LAW IS NEITHER OBEYED DISOBEYED NOR BROKEN / AN EXISTENTIAL ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF OF LAW

[bbyrd009]

ha zing

so i guess you gotta raise little kids diff for that to happen prolly, ones w/o the crippling lack of self esteem maybe

and imo all this "we're not worthy"jazz doesnt help any, and is poor interp of Scripture at best,
I said "you are elohim"

instead we are rendered susceptible to Jesus Worship which is in essence Self Worship since we put ourselves in Jesus' place yeh? If you then, being evil is never me right. And even believe we might become Immortals after we have died, "resurrecting" the Cult of Sol Invictus, rather than resurrecting at baptism like we are supposed to do
imo

 

[bbyrd009]

but to your point, law is, and im not sure that just imagining that law is not and denying that it is broken is the way to go? I gotta believe the combo is the way to go, at least for now? Yes, law is, and yes, it is inadequate and may be broken, imo

after all, which laws are you railing against? Then bam break them if you feel justified, but certainly be prepared to justify that to a jury of your peers, yeh?

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

ha zing

so i guess you gotta raise little kids diff for that to happen prolly, ones w/o the crippling lack of self esteem maybe

and imo all this "we're not worthy"jazz doesnt help any, and is poor interp of Scripture at best,
I said "you are elohim"

instead we are rendered susceptible to Jesus Worship which is in essence Self Worship since we put ourselves in Jesus' place yeh? If you then, being evil is never me right. And even believe we might become Immortals after we have died, "resurrecting" the Cult of Sol Invictus, rather than resurrecting at baptism like we are supposed to do
imo

Wow, you are every bit as abstruse as I, though via a simple wording...

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

but to your point, law is, and im not sure that just imagining that law is not and denying that it is broken is the way to go? I gotta believe the combo is the way to go, at least for now? Yes, law is, and yes, it is inadequate and may be broken, imo

after all, which laws are you railing against? Then bam break them if you feel justified, but certainly be prepared to justify that to a jury of your peers, yeh?

I am not quite stupid enough to openly advocate "breaking" law in the commonly accepted sense, which means to "violate law"; for I do not desire to be perceived as openly advocating rebellion. I am devoted to breaking the law at the purely theoretical level, by demonstrating, via describing the authentic mode wherein human action originates, how law is an illusional/delusional world view, which is mistakenly taken to be human language which is determinative of human action and /or deliberate inaction.

We are a predatory species, like every other species, and, we are now kidding ourselves that we can control or change ourselves by a given language of law, while, all the while, human beings determine themselves to action only on the basis of desideratum, for a human being cannot, by virtue of his ontological structure, be determined to action by anything which is already contained in the world. One cannot in fact ''break'' a ''law'' which is, in the first place, unable to motivate one to act or to decline action....One cannot in fact ''obey'' ''law'' which is not efficient, in the very first place, to precipitate one either to act or to forbear action...One cannot ''disobey'' a given state of affairs, because given states of affairs are not efficient either to originate a human act, or, to move a human being to intentionally act in accordance therewith.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Your model depends on certain qualities existing in man that I don't think are there.

Let's consider a radically free civilization of man, in which all behaviors are allowed. I posit that man cannot create, and has limited ability to organize, and that man has greater ability to disorganize.

Few people can build, but anyone can destroy. You can't make a flower, but you can destroy a flower. If that is the case, then I think the destructiveness of man will outpace man's ability and desire to build, and will result in total destruction.

I don't think Yugoslavia is far off the mark.

If I want to do what I want, and the only thing stopping me is killing you, then how does that make me stop wanting what I want?

Much love!

Mankind, aside from the cosmos, is the highest creative being on Earth and, is indeed an organizer via who's concantenations sublimely superb architecture stands, and has stood over the past many thousands of years. Man created a means to finally walk on the moon; to erase Hiroshima; yes, you are correct, we could extinguish ourselves via our technology.

The only thing stopping you is the possibility that the Other can kill you, and, ultimately, that is precisely what a Judge is doing, i.e, killing you before you might murder another person, which, is a certain sense, makes the Judge selfsame, i.e., a murderer.

In the civil civilization I conceive we will all be reflectively free, and, it is my notion that when man is generally raised unto reflective ontological freedom, he will be better equipped to exhibit and enact his ontological Nobility; we are all Nobles of Noble conduct, and, have not yet fully realized our ontological Nobility, on account of a lack of education in regard to how a human act in fact originates, i.e., education in regard to what human freedom is, and how it actually ticks/transpires.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

speaking literally, i likely agree, but Scripture is prolly not written to be read that way anyway? Wisdom is hidden form the wise? And wadr imo defibrillators have brought many, many ppl back from "bonafied death?"

