Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

celebratedrecluse wrote

Bookmark

2

nega OP wrote (edited )

When writing an essay meant to persuade the reader to accept the view(s) of the author, it is standard procedure to seize the reader’s attention instantly. Does the following seize the interest and attention of the reader, (I think it does) ?: “Now that America is replete with senseless homicide by zealot militaristic police, who murder citizens…”

Is there anything unclear about the above portion of the sentence, (which sentence will outrageously extend unto an entire paragraph, made up of very atypical terms and phrases, of a highly unusual and different type)? Do I, as author, possess the free cholce, indeed, the right, to launch the construction of my enormous paragraph-sentence, according to my desire, in order to work for the sake of immediately abducting the reader’s attention? And, does not the following portion of the opening episodic syntagma further abduct the reader’s consciousness with the idiosyncratic:‘’... while absolutistically enforcing unviable miniscule ordinances...” (render it) “...apt to crique the very notion of law itself…”. Did not that particular construction seize the reader’s notice? Has anyone anywhere ever spoken of doing critique of the very notion of law itself?! Hell no. Have I got the reader’s full attention, right off the bat, eh?! Have the members here not paid attention, indeed, too damn much attention, all day?!...

1

masque wrote (edited )

Do you really want someone to critique the presentation of your opening sentence in detail, phrase-by-phrase? You didn't seem like a big fan when I did that to your comment about vastly experiencing the exact selfsame plea etc.

Does the following seize the interest and attention of the reader, (I think it does) ?: “Now that America is replete with senseless homicide by zealot militaristic police, who murder citizens…”

"Seizing the interest of the reader" requires convincing them that you're about to present a new and exciting idea for them to think about. But this is an anarchist forum, where most readers already accept that the police in America are militaristic murderers (and have been for some time), so nothing about your introduction actually stands out to this particular audience.

Is there anything unclear about the above portion of the sentence...

Yes. How are the police zealots? A zealot is someone who militantly advances a cause motivated intrinsically by their own deeply-held beliefs. In contrast, the police are merely performing the duties of their job. The politics that they militantly advance are not their own, but rather those of the capitalist class that employs them; moreover, that capitalist class is not motivated by deeply-held beliefs, but rather by their own material self interest. There is no zealotry to be found here.

which sentence will outrageously extend unto an entire paragraph, made up of very atypical terms and phrases, of a highly unusual and different type

You seem to think that this is a good thing. It isn't.

Do I, as author, possess the free cholce, indeed, the right, to launch the construction of my enormous paragraph-sentence, according to my desire,

Sure, in the same sense that one always has the radical freedom to act contrary to their own self interest. You are just as free to write badly as you are to kill yourself or perform any other action within your power. That doesn't mean that you should actually do it. (I'm sure you'll appreciate the reference to Sartre.)

in order to work for the sake of immediately abducting the reader’s attention?

Writing this bizarrely has the opposite effect, driving the reader away rather than grabbing their attention (or, if it does grab their attention, it is the form of the sentence that grabs their attention, distracting from the underlying ideas). If you want to write that way you're certainly free to, but it acts contrary to your stated goal.

And, does not the following portion of the opening episodic syntagma further abduct the reader’s consciousness with the idiosyncratic:‘’... while absolutistically enforcing unviable miniscule ordinances...” (render it) “...apt to crique the very notion of law itself…”. Did not that particular construction seize the reader’s notice?

It seizes the reader's notice in the same way that a car crash does.

What do you mean by "unviable miniscule ordinances"?

The word "miniscule" refers to size, but ordinances do not have a physical size. Obviously we're supposed to interpret size here in some metaphorical sense, but the intended sense is not clear. Are you you referring to ordinances that are miniscule in terms of importance (e.g. jaywalking), or that have a very narrow scope (e.g. regulations on the exact sugar content of peanut butter), or that concern crimes constituted by a very minimal act (e.g. the possession of a banned substance), or that carry a small penalty, or that are "miniscule" in some other sense? Why not choose a word that more clearly describes what type of ordinance you're talking about?

