Philosophy Now Forum

nothing wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:55 am Duane and others: here is another way to 'view' this problem by removing the (non-)efficacy of any/all conscience as a factor (leading to the problem-solution of Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed Nor Broken).

It requires equivocation of any/all problems associated with (Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed Nor Broken) to/with an already existing law(s) that relies not on the conscience: gravity.

If one equivocates any/all (+) local/global belief-based ignorance(s) as a body, and calls this body P,
the square root of P is both (+) and (-). Therefor, any given body P
in possession (+) of belief-based ignorance(s) makes for +P as body of ignorance
while simultaneously co-creating a counter-part -P as body of knowledge.

I therefor have a body of ignorance +P
and (if even unknown to me) is an attainable to -P
which, if/when attained to, would negate any/all efficacy of +P.

Therefor
P =/= P
P = (+/-) P
P = *P
_________
* is variable: (+) or (-)

And this *P can be used to solve for the problem of Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed Nor Broken:

Whereas
+P is ignorance of the gravity of law-adherence
-P is knowledge of (ignorance of) gravity

And gravity precedes conscience (ie. does not rely on it) thus the rest follows. In any event: knowledge negates belief-based ignorance(s).

Nothing;
By "gravity" do you mean solemnity/serious reflection ?
Duane

nothing wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:41 pm

Nothing;
By "gravity" do you mean solemnity/serious reflection ?
Duane

I hope to clarify exactly what I mean by gravity.

Continue with *P:

+P = body of ignorance (relative to the ignorant P)
-P = body of knowledge (relative to the ignorant P)

and apply (Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed Nor Broken) to the existing context of Judaism/Christianity/Islam as they must relate to any possible all-knowing monotheistic god (in which they so solemnly and seriously believe!). Let us both you and I rest in commonality that we so solemnly and seriously know not to believe in such.

Whose position has gravity?
The one who believes to be true, and is certainly false? (this is +P)
Or the one who knows to be certainly false, thus not to believe? (this is -P)

The gravity is on the believer: thus,
what knowledge is to the negation of belief,
-P is to +P, with the latter being a body of ignorance
with its own relative gravity according to
the degree(s) of that same ignorance.

Therefor if one begins with an all-knowing god (for the sake of argument re: Judaism/Christianity/Islam),
any/all being less this all-knowing god is as their own +P with corresponding -P (attainable to) that indefinitely approaches all-knowing,
and any/all belief-based ignorance(s) exist in, and/or by way of, belief-in-and-of-itself, which is a problem-in-and-of-itself
if not being tried for/as ignorance. This leads to ignorance-in-and-of-itself: these all being singularities that can define an infinite number of contexts.

It is the same problem alluded to in the Genesis account of creation that Judaism/Christianity/Islam are coequally ignorant of (!)

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

and the same reason for the Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance (Inference) Theorem (CKIIT) to target Judaism/Christianity/Islam as being a part of the problem, rather than any/all solutions to said problem of which they have no conscious knowledge of (their own ignorance of the problem-in-and-of-itself), being in belief-based ignorance instead.

This is why CKIIT derived the two trees to use against these "Law" religions:

-1 Know <-*Tree of Living (leads to: everlasting life)
+2 of any/all <-*creation
-2 *not to* <-*destruction
+1 Believe <-*Tree of Knowledge of good and evil (leads to: suffering/death)
0 I am (willing to...) <-*being with equal propensity for good/evil
__________________________
SUFFERING/DEATH: (+) 0 + 1 - 2 + 2 - 1 = 0 I am willing to BELIEVE *not to* of any/all KNOW
(INVERSE OF ^^^)(-) 0 - 1 + 2 - 2 + 1 = 0 I am willing to KNOW of any/all *not to* BELIEVE

thus their having no basis as any such 'Law' for calling themselves BELIEVERS (!)

