Submitted by nega in Anarchism (edited )

  1. Now that America is replete with senseless homicide by zealot militaristic police, who murder citizens while absolutistically enforcing unviable miniscule ordinances, it is apt to critique the very notion of law itself, (via examining the most up to date thinking regarding how a human act comes into being); in order to consider whether American law and law enforcement now constitute an inacceptable absolute absolutism, of the very sort these United States of America was originally constituted to dispel; and, in order to give ourselves reflective pause, to ponder whether law constitutes a barbarically backwards, misconceived, approach to having and doing civilization.

  2. The precept that given legislated and/or judicial decisional language of law, is linguistic phenomenon efficient for controlling and determining persons, in their origination of intentional acts, and/or inactions, via law, is, for reasons attendant upon the genuine authentic existential ontological structure of the originative modus operandi of a human act, radically in error.

  3. J. P. Sartre’s,(1905-1980), account of how a human act originates (Sartre, Ch.4 “Freedom”) , is important for mankind and for the future of human civilization, in the sense that it is a means to our attaining an honest, ontologically accurate, and honorable system of civilization and justice.

  4. Honorable, honest, just, civil civilization, cannot rationally and intelligibly be predicated upon a current ontologically mistaken legalist, positivist, materialist, causalist, scientistic quasi-Aristotelian, cinesiological, substance-in-motion interpretation of origination of human action; for human determination to action is only of negative nihilative negational origin, upsurging via human consciousness, as a nothing nothinging. “Nothing nothings.” (Heidegger), and, that nothing which is human consciousness intentionally making acts in the world, is a constant engagement in making nothing in a doubly nihilative mode, known as “double nihilation”.

  5. To nihilate is to “make nothing’’. Human consciousness, on the one hand, firstly makes nothing in the sense that consciousness’ imagined intended future, a non existent state of affairs, is a made not, a made not yet, which made imagined future not yet is one side of the coin of the double nihilation, which constitutes the purely negative originative modus operandi of intentional human conscious action.

  6. On the other hand, on the other side of the coin of double nihilation, and secondly, is the existing present state of affairs becoming a state of affairs which consciousness makes nothing (nihilates), via transcending and abandoning, as passe and past, that extant state, by actively thrusting unto attaining a not yet and presently absent future.

  7. It is the theoretical intelligibility, on the human ontological plane, of putatively mediating and attaining and determining justice, via employing given published language of law, which is being closely considered and questioned herein, thusly:

  8. Sartre’s account of the mode of origin of a human act is a template for organizing human civilization in accord, not in disaccord, with the very ontological structure of being an acting person, and, is a means of transcending the ugly predatory and venal global con-games, which are our current mistaken positivist cinesiologically oriented (i.e., in-motion-moved-by-language-of-law), law enforcement/justice system(s).

  9. Via law mankind has currently structured a system of punishment and justice predicated upon the delusion that given language of law is a determinative mover of the conduct of legislators, police and prosecutorial officers, magistrates, and, of all grassroots persons.

  10. The constitution of a genuine, honest and honorable system of justice, and mode of human civilization, can be attained by reflectively transcending the extant delusional notion that language of law is a means of determining the course of a person’s conduct.

  11. The subjoined is an delineation of the Sartreian account of the ontological mode of upsurge of a human act and, is key to recognizing the bad faith and dishonor exhibited by existing law enforcement/justice systems:

  12. Out of 1943 France came a description of how all human action arises as a wholly negative procedure, explaining how and why what is absent and not yet existing, how and why what is desired and intended to be, is the fount of human action.

  13. Language of law is a positive given factual phenomena, whereby police and prosecutorial officers, magistrates and legislators, invariably mistakenly claim, worldwide, to be originating social acts based upon existing factual law language.

  14. This author endorses the following rationale set forth by J. P. Sartre (1901-1980): ” 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.” (Sartre,J.P., Chapter Four, “Freedom”). 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.” (Sartre, J. P., Chapter Four, “Freedom”).

  15. The ontological concept that no given factual state of affairs is per se efficient to determine a human being to act (or forbear action), is central to Sartre’s avant-garde explanation of how a human act originates. Human consciousness, which intentionally originates action, is an absolute freedom which cannot possibly be bound and determined by what already exists, else innovation could not freely suddenly surge up in the world. Hence existing language of law, as a factual state of affairs, as an identity A=A, does not, cannot, itself determine the origination of either human action or, inaction. Nor can persons ontologically intelligibly claim to determine themselves to act or forbear action by law. Nor can persons correctly claim language of law to be the cause of their actions and or inactions, for human ontological absurdity consists in our being the indubitable sole free originative authors of the intentional acts which constitute our manifold projects, who, nonetheless, inauthentically, mistakenly, designate some given state of affairs already contained in the world, (e.g., a law), as motive, cause, original reason for being, of our act(s).