Nothing, including Scripture, can be written to be read/comprehended in a precise and pre-determined way. The moment I write something and, cast it out into the world, I lose all control over how it is read, interpreted, taken, understood, by others.
Willie T is not cognizant of the practico-inertia which constitutes the coefficient of adversity attendant upon all written language; Willie T lives in world wherein written script can be structured precisely for a calculated effect, within the complete control of the writer; perhaps, by exposing him to the notion of practico-inertia, I might coax him back from the other side of the looking glass, behind which he now dwells, splendidly lost within his irreal ideality...

Yes, indeed, modern medicine resurrects dead patients. I totally forgot about that...however, scripture speaks of resurrecting believers who have been long dead and turned to dust...modern thought has not yet entertained the notion of bringing persons back from their dust; only Jehovah/Christ have imagined doing that; I hope they can; I would love to see Christ descending out of the heavens to resurrect all our beloved sleeping Christians, which would be a Christian-rebirth-boom making the baby boom pale in comparison. Absolute overpopulation, precisely what we need here on earth...

 

[marks]

when man is generally raised unto reflective ontological freedom,

Do you mean this as the direction of our evolution, as it were?

 

[marks]

In the civil civilization I conceive we will all be reflectively free, and, it is my notion that when man is generally raised unto reflective ontological freedom, he will be better equipped to exhibit and enact his ontological Nobility; we are all Nobles of Noble conduct, and, have not yet fully realized our ontological Nobility, on account of a lack of education in regard to how a human act in fact originates, i.e., education in regard to what human freedom is, and how it actually ticks/transpires.

As I read this, I only see it happening within the context of a new humanity, and that nobility you speak of, it only truly exists in Christ.

I suppose we have different ideas of what it means being human towards whether are deepest desires are for good.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Nothing, including Scripture, can be written to be read/comprehended in a precise and pre-determined way. The moment I write something and, cast it out into the world, I lose all control over how it is read, interpreted, taken, understood, by others.
Willie T is not cognizant of the practico-inertia which constitutes the coefficient of adversity attendant upon all written language; Willie T lives in world wherein written script can be structured precisely for a calculated effect, within the complete control of the writer; perhaps, by exposing him to the notion of practico-inertia, I might coax him back from the other side of the looking glass, behind which he now dwells, splendidly lost within his irreal ideality..

Again, I think you would be faced with proving a negative here. True, the moment you or I write something and present it to another, well, what better lab to prove this in than an internet forum with all the likes of us in it?



But you should give Willie a break here, I should think. Yes, it's harder to read something so contrary to how you normally communicate and still receive the intended content, but don't you think you're increasing that affect to increase the effect? Cookies on the Bottom Shelf?

But even so . . . If you have the resources of God, the results can be different.

Much love!

 

[Willie T]

Nothing, including Scripture, can be written to be read/comprehended in a precise and pre-determined way. The moment I write something and, cast it out into the world, I lose all control over how it is read, interpreted, taken, understood, by others.
Willie T is not cognizant of the practico-inertia which constitutes the coefficient of adversity attendant upon all written language; Willie T lives in world wherein written script can be structured precisely for a calculated effect, within the complete control of the writer; perhaps, by exposing him to the notion of practico-inertia, I might coax him back from the other side of the looking glass, behind which he now dwells, splendidly lost within his irreal ideality...

Again, trying to impress yourself? The fluff could have been dumped by simply saying. "If something CAN be misunderstood, it WILL be.)

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Do you mean this as the direction of our evolution, as it were?

No, I mean that all of us human beings are at this instant in possession of what existential phenomenological thought calls "absolute ontological freedom", i.e., we are (the) Absolute. We continually live and engage ourselves as absolute freedom pre-reflectively, i.e., we do our freedom without consciously knowing precisely how we do our freedom. Twentieth century ontology has understood and described, in writing, how our human ontological freedom proceeds, which has been named "the double nihilation".

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Again, trying to impress yourself? The fluff could have been dumped by simply saying. "If something CAN be misunderstood, it WILL be.)

It is senselessly in vain for you to constantly second-guess the structure of my responses and to suggest how you, in every instance, know better/best what I should have said or should say!? You speak as if you are in possession of the perfect scripts whereby to judge each of mine inadequate (this is precisely what all teachers constantly do to their students, when, in fact, they are not in possession of the ideal written papers, which they continually pretend to be mentally in possession of, in every instance and, for every student ).

I am a fantastically supra-dynamite writer who handles language superbly and, enunciates previously unthought thought absolutely beautifully, even poetically.