Nothing;
You are clearly a radically rapid-thinking superior intellect, who leaves other superior intellects scratching their heads, in attempts to follow your inundative formal logic in combination with insightful scriptural interpretation. You are a totally valuable genius contributor.
Duane

+P tends towards the "eye" as belief-based ignorance(s) weighing down on P, and
-P tends away from the "eye" towards the circumference of the circle, alleviating any/all weight on P.
*P (variable) is any being less an all-knowing monotheistic god

2 (any/all)
-1 KNOW
0 I am (willing to...)
1 BELIEVE
-2 *not to*
__________________________________________
+P = I am willing to BELIEVE *not to* (any/all) KNOW...
-P = I am willing to KNOW (any/all) *not to* BELIEVE...
*P = any given knowledgeable/belief-based 'state' at any given 'time' in existence

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

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

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

upsurgent wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 8:58 pm LAW IS NEITHER OBEYED DISOBEYED NOR BROKEN
No person in fact ever determines to act or forbear action on the basis of given published language of law, and, therefore, language of law, absolutely without originative connection with intentional human action/inaction, can, actually, be neither obeyed, disobeyed, nor broken.

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

That human determination to action arises ex nihilo was first realized and enunciated by Baruch Spinoza (1632 -1677 ), as "...determinatio negatio est…"(1674); and was, subsequently, restated by G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) as "Omnis determinatio est negatio.", i.e., "All determination is negation."

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

J. P. Sartre’s (1901-1980 ) examination of the ontological structure of the upsurge of a human act exhibits comprehension of Spinoza's dictum: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943). And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action. If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or itself, this amounts to putting a given at the beginning of the series. Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements...The existence of the act implies its autonomy...Furthermore, if the act is not pure motion, it must be defined by an
intention. No matter how this intention is considered, it can be only a surpassing of the given toward a result to be attained. This given, in fact, since it is pure presence, can not get out of itself. Precisely because it is, it is fully and solely what it is. Therefore it can not provide the reason for a phenomenon which derives all its meaning from a result to be attained; that is, from a non-existent… This intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943).

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

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

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

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

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:59 pm

upsurgent wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 8:58 pm LAW IS NEITHER OBEYED DISOBEYED NOR BROKEN
No person in fact ever determines to act or forbear action on the basis of given published language of law, and, therefore, language of law, absolutely without originative connection with intentional human action/inaction, can, actually, be neither obeyed, disobeyed, nor broken.

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

That human determination to action arises ex nihilo was first realized and enunciated by Baruch Spinoza (1632 -1677 ), as "...determinatio negatio est…"(1674); and was, subsequently, restated by G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) as "Omnis determinatio est negatio.", i.e., "All determination is negation."

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

J. P. Sartre’s (1901-1980 ) examination of the ontological structure of the upsurge of a human act exhibits comprehension of Spinoza's dictum: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943). And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action. If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or itself, this amounts to putting a given at the beginning of the series. Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements...The existence of the act implies its autonomy...Furthermore, if the act is not pure motion, it must be defined by an
intention. No matter how this intention is considered, it can be only a surpassing of the given toward a result to be attained. This given, in fact, since it is pure presence, can not get out of itself. Precisely because it is, it is fully and solely what it is. Therefore it can not provide the reason for a phenomenon which derives all its meaning from a result to be attained; that is, from a non-existent… This intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943).

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

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

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

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

You suffer a fallacy. If law is neither disobeyed or broken, that is in itself a law and you are left with existence itself being law. Now that is not a problem, until existence is negated. At this point a transgression of law occurs.

Existence is negated when taken from one state and inverted to many states.

You suffer a fallacy. If law is neither disobeyed or broken, that is in itself a law and you are left with existence itself being law. Now that is not a problem, until existence is negated. At this point a transgression of law occurs.

Existence is negated when taken from one state and inverted to many states.

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

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:59 pm Existence is negated when taken from one state and inverted to many states.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:35 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:59 pm Existence is negated when taken from one state and inverted to many states.

You must have an example in mind for this. Please share it.

nothing wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:12 pm

You suffer a fallacy. If law is neither disobeyed or broken, that is in itself a law and you are left with existence itself being law. Now that is not a problem, until existence is negated. At this point a transgression of law occurs.

Existence is negated when taken from one state and inverted to many states.