  16. Language of law cannot rule except by delusion. Law is demonstrably not in fact a means to originate human action. Nonetheless, we mistakenly, dishonestly, immorally, murderously, delusionally, criminally, devilishly, treat law as if it is an absolutely absolute and indefeasible determinant of police, judicial, and, of all other forms of human conduct.

  17. At present most humans equate law and civilization, as if one were requisite to the other, for the sake of putatively obviating chaos and maintaining civility, via law enforcement.

  18. However, extant law-mediated civilization, as an absolute absolutism of language of law, proceeding upon the basis of a mistaken notion of the mode of origination of a human act, in combination with extreme judicially mediated punishments and executions, is an ilk of unadulterated barbarism next to none; wherein police commit, with alacrity, the murder of human beings, across the world, constantly, constituting precisely a limitless ongoing anarchic chaos. What is requisite for dissolution of the present murderous, radically criminal, law/police-mediated inhuman chaos, which is a degenerately deformed cancerous tissue of error, predicated upon an incorrect theoretical attempt at attaining civilization via given language law, is: The honor, honesty and authenticity attendant upon undertaking civilization via inculcating global reflective comprehension of the ontological structure of personal human freedom, wherein we, as one humanity, reflectively let human freedom reign absolutely, which intelligently reflectively free sociosphere, will constitute a higher/humane order of pure authentic absolute human ontological chaos, absent the dread of an ontologically incorrect legalist institutional delusional rule of murderous absolutist law, wherein a new species of honest and truly honorable justice will upsurge, via a reflectively free transcendence of our present pre-reflectively free, failed, jurisprudential attempt at attaining a just, civil, civilization.

Bibliography: Heidegger, Martin. “What is Metaphysics?’’’.

Sartre, Jean Paul. “Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology”. Trans. Hazel E. Barnes. Philosophical Library. New York. 1956.

10

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Ennui wrote

To anyone confused by the jargon and run-on sentences spanning half a paragraph in length, I, indubitably, with all the absolutism invested in an ontological sociosphere of pure presence, diabolical self-determination of the human will, with a double (an)nihilation of the concepts of negation and transcendent abnegation, as a matter of the ontological absurdity of koi fish swimming in a post-existentialist Dirac Sea, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, recommend boofing two hand-written copies of Kierkegaard's Either / Or in their original Danish.

Auf wiedersehen.

10

Ennui wrote (edited )

I can appreciate some level of technical stuff as an exercise in severity. But when you publish stuff like this online, you can expect backlash. There're a rare few philosophy majors out there who could read Satre's technical works without someone else breaking down the ideas, giving them context, etc. in the background. To avoid explaining concepts and to purposefully obscure your writing with $5 words shows that you're writing for no good reason at all.

8

RichOldWhiteMan wrote

Crazy is an ableist term. I believe what you were trying to say is it was over the top or high level. Please edit your comment to convey your meaning without ableism

5

nega OP wrote

Where did I use 'crazy'? What on earth does 'ableist'/'ableism' mean?

1

RichOldWhiteMan wrote

Ah, dont worry I wasn't responding to you. Raddle format can be weird to understand at first. The indentation and other placement is meant to explain who is speaking to who nonverbal.

Tho if ur confused u only get a notification message of someone is replying to u rather than replying to someone who replied to you.

This example ennui responded to you. My response was to ennui but really had nothing to so with ur initial post. Hence the 0 indentation after ennuis comment and one indentation under for my comment and your comment to me will have 3 indentations.

After ur most recent post I'm sure u are quite skilled in obtaining definitions of words.

5

nega OP wrote (edited )

Oh, yea, sure, no "good" reason whatsoever...I want backlash...I have given precise brief explanation of, for instance, the double nihilation...of existential absurdity...the words used are the words which must be used to mention existential ontological precepts...come on, mention phenomenological ontological constructs in ordinary language, you will not even be able to state what you are attempting to discuss.

The good reason is to issue an indefeasible critique of the very notion of law, in order to give ourselves pause, and perhaps to see that we are becoming law-maniacs, and, need to retake our bearings...killing a poor person for selling single smokes in the park...we have gone absolutely insane via law...it is good to give law a good swift theoretical kick, and, show what absolute nonsense it is, and, to show that nonsensical law is no way more important than the life of any person which it so readily instantaneously murders...

It does not matter that you are particularly uncomfortable with big words and large concepts, that is your problem; I have a Socratic responsibility to radically criticize the State which brought me up and nurtured me from youth, if and when I see it is dreadfully wrong. I cannot do that in the language you prefer; only in the language I see to be requisite to describe and, to possibly begin to reflect upon and, perhaps, dissolve the problem of murderous and venal law...

