Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
It’s fun to imagine OP appearing in court and presenting a defense case along these lines. I wonder what double acts of negation Sartre would have indulged in while picking up trash along the highway to keep reminding himself about his radical ontological freedom and how The Man just doesn’t understand.
August 20, 2018 at 11:45 am (This post was last modified: August 20, 2018 at 11:46 am by LadyForCamus.)
(August 20, 2018 at 3:21 am)negatio Wrote: ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF of the DEITY of YAHWEH, JEHOVAH, and JESUS CHRIST, as a RAMIFICATION of BARUCH SPINOZA’S (1632-1677) ‘’determiatio negatio est”, (i.e., “determination is negation”). Duane Clinton Meehan 6/8/2018 I. a). The ‘determination’ considered herein is the mode of negation whereby a person originates an intentional act. Spinoza’s “determinatio negatio est” enunciates the realization that human determination to action is an entirely negative procedure; and, J.P. Sartre (1905-1980), has given us a detailed description of the actual doubly nihilative process whereby human action upsurges ex nihilo. 1. Judeo-Christian theological error consists in deeming the Biblical Yahweh, Jehovah, and Christ, to be Deity which both created man, and, master and command men via written law and scripture. 2. An authentic Omnipotent Godhead, having made man, would not thereafter mistakenly demand man determine himself, in his acts and forbearance, by a deistically established and enforced language of law/ scripture; for to do so contravenes man’s ontological mode of originating action and inaction; which human ontological mode of upsurge of action fundamentally pre-qualifies man for the possibility of constructing a non-legalistic mode of civilization, patterned upon the form provided by man’s overall personal ontological structure. 3. Yahweh/Jehovah/Christ, of Judaeo-Christian scripture, proclaiming man shall be determined in his acts, and his forbearance to act, by a language of law attendant upon holy scripture, thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action. If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined, in their acts and forbearance, by given factual states of law and scripture; thereby indicating Judeo-Christian Deity, as described by Biblical Prophets, are inauthentic Deity, and, further, are inauthentic Deity which both practice mistake and exhibit ignorance regarding the genuine nihilative mode of originative upsurge of human action, and, of human forbearance to act. 4. Consciousness is prior to the theoretical construct "law", which law is mistakenly posited as determinative of conduct, by a series of human Biblical Prophetic consciousnesses, while, all the while, law-positing human consciousness, by virtue of its own ontological structure, cannot subsequently be determined to action, or inaction, by the self-same mistakenly posited language of "law". Inauthentic Biblical Deity and Biblical Prophets insist men determine their conduct via existing “law” and “scripture”, while, all the while, determination is negation, meaning human action-origination proceeds purely on the basis of non-existants, not on the basis of existing states of affairs like “law”, i.e., “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, Sartre 435). 5. If I entertain the possibility that my created consciousness is made in the image and likeness of Deity, then, to gain core familiarity with Deity, I simply need study the ontological structure of my Deity- reflecting consciousness. 6. Consciousness is the constant study, and, the entire subject matter of Jean Paul Sartre’s "Being and Nothingness", 1943. 7. Sartre’s theory of origin of human action posits consciousness as upsurging acts via “the double nihilation”, a position predicated upon Baruch Spinoza’s (1632-1677) “determinatio negatio est”, hence: II. 1. A profound error is transpiring within American jurisprudence, herein dubbed the “jurisprudential illusion”, which error is recognizable via the perspectival view afforded by J.P. Sartre’s theory of origin of human action, a theory predicated upon Baruch Spinoza’s “determinatio negatio est”, i.e., “determination is negation”. 2. Via Sartre’s model of the origin of human action, it is demonstrable that while upholding law, one cannot correctly claim given published language of law to be a means of determining one’s self to act in accordance with language of law; hence the subjoined explanation of how, via the Sartreian theory of origin of human action, description of jurisprudential illusion is possible. 3. Recent description of the ontological mode of originative upsurge of personal determination to act, presented consistently in works by J.P. Sartre (1905-1980), permits critique of American grassroots/legislative/jurisprudential/theological presupposition presuming enforced language of law to be determinative of human action/inaction, and/or, that persons determine themselves to action/inaction by the enforced language of published law. 4. We Americans perform our civilization in the mode of Constitutional determinism, bent upon police-prosecutorial-judicial enforcement of given language of law, i.e., legislative enactments and judicial decisions, which law, administered as a supreme and inviolable determinative force, is deemed to “rule” the conduct of human action as a “rule of law”; which “rule of law” is ultimately predicated upon a vast series of attendant violent “punishments”, for “violation of law”, up to, and including, death; —- while, all the while, human determination to action actually originates and transpires in keeping with Baruch Spinoza’s (1632-1677), “determinatio negatio est” (i.e., “ determination is negation”) (Spinoza, Letter 50 to Jareg Jelles, in Letters. Trans. Shirley. Hackell, 1995, p. 260.) —- i.e., human action/inaction originates ex nihilo, with the circumstances attendant upon the originative upsurge of human action being negative, e.g., absence; past; future; objective lack; double nihilation (“The Transcendence of the Ego” Sartre 98-99). —- Spinoza’s dictum is a terse original description of the human ontological mode of originative upsurge of human action, standing at the antipode of a positivist, materialist, causalist, mechanistic, enforced, punitive, language of law, which given language of law is an ontologically inaccurate; ontologically illegitimate; ontologically unintelligible; artificial; false; failing; failed; existentially absurd; incompetent attempt to determine/originate human action, and/or inaction, by givens. 