Also, in what sense are such ordinances "unviable"? When someone refers to a proposed law as unviable they typically mean that it can't realistically be implemented into actual law, but obviously that's not what you're referring to since such laws never have the opportunity to be enforced by the police. Do you mean to refer to ordinances that it is futile to attempt to fully enforce, or ordinances that can't reasonably be expected to accomplish their stated aims even when perfectly enforced? Either one seems like an equally valid interpretation of the phrase "unviable ordinance."

You claim that your weird way of writing is necessary to clearly convey your ideas, but your poor choice of words is actually creating ambiguities rather than resolving them. And it's not due to a lack of vocabulary on my end; obviously I know what "miniscule" and "viable" mean, since these are fairly common words.

Has anyone anywhere ever spoken of doing critique of the very notion of law itself?! Hell no.

People critique the idea of "the law" as a meaningful entity with normative force all the god-damn time. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find an anarchist who believes that the law is an "absolute and indefeasible determinant of police, judicial, and, of all other forms of human conduct," which seems to be the position that you're arguing against.

Have the members here not paid attention, indeed, too damn much attention

I agree that I have paid too much attention. See my previous remark about a car crash.

5

nega OP wrote (edited )

Do you really want someone to critique the presentation of your opening sentence in detail, phrase-by-phrase? You didn't seem like a big fan when I did that to your comment about vastly experiencing the exact selfsame plea etc. SURE, OKAY. I CONSIDER CRITIQUE TO CONCERN EXAMINING CONCEPTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETECTING SENSELESSNESS/NONSENSE, WHEN COMPARED TO A UNIVERSALLY ESTABLISHED /ACCEPTED PRECEPT. HERE THE UNDERLYING INDEFEASIBLE PRECEPT USED AS A NORMATIVE CRITERION/MEASURE OF ''LAW'', FOR MEANINGFULLNESS, IS SPNOZA'S ''DETERMINATIO NEGATIO EST''.

I DID INDEED, WTH MENTION OF THE TERM 'CRITIQUE', IMPLICITLY INFORM THE READER THAT I INTEND TO GIVE HIM AN EXCITNG REVOLUTIONARY REVIEW OF THE LAW CONSTRUCT, WHEREIN MEASURE IS TAKEN OF LAW IN COMPARISON TO A MORE ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY CONTAINED IN THE WORLD AS VALID DELINEATION OF THE MODE OF ORIGIN OF A HUMAN ACT. IN THIS INSTANCE THE CRITIC WILL HAVE TO RATIONALLY OVERTHROW THE THOUGHT OF BOTH SPINOZA AND SARTRE...

CRITIQUE IS NOT MERE NIPPICKING REGARDING WHAT PARTICULAR WORD OR WORDS OUGHT, PREFERABLY, BE EMPLOYED WITHIN A PARTICULAR SYNTAGMATIC STRUCTURE...WHAT I MEAN IS THAT TO ACTUALLY CRITIQUE THE OP YOU NEED DESCRIBE ANY ERROR EXHIBITED BY THE INTELLECTUAL INSTRUMENTATION EMPLOYED WITHIN THE OP DURING THE DESTRUCTON OF THE CONCEPT OF LAW PER SE.

PERHAPS AS THE WORST MOST NAUSEATING WRITER ON EARTH I, NONETHELESS, INITIATE EDIFYING LIBERATION, VIA THE WRITTEN WORD, FROM ENSLAVEMENT BY LAW IN AMERICA; WITHOUT STUPIDLY RIOTING AND DOING DEADLY CIVIL WAR ON THE STREET AND INSIDE OUR CAPITAL BUILDING...

1

Bezotcovschina wrote

I think you are just a prick.

3

nega OP wrote

What you think is absolutely central to my existence here on earth. What can I do to make it up to you, dearest sweetie pie?

−2

masque wrote

You explicitly asked whether a specific sentence (not an idea) would be effective at seizing the reader's interest and attention. You also asked whether anything was "unclear" in that sentence. I tailored my comments specifically to answering those questions, but it seems like you don't actually want answers.

2

nega OP wrote

You are an absolutely excellent, concise, writer and, a caring, kind, and concerned-for-others person. I recently acted in a condescending manner toward you, while riding my high-horse, and, I do apologize. Yes, I do not want word substitution answers. I wish you to defeat, at the theoretical level, my central contention that law is ontologically unintelligible, and, if not, simply concede that I am correct...