1

Ennui wrote (edited )

People engaging in conversations about law in the real world have a Socratic responsibility not to masturbate on their own intelligence. Rather, a Socratic ethics is about making things clearer and breaking concepts down, deliberately engaging with others in such a way that they are brought to a higher understanding. Your process of "dissolving" it is rife with super-particular conceptions of human nature—a series of assumptions from Hegel to Satre that are unnecessary in the attack on the theory of law. Your process is not even philosophically primary to a discussion of law, which should begin by building and/or dissolving the concept of justice, but instead you consider the (admittedly faulty) relationship between linguistic law and justice's existential implications. A truer analysis would show that when people in power refer to legal dogma like it is absolute fact, they are actually referring to the almighty authority that at their behest preserves the system of subjugation. The epistemological problem you raised has little to do with the issue at heart.

Edit: I am a little girl.

4

nega OP wrote

I cannot, will not, do the work which is necessary, on the part of the reader, to comprehend what I am presenting, for, at the level of ontological theory regarding the structure of being a human being, there is no such thing as a rapid instantaneous, in-and-out-burger means, of attaining understanding of the ontological structure of human existence, hence, the bibliography. Of course it is "unclear"; that, however, is only the prima facie appearance. What is being set forth is, itself, clear. Here, there is no pre-prescribed mode of writing a critical destruction of the theoretical construct law. It has never been done before. I have done an indefeasible philosophical destruction of the construct law; and, I have not really at all employed complex discussion of Spinoza's "determinatio negatio est"'; or, of Hegel's "All determination is negation." Indeed, rather, I have utilized the simplest and most straightforward language of Sartre himself, to present the core precepts upon which my position is predicated. I am, at present, the only human being on earth thinking and writing an ontologically-based destruction of the notion law. Even if, at this point in history, no other person on earth is able to understand my position, it does not mean that that position is unclear or unintelligible. Anyone desiring to comprehend the destruction of law which I posit is simply under the necessity to work, toughmindedly to that end. I do not think you are actually the little girls you are now appearing to exhibit yourselves as. Quit crying and attacking me. When the going gets tough the tough get going; get going and attempt to comprehend what has never been said and done before; I have, at this point, worked for years to simplify my presentation into its present incarnation; one simply cannot omit all the difficulty attendant upon setting forth a description of the ideational phenomenon which I am continually working to configure. And, we are, this minute, engaging in a fruitful dialectic regarding the submission; however, in order to proceed authentically and profitably, we cannot constantly dwell upon attacking my person, merely attempting to mirror back to me your perceived foibles regarding the mode of presentation. It would be good to cut even the smallest possible part of the submission out of the whole, and, to attempt, together, to discuss what is being intended to be said...the constant ad hominem attacks against my person are unnecessarily grinding me down, and, are not contributing to what must be a strenuous striving to understand the subject matter of the piece...

−2

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

You are making an effort to be obfuscatory, and it makes your post needlessly confusing.

If you didn't care about reader understanding of your material, you would not post. You can't seek an audience of people that aren't experts in your material and then refuse to make your material understandable to people that aren't experts.

Your second point, for example, could have been written as: "You cannot control human behavior with carefully worded rules. That idea is based on a complete misunderstanding of human nature." That's 21 words instead of 50.

3

nega OP wrote

"2. The precept that given legislated and/or judicial decisional language of law, is linguistic phenomenon efficient for controlling and determining persons, in their origination of intentional acts, and/or inactions, via law, is, for reasons attendant upon the genuine authentic existential ontological structure of the originative modus operandi of a human act, radically in error." Versus: "You cannot control human behavior with carefully worded rules. That idea is based on a complete misunderstanding of human nature." With: "The precept that given legislated and/or judicial decisional language of law, is …'', I am rapidly, efficiently, declaring that is a completely common, longstanding idea, that "given", existing law, is considered to have some sort of capacity to move persons to do or not do actions. It is important that the word 'given' appear early in the essay, because, it is a central consideration later, throughout the essay. For you to just arbitrarily pronounce that 2. should be written the way you deem to be the correct way ,usurps my identity and freedom as the author, and, involves zero awareness of a prime goal being pursued, immediately within the essay. Your you-know-best attitude regarding the way the essay should be written, is an absurdity and, now prompts an infinite process of my explaining my rationale…

Hell no, I should never, ever, write what I determine necessary; and, should, instead, at all times, divine how the Other would write that which I would pen; hence leaving myself entirely out of the equation…

1

nega OP wrote

"'You are making an effort to be obfuscatory, and it makes your post needlessly confusing."' Earlier I failed to respond to the above. I absolutely am not intentionally obfuscating. I must work toward a less flowery and extravagant style; no fun... For instance, I bent over backwards to illuminate what the double nihiation is, in the simplest words I could muster. I sincerely appreciate your concern edmund.