There is no fallacy: existence itself already is law, if even unknown of. That is the point. The fallacy resides in the belief in law, rather than knowledge of, existential law. It could be true that a part of the existential law necessitates that any/all belief less knowledge necessarily results in the (equivalent) "negation of existence" (ie. death).

What is unknown is not knowledge in a full sense only a negative limit. It is subject to belief.

"It could be" is a probabilistic statement, and not certain. It necessitate both knowledge and an absense of knowledge as belief.


The gradation of existence necessitates an absense of existence as non-existence as one existence relates through another and is intrinsically empty in itself.

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

See these two words "surely die" in Hebrew:

מות תמות
(right-to-left)
"mot temut"
מות - die
תמות - certainly

and see how similar they are: identical less an additional tav in front. In other words, the fabric of the language itself designates death as a/the measure of certainty. Therefor, according to the 'law of language' that governs Judaism/Christianity/Islam, death is a/the measure of certainty (!) which means: if belief certainly leads to suffering/death, their own 'law' is Disobeyed/Broken, which is what:

Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed Nor Broken

addresses. Jews/Christians/Muslims can't but concede that their religions are nothing but: an ongoing testament to their own belief-based ignorance(s) contrary to any 'law' in any context: belief-based ignorance(s) exist in, and/or by way of, belief-in-and-of-itself, thus belief is ignorance and knowledge negates belief. This is where Duane's work and my work meet and find the same.

The warning implies a certainty, which is a definite: collapse/cessation/negation of being (ie. death).

Void is void of certainty. Void is observed only through the multiplicity of phenomenon as the multiplicity of phenomenon.

Therefor, death can be defined in/on terms for trial of Judaism/Christianity/Islam: transgression of law, because according to their own 'law', any/all suffering/death is allegedly certainly due to: eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If this one point alone is left to stand in the face/context of Judaism/Christianity/Islam, they all collapse for being both contrary to their own 'law' and existential law: it being effectively captured by the Edenic problem of the two trees wherein it necessitates that belief-in-and-of-itself be designated as "surely" leading to suffering/death.

Else: Islam commits another attempt to hijack a rogue Western 'state' and turn it into a genocidal war machine as it did with Germany re: WWII.

upsurgent wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:18 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:59 pm

upsurgent wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 8:58 pm LAW IS NEITHER OBEYED DISOBEYED NOR BROKEN
No person in fact ever determines to act or forbear action on the basis of given published language of law, and, therefore, language of law, absolutely without originative connection with intentional human action/inaction, can, actually, be neither obeyed, disobeyed, nor broken.

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

That human determination to action arises ex nihilo was first realized and enunciated by Baruch Spinoza (1632 -1677 ), as "...determinatio negatio est…"(1674); and was, subsequently, restated by G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) as "Omnis determinatio est negatio.", i.e., "All determination is negation."

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

J. P. Sartre’s (1901-1980 ) examination of the ontological structure of the upsurge of a human act exhibits comprehension of Spinoza's dictum: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943). And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action. If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or itself, this amounts to putting a given at the beginning of the series. Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements...The existence of the act implies its autonomy...Furthermore, if the act is not pure motion, it must be defined by an
intention. No matter how this intention is considered, it can be only a surpassing of the given toward a result to be attained. This given, in fact, since it is pure presence, can not get out of itself. Precisely because it is, it is fully and solely what it is. Therefore it can not provide the reason for a phenomenon which derives all its meaning from a result to be attained; that is, from a non-existent… This intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943).

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

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

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

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

You suffer a fallacy. If law is neither disobeyed or broken, that is in itself a law and you are left with existence itself being law. Now that is not a problem, until existence is negated. At this point a transgression of law occurs.

Existence is negated when taken from one state and inverted to many states.

I am addressing legislated and magistrate-generated case law.

Spinoza's dictum is not legislated as an actual law. Even if it where it is still subject to bandwagon and authority. A law is a perspective.

You are deeming my thesis that law is neither obeyed disobeyed nor broken to be some other ilk of law, which particular ilk you deem my proposition to be I do not know.

Negation through Determination applied to itself.

My theoretically-oriented critique of sociospheric legal type law consists in proposition supported by reason attendant upon twentieth century French existentialist thought.