You are being absolutely absurd. You cannot possibly get around my freedom of thought/expression and replace me with you! It is seriously getting on my nerves. You are so completely convinced that you always know better than I, that you are so infinitely superior to me, that you are ineptly attempting to predatorily murder my freedom of thought/expression, for the sake of the impossible task of replacing me with you! Silly, aren't you!? Buzz-off BuzzyWuzzyGrouchyGruntly

 

[marks]

No, I mean that all of us human beings are at this instant in possession of what existential phenomenological thought calls "absolute ontological freedom", i.e., we are (the) Absolute. We continually live and engage ourselves as absolute freedom pre-reflectively, i.e., we do our freedom without consciously knowing precisely how we do our freedom. Twentieth century ontology has understood and described, in writing, how our human ontological freedom proceeds, which has been named "the double nihilation".

So then a lot like what I tell people about living the true Christian life.

Having been re-created as righteous beings, we now simply do whatever we want to do without a thought about it. True spontaneous living. We need not concern over what we're doing or what will result, that is, beyond the point of monitoring ourselves for the purpose of remaining true to ourselves.

The missing piece is that in my view the Christian has been "repaired" so that this will actually work out right. The person who is not reborn will be working with a defective toolbox, imo.

Without Christ, our freedom is incomplete, as we are corrupted, not the original design, so without Jesus, it will only end in tears.

Much love!

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

As I read this, I only see it happening within the context of a new humanity, and that nobility you speak of, it only truly exists in Christ.

I suppose we have different ideas of what it means being human towards whether are deepest desires are for good.

Much love!

Beloved marks;
If Christ did not think He could raise our selves to a future higher engagement in our inherent dignity/nobility, He would not have ever attempted to exhort us to reflectively practice Love and the Golden Rule. As Amadeus has so correctly pointed out, Christ expected we would do even greater things than He...and, like I told Amadeus, it might be efficacious to write an ontological study of Christ, (which at this point I am too lazy to do), in an attempt to bring others to reflective awareness of the ontological freedom which must be the image of God in which we are said to be created, even though Christ clearly did not himself possess a reflective comprehension of the modus operani of His own personal ontological freedom...
Duane

 

[marks]

Beloved marks;
If Christ did not think He could raise our selves to a future higher engagement in our inherent dignity/nobility, He would not have ever attempted to exhort us to reflectively practice Love and the Golden Rule.

Hi Duane,

Unless there was something else going on. I think what the Bible teaches is that God did it this way precisely because it wouldn't work, although it would work enough to keep His selected nation from self-destructing, and even then it almost did. But it would get us all banging our heads against this impenatrable wall, so we could feel so good when we stopped! Almost tongue in cheek . . .

Much love!

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Hi Duane,

Unless there was something else going on. I think what the Bible teaches is that God did it this way precisely because it wouldn't work, although it would work enough to keep His selected nation from self-destructing, and even then it almost did. But it would get us all banging our heads against this impenatrable wall, so we could feel so good when we stopped! Almost tongue in cheek . . .

Much love!

If you always now and in future merely provincially perceive the sociosphere predominantly in terms of scriptural descriptions of what God did, or intended to do, limiting yourself only to a scriptural interpretation of the world you live in, you are not, merely thereby, efficient to advance unto a completely different future, wherein other additional and newer sociological constructs, in combination with the best of Christianity, etc., attempt to constitute civilizational civility, via more modern and possibly more efficient theoretical ontological constructs, i.e., we are all under the necessity to be deep-thinking practical ideaologists in order to collectively and, by reflectively side-stepping unintended consequences, usher-in a kingdom of reflective civility...

 

[marks]

If you always now and in future merely provincially perceive the sociosphere predominantly in terms of scriptural descriptions of what God did, or intended to do, limiting yourself only to a scriptural interpretation of the world you live in, you are not, merely thereby, efficient to advance unto a completely different future, wherein other newer sociological constructs attempt to constitute civilizational civility, via more modern and possibly more efficient theoretical ontological constructs, i.e., we are all under the necessity to be deep-thinking ideaologists in order to collectively and reflectively usher-in a kingdom of reflective civility...

In your view, yes, and in my view previously, yes. As you say, under the necessity. I wonder how many who think this way realize the necessity!

In the words of Bob Diamond, if you don't, the universe will eventually throw you away! (Defending Your Life - Albert Brooks)

If you don't, your universe will eventually dissolve into chaos.

In watching humanity move itself closer to heaven or hell, I have the idea where it's moving itself more towards. I think a lot depends on what you think is really inside us.

I think I've found a more sure way.

Much love!

 

[bbyrd009]

as a reflection there i am struck by how much we have progressed, and how life is better right now than at any time in history, by any measure anyone might care to name, yet believers generally like to point out how terrible a state of affairs we are in and how the world is about to end tomorrow, wholesale; again, not really how progress nor digress really works? We have no historical analogue for these?

