Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed Nor Broken

[upsurgent]

Atla,
One of the three regions of Being is Being-In-Itself. Being-in-itself is defined as being identical with itself, being wholly and concretely only what it is. In philosophy identity is expressed as A=A. I am maintaining that language of law is a concrete identity which coincides wholly with itself as in A=A; whereas, Consciousness is a Being-For-Itself, and, does not coincide with itself, is always outside itself acting in pursuit of a non yet realized future; thus law, as an in-itself, cannot form projects to transcend itself/get out of itself in order to achieve action toward an end goal, which goal is a not yet or non-existent nothing.

I see. This way of thinking is nonsense. The Being-In-Itself and Being-for-itself you mention do not belong into the same sense/category/level/whatever of consideration.

In a technical and rather concrete sense, everything is itself. Law is itself. Rock is itself. The mechanism of consciousness (I'm trying to use your definition of consciousness, but I've never seen this one used before in philosophy) is itself. Which is described as A = A.

In another and rather abstract sense, the "content" of the above consciousness points to outside of itself. I guess you could say the same about the law: it's a text created by humans, and its "content" points to real-world-events outside of itself.

But the latter sense is rather abstract and has no bearing on ontology.

I am saying that jurisprudentially oriented scholars are mistakenly presupposing language of law to be a determinative force in the world
...

You sure? I doubt anyone with half a brain would make such an unbelievable mistake..

Atla;
Once again you are proceeding in your criticism of my position via pure unsupported assertion. Explain rationally why I am making an unbelievable mistake ! ? I am absolutely certain that you are not sufficiently instrumented in existential thinking to even begin to follow the reasoning which I have, step by step, employed in my destruction of the unexamined presupposition whereby language of law is deemed to be a force motivating human conduct. You are not capable in regard to doing any more than simply asserting my position is incorrect and you cannot, do not, posit reason against my viable demonstration against the very notion of law...I am radically bored with your repeated pure assertion(s) and suggest you cut me some serious slack, and, GET OFF MY BACK, unless you can give reasoned argument against the notion that all determination is negation, and, law is concretion...
Duane
Duane

[Atla]

Atla;
Once again you are proceeding in your criticism of my position via pure unsupported assertion. Explain rationally why I am making an unbelievable mistake ! ? I am absolutely certain that you are not sufficiently instrumented in existential thinking to even begin to follow the reasoning which I have, step by step, employed in my destruction of the unexamined presupposition whereby language of law is deemed to be a force motivating human conduct. You are not capable in regard to doing any more than simply asserting my position is incorrect and you cannot, do not, posit reason against my viable demonstration against the very notion of law...I am radically bored with your repeated pure assertion(s) and suggest you cut me some serious slack, and, GET OFF MY BACK, unless you can give reasoned argument against the notion that all determination is negation, and, law is concretion...
Duane
Duane

Eh.. apparently you also conflate two different meanings of "determinative/determination" (or 3?). Whatever

[upsurgent]

Atla;
Once again you are proceeding in your criticism of my position via pure unsupported assertion. Explain rationally why I am making an unbelievable mistake ! ? I am absolutely certain that you are not sufficiently instrumented in existential thinking to even begin to follow the reasoning which I have, step by step, employed in my destruction of the unexamined presupposition whereby language of law is deemed to be a force motivating human conduct. You are not capable in regard to doing any more than simply asserting my position is incorrect and you cannot, do not, posit reason against my viable demonstration against the very notion of law...I am radically bored with your repeated pure assertion(s) and suggest you cut me some serious slack, and, GET OFF MY BACK, unless you can give reasoned argument against the notion that all determination is negation, and, law is concretion...
Duane
Duane

Eh.. apparently you also conflate two different meanings of "determinative/determination" (or 3?). Whatever

You're bent.

[commonsense]

Upsurgent,
Sadly, your argument has deteriorated from elegance to ad hominems. Get back on track!
commonsense

[nothing]

I will pick and choose from the quotes:

...comprehension of Spinoza's dictum: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.”

This is a powerful statement and subtly touches on the two-simultaneous-truths: (is / is not) wherein they may contradict yet simultaneously both be true. The mystery of life lies thereabouts: to be, or not to be.

And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action... 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 intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943).

Truth by way of negation =?= truth of the way of the living?

Can one derive an ought from an is?
Can one derive an ought not from an is?

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

The conduct may be 'unintentional' if the individual is not 'free' viz. 'bound' by a "given" law in which they themselves "believe" in, thus take as a given and face the death penalty for not taking such laws as "given".