1

nega OP wrote (edited )

I care about understanding, but I don't care that a particular reader, unwilling to work somewhat, in order to uncover what is being said, cries like a little girl, demanding simplicity especially for himself, who is too uneducated and unreflective a person to be able to understand what has already been radically paired down, from the way in which the material is actually expressed in the real world of scholarship. I cannot include extensive explanation of concepts for the reader in the text, it would surely bore the reader to insanity. I have actually achieved brevity; theoretically overthrowing the concept law in eighteen petite paragraphs. Extensive explanation can be provided on forums such as this during our dialectical interactions. I had to work radically hard for decades to comprehend this stuff, and, wrote successfully, clearly, as a straight A student, for PhD's, in order to take the degree in Philosophy...though I did it over a period of forty three years...college was females; GI Bill money; jobs through an employment department; healthcare at a hospital on campus; interesting lectures and studies...

Unfortunately, there is not such thing as "human nature", else humans would not, could not, be free. Freedom is the state of total absence of determination of one's living structure as a conscious being, from the outside, existing, world. We humans do not have a nature; we have an ontological structure, which is, perhaps, somewhat similar...

1

Ennui wrote

Do not assume the gender of others on this site.

3

nega OP wrote

Do not don't me.

−3

Ennui wrote

This is your first post, if I’m correct. Site wide policy is to avoid gendering people unless they denote otherwise. It’s to your benefit not to gender people unless you want to be removed.

3

nega OP wrote

Sorry. What did I say? To who, where?

0

Ennui wrote

You used “himself” in reference to a user on this site in the comment above.

3

nega OP wrote

I have no knowledge of the persons gender. It is standard English to write "'he"' in general reference to unknown persons...is the prohibition written into the rules? Please show me the written injunction.

−2

Kinshavo wrote

It is more an etiquette here for a lot of reason, I am no native English speaker so maybe youre right but part of our struggle is to redefine meanings and significants. May look silly for you but pronoun are treated with respect here

3

masque wrote (edited )

I am no native English speaker so maybe youre right

For future reference, the gender-netural "he" definitely is a thing, but mostly only among pedantic, probably older, probably conservative-ish people that pride themselves on speaking English "properly" regardless of whether their way of speaking actually comes across as natural to others. It's also used for cover by transphobes.

Based on everything else about the OP's writing style, I'm not in any way surprised that they also insist on using the gender-neutral "he."

4

nega OP wrote

Indubitably I am not incorrect. I am absolutely astounded regarding this serious phobia which attempts to dissolve an anciently concrete English usage. I begin to see that this site is radically idiosyncratic in its perspectival views. Very nice people engaging in an astoundingly suffocative intolerant linguistic absolutism, which is very likely in violation of the lease agreement with the provider of the software making this site tick. I cannot find a place onsite where this draconian putative rule is published...

0

masque wrote

The user etiquette page in the wiki says "Check for people's pronouns before using them, and go with they/them when it is not clear." But it's pretty difficult to find that page unless you specifically know to look for it, so I understand you not finding it on your own.

Since language is determined by usage (I'm sure you've heard this before, seeing as you referenced Wittgenstein earlier), the question of what the "correct" gender neutral pronoun is really boils down to the question of what pronoun people in a particular speaker group tend to use for someone of unknown gender. In practice, among the general population, and especially among younger people and people in left-leaning spaces like Raddle, "they" is more common than "he" when referring to people of unknown gender.

Raddle is indeed radical & somewhat idiosyncratic in its views. I'm not sure how you found it in the first place without noticing this. But the gender-neutral "they" is actually pretty mainstream at this point, and there's no point in holding on to the "anciently concrete English usage" of the generic "he."

4

RichOldWhiteMan wrote

Yeah I spend a lot of time studying for getting a degree in acadamia, really enjoy discussing law and current criminal justice systems and like to read a lot but I couldn't be fucked to read pas the first point.

Even if I wanted to read it I dont think I could bc my eyes keep glazing over.

3

Ennui wrote

Yeah. OP could have summarized the first point as, "I am going to critique the use of linguistic interpretations of law because it results in injustice. I will do that with concepts from the existentialists Heidegger and Satre. [Insert definition of absolute absolutism here.]" minus the weird nod to U.S. constitutionalism.

