe.

And to address:

"Fu"" it, I am going to over analyze this myth because I don't like it. I will change the world and be an intellectual hero." The problem of course is that myths are tautological, one myth breeds another myth and one interpretation breeds another interpretation. Now this causes a structural problem for you.

It is of no consequence: once the root form that gives rise to any/all possible forms is negated, it coincides with the attaining to knowledge that such form ought to be negated for it giving rise to suffering/death:

You can attack what your percieve as the core axiom but so many interpretations have stemmed from it that you will have to attack those interpretations as well considering they in fact do carry the story on.

it is the numerous interpretations revolving around the core axiom that help clarify it. The only thing they "contribute" to is the "proof" in the form of the axiom that negates the present-standing.

You can attack the core assumption but the new proof effectively acts as an assumption itself that just leads to the original assumption.

An assumption and state of assuming are not the same: the former is definite (ie. collapsed/dead) the latter is active (ie. variable).

Effectively you are left with continually negating a series of contexts with contexts, but it never really happens as what defines the context is it looping form. Thus all tautologies are just abstract forms and you cannot negate a form without using a form.

The context it is looping from can be found and negated (and eventually will be regardless).

Better said: you can not create a form without negating a present one(s).

Eodnhoj7, I have overthrown your Christian weltanschauung

Christian???

...really ???

Do you know communist China is currently having a crackdown on western religions and are persecuting them? China is currently butchering and imprisoning muslims right now. Stalin? Have your heard of him? Do the research.

Are you pro-genocide? You come off as a fascist (whether you are actually one who knows). You also come off as a Nazj supporter in light of Spinoza having a large influence on the later Nazi movement through Neitzche.

Not persecuting: Islam persecutes. Hitler and Stalin were puppets of the House of Islam. Do the research: oh wait, you can not, because the House of Islam erodes it from history.

Islam is pro-genocide: approx. 270 000 000 are dead due to Islamic jihad.

https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/

and you are bitching about China trying to contain a humanitarian crisis?

Islam is behind the geopolitical Left censorship of Right, accusations of bigotry, racism, "Islamophobia", supremacism etc. which are all qualities and characteristics that define Islam while satisfying the expression:

the accuser is the accused

as it does any/all similar whiner-squealer type fascists who whine and squeal over ridicule/undermining of their "mercy upon mankind" idol they absolutely worship (if even having no conscious knowledge): choice of dead Jew on a stick or sexually degenerated pedophile pig - take your pick. There is variety with looping "mercy upon mankind" idols sharing a principle pathology: idol worship. Both Christianity and Islam being no more nor less: even framed against Judeo-Christian theological roots, one can not usually join either without bearing a false testimony contrary to the ten commandments. Thus, the deaths of hundreds of millions exist leveraged on a single false testimony.

Imagine the gravity of that false testimony.

One could/would find if/when measuring Muhammad up to the ten commandments: his "example" is actually a demonstration of the systemic violation of each, with the shahada marking each Muslim as necessarily heretical to any possible real Abrahamic root as being a bearer of false testimony.

It is the reason I asked of the significance of 10: CKIIT is actively trying them, and none are so far falsified despite it being known they were not delivered by an "Abrahamic" god.

[upsurgent]

Surely one acknowledges what is, in so far as one apprehends what is from one's own particular perspectival view. My writing acknowledges what I see to be the extant state of affairs, world-wide, in regard to the vain and mistaken attempt to mediate civilization via law posited against man, instead of by comprehending and patterning civilization after, and for the sake of, furthering our own human ontological being.

CKIIT is in similar pursuit.

No, on the contrary, my precise step-by-step explanation of why our commonplace ascriptions of deity to certain Biblical figures, provides the mistaken believer with an intellectual instrumentation whereby he may readily exit unfounded belief in law and commonplace inauthentic deity; which deity would subjugate him, via language of law, which language is not in fact truly efficient to determine persons, or, as a means of persons determining themselves to do, or not do, anything whatsoever.
Duane

Again a similar pursuit: my intention is to develop a model that fits in/on the hand such: if given to the "believer", they will always "know" to at least try the damned belief, including its inverse, for belief-based ignorance in case the opposite is true.