5. The originative ontological modus operandi of the upsurge of human action, comprehension of which constitutes a person reflectively ontologically free, is the “double nihilation” (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 435,486). Original human ontological freedom is fundamentally the double nihilation. 6. When imagining doing an intentional act, consciousness performs the double nihilation; which is a thrust away from, an escape from, a given state of affairs, toward a not yet existing, future state of affairs. To “nihilate” means “to make nothing”. The nihilative movement of consciousness, since it is a refusal of a given state of affairs in the name of a non-existent, projected, future state of affairs, is doubly nihilative. Consciousness’ determination to flee the given toward the future makes the particular nothing which is a future/intended state of affairs, and, in the thrust toward that future nothingness, makes the given state of affairs nothing, as a surpassed past (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 431-434). 7. Only the double nihilation is the negation, i.e., the negative process, whereby human action originates/upsurges. 8. Human existential absurdity designates givens as cause/motive/determinant of one’s action, while, all the while, human action exclusively originates ex nihilo, via consciousnesses’ nihilative capacity. (Sartre, J.P., “Being and Nothingness”, Part Four, entire). 9. Jurisprudential illusion is an instance of human existential absurdity wherein the illusion consists in blindly, mistakenly, presupposing given language of law to be determinative of human action and inaction; --- jurisprudential illusion is the ontologically unintelligible misconception of mistakenly presupposing given language of law determines one’s acts, and/or, that one determines one’s self to act, or forbear action, by given law. Law arbitrarily designated by jurisprudence as determinative of human conduct is an existential ontological absurdity, for human determination is solely predicated upon negation, and, language of law is a presence, a given, a factual. 10. Positivist materialist determinist jurisprudentially oriented persons lack reflective consciousness of the human ontological fact that determination to action, or inaction, for original human freedom, upsurges only as two negative moments of the doubly nihilative movement of consciousness, vectoring unto an intended future. 11. The American legalistic jurisprudential illusion of ascribing to human action an origination in, and/or, by, given written law, is a mistaken, silent, absurd jurisprudential presupposition; consider thusly : “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”, Sartre, 477). 12. The in-authority of American legal authority consists in the jurisprudential illusion whereby said legal authority absurdly claims given language of law to be determinative of all actions by legal authority against persons, while, all the while, defense against the in-authoritative authority of American law consists in the human ontological reality that all human determination to action transpires only via doubly nihilative conscious moments, whereby each and every originally absolutely ontologically free human consciousness intentionally imagines and, intentionally upsurges unto an absent future. 13. One can possibly appear to determine to act in accord with given language of law, however, one cannot legitimately, accurately, and humanely claim and declare given language of law to be an ontologically authentic and correct basis for subjecting, for example, in one’s role as legislator or prosecutor, or magistrate, another human being to punishment; i.e., as a being for whom action originates and upsurges as a function of the doubly nihilative movement characterizable of the pursuit of one’s every conscious project, it is absurd, illusory, and in bad faith, as ex nihilo nihilative originator of one’s acts, to claim that one is determined to judicial action against another person by given language of law; therefore, ultimately, one cannot in fact legitimately act, is not in fact legitimately, honorably, acting against another human being on the basis of, and in accord with, one’s false notion that given published enforced language of law is determinative of one’s conduct. 14. The designation of given language of law as a means for punishing another human being is unjustifiably inconsistent with the sole ontological process whereby the originative upsurge of human action transpires. 15. No magistrate can in fact be determined to action, or, determine himself to action by law, therefore, any punishment which said magistrate declares against a person, in the name of “law”, is predicated upon the legal/jurisprudential error of mistakenly presupposing a determinative efficacy of law, which error constitutes ongoing legal malpractice of an inhumane and unethical jurisprudential illusion. III. 1. American police and prosecutorial officers, jurors, magistrates, legislators, and executive officers, conduct themselves per the hitherto undescribed jurisprudential illusion, which illusion historically, and, currently, innervates both lawful legal punishment, and, rampant police-on-citizen crime/violence/murder. 