3

nega OP wrote

I am not whatsoever dealing with the interpretation of law, I am point-blank doing a theoretical destruction of the idea of law. It is radically unclear writing to use 'it' and 'that', instead of taking the extra time and space to re-mention precisely what one is referring to. To me your suggested construction is clumsy. However, what the hell, you are entitled to completely misinterpret what I said, and botch the job to boot. I told a member earlier that all is misinterpreted....Thanks a million anyway sir.

2

Ennui wrote

You are correct. In point 4, you explain that you are deconstructing the philosophy behind law by showing its incompatibility with "human determination to action." Though in points 7-18 the regular use of "language of law" led me to think your argument was linguistic traditions of law cannot account for human action/rationale because it is (and can be) based on a philosophically inferior line of reasoning, which would explain why you think we should ditch the published law and move to deeper reflection.

I was wrong to not elaborate on my phrasing of "linguistic interpretations of law"; however, using 'it' and 'that' is a lesser sin than word-barfing. Is the above better?

4

nega OP wrote (edited )

"How are the police zealots? A zealot is someone who militantly advances a cause motivated intrinsically by their own deeply-held beliefs." Police are fervent maniacs who murderously deem law to be an absolute unquestionable structure efficient to determine themselves and all others to do, or not do, acts. Persons willing to murder other human beings are not merely doing their job, they are zealously forcing their god, law, down the throats of others, for personal gain, and, because they deem themselves to be grandiose American heroic, guardian angel types, who are, in fact, criminally insane homicidal maniacs. You do well to conjecture and proffer multiple possible intensions intended by my wording and phrasing, feel free to take a term in all its senses...good work...commendable, that is the way to read, ponder all the possible senses entailed...

−1

nega OP wrote

Indeed, it is seriously nauseating to encounter defeasement of law purely via bizzare thought/language. I will not now possibly be able to do the rest of my life absent your rapt attention...you are a tremendous loss impossible to recoup...

2

RichOldWhiteMan wrote

I'm not suprised that someone with such great intelligence would understand and appreciate my greatness and importance.

7

nega OP wrote

Surely, we rich old white men must stick together as birds of a feather.

3

nega OP wrote

What you deem run-on-sentences are merely articulate, very long singular thoughts, set forth by a brain which thinks exceeding long thoughts.
Please, if you want to critique my writing, please rise to the level of doing rational reasoned critique of the theoretical constructs which I use to express thought. Language is thought (Wittgenstein).
You are doing mere argumentum ad hominem, which is merely about me; forget me; I do not matter; address the integrity of the propositions I posit; however, you cannot, can you?! Defeat my position(s) via reasoned argument directed against the constructs which I am originating; transcend mere petty disparagements of my person...correct, instead, my propositions...

1

nega OP wrote

You, in your failed example, babble nonsense; whereas I enunciate language which corresponds with phenomenon actually contained in the world. If you can do a better job, go for it, please...

1

Ennui wrote

Oh but I babble exactly what I mean to. Why focus so much on my writing, and not my ideas. If you failed to reach the deep, jerk-worthy message of my great theoretical essay, then it was not written for you, peon.

4

_caspar_ wrote

this is some intense jargon gymnastics. I wish more effort had been put toward brevity and clarity for the reader because there might be some interesting provocation under it all. part of this could be due to translation, but I think my point stands even if that were so.

the case for a more humane, civilized, and absolute judicial framework in opposition to what youre describing as "radically criminal, law/police-mediated inhuman chaos" is a bizarre one from an ontologically anarchist perspective, and has already been picked apart by Stirner 180 years ago. it resembles the common argument made by capitalists: that if only capitalism were truly free, then prosperity and resolve would wash the world over. it would be wise to critically examine the fantastic idealism of "we, as one humanity, reflectively let human freedom reign absolutely."

5

nega OP wrote

I am foreshadowing a future wherein humanity has attained what Sartre dubs being "reflectively free", as opposed to now, wherein we are merely pre-reflectively free. Any extant argument for a success of capitalism predicated upon mere pre-reflectively free apprehension of human freedom is rightly foibled. Can you imagine how tremendously wealthy the sociosphere could be, in a world peopled by reflectively free humans who, with a pure understanding of precisely how their freedom ticks, become sufficiently civil that our civilization could actually let freedom freely reign?! It would be more than mere capitalism...

2

nega OP wrote

I did not propose an "'absolute judicial'' anything.

I, not the reader, choose the language whereby I have successfully achieved an indubitably violent destruction of the construct "'law'', purely upon the theoretical plane and ,via the latest instruments of thought regarding how human action upsurges.

It means absolutely nothing to me that readers might deem it that I should have written in some other manner. Speculation about how I should write is infinite and pointless.

I own a copy of Stirner's The Ego and His Own, but have never but perused it but just a bit...please tell me more...I am picking the status quo apart at a radically higher level of understanding of what it is to be a free, reflectively free, human being....