0 thumb = (I) will
1 index: know
2 middle: any/all
3 ring: *not to*
4 pinky: believe
___________________________________
0-1-2-3-4 = tends towards all-knowing (of) belief-based ignorance(s)
0-4-3-2-1 = tends towards all-belief-based ignorance(s) less knowing

and a mere finger-tip-touching in both directions suffices, with will being common either way. Perhaps it can serve the lesser intelligent that can not see the craftsmanship of the explanation you provide. In lieu of for the sake of the illiterate ignorant (many believers being such), any possible all-knowing god must know any/all not to believe.

And to address:

"Fu"" it, I am going to over analyze this myth because I don't like it. I will change the world and be an intellectual hero." The problem of course is that myths are tautological, one myth breeds another myth and one interpretation breeds another interpretation. Now this causes a structural problem for you.

It is of no consequence: once the root form that gives rise to any/all possible forms is negated, it coincides with the attaining to knowledge that such form ought to be negated for it giving rise to suffering/death:

You can attack what your percieve as the core axiom but so many interpretations have stemmed from it that you will have to attack those interpretations as well considering they in fact do carry the story on.

it is the numerous interpretations revolving around the core axiom that help clarify it. The only thing they "contribute" to is the "proof" in the form of the axiom that negates the present-standing.

You can attack the core assumption but the new proof effectively acts as an assumption itself that just leads to the original assumption.

An assumption and state of assuming are not the same: the former is definite (ie. collapsed/dead) the latter is active (ie. variable).

Effectively you are left with continually negating a series of contexts with contexts, but it never really happens as what defines the context is it looping form. Thus all tautologies are just abstract forms and you cannot negate a form without using a form.

The context it is looping from can be found and negated (and eventually will be regardless).

Better said: you can not create a form without negating a present one(s).

Eodnhoj7, I have overthrown your Christian weltanschauung

Christian???

...really ???

Do you know communist China is currently having a crackdown on western religions and are persecuting them? China is currently butchering and imprisoning muslims right now. Stalin? Have your heard of him? Do the research.

Are you pro-genocide? You come off as a fascist (whether you are actually one who knows). You also come off as a Nazj supporter in light of Spinoza having a large influence on the later Nazi movement through Neitzche.

Not persecuting: Islam persecutes. Hitler and Stalin were puppets of the House of Islam. Do the research: oh wait, you can not, because the House of Islam erodes it from history.

Islam is pro-genocide: approx. 270 000 000 are dead due to Islamic jihad.

https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/

and you are bitching about China trying to contain a humanitarian crisis?

Islam is behind the geopolitical Left censorship of Right, accusations of bigotry, racism, "Islamophobia", supremacism etc. which are all qualities and characteristics that define Islam while satisfying the expression:

the accuser is the accused

as it does any/all similar whiner-squealer type fascists who whine and squeal over ridicule/undermining of their "mercy upon mankind" idol they absolutely worship (if even having no conscious knowledge): choice of dead Jew on a stick or sexually degenerated pedophile pig - take your pick. There is variety with looping "mercy upon mankind" idols sharing a principle pathology: idol worship. Both Christianity and Islam being no more nor less: even framed against Judeo-Christian theological roots, one can not usually join either without bearing a false testimony contrary to the ten commandments. Thus, the deaths of hundreds of millions exist leveraged on a single false testimony.

Imagine the gravity of that false testimony.

One could/would find if/when measuring Muhammad up to the ten commandments: his "example" is actually a demonstration of the systemic violation of each, with the shahada marking each Muslim as necessarily heretical to any possible real Abrahamic root as being a bearer of false testimony.

It is the reason I asked of the significance of 10: CKIIT is actively trying them, and none are so far falsified despite it being known they were not delivered by an "Abrahamic" god.

What is CKIIT?

[nothing]

What is CKIIT?

Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance (Inference) Theorem

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=27639&p=428583#p428583

loosely employed to the problem of good and evil here:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27697

please feel free to try it for any/all flaws/problems and/or ways to improve/strengthen it. I've already had contributions from others (whether they realize it or not is irrelevant to the context that matters).

[Eodnhoj7]

Upon reading and re-reading your response it appears to be predominantly a flippant argumentum ad hominem; and, a rambling and somewhat unintelligible exercise in Introductory Logic 101, whereby you posit mere confused pure assertions. Though, indubitably, I appreciate the compliment and, the go-get-um-tiger encouragement; however, never mind the wholly irrelevant what-I-may-or-may-not-be! It is your office to posit reason, whereby you might intelligibly refute the positions which I predicate upon one radically rich, efficient, and highly respected seventeenth century dictum, impactfully employed by a very successful twentieth century ideaologist…

Eodnhoj7, I have overthrown your Christian weltanschauung via indefeasible reasoning, not because I hate that world-wide world view, rather, because it is radically mistaken, incorrect, and, a hindrance to the healthy realization/exercise of our future human ontological freedom; i.e., law, any sociospheric law, is predominantly erosive/destructive of human freedom, and, is grounded upon naught but devastating violence.
Duane

Why so serious?

Wow...human freedom...I can see you are looking for a deep word that is way over used in the 21st century. A word used by propagandists.

Of course there is an an ad-hominum. Why? Because the stereotypical "anti-religious whatever" is so over beaten online in light of religion already being dead that it is borderline a fad on the internet. It doesn't get anywhere. It is like everyone looking for a reason to blame their problems and look cool goes right to the same subject over and over again: church.

Really? The churches are empty of millenials and boomers.

And it's really hypocritical as well. What about the pagans during the same time period? What about their violence? Or what about the atheists?

Do you know communist China is currently having a crackdown on western religions and are persecuting them? China is currently butchering and imprisoning muslims right now. Stalin? Have your heard of him? Do the research.

Are you pro-genocide? You come off as a fascist (whether you are actually one who knows). You also come off as a Nazj supporter in light of Spinoza having a large influence on the later Nazi movement through Neitzche.

In short and clear terms, the ad- hominum is strictly the same old anti-religious bullsh"" that clutters the internet...and boomers and millenials don't even have a religion lol!


But it really doesn't stop there. I actually address why your argument does not work.

But you "convenentially" ignore it .

And why it does not work is not really subject to any pro or anti religious stance on my part.

The "dictum" itself does not work.

But you convenentially ignore this, and address the ad-hominum alone...which is a fallacy as it really does not negate the second portion of my stance.

Your argument begins with a statement of perspective, as I have pointed out. Your "dictum" is an assertion of point of view, admitted by you. It is an assertion...remember that. It has no grounds but assumption and this assumption is justified by further assumptions.

Look up the fallacy of agrippa.

Spinoza does not work. I address the problem of negation on multiple threads and subjects long before you probably even wrote your point. I also address it in this argument...which you ignore .

**********
You cannot negate anything without creating and necessitating a positive. Negation not only necessitates a positive but in any continuum negates itself as well.
**********




Spinoza is dead, but worse spinoza is boring and sucks dictum.

You are a totally vacuous and mean person, and, I wholeheartedly implore you to leave me totally alone; you're rambling pure senseless and mindless attacks/assertions are radically nauseating! GET OFF MY BACK!

No, I am negating you through determination...what you are not subject to your own laws?

[Eodnhoj7]

Surely one acknowledges what is, in so far as one apprehends what is from one's own particular perspectival view. My writing acknowledges what I see to be the extant state of affairs, world-wide, in regard to the vain and mistaken attempt to mediate civilization via law posited against man, instead of by comprehending and patterning civilization after, and for the sake of, furthering our own human ontological being.

CKIIT is in similar pursuit.