And look at Europe now....look at what the philosophy of the father's did to the children.

You suffer as a shallow dilettante! Flake off! I cannot further countenance your backward, ignoble, and mistaken characterizations of my thought.

Lol!!!! Say it again! I am imagining an angry French man spew wine and cheese out of his nose.

What is unknown is not knowledge in a full sense only a negative limit. It is subject to belief.

"It could be" is a probabilistic statement, and not certain. It necessitate both knowledge and an absense of knowledge as belief.

The gradation of existence necessitates an absense of existence as non-existence as one existence relates through another and is intrinsically empty in itself.

Void is void of certainty. Void is observed only through the multiplicity of phenomenon as the multiplicity of phenomenon.

nothing wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 11:23 pm

What is unknown is not knowledge in a full sense only a negative limit. It is subject to belief.

The (substance of) 'what' in/of 'what is unknown' can be indefinite, thus neither: a limit nor subject to belief. It would take a believer to believe everything important to know is already known to them, which is a collapsed-regressed state. To know one knows not is indefinite whose limit is likewise indefinite according to the willing admission/acknowledgement. *P can known 0% of itself, thus be able to infer 0% of anything else, thus be ignorant-in-and-of-itself. If *P knows 10% of itself, it can infer up to 10% etc. If P allows indefinite ignorance of itself, there is no limit to what P can infer beyond knowledge of itself. This is why 'know thy self' is needed to know anything relating to god.

There you go counting again...counting fallacy in math section.

"It could be" is a probabilistic statement, and not certain. It necessitate both knowledge and an absense of knowledge as belief.

Thus certainly not known not to be, thus knowingly it is certainly possible. Allows: further trial/testing less definite collapse sustaining indefinite state(s).

Possibility is not actuality, thus you actually do not know.

The gradation of existence necessitates an absense of existence as non-existence as one existence relates through another and is intrinsically empty in itself.

Void is void of certainty. Void is observed only through the multiplicity of phenomenon as the multiplicity of phenomenon.

Aside: here comes 'void' card again. These card games are such a boring thing.

Its not even a card.

Back: this doesn't negate existence - it describes the poles allowing existence to sustain itself. You need non-existence for existence viz. life is that: birth/growth/death viz. creation/sustenance/destruction viz. Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva etc. There is only one 'existence': to say one existence relates through another thus void is not 'existence'.
If you are going to take the hindu perspective why don't you do the research into the "vedic origins of islam". .


You have two holes: creation-comes-out-of and destruction-goes-in-to as being the out-breath and in-breath of Brahma (so-called) and the 'big bang' is just this. CKIIT captures this as (any/all) and *not to*. What a person sees as external is internal: the solar year is the "real" clock: the sun in the sky is 'to each their own'. The sun is not a ball of nuclear explosions: it is a transformer. It is not 'burning' anything: it does not have to. The flares are a surface phenomena: the sun is hollow (the relativists will whine and squeal about that, as they would with their 'relativity' being absurd).

Swap void and certainty in your last sentence:

Certainty is certainty of void (ie. death). Certainty is observed only through the multiplicity of phenomenon as the multiplicity of phenomenon (voids in time).
Void isn't even death. Death is fragmented life.

There you go counting again...counting fallacy in math section.

Possibility is not actuality, thus you actually do not know.

Its not even a card.

If you are going to take the hindu perspective why don't you do the research into the "vedic origins of islam". .

"O King, your religion is of course known as the best religion among all. Still, by the order of the Lord, I am going to establish a terrible and demoniac religion and enforce a strong creed over the meat-eaters [mlecchas]. My followers will be known by their cut [circumcised] genitals, they will have no shikha [tuft of hair on their head, like Brahmanas], but will have a beard, make noise loudly, and eat all kinds of animals except swine without observing any rituals. They will perform purificatory acts with the musala, and thus be called musalman, and not purify their things with kusha grass [one of the Vedic customs]. Thus, I will be the originator of this adharmic [opposed to Vedic or Aryan Dharma] and demoniac religion of the meat-eating nations."

Void isn't even death. Death is fragmented life.