Civilization is currently predicated upon the putative rule of law and American civilization is founded upon the erroneous presupposition that language of law is determinative of both overt human conduct, and of human forbearance to act.

The same can be said of Islamic civilization: founded upon the erroneous presupposition that language of law (ie. the Qur'an) is determinative. In the case of Islam, Muslims erroneously believe a single book is superior to any/all other documents on the face of the planet (establishing the precedent for Nazi fascism resulting in genocide against Jews), including the vastly superior Constitution of the U.S. of America which rejects such idolatry.

The venal jurisprudential attempt to monitor/control human conduct via language of law is a vain project unsuited to and in contradiction with the ontological structure of being a human being, wherein all determination is negation.

This is the same as patriarchal religion that uses books/idols to monitor/control women.

The world-wide presupposed efficacy of language of law as an originative determinative source of human conduct, is, when considered in the light of both Spinozas dictum, and, of the human ontological structure of the upsurge of an act, a completely nonsensical presupposition..

Great: discard the Bible and the Qur'an, and then tell the idol worshipers to stop worshiping (ie. spilling blood over) books and idols.

The entire problem boils into idol worship and having no conscious knowledge of ones own ignorance such to believe some-any-one else is the problem, and not ones own belief-based ideology which is being taken as "given". So long as something like Islam exists, I will take the U.S. Constitution over it because Islam has already manufactured the deaths of hundreds of millions before the U.S. even existed.

[upsurgent]

Upsurgent,
Sadly, your argument has deteriorated from elegance to ad hominems. Get back on track!
commonsense

Commonsense;
You are absolutely correct. I had to descend into ad hominin tactic in an attempt to shake-off a pest purveying pure mistaken assertion.

I totally appreciate your characterization of my previous efforts as elegant, wow, gee, thank you !

You, with your great commonsense, might appreciate the subjoined as a possibly elegant enunciation:

Papus79;
I guess I'd ask - what's your take on people's internal structure? (An interlocutor from another philosophy forum).

I'd really include both internal life and external life as equally determined. Also when people have no reliable frameworks for getting what they need out of life they get stuck in a sort of chaotic limbo where there's little return on investment for their behavior in the world, and that's the sort of thing that happens when society's frameworks for navigating start to unravel.
Papus79;
This is my take on human interiority, grounded in French existential ontology, which I now copy and paste from a paper I wrote a few years ago:

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…
Duane

[upsurgent]

I will pick and choose from the quotes:

...comprehension of Spinoza's dictum: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.”

This is a powerful statement and subtly touches on the two-simultaneous-truths: (is / is not) wherein they may contradict yet simultaneously both be true. The mystery of life lies thereabouts: to be, or not to be.

And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action... 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 intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943).

Truth by way of negation =?= truth of the way of the living?

Can one derive an ought from an is?
Can one derive an ought not from an is?

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

The conduct may be 'unintentional' if the individual is not 'free' viz. 'bound' by a "given" law in which they themselves "believe" in, thus take as a given and face the death penalty for not taking such laws as "given".

Civilization is currently predicated upon the putative rule of law and American civilization is founded upon the erroneous presupposition that language of law is determinative of both overt human conduct, and of human forbearance to act.

The same can be said of Islamic civilization: founded upon the erroneous presupposition that language of law (ie. the Qur'an) is determinative. In the case of Islam, Muslims erroneously believe a single book is superior to any/all other documents on the face of the planet (establishing the precedent for Nazi fascism resulting in genocide against Jews), including the vastly superior Constitution of the U.S. of America which rejects such idolatry.

The venal jurisprudential attempt to monitor/control human conduct via language of law is a vain project unsuited to and in contradiction with the ontological structure of being a human being, wherein all determination is negation.

This is the same as patriarchal religion that uses books/idols to monitor/control women.

The world-wide presupposed efficacy of language of law as an originative determinative source of human conduct, is, when considered in the light of both Spinozas dictum, and, of the human ontological structure of the upsurge of an act, a completely nonsensical presupposition..

Great: discard the Bible and the Qur'an, and then tell the idol worshipers to stop worshiping (ie. spilling blood over) books and idols.

The entire problem boils into idol worship and having no conscious knowledge of ones own ignorance such to believe some-any-one else is the problem, and not ones own belief-based ideology which is being taken as "given". So long as something like Islam exists, I will take the U.S. Constitution over it because Islam has already manufactured the deaths of hundreds of millions before the U.S. even existed.

