nega

nega wrote

I have always noticed homosexuals are weirdly twisted people; but this absurd assault against my person, for employing standard usage, just because an infinite series of persons are confused regarding their sexuality, does not constitute rational rationale for transplanting a particular cultural confusedness onto the English language itself. When a monitor started attempting to demolish my perfectly normal use of English; when they insultingly/viciously tried to force their insanity down my straight throat; hence radically angering and alienating me; while all the while, you're being so totally sensitive to the feelings of every ilk of extant homosexual being ,surely you understand that you have severely hurt and outraged my very being, don't you? You put me off-keel, with nonsensical outrageous demands upon my absolutely normal language use, and, attempt to instantly convert me over to a sick abnormalcy, and now, totally curse and insult me for rightfully remonstrating against your radically neurotic hate for normal English, you are doing a severe wrong. If I am indeed in your house, not in possession of complete awareness of your strange customs, as the kind very kind persons which you really are, you would politely tolerate my ignorance, and simply not address me as hatefully as you have in this post, and, you would civilly wait, and see, if I can implement your customs, which I have indeed been bending over backwards to do...

−5

nega wrote (edited )

Linquistic freedom is, for example, the free reign of one's capacity to think solutions to human problems and, to enunciate said solutions at will. It is what it takes to do innovation. Language is thought and, thought cannot become slave to any tyrants nonsensical bullshit prohibitions against language per se! This site is making me so nauseated, due to the ridicuouly absurd tyranny being dealt-out here, that I will soon resign my membership... If we are to act in consistent accord with the policy against standard English usage on this site, the phrase "fuck you" necessarily must be prohibited, for it entails gender/genitalia-assumption(s) regarding the gender and gender identity of unknown persons...A Catholic priest or Nun, or, the Pope, (persons who do not engage in sex), may be onsite, and be offended... Golly-gee, oh shit, the very provider of the software whereby this site ticks displays this language on its website: ''Postmill is an open-source project created by emma Coded with passion by her and all other contributors''; oh, damn, fucking mother fucking assholes! What are we doing using their software on our site, which does not at all tolerate one expressing one's self via standard English usage. Oh Shit...

−3

nega wrote (edited )

If this website is based in America, I have freedom of speech, no matter how private the site is. Where is the site? I am wealthy enough to dispense money, however, you are too radical of a slave-driver to deserve to be rewarded for cracking your whip at English. Subjugating Spanish could be your next absurd and absolutely impossible project ! I would pay to see you enslave Spanish speakers via attempting to abolish gender in that language; no one would be able to speak at all !

−4

nega wrote

Okay, appreciated. I will probably peruse the links you so graciously supplied...

No way in hell that I am going to pay you for the horrid quasi-Nazi misconduct of attempting to negate world-wide common English usage and, thereby, shit--all-over the linguistic freedom of every other English speaker in the world! Totally stupidly outrageous. What?! You also demand immunity from being told-off for radically unreasonably attempting to rule freedom of thought/expression, on a site membered by anarchists! Okay, I'll stop my ad hominem attacks against your person, but, perhaps, will not quit describing the outrageousness of the radically imbecilic attempt to dissolve standard English, per a delusion that the world ought not contain opposite sexes??!!! Overbearing authority is one thing, but outrageous inauthoritative authority is absurdly ape-shit nonsense...

−1

nega wrote

yes, I finally see my request had appeared in Confessions...

Tirade hell. I am outraged. Oh, His High and Mightyness had to spend a moment away from senselessly lording it over all the monkeys, to read an honest and reasonable criticism of his morally bankrupt misconduct. I would tell you what I really think, if I did not so totally value this site, for having radically nice, very intelligent, and communicative people; except for you, of course...

−1

nega wrote

Oh, I see; and, it is not oppressive/monomaniacal unto the vast majority of the rest of the English speaking world, for your particular marginalized group, to outrageously undertake to eliminate the very possibility to employ the most common of all English usages on Earth?!

Whatever, in this world, became of my reply to you, where I immediately, innocently, stuppidly, requested an entire informative list of terminology, which you so incomprehendingly/outrageously, purport to absolutely prohibit from being English?! If I can be instantaneously banned, for innocently employing a particular English word, without being informed beforehand that the word is no longer part of the English language, does that not constitute the most oppressive of oppressions?! So, where is the list of taboo English which, ethically, ought be supplied? It is not forthcoming because it is absolutely impossible for you to draw it up; you prefer to employ a complete mystery-of-senseless-prohibition, whereby you can shit on persons absolutely indiscriminately, without them knowing that they are about to have the boom lowered, by Mister Chickenshitnitwit, the ruler of the world...

