Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed Nor Broken

[upsurgent]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Impenitent]

as the criminals' actions were predetermined, the ways the courts and their agents have been acting was and is predetermined as well

-Imp

[upsurgent]

Criminal and Court actions predetermined by what means ?

[upsurgent]

as the criminals' actions were predetermined, the ways the courts and their agents have been acting was and is predetermined as well

-Imp

Criminal and Court actions predetermined by what means ?

[jayjacobus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One should not think of the law as providing incentives. The law provides deterrents.

[upsurgent]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One should not think of the law as providing incentives. The law provides deterrents.

Jacobus;
Via showing that all human determination to act or not to act is not actually mediated by existing language of law, due to all determination having an originative source in negation, I am attempting to illuminate the fact that we are all deluded and deluding ourselves by thinking law per se has an efficacy among persons. The only thing law is ultimately predicated upon is violence and the capacity to do violence to people. All law does is continually erode and endlessly eat away our freedom, whereby jurisprudentially oriented persons profit and live as extremely rich men...It is high time to accomplish a radical critique of our notion of law and to begin, thereby, to point to an alternative means to civilization, wherein reflectively free human beings live responsibly among other reflectively free persons...at this time everyone is merely pre-reflectively free. To be reflectively free is to understand how one's actions originate in the world via what Sartre has dubbed the "double nihilation". We humans can and will become sufficiently efficient at understanding how the origin of our actions ticks, that we will see that law is not in fact a determinative factor in regard to human behavior, and, we will, in fact, in future, constitute a genuinely free civilization wherein men possess a reflective comprehension of human freedom and of how that freedom transpires.
Duane

[commonsense]

Granted: the language of the law is obscure.

Law is intended to restrict proscribed actions, and in that sense it is a determinant of actions to take place in lieu of the proscribed. So, yes, determination is negative.

Aside from the sociopaths and the mentally deficient, the human being, if given to choice, has to choose between lawful (“unproscribed”) and unlawful (proscribed) behavior. The choice is multifactorial.

Need is certainly a factor. However, it is the evaluation of risk vs. benefit, even if made without specific consideration, that informs the final determination.

A person has to have capital to fulfill basic needs. His need for money is not unlawful. He may decide to sell illicit drugs on the street, or to sell legal marijuana in a licensed store. The choice of behavior depends on the risk-to-benefit ratio that is presented.

What is the risk of being arrested for dealing drugs? What is the risk of going to jail if caught? Is the benefit of legal employment sufficient to fulfill my wants and needs? Is the benefit of a clear conscience of any value? Etc.

Of course, if free choice does not exist, there would be no choosing between lawful and unlawful behavior. For some, it appears that choice exists. As such, the law provides opportunity to determine action.

[upsurgent]

Law is intended to restrict proscribed actions, and in that sense it is a determinant of actions to take place in lieu of the proscribed. So, yes, determination is negative.

Commonsense;
If given language of law were indeed a determinant of conduct done in lieu of a proscribed act, no person whatsoever would be being punished or jailed at all, for given language of law would have determined persons to act other than as proscribed. However, our jails are overcrowded and law, an identity A=A, cannot get out of itself in order to determine anyone to do or not do anything. Determination is negation; law is fully what it is, i.e., mere language printed on a page.
Duane

[commonsense]

However, our jails are overcrowded and law, an identity A=A, cannot get out of itself in order to determine anyone to do or not do anything.
Duane

Duane,

I don’t understand what you mean.

/Richard

[Impenitent]

as the criminals' actions were predetermined, the ways the courts and their agents have been acting was and is predetermined as well

-Imp

Criminal and Court actions predetermined by what means ?

the same means that predetermine the criminal's actions

-Imp

[upsurgent]

However, our jails are overcrowded and law, an identity A=A, cannot get out of itself in order to determine anyone to do or not do anything.
Duane

Duane,

I don’t understand what you mean.

/Richard

Richard,
As consciousness, which is a nothingness, I am always an elsewhere, i.e., I never ever coincide with myself. I am always not what I am, and, I am what I am not. Whereas, a thing is an identity in the sense that it is fully and solely what it is as a concrete thing. Law is what it is, a concretion; not a consciousness capable of doing projects which it has not yet brought to fruition. Concrete being does not make determinations to do so and so; only consciousness can make a determination to do something which it has not yet accomplished...(This is all pure Sartreian description of the human ontological structure of action).
Duane

[upsurgent]

as the criminals' actions were predetermined, the ways the courts and their agents have been acting was and is predetermined as well

-Imp

Criminal and Court actions predetermined by what means ?

the same means that predetermine the criminal's actions

-Imp

Imp;
So, you believe we are not free ? We undergo predestination/predetermination ? Via what ? God ?
Duane

[commonsense]

However, our jails are overcrowded and law, an identity A=A, cannot get out of itself in order to determine anyone to do or not do anything.
Duane

Duane,

I don’t understand what you mean.

/Richard

Richard,
As consciousness, which is a nothingness, I am always an elsewhere, i.e., I never ever coincide with myself. I am always not what I am, and, I am what I am not. Whereas, a thing is an identity in the sense that it is fully and solely what it is as a concrete thing. Law is what it is, a concretion; not a consciousness capable of doing projects which it has not yet brought to fruition. Concrete being does not make determinations to do so and so; only consciousness can make a determination to do something which it has not yet accomplished...(This is all pure Sartreian description of the human ontological structure of action).
Duane

Thanks.

Only nothingness can make a determination. Sartre does not accept free will?

[Impenitent]

Criminal and Court actions predetermined by what means ?

the same means that predetermine the criminal's actions

-Imp

Imp;
So, you believe we are not free ? We undergo predestination/predetermination ? Via what ? God ?
Duane

I do not know... I'd like to believe I am free to choose my actions...

without freedom of choice, penalty for actions (moral or legal) is unfounded...

consciously guided reactions are never certain and the future cannot be predicted with certainty...

-Imp

[upsurgent]

the same means that predetermine the criminal's actions

-Imp

Imp;
So, you believe we are not free ? We undergo predestination/predetermination ? Via what ? God ?
Duane

without freedom of choice, penalty for actions (moral or legal) is unfounded...



-Imp

Imp;
I totally agree with you there.
Duane