Nothing;
I radically appreciate your super-extensive reflections upon the language of my post. I am perusing your multiplicit responses and, am cogitating thereupon until I can honor your concerns with appreciative responses...
Duane

[upsurgent]

I will pick and choose from the quotes:

...comprehension of Spinoza's dictum: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.”

This is a powerful statement and subtly touches on the two-simultaneous-truths: (is / is not) wherein they may contradict yet simultaneously both be true. The mystery of life lies thereabouts: to be, or not to be.

Nothing;
Yes, a radically powerful and revolutionary description of the structure of the origin of a human act. I have never seen within the statement the mysterious Shakesperian concern which you deem to reckon therein. What has puzzled and intrigued me for decades is Sartre's employment of the phrase "by itself" within the statement, and, I have long thought that he could possibly be referring to an assistance provided to the upsurge of an act by the given factual state, however, I just very recently realized that Sartre's "by itself" is, in my estimation, stating that it is the not yet realized future state of affairs toward which the for-itself is projecting itself, that is an agent which supports and makes possible the for-itself's thrust toward that which it intends to bring to pass. Thus, the nothing which is a particular not yet accomplished future, is the efficacious non-ens which determines/makes human action/inaction.

Duane

[upsurgent]

I will pick and choose from the quotes:

...comprehension of Spinoza's dictum: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.”

This is a powerful statement and subtly touches on the two-simultaneous-truths: (is / is not) wherein they may contradict yet simultaneously both be true. The mystery of life lies thereabouts: to be, or not to be.

And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action... 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 intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943).

Truth by way of negation =?= truth of the way of the living?

Can one derive an ought from an is?
Can one derive an ought not from an is?

Nothing(ness);
If by "truth" you mean to indicate that we humans are beginning to realize the actual way human conduct originates, as distinguished from our mistaken historic notion that givens like laws found acts, your equation is correctly formulated. Truth being the given ontological structure of our consciousness, i.e., seeing the "way of the living" equals accuracy in comprehending what we are. Yes, we arrive at the truth regarding our Being as humans via accurate examination of the paradigm which is the doubly nihilative trajectory of our living consciousness.
The What ? central to your equation is the structure of our consciousness as a nothingness which perpetually engages in the non-being of our particular non-extant futures, i.e., the ? is the to be or not to be that is one's possible future.
Duane

[upsurgent]

I will pick and choose from the quotes:

...comprehension of Spinoza's dictum: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.”

This is a powerful statement and subtly touches on the two-simultaneous-truths: (is / is not) wherein they may contradict yet simultaneously both be true. The mystery of life lies thereabouts: to be, or not to be.

And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action... 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 intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943).

Truth by way of negation =?= truth of the way of the living?
Can one derive an ought from an is?

Can one derive an ought not from an is?

Nothing(ness);
If by "truth" you mean to indicate that we humans are beginning to realize the actual way human conduct originates, as distinguished from our mistaken historic notion that givens like laws found acts, your equation is correctly formulated. Truth being the given ontological structure of our consciousness, i.e., seeing the "way of the living" equals accuracy in comprehending what we are. Yes, we arrive at the truth regarding our Being as humans via accurate examination of the paradigm which is the doubly nihilative trajectory of our living consciousness.
The What ? central to your equation is the structure of our consciousness as a nothingness which perpetually engages in the non-being of our particular non-extant futures, i.e., the ? is the to be or not to be that is one's possible future.
Duane

Nothing is Not;
Can one derive an ought from an is? NO.

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

[nothing]

Nothing(ness);
If by "truth" you mean to indicate that we humans are beginning to realize the actual way human conduct originates, as distinguished from our mistaken historic notion that givens like laws found acts, your equation is correctly formulated. Truth being the given ontological structure of our consciousness, i.e., seeing the "way of the living" equals accuracy in comprehending what we are. Yes, we arrive at the truth regarding our Being as humans via accurate examination of the paradigm which is the doubly nihilative trajectory of our living consciousness.
The What ? central to your equation is the structure of our consciousness as a nothingness which perpetually engages in the non-being of our particular non-extant futures, i.e., the ? is the to be or not to be that is one's possible future.
Duane

It is sound: the ontological structure of our consciousness demands that any/all belief(s) be indefinitely tried and graduated into knowledge(s) ad infinitum such to abandon the old/false and replace with the new/true indefinitely. It is an objective process without particular object: an existence which defines itself as becoming more (by way of becoming less) than what one is.