No, on the contrary, my precise step-by-step explanation of why our commonplace ascriptions of deity to certain Biblical figures, provides the mistaken believer with an intellectual instrumenta whereby he may readily exit unfounded belief in law and commonplace inauthentic deity; which deity would subjugate him, via language of law, which language is not in fact truly efficient to determine persons, or, as a means of persons determining themselves to do, or not do, anything whatsoever.
Duane

Again a similar pursuit: my intention is to develop a model that fits in/on the hand such: if given to the "believer", they will always "know" to at least try the damned belief, including its inverse, for belief-based ignorance in case the opposite is true.

0 thumb = (I) will
1 index: know
2 middle: any/all
3 ring: *not to*
4 pinky: believe
___________________________________
0-1-2-3-4 = tends towards all-knowing (of) belief-based ignorance(s)
0-4-3-2-1 = tends towards all-belief-based ignorance(s) less knowing

and a mere finger-tip-touching in both directions suffices, with will being common either way. Perhaps it can serve the lesser intelligent that can not see the craftsmanship of the explanation you provide. In lieu of for the sake of the illiterate ignorant (many believers being such), any possible all-knowing god must know any/all not to believe.

And to address:

"Fu"" it, I am going to over analyze this myth because I don't like it. I will change the world and be an intellectual hero." The problem of course is that myths are tautological, one myth breeds another myth and one interpretation breeds another interpretation. Now this causes a structural problem for you.

It is of no consequence: once the root form that gives rise to any/all possible forms is negated, it coincides with the attaining to knowledge that such form ought to be negated for it giving rise to suffering/death:

Negation is suffering and death.

You can attack what your percieve as the core axiom but so many interpretations have stemmed from it that you will have to attack those interpretations as well considering they in fact do carry the story on.

it is the numerous interpretations revolving around the core axiom that help clarify it. The only thing they "contribute" to is the "proof" in the form of the axiom that negates the present-standing.

Gravity fallacy. Complexity is chaos.

You can attack the core assumption but the new proof effectively acts as an assumption itself that just leads to the original assumption.

An assumption and state of assuming are not the same: the former is definite (ie. collapsed/dead) the latter is active (ie. variable).

False they exist through eachother, as an assumption is assumed and to assume is an assumption.

It is a revolving context, the moment you observe a context is changes state.

Effectively you are left with continually negating a series of contexts with contexts, but it never really happens as what defines the context is it looping form. Thus all tautologies are just abstract forms and you cannot negate a form without using a form.

The context it is looping from can be found and negated (and eventually will be regardless).

Better said: you can not create a form without negating a present one(s).

And negating the present one results in a new form and loop.

If I negate (A-->A) with (-A-->-A) I create a new loop as ((-A-->-A)-->(B-->B))


You have to negate a loop with a loop and this requires one loop to turn to many.

If I cut a 2d circle in half with a 1d line, I still use a loop as the 1d line have both the same beginning and end points (0d point).

Eodnhoj7, I have overthrown your Christian weltanschauung

Christian???

...really ???

I know....see how we project our enemies on other's?

If I was a real Christian I would warn him out of brotherly love his ignorant blasphemy is leading him to destruction.

No I am just going to tear his BS apart.

Do you know communist China is currently having a crackdown on western religions and are persecuting them? China is currently butchering and imprisoning muslims right now. Stalin? Have your heard of him? Do the research.

Are you pro-genocide? You come off as a fascist (whether you are actually one who knows). You also come off as a Nazj supporter in light of Spinoza having a large influence on the later Nazi movement through Neitzche.

Not persecuting: Islam persecutes. Hitler and Stalin were puppets of the House of Islam. Do the research: oh wait, you can not, because the House of Islam erodes it from history.

Really communist China is persecuting Islam right now....save your pseudo history and anti-semitism.

Islam is pro-genocide: approx. 270 000 000 are dead due to Islamic jihad.

https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/

and you are bitching about China trying to contain a humanitarian crisis?

Over 1400 years as in under 20 million per 100 years. Communist Atheism? 100 million in 100 years, over 5 times the rate. They are 37 percent of Islam in 1/14 the time.