It is vain stupid and senseless to be antithetical to law and law enforcement via mob physical violence, when, all the while, it is the intellectual instrumentation employed by inauthoritative authorities which requires overthrow.

Thanks a million for the stiff feedback; which is precisely what I relish...

1

_caspar_ wrote

"wherein we, as one humanity, reflectively let human freedom reign absolutely, which intelligently reflectively free sociosphere, will constitute a higher/humane order of pure authentic absolute human ontological chaos, absent the dread of an ontologically incorrect legalist institutional delusional rule of murderous absolutist law, wherein a new species of honest and truly honorable justice will upsurge"

perhaps Im misunderstanding you (which is why clear writing is helpful and not just a formal issue), but is this not an absolutist ideal of justice?

"It means absolutely nothing to me that readers might deem it that I should have written in some other manner."

thats fine if you dont care how or if others can understand what you are trying to get at, but it seems you do, since you are sharing and looking for feedback.

based on the title of your copy, I recommend the more recent Landstreicher translation over the Byington. "I am picking the status quo apart at a radically higher level of understanding of what it is to be a free, reflectively free, human being..." if this is truly the case, engaging with Stirner's critique to me is essential, in that they would argue you are limited in your humanist understanding of criminal/inhuman (bad) just/human (good): which upholds the foundation of law you seem to want to negate (or transcend, from your perspective).

6

nega OP wrote (edited )

I am not entirely describing a future mode of justice, merely positing that, given a reflectively free judiciary, conscious of the dishonesty of holding given published language of law to be determinative of human conduct, such a reflectively free judiciary might, in future, practice a justice predicated upon the ontological structure of human beings, instead of a justice predicated upon a constant condemnation and criminalization of what we are as human beings. No way am I foreshadowing an absolute mode of justice, merely one conducted in honest keeping with our human ontological structure...I am freeing- justice-up, to be able to proceed unto a future in authentic keeping with the natural ontological nobility of our human being, which nobility cannot but be smothered and stunted by current jurisprudence, which is mere venal condemnation of human freedom, acting constantly against human ontological freedom, merely for the sake of radically profitable legal practices... Human freedom is not really being given a chance in America...we are all reduced to being the peons of an ontologically unintelligible, criminal, language of law...

2

Ennui wrote

You've managed a critique of law without capturing any of the features of the legal system that makes it awful, especially the political environment in which a good-willed judiciary can imprison/kill countless innocents and think they've done right.

Making justice more rational is on par with sad reformism.

3

nega OP wrote

I am writing clearly, absolutely clearly, it just requires study, work, to fathom...

Do you think I have not vastly experienced the exact selfsame plea for what friends call a readier comprehension by the reader?!
I have thought it out, and, I see that if I am going to pioneer a prima facie theoretical/ontological destruction of the extant notion of law, it has to be written in the way and via the terminology which I, the parrticular sapiental seeing the future which I project, and the present I behold, deem that it must be written, to stand for the ages, regardless of what limited living readers can or cannot follow!!! You see...

2

masque wrote (edited )

While philosophers will often use language that seems unusually verbose or obscure, they (ideally) only do this when it's actually necessary in order to convey their ideas precisely. There's typically a good reason why they chose one particular word or phrase over another. You, on the other hand, seem to prefer unusual phrasing for no good reason.

As an example, let's look at the phrase "vastly experienced the exact selfsame plea."

"Vastly" is not the right word here. You can't "vastly experience" something, since you can't experience a discrete event to a greater or lesser degree; you either experience it, or you don't. "Often" would be more appropriate, but I guess that's not exciting enough for you?

Also, why use "experienced" when a more natural word here would be "heard" or "received"?

There's also no good reason to say both "exact" and "selfsame;" the only difference between "same" and "selfsame" here is to emphasize the degree of same-ness, which is also what "exact" accomplishes, so using both "exact" and "selfsame" is redundant (and there's really no good reason for emphasis here at all; you could just say "same").

Finally, "plea" is more emotionally charged than you probably intended. "Complaint" would be better.

6

nega OP wrote

I indeed have "vastly" experienced demands on the part of members of forums for many many years, that I use "English"; simplify; speak as if I am at the supermarket; (yea, sure, one is going to do a theoretical critique of law per se in the language of the supermarket...); and on and on and on. Everyone demands that I write according to their preferences, and, that is so totally outrageous and un-American, and impossible, that it isn't even funny...

2

masque wrote (edited )

yea, sure, one is going to do a theoretical critique of law per se in the language of the supermarket...

You can't really defend your way of writing as being necessary for "a theoretical critique of law per se" when you use the same convoluted language to describe the simple fact that people keep telling you to write more clearly.