3

masque wrote (edited )

I might as well engage with you "on the theoretical level" briefly.

As I already mentioned in another comment, it's not obvious to me that the position that you're arguing against - namely, the belief that the law "is an absolutely absolute and indefeasible determinant of police, judicial, and, of all other forms of human conduct," is actually what anyone believes.

Certainly, the law doesn't absolutely determine human conduct, because people who violate the law demonstrably exist. There is no need to appeal to deep philosophical work to demonstrate this.

On the other hand, it seems to be possible in practice for the law to influence human conduct to some extent, because people do take possible consequences (including legal consequences) into account when determining their own behaviour; this puts the law (i.e. specific instantiated and enforced laws) on equal footing with material concerns like hunger when it comes to influencing human behaviour. Your argument against the law determining human behaviour rests on the fact that "no given factual state of affairs is per se efficient to determine a human being to act (or forbear action)," but this could just as well serve as an argument against, say, hunger determining human actions. In the existentialist context of Sartre I think that can be a reasonable statement in some abstract sense, but it's not really a compelling argument for changing anything about our current society; ultimately, the behaviour of the ruling class & the police is not actually motivated by ontological beliefs about the normative power of the law, but rather by the material interests of those in power.

Basically, I think you're correct that the concept of the law that you're arguing against is unintelligible, but actual proponents of the law already don't believe in the position that you're arguing against.

2

nega OP wrote

As I already mentioned in another comment, it's not obvious to me that the position that you're arguing against - namely, the belief that the law "is an absolutely absolute and indefeasible determinant of police, judicial, and, of all other forms of human conduct," is actually what anyone believes. (The policeman murdering a citizen over a mere infraction, thereby demonstrates that he deems, that he tacitly presupposes, the ordinance against the infraction to be so completely absolute, that killing the citizen is obligatory, even though he may not even know what 'absolute' means. I am describing what I have observed over my lifetime of observing prosecutorial; judicial; and police conduct, whereby they collectively exhibit an absolutistic perspective regarding the application of law against persons. Its the law and thats that.)

Certainly, the law doesn't absolutely determine human conduct, because people who violate the law demonstrably exist. There is no need to appeal to deep philosophical work to demonstrate this. (Surely, however, once again, those who administer law punish human beings even unto execution, on account that it is presupposed either that law is in itself pre-determinative of conduct, and/or that persons determine themselves, must determine themselves, to act via law; and, the fact that they happen to fail to be thus determined, warrants their being punished, even unto death. While, all the while, human beings in fact are not determinable to action/inaction by given language of law. Key here is that the good prosecutor/policeman/judge presuppose, and wholly deem themselves, to be determining their conduct, e.g.. administering punishment, by law. Now, given the tacit mistaken presupposition that law is deemed to be determinative of conduct, ipso facto, Spinoza's ancient dictum must be invoked, and Sartre's theory of freedom must be applied, in order to demonstrate, on the highest possible human plane, the human ontological plane, that extant jurisprudence is pathologically mistaken, hence a fresh path to civilization must be sketched-out, which is what my OP is, i.e., a broad sketch.)

On the other hand, it seems to be possible in practice for the law to influence human conduct to some extent, because people do take possible consequences (including legal consequences) into account when determining their own behaviour; this puts the law (i.e. specific instantiated and enforced laws) on equal footing with material concerns like hunger when it comes to influencing human behaviour. Your argument against the law determining human behaviour rests on the fact that "no given factual state of affairs is per se efficient to determine a human being to act (or forbear action)," but this could just as well serve as an argument against, say, hunger determining human actions. In the existentialist context of Sartre I think that can be a reasonable statement in some abstract sense, but it's not really a compelling argument for changing anything about our current society; ultimately, the behaviour of the ruling class & the police is not actually motivated by ontological beliefs about the normative power of the law, but rather by the material interests of those in power. (Hunger is not a given, it is a lack...enough in this rubric for now, please...) Basically, I think you're correct that the concept of the law that you're arguing against is unintelligible, but actual proponents of the law already don't believe in the position that you're arguing against. (No, they exhibit that they believe given language of law determinative via the presupposition that legislation; judicial decision; stare decisis, are determinative of both jurisprudential and grassroots conduct.)

1