Islam is behind the geopolitical Left censorship of Right, accusations of bigotry, racism, "Islamophobia", supremacism etc. which are all qualities and characteristics that define Islam while satisfying the expression:

the accuser is the accused

See above.

as it does any/all similar whiner-squealer type fascists who whine and squeal over ridicule/undermining of their "mercy upon mankind" idol they absolutely worship (if even having no conscious knowledge): choice of dead Jew on a stick or sexually degenerated pedophile pig - take your pick. There is variety with looping "mercy upon mankind" idols sharing a principle pathology: idol worship. Both Christianity and Islam being no more nor less: even framed against Judeo-Christian theological roots, one can not usually join either without bearing a false testimony contrary to the ten commandments. Thus, the deaths of hundreds of millions exist leveraged on a single false testimony.

Lol...see the math above. And that is communist atheism. Haven't included capitalism and the US is not a Christian nation.

Imagine the gravity of that false testimony.

One could/would find if/when measuring Muhammad up to the ten commandments: his "example" is actually a demonstration of the systemic violation of each, with the shahada marking each Muslim as necessarily heretical to any possible real Abrahamic root as being a bearer of false testimony.

Selective Bias see above.

It is the reason I asked of the significance of 10: CKIIT is actively trying them, and none are so far falsified despite it being known they were not delivered by an "Abrahamic" god.

See above.

You want to negate beleifs, but the absence of beleif has much worse consequences. People kill people.

[nothing]

Negation is suffering and death.

Negative: negation is knowing of suffering and death.

Gravity fallacy. Complexity is chaos.

Ignorance fallacy: order can appear as chaos from a relatively ignorant perspective.

False they exist through eachother, as an assumption is assumed and to assume is an assumption.

It is a revolving context, the moment you observe a context is changes state.

And there are two distinctly different ways of assuming: knowledgeably (ie. conscious) and ignorantly (ie. unconscious). If one is conscious, they "revolve" upwards as a spiral: discerning any/all not to believe. If one is unconscious, they "revolve" downwards, lacking the same discernment. Hence: *P must have a freedom of movement allowing for both directions according to the (un)consciousness of the being. A spiral can move about from any point clock-wise or anti-wise, and each has its own signature relationship(s) to other surrounding forms.

And negating the present one results in a new form and loop.

You can't negate the present unless you "believe" it doesn't exist, which is an ignorant form/loop.

If I negate (A-->A) with (-A-->-A) I create a new loop as ((-A-->-A)-->(B-->B))

No you don't: you default back to whatever came before A.
B would arise if you believe A is negated if/when in fact not.

You have to negate a loop with a loop and this requires one loop to turn to many.

The loop of belief-based ignorance is negated by the loop of knowledge. This is not an existential phenomena, it is a local one that reveals the existential to the same degree(s) *P knows itself in relation to.

If I cut a 2d circle in half with a 1d line, I still use a loop as the 1d line have both the same beginning and end points (0d point).

Fold the loop, then. It gives the 2D circle-now-cut-in-half a positive/negative pole that will conform to any antithetical dichotomy in the same dimension.

I know....see how we project our enemies on other's?

If I was a real Christian I would warn him out of brotherly love his ignorant blasphemy is leading him to destruction.

No I am just going to tear his BS apart.

Projection is a product of enmity; not owing to a particular religion, rather religion is owing to institutionalized justification of enmity.

Over 1400 years as in under 20 million per 100 years. Communist Atheism? 100 million in 100 years, over 5 times the rate. They are 37 percent of Islam in 1/14 the time.

Communism is a proxy of Islam: they knowingly condition nations (via jihad) as trials for conquest/domination.
What in the hell is 'communist atheism' ? What kind of doctrine is that ? Does this somehow make Islam 'true' ?
Islam has perfected the art of hiding behind any/all they can to blame their genocides on.

Lol...see the math above. And that is communist atheism. Haven't included capitalism and the US is not a Christian nation.

The gravity of your metrics are grossly misplaced: communism is just as much a product of Islam as fascism is: they both failed and both killed hundreds of millions.

Selective Bias see above.

Please see mirror.

See above.

See mirror.

What is 'communist atheist' ?