−1

nega OP wrote (edited )

Over a period of reading Heidegger's Being and Time and Sartre's Being and Nothingness, for decades, forever going back to re-read in order to be sure that I had actually correctly understood what I thought I had understood, I arrived at an understanding of my consciousness as nothingness; as a constant engagement in nothing/nothingness. Being and Nothingness is thought to be the most difficult book in the world. Sartre's Being and Nothingness is even deemed by ideaologists in India to be more radically negative than Buddhist thought. I have never heard of Nishitani and "creative nothing", interesting. It is not exactly correct to say "I am nothingness", for "am" improperly ascribes being to nothingness, but it is necessary to use 'am' in order to get the intension across to a reader...It should actually read " I nothingness." You both asked me how I arrived at "that" conclusion?, and, how did I arrive here ?; which I think may be two separate questions, if so, the answer to the second question is that, indeed, as: I nothingness, I have not arrived, I have never arrived in the sense that I am somehow subsequent to something else, rather, eternally: I nothing/nothingness.

What might be worth a revisit? Stirner?

2

nega OP wrote

I own a copy of The Ego and His Own for many years now. I found it so radically longwinded/boring that I absolutely could not stick with trudging through it.

I bought his writing because I had read his praises, but he could not hold my attention. I remember reading, trying, but failed, and do not remember any of what I read.

1

nega OP wrote (edited )

There is my personal understanding of what determination is, and, there is what I think a judge or a prosecutor or a policeman think determination is. I think that magistrates ascribe a movent agency to law, wherein the language of a particular law is a prime mover and, the human being subject to that law is that which is in motion moved by the prime movent force of the law. The magistrate/prosecutor/legislator/policeman deem determination to be a scientistic causal phenomenon, wherein matter is put into motion by force, i.e., the cinesiological principle: What is in motion is in motion moved by something other than itself. Law is the other which moves, by its force, a human being to do, or not do, X; thus determining a person to do or not do X. Which cinesiological ensemble is causation. Language of law being a causal force which moves the matter which is a human being to do or not do something. Hence in law to be determined by law is to be in motion moved by law in Aristotelian cinesiological fashion. Fundamentally determination by law, from the legalists perspective, is not primarily a matter of right or wrong, but a causal matter-in-motion-moved- by-something-other- than-itself. A judge told me once that a judge is bound and determined by law, i.e., the judge thinks of law as an exterior force which limits the judges's conduct and sets the judge on a predetermined path, which moves the judge cinesiologically. When I assert that determination is negation, I am ascribing an agency, for instance, to the non-being which is my intended imagined future. I am a nothingness ( i.e., a lack/lacking; a hiatus; an empty stage); which can imagine my future (a nothing)and have the power to imaginatively make the nothing which is my immediate future. My making my future self out of the nothing which is my imagined intended future is my determination via negation, ( the negation is an efficacious lack, a desideratum, an absence, in my interioirity), to do or not to do whatever I imagine. The magistrate and prosecutorial officer, legislator and policeman are positivist materialists, deeming themselves to be matter set in motion by the force of law as a prime mover, I am a nihilationist, I make the future, which is originally a not, out of my nothing, out of my non-being, for I am nothingness, and, nothing nothings. Determination is negation. My determination to do my future is a wholly negative process upsurging out the particular nothing which is my consciousness. I am a not. A nothing. A nothingness. Nothing is not and can never correctly be said to exist. Human freedom is determination by nothing, which determination humans make via a consciousness which is nothingness,

2

nega OP wrote (edited )

So, in so far as I follow your position thus far, you are maintaining that Humanism, which centrally focuses upon a transcendent human ideal ideality, in preference to engaging and edifying existing flesh and blood human persons, and, that flesh and blood persons, via adopting the Humanistic pursuit of that ideality, are precipitating their own in-edifying loss/expense; and, that the practitioners of Humanism are, in fact, inhuman monsters to be oppressed/repressed, as godless, scientistic, inauthoritative authorities... However, I still do not follow why it is inappropriate to characterize police as criminal and inhuman...???...oh, you mean because the police are the manufacture of Humanism? Provide more distinction between trancendent human and ideal human, which you posit as antipodal idealisms, nonetheless, dubbing them with essentially the selfsame name... As a reflective, living being, concerned with well-being, I too incessantly focus on transcendent ideal states of affairs, which are present absences which I intend to usher into the world...so, yes, you are saying Humanists are damaging our sociosphere by living in pursuit of an inappropriate ideal...

2

nega OP wrote (edited )

Caspar; Excellent reflections. Thank you. I am extremely interested to hear you sketch what it is you consider to be "Humanism". It purely stumps me to figure how and why you deem the miseries attendant upon the practice of law, (which miseries I see as inacceptable practico inert effects of law) , constitute civilization. Please fill that out for me too... I am maintaining that law is constitutive of a pseudo civilization; of civilization not yet grown to maturity, due to law being merely a pre-reflectively free attempt to mediate civilization by the mistaken construct law...

2

nega OP wrote

Reply to comment by masque in Law and Civilization by nega

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

nega OP wrote

Reply to comment by masque in Law and Civilization by nega

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

nega OP wrote

Reply to comment by masque in Law and Civilization by nega

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

nega OP wrote

Reply to comment by edmund_the_destroyer in Law and Civilization by nega

"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

Reply to comment by edmund_the_destroyer in Law and Civilization by nega

"'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

Reply to comment by Ennui in Law and Civilization by nega

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