4

nega OP wrote (edited )

Get off of strictly focusing on me as a person. Focus on the ideas, the logas, the precepts at play here. If it is constantly thought that I should write "clearer", that perception of absence of clarity, is a function of the reader's lack of both the vocabulary and, the intellectual instrumentation requisite for comprehension of what I am, purely clearly, setting forth;----it is simply that you are neither reflective enough, nor toughminded enough, to see, to fathom, what is in fact clearly set forth in scholarly English.

Like I say, I am under the necessity to remain relatively indifferent to how each particular reader experiences my writing; I must write in the peculiar mode wherein a critical destruction of the theoretical construct "law", is pursued, via the peculiar twentieth century intellectual instruments, whereby, the mistaken precept of a determinative language of law, must necessarily be criticized, and demonstrated to be unintelligible, on the human ontological plane; and, that critique via ontological precept, cannot be conducted in any other language or via any other path than via the language of existential phenomenological ontology...I have simplified as much as I personally can. Go ahead, rewrite the entire effort in accordance with your particular sapeintality; fine, that would be beautiful. Produce a version for simpler persons...go for it... Try reading my stuff out loud and thereby follow the tempo of the thought...it is clear, believe me...

2

masque wrote (edited )

Get off of strictly focusing on me as a person. Focus on the ideas, the logas, the precepts at play here.

No one will want to engage with your ideas if you can't be bothered to express them clearly.

If it is constantly thought that I should write "clearer", that perception of absence of clarity, is a function of the reader's lack of both the vocabulary and, the intellectual instrumentation requisite for comprehension of what I am, purely clearly, setting forth;

"Lack of vocabulary" has nothing to do with it.

Let's look at "vastly experiencing" again. Everyone knows what "vastly" means. If someone doesn't immediately understand what you meant by vastly experiencing something, it's not because they lack the vocabulary, but rather because you are using the word "vastly" wrong.

On the whole, you seem to be convinced that your writing is clear, and it's merely the ideas that are difficult to understand. This is simply not the case. You are fundamentally not good at communicating, as evidenced by the fact that all of your comments, even the ones that don't actively discuss your critique of the law, are written in the same bizarre idiolect.

5

Ennui wrote

If it is constantly thought that I should write "clearer", that perception of absence of clarity, is a function of the reader's lack of both the vocabulary and, the intellectual instrumentation requisite for comprehension of what I am, purely clearly, setting forth;----it is simply that you are neither reflective enough, nor toughminded enough, to see, to fathom, what is in fact clearly set forth in scholarly English.

Produce a version for simpler persons...

You're taking a rather long route to be an ableist. The very people you're calling simple are the ones engaging with your obtuse writing and understanding it. Maybe you should be more concise; here's an example: fuck off, and fuck your armchair.

5

nega OP wrote

Why on earth do you continually insist that my writing be other than it is?! Thereby you are representing yourself as ens causa sui, knowing absolutely best and better than the Other, regarding how he or she need write; you are absurd; oh, I see, you are not an American...you are, nonetheless a "cracker", constantly whipping me for not writing in accord with your determinate will... Please employ all of that incisiveness in positing a rational destruction of my critique of law...you waste time strictly focusing on my person, instead of my position...

2

masque wrote (edited )

Why on earth do you continually insist that my writing be other than it is?! Thereby you are representing yourself as ens causa sui, knowing absolutely best and better than the Other, regarding how he or she need write; you are absurd; oh, I see, you are not an American...you are, nonetheless a "cracker", constantly whipping me for not writing in accord with your determinate will...

Obviously there's no sense in which you unqualifiedly ought to write in a particular way, but if your goal is to communicate your ideas then it's clear that your current way of writing is not very good at accomplishing this goal.

4

nega OP wrote (edited )

Okay, my dear English 101 genius. The problem with your approach to the writing of another writer is that you do not in fact have in hand the ideally worded paper you are imagining that I should have written.
Gee, pardon me, you were not here when I was writing...I shall not, in future, be able to write a word without you here...please try to recall that we are Americans in America; I will write as me, because I am the historical being that is me, and, there is no possible way that I can write as you. According to you I would have to learn the wording preferences of everyone on earth, and, write a version of my piece differently for each and every person on earth... It is so silly to tell me what I should have said and how I should have said it. Have you written a critique of law per se? Lets see it... Better yet; let us have a cerebroanastamosis performed, wherein your brain is transplanted into my skull, then I could never employ incorrect terminology ever...your brain knows best...not mine...

2

masque wrote (edited )

Okay, my dear English 101 genius. The problem with your approach to the writing of another writer is that you do not in fact have in hand the ideally worded paper you are imagining that I should have written.

