Recent comments in /f/Anarchism

nega OP wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by masque in Law and Civilization by nega

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...

1

nega OP wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by masque in Law and Civilization by nega

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...

1

nega OP wrote

Reply to comment by Ennui in Law and Civilization by nega

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

masque wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by nega in Law and Civilization by nega

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.

1

masque wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by nega in Law and Civilization by nega

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.

1

nega OP wrote

Reply to comment by masque in Law and Civilization by nega

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...

1

nega OP wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by masque in Law and Civilization by nega

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...

1

masque wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by nega in Law and Civilization by nega

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.

4

nega OP wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by Ennui in Law and Civilization by nega

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

nega OP wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by _caspar_ in Law and Civilization by nega

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...

1

nega OP wrote

Reply to comment by _caspar_ in Law and Civilization by nega

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

Ennui wrote

Reply to comment by Ennui in Law and Civilization by nega

I can appreciate some level of crazy 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.

5

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.

7

ruin wrote

Reply to comment by nega in Law and Civilization by nega

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

Reply to comment by nega in Law and Civilization by nega

"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).

4

nega OP wrote

Reply to comment by isvarahparamahkrsnah in Law and Civilization by nega

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...

3

nega OP wrote

Reply to comment by _caspar_ in Law and Civilization by nega

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...

3

nega OP wrote

Reply to comment by isvarahparamahkrsnah in Law and Civilization by nega

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...

3

nega OP wrote

Reply to comment by _caspar_ in Law and Civilization by nega

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...

3