However if negation can come by way of living consciousness...

Nothing is Not;
Can one derive an ought from an is? NO.

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

If we say there are only two general directions:
i. tree of knowledge of good and evil (leads to: suffering/death)
ii. tree of living (leads to: inverse of suffering/death - peace/life)

can we know the direction of one (ie. of living) if we know the properties of the other (ie. of suffering/death)?

Can one derive an ought not from an is? NO. <-*...are you sure?
Can one not know: one ought not to beat a woman because it causes her suffering?
Can one not know: one ought not to believe x because it leads to y?

To know what ought not to be requires it to temporarily be: to learn; to know to negate it. This is what suffering is: having no conscious knowledge of what ought not to be(lieve) and the same is the Edenic dilemma: Eve knew not what not to believe, now having invited suffering/death into the world. It is belief-based ignorance, and this is what must be tried indefinitely for knowledge as it negates any/all false belief(s).

[upsurgent]

I will pick and choose from the quotes:

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

The conduct may be 'unintentional' if the individual is not 'free' viz. 'bound' by a "given" law in which they themselves "believe" in, thus take as a given and face the death penalty for not taking such laws as "given".

No thing;
The individual you conjure cannot possibly not be free, irregardless of the existence of extant language of law, for, his very ontological structure is the absolute, i.e., is human ontological freedom, which is the absolute, (See "Being and Nothingness'', 1943).
No human freedom is actually in fact bound by given law, regardless of whether or not that particular human being believes he is so bound; he is mistaken along with his entire society, i.e., deluded.
One can indeed face the death penalty within the present state of affairs in this world, wherein we have not yet sufficiently collectively undertaken the profound effort of dispelling the incorrect notion that actual factual given language of law is determinative of life and death.
Duane

[upsurgent]

I will pick and choose from the quotes:

The same can be said of Isla...

Nothing;
In the spirit of Herman Melville''s Mr. Bartelby, "I prefer not."
Duane

[nothing]

The individual you conjure cannot possibly not be free, irregardless of the existence of extant language of law, for, his very ontological structure is the absolute, i.e., is human ontological freedom, which is the absolute, (See "Being and Nothingness'', 1943).
No human freedom is actually in fact bound by given law, regardless of whether or not that particular human being believes he is so bound; he is mistaken along with his entire society, i.e., deluded.
One can indeed face the death penalty within the present state of affairs in this world, wherein we have not yet sufficiently collectively undertaken the profound effort of dispelling the incorrect notion that actual factual given language of law is determinative of life and death.

Yes: the point I am making is belief-based ideological dogmas relying on 'language' impose an inherently ignorant boundary condition(s) being a product of what you alluded to: delusion. This is precisely what language-based states such as Islam are, and their 'state' can be described as the same which the Hebrew word "satan" describes:

...the expression of being bound in an ongoing state...

wherein in the case of Islam: the first victim of Islam is the believing Muslim whose life is an ongoing expression of their sufferings for believing that which is not true in the same ongoing state. This is the destruction "belief" brings with it, and why attempts are being made to undermine "belief"-in-and-of-itself entirely by assigning it as the mythical tree of knowledge of good and evil that causes suffering/death. It is true: it would take any believer to go off and believe evil is good. If belief is a fixed characteristic of confusing good and evil (ie. satan) then surely knowledge reconciles. Such belief-based 'states' have no conscious knowledge of their own ignorance, thus believe everyone else is ignorant and not themselves (ie. perpetual scapegoating). It is a characteristic of belief-based ideologies: blame others for ones own crimes. It is fixed like an axiom.

[upsurgent]

I will pick and choose from the quotes:

...comprehension of Spinoza's dictum: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.”

This is a powerful statement and subtly touches on the two-simultaneous-truths: (is / is not) wherein they may contradict yet simultaneously both be true. The mystery of life lies thereabouts: to be, or not to be.

And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action... 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 intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943).

Truth by way of negation =?= truth of the way of the living?

Can one derive an ought from an is?
Can one derive an ought not from an is?

The entire problem boils into idol worship and having no conscious knowledge of ones own ignorance

Nothing;
Yes, indeed, extant civilization verily worships language of law, and, is collectively unaware of the overall ignorance regarding sociospheric error which ascribes mediative and curative powers to what is in fact inefficacious language of law, which law-language cannot, in fact, touch human beings, whatsoever.
Duane