I obviously don't expect a random forum post to be "ideally worded," but the point of my previous comment is that you seem to be going out of your way to write in a way that seems unnatural to the vast majority of native English speakers. This is the opposite of "writing clearly, absolutely clearly."

According to you I would have to learn the wording preferences of everyone on earth, and, write a version of my piece differently for each and every person on earth

I don't write a different version of every post I make for each and every person on earth, and yet somehow people are not constantly pleading with me to write more clearly.

please try to recall that we are Americans in America

Bold of you to assume that I'm American.

4

nega OP wrote (edited )

I am writing in the fashion which is required to enunciate the criticisms of law which I am setting forth by means of existing existentialist thought. Thought which was first published in 1943. The world has had more than seventy years to attain some inkling of that established thinking. Plato said it takes four hundred years for philosophy to seep down to grassroots persons. I write in the mode which I see to be necessary to write a critical destruction of the notion of law itself. That critical destruction has to be written the way I deem it must be written. It is not your office to inform me, merely to say, merely to assert, that I am doing my theoretical critique of law per se incorrectly. It is your place to write a piece of literature antithetical to my position per se, (not merely antithetical to my person as such), wherein you would overthrow Spinoza's dictum "determinatio negatio est"'; until you can do that, you are not critically addressing a possible means of dissolving the horrid problem we now experience across the world, wherein absolutely legalistically-oriented maniacs, murder human beings in the name of a language of law, which language is mistakenly thought to be an absolute language, whereby every person need necessarily jump when it says frog...or possibly die...its all too too Biblical...

2

nega OP wrote

A critique of law is, then, in fact, indeed, now being written in a way that appears unnatural to the vast majority of English speakers (do you indeed speak for that vast majority?!) The text is being written in the way the auteur deems it requisite to be written, pretty much absolutely regardless of what every tom dick and harry thinks...

For me to refer to myself and my fellow Americans as Americans does not necessarily include you...you see, you are misinterpreting...what makes you think that everything we write is, anything whatsoever which we write, is interpreted and/or understood in the way we intend!? It will not be so interpreted and/or so understood/comprehended/taken...

2

masque wrote (edited )

(do you indeed speak for that vast majority?!)

Three of the four top-level comments also criticize the clarity or your post (possibly all four, if you interpret "kinda based" as sarcastic), and by your own admission you have "vastly experienced the exact selfsame plea" in other forums. I'm pretty confident that I speak for the vast majority.

5

_caspar_ wrote

oh, dont be so modest..

"You often see people stumbling into walls or stepping into holes because they are so occupied by their thoughts that they don't see what's in front of them. When we are too involved in a situation, we can't see straight, and things that are obvious and clear to bystanders are a blur to us. This is very dangerous." - Liezi

5

ruin wrote

Given your choice of subject for critique, and style, you might enjoy Homo Sacer by Agamben.

It’s actually a slightly more radical critique in that it completely reframes the function and structure of sovereignty and law as that of determining a state of exclusion from the body politic vs. an inclusive set of mandates.

It takes Foucaultian biopolitics and then pushes further until it’s turned inside out.

3

_caspar_ wrote

is this web forum performance art?

5

isvarahparamahkrsnah wrote

I think I'm gonna have a headache readin' all dat

3

nega OP wrote

Doing philosophical polemical iconoclastic overthrow of the very concept "law" itself is a tremendous headache, a pure pain. Wish we did not live in a world ruled by a fundamentally mistaken weltanschauung.
The absolute absolutism now achieved by law is a horrid headache. Law will not instantaneously vanish, even it the face of an indefeasible theoretical defeat of the prime presuppostion whereby language of law, mistakenly, attempts to subjugate free men. Thesis; Anti-thesis; Synthesis; we require intelligent intersubjective contention/dialectic/conflict, wherefrom synthesis that is a tentative middle of the road compromise, might appear, prior to any final dissolution of purely destructive inhuman/antihuman law...

1

isvarahparamahkrsnah wrote

Are you a professor of law?

3

nega OP wrote

No. I merely have an A.A. Liberal Arts 1973, and, a B.A. Philosophy 2007; and, am a gentleman knobbilly now living in Kentucky, out of California...Am 75, and, have had time to sift through "Being and Nothingness"; "Critique of Dialectical Reason, Tomes I & 2", and most of Sartre's other theoretical/ontologic works...and, innumerable other philosophical works, since age thirteen, hence, the decorate verbosity; I am from a different time...

2

d4rk wrote

kinda based

2

nega OP wrote

What do you mean by ''based'' d4rk?

4

ziq wrote

it means they like your ideas

4

d4rk wrote

I agree with what you said.

2

nega OP wrote

Thanks a million d4rk. You are a good willed and kind human being, without guile.

3

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