2. The American jurisprudential practice of punishing/killing persons for failure to be determined to action and/or inaction, by enforced language of law, a practice predicated upon the defeasible and mistaken presupposition that enforced language of law is determinative of human conduct, is: Radical injustice performed via jurisprudence being administered in destructive disaccord with the actual human ontological mode of upsurge of human action. IV. a). The subjoined traces the Sartreian description/explanation of our authentic, original mode of human conduct/misconduct, and, thereby, posits an alternative and human ontological-mode of constituting/advancing American civilization; — a civilization constructed and conducted in harmony and accord with, not in disharmony/disaccord/war, with our Deistically originated human ontological construction. 1. Americans have been too suffocated by “law” to become ontologically complete persons. 2. Currently unable to entirely realize their humanity, Americans grow increasingly anti- human and inhuman, under the unreflectively irresponsible, inauthoritatively authoritative, bumbling, misleading, impeding, incoherent reign of stunting jurisprudential illusion; — hence, an Emancipation, proclaimed thus : 3. Via an explanation of the negation whereby human action transpires, it is possible to uplift American personal ontological freedom from a pre-reflective, to a reflective consciousness, of the originative ontological modus operandi of the upsurge of human action. Thereby rendered reflectively free, Americans will stand positioned to constitute what was originally intended, by pre-reflectively ontologically free founders, to be an ontologically free civilization. 4. The United States Bill of Rights of 1791 is a pro-ontological attempt to formalize a human ontological civilization. American ontological civilization was formally pioneered with the language of The Bill of Rights, as pro-ontological law, reserving human ontological freedoms immune from abridgement by enforced positivist materialist pseudo-determinative language of law; ---- a civilization constructed and conducted in harmony and accord with, not in disharmony/disaccord/war with, our Deistically originated human ontological construction. 5. An ontological in an ineluctable human act which one cannot choose not to be capable of; it is a human action-capacity which one is created to have, e.g., existentially, one is “condemned to be free” (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 435). A given human act is said to be ontological when the act is known by all persons to be absolutely part-and-parcel of being a human being; e.g., Deity worship is a universal human ontological phenomenon, (all persons live in pursuit of attaining to the ens causa sui by their own particular means, usually via achieving unity with Deity through religious practice). Likewise, keeping and bearing arms is a universal human ontological phenomenon. That which is ontological is what stands as an ineluctable ensemble of personal human action-capacities, to wit : Intentional future-oriented consciousness enacting double nihilations, i.e., Freedom; Lover; Killer; Weapon/Tool user; Linguist; Pursuer of ens causa sui/Deity worshiper; Holder of Common Sense Notions of Right Conduct; Wrongdoer; Thief; Enslaver; Avenger. 6. American language of law is posited and published by pre-reflectively free legislative and jurisprudential interests, confidently presupposing law to be determinative of human action, and/or, that human determination to act, or forbear action, transpires per given legislative/decisional law, while, all the while, reflectively free personal ontological freedom reports: “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” Sartre 435). Inauthoritative in regard to the all-important ontological mode of originative upsurge of human action, American inauthoritative authorities mistakenly deem language of law to be “…past determinations ruling men in the way that a cause rules its effects.” (“Search for a Method” 96). 7. Reflectively free personal ontological freedom reports : “…the cause, far from determining the action, appears only in and through the project of an action.” (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre” 448). In the course of the nihilitive upsurge of its act, consciousness chooses/designates/dictates, from among given phenomenon contained in the world, the cause/motive of the act; while, all the while, consciousness is not, cannot, be causally determined to originate its act, or, refusal to act.(“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 437). 8. Americans are thoroughly scientistically oriented, such that their intellectual instrumentation is limited to seeing action phenomena strictly in terms of matter in motion moved in the mode of cause and effect, wherein external force vectors substance. 9. In keeping with their positivist materialist scientistic weltanschauung, American grassroots, police and prosecutorial officers, jurists and executive officers, deem originative upsurge of the human act subject to being vectored by the externality of a putatively determinative/authoritative linguistic “force of law”, while, all the while, human determination to action actually transpires ex nihilo, in the mode of Spinoza’s dictum, and, G.W.F. Hegel’s (1770-1831), “Omnis determinatio est negatio.”**, as the Sartreian “double nihilation”. (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 436). 