I am not quite stupid enough to openly advocate "breaking" law in the commonly accepted sense, which means to "violate law"; for I do not desire to be perceived as openly advocating rebellion. I am devoted to breaking the law at the purely theoretical level, by demonstrating, via describing the authentic mode wherein human action originates, how law is an illusional/delusional world view, which is mistakenly taken to be human language which is determinative of human action and /or deliberate inaction.

We are a predatory species, like every other species, and, we are now kidding ourselves that we can control or change ourselves by a given language of law, while, all the while, human beings determine themselves to action only on the basis of desideratum, for a human being cannot, by virtue of his ontological structure, be determined to action by anything which is already contained in the world. One cannot in fact ''break'' a ''law'' which is, in the first place, unable to motivate one to act or to decline action....One cannot in fact ''obey'' ''law'' which is not efficient, in the very first place, to precipitate one either to act or to forbear action...One cannot ''disobey'' a given state of affairs, because given states of affairs are not efficient either to originate a human act, or, to move a human being to intentionally act in accordance therewith.

as far as you are concerned maybe, sure; but other ppl in the world by and large feel differently, or else they move to Montana or Idaho i guess?

aside from the pardon me but extreme overuse of the term ontological imo you seem to more or less be forwarding a societal leap, right, when imo at least i dont think progress works like that?

I mean, no offense, but any concept that starts with "everyone should just _______" is more or less doomed to failure imo

Willie T is not cognizant of the practico-inertia which constitutes the coefficient of adversity attendant upon all written language;

yikes, what?

Willie T lives in world wherein written script can be structured precisely for a calculated effect, within the complete control of the writer

? not sure why you say this, i have never known willie to insist upon literalism or anything

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

as far as you are concerned maybe, sure; but other ppl in the world by and large feel differently, or else they move to Montana or Idaho i guess?

aside from the pardon me but extreme overuse of the term ontological imo you seem to more or less be forwarding a societal leap, right, when imo at least i dont think progress works like that?

I mean, no offense, but any concept that starts with "everyone should just _______" is more or less doomed to failure imo

Yes, others are indeed not as intently thinking about and explaining why law is a vain means to having civilization, civilization wherein law is not centrally/predominantly a contrived criminal inauthoritative road to attaining extreme wealth; thereby I do exhibit a great leap; however, yes, I have, in other responses to members, explained that the movement of history is a slow dialectical process wherein thesis versus antithesis becomes synthesis, and, that I am posting a purposely radically radical antithesis in the hope of accomplishing a far-future synthesis. Yes, I do too love 'ontological'. Interacting here is research; productive advantageous dialectical interchange,whereby I am stimulated to ongoing fresh new realizations like the phrase ''civilizational civility''. You make ongoing excellently superlative points, bbyrd009!

 

[bbyrd009]

Yes, others are indeed not as intently thinking about and explaining why law is a vain means to having civilization; thereby I do exhibit a great leap; however, yes, I have, in other responses to members, explained that the movement of history is a dialectical process wherein thesis versus antithesis becomes synthesis, and, that I am posting a purposely radically radical antithesis in the hope of accomplishing a synthesis. Yes, I do too love 'ontological'. Excellently good points bbyrd009!

that may be termed a dialectic process now, but i suggest that the term has been hijacked and that is not in fact dialectical at all, as it invariably leads to "the guy with the most guns wins" as a synthesis

Logic works well for some things, but it is a recent innovation, that was i guess rising and being formalized right about Jesus' time on earth. Studies have been done that indicate Western thinkers mature into more Socratic or dialectic thinking as they age, whereas Japanese youth, for instance, typically do not begin thinking more logically. There are some profound examples in the book, but the point is that logic does not lend itself very well to holistic thinking, and it was the Chinese who first understood such things as magnetism, acoustics, and some other concepts that embody "action at a distance." While logic led Gates to state "i see a worldwide market for about 50 computers" and "500k should be enough for anyone."

Logic is a type of blindness, and you are a logical thinker. when you read the Bible, you bring this with you, but the Book was written dialectically, and so when you apply logic to such passages as
1 Thess 5:1-11 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you,
you are going to "see and not see," if the passage can be made to fulfill a predetermined conclusion, or reinforces a personal desire.

I might coax him back from the other side of the looking glass, behind which he now dwells, splendidly lost within his irreal ideality...

bro no offense but if you went and volunteered in like a garden or old folks home for a week or so and then came back and read some of these posts of yours, i bet your perspective would change? And i mean i am a scientist and pretty used to superfluous um verbiositation, used to edit submissions even. So, pot/kettle prolly, iow. One man's unique perspective is another man's obtuseness or tunnel-vision, maybe? Willie does not have to agree with you for both of you to have something valuable to add to the convo imo

but ps i wouldnt use the term Ontological again for at least a week iiwy lol