10. The American positivist materialist scientistic weltanschauung, misconceptually presupposing human action origination subject to being set in motion moved by external force of language of law, wherein action origination is deemed to be causally correlative to the enforced language of law, errs regarding the actual ontological mode of upsurge of action. Jurisprudential illusion is the ontologically unintelligible misconception of mistakenly presupposing given language of law determines one’s acts, and/or, that one determines one’s self to act, or forbear action, “by law”. 11. Herein critique/polemic is directed toward the given as a purported determinative efficacy among persons, i.e., it is held, against extant belief, that given language of law has no determinative efficacy among men regarding the origination of an act or forbearance. —– It is unintentional pretense/masquerade/swindle for pre-reflectively free persons to claim language of law to be determinative of their actions and/or inactions. At this juncture the reader is provided with some further reference to rationale regarding action-origination posited by the Sartrean existentialist phenomenological ontology, which ontology constitutes a theoretical stance efficient to describe the jurisprudential illusion of action-origination in, and\ or, by, written law : “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…The 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” Sartre 477). 12. Herein is outlined a particular American “lived-contradiction” (Sartre), wherein necessatarianistic language of law is employed in an American legalistic attempt to establish an ontologically free civilization, while, all the while, it is not, cannot be, by a given necessatarianistic language of pseudo-determinative law, that civilization is constituted; rather, it is simply by personally reflectively freely realizing and living raw human absolute ontological freedom, that ontological civilization is. The ontological unintelligibility of American language of law consists in the pathological presupposition that given language of law is somehow determinative of human action/inaction, while, all the while, human action/inaction actually upsurges ex nihilo as a double nihilation, wherein the given is depassed and made nothing in pursuit of a future that is not yet. We Americans now exist, regardless of a strong historical constitutional ideality assuring us vast individual liberty, a tyrannical and freedom-destructive absolutism of “law”, predicated upon the radically mistaken presupposition that given jurisprudentially posited language is determinative of human conduct. Emancipatory relief, from the intensifying tyranny of American absolutistic language of law, begins via description of mistaken legalist presupposition constituting enforced jurisprudential illusion, and, ameliorative change transpires via a reflective transcendence of mistaken presupposition, along with adoption of an ontologically intelligible, ontologically civilized, mode of addressing human misconduct. If we Americans are to protect, preserve, even extend, our Constitutional ontological rights, it cannot be by mere “law”, for, our ruling inauthoritative authorities, being themselves ontologically free, are not really determined by any language of law; rather, 13. Our raw living personal ontological structure is ultimate regulatory ur-grund for an American ontological civilization, transpiring peacefully, interpersonally, absent anti-human/anti-ontological law; — for, what we freely are, as personal absolute ontological freedom, in its integral interpersonal totality, is completely sufficient to deter misconduct among all persons raised to the higher ontological dignity of being reflectively ontologically free. 14. In so far as all persons enacting our American legal system mistakenly presuppose man-made language of law to be determinative of both jurisprudential action and, of human conduct in general, our legal system exhibits failure to comprehend how human action originates, how human freedom proceeds, and, what human freedom is. These several jurisprudential failures display an absence among Americans of a reflective/knowing comprehension of the modus operandi of their personal ontologica freedom, whereby unreflectively free Americans currently live trapped in a subjugate peonage, imposed via tyrannical language of law, itself unable to reflectively participate in, and able only to suffocate, our beauteous original human ontological freedom, for the protective sake of which American was originally conceived. Works Cited Spinoza, Baruch. Letter 50 to Jareg Jelles, in Letters. Trans. Samuel Shirley. Hackell. 1995. Sartre, Jean Paul. The Transcendence of the Ego. Trans. Forrest Williams and Robert Kirkpatrick. New York. Hill and Wang, 1960. Sartre, Jean Paul. Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. Trans. Hazel E. Barnes. Philosophical Library. New York. 1956. Sartre, Jean Paul. Search for a Method. Trans. Hazel E. Barnes. Vintage Books. New York. 1960.
This is just fucking rude. Would you read all that if you were us?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
I think the OP needs to explain how Sartre ideas even relates to Spinoza's. That alone would take a few pages if there is a genuine explanation to be had.
(August 20, 2018 at 12:10 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I think the OP needs to explain how Sartre ideas even relates to Spinoza's. That alone would take a few pages if there is a genuine explanation to be had.
I'm with Boru. I think drugs are involved.
I suspect a quart of absinthe, and possibly a concussion from an avalanche of leather-bound tomes while trying to climb the front of a bookshelf to get the thesaurus down.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
