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

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

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

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

I, daily, went to assist my dad in a rest home for years. I am supremely familiar with the extreme negligence which is continually practiced in that environment by the poor well-meaning Filipino staff members...you fail to realize how extremely often I purposely do not employ and avoid the term you deem redundant...since I am not submitting for publication I can absolutely indulge in employing whatever terminology I experience as fun/enjoyable at any given instant, i.e., its totally fun/kicks to possess an endless vocabulary!

In the realm of scholarly endeavor and, within the ongoing unfolding of human history a dialectical materialism is always transpiring and, is precisely an ilk of warfare/conflict/struggle which does not necessarily always employ the clash of armies.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

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?

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 eseem 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
yikes, what?
? not sure why you say this, i have never known willie to insist upon literalism or anything[/QUOTE
009;
''...extreme overuse of the term ontological...'', as I review my recent use of the term I see myself employing the term in an ongoing striving to bring the reader face to face with what, as a being, he or she in fact is, and, that the being that we humans are, as being the image of God, is the sole viable pattern suited to/for our constructing a genuinely civil civilization, and, is the most efficient means of attaining an equitable civilization...and, that it is a fatal mistake to wholesale simply brand ourselves ''sinners'', and hence ban and, flee in cowardly flight from what we are as living beings...thus, Christianity is an inauthenticity which hides from being human, as, indeed, is all ''law''. So, in the stead of criticizing and disparaging what you deem a too frequent single word mention of the structure of the being you, as a Christian, are fleeing-hiding from, I would absolutely welcome you to seize upon anything I posit here, and attempt a reasoned theoretical destruction thereof which does not proceed via mere reference to scripture, for, I am in fact efficiently accomplishing, via writing on the high theoretical plane, precisely what Scripture proclaims in your signature, i.e. ''...He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power.''

I have never ever started by proclaiming what everyone ought do...I conclude by stating we ought for our sake attain reflective freedom...Duane

 

[bbyrd009]

ok if you like "break" the software it makes it really hard to continue
and no offense but if it isnt an argument from Scripture, im not so much interested; but as has been mentioned this is all in There anyway

I, daily, went to assist my dad in a rest home for years. I am supremely familiar with the extreme negligence which is continually practiced in that environment by the poor well-meaning Filipino staff members...you fail to realize how extremely often I purposely do not employ and avoid the term you deem redundant...since I am not submitting for publication I can absolutely indulge in employing whatever terminology I experience as fun/enjoyable at any given instant, i.e., its totally fun/kicks to possess an endless vocabulary!

In the realm of scholarly endeavor and, within the ongoing unfolding of human history a dialectical materialism is always transpiring and, is precisely an ilk of warfare/conflict/struggle which does not necessarily always employ the clash of armies.

well imo it prolly fits in great at Stack Exchange, but seems to me they would be killing each other if they could over there anyway? Hegelian "dialectic" is a poor substitute for the naive, at least imo. Anyway i dont disagree with your point, but really what would you like to see happen in this vein? Wont Grace end up being the best response anyway?
Wouldnt "extreme negligence" look more like putting dad on an ice floe, to us? Wouldnt an Eskimo consider that extreme indulgence?


why do two oriental baseball teams play games to a deliberate tie, iyo?

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!

dialectics implies interchange, and conversation, yes?

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

yet i am not being responded to

and finally you'll note three quote banners in this post, which orig quotes may be accessed by a little invisible--almost--up arrow button, just to the right of the colon after "_______ said:" i guess you can actually see the arrow if you play with your contrast

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

ok if you like "break" the software it makes it really hard to continue
and no offense but if it isnt an argument from Scripture, im not so much interested; but as has been mentioned this is all in There anyway
well imo it prolly fits in great at Stack Exchange, but seems to me they would be killing each other if they could over there anyway? Hegelian "dialectic" is a poor substitute for the naive, at least imo. Anyway i dont disagree with your point, but really what would you like to see happen in this vein? Wont Grace end up being the best response anyway?
Wouldnt "extreme negligence" look more like putting dad on an ice floe, to us? Wouldnt an Eskimo consider that extreme indulgence?
View attachment 8521

why do two oriental baseball teams play games to a deliberate tie, iyo?

dialectics implies interchange, and conversation, yes? yet i am not being responded to

and finally you'll note three quote banners in this post, which orig quotes may be accessed by a little invisible--almost--up arrow button, just to the right of the colon after "_______ said:" i guess you can actually see the arrow if you play with your contrast

009;
YOU HAVE BEEN RESPONDED TO. It is just that the response did not go through in what I consider the normal way, and is part of the small italic reproduction of the statement of the member one is responding to, which appears at the head of most every response. I last responded at post #242, but one has to do a ''Click to expand'' to see it. I am placing it within this response.
Most all of your responses appear to be one sentence or so, then, when one clicks on Reply, a much larger text which you have written appears, which throws one's intended response off, because one has just then seen the majority of your text; and, I do not at all understand your abbreviations, I see that ppl must mean people, but the rest have me stumped.
imo? iyo? prolly ?!? How on earth could I have broken the software!? No way...

Here is my last response, I really need explanations of all your little abbreviate creatures prior to further response...

009;
''...extreme overuse of the term ontological...'', as I review my recent use of the term I see myself employing the term in an ongoing striving to bring the reader face to face with what, as a being, he or she in fact is, and, that the being that we humans are, as being the image of God, is the sole viable pattern suited to/for our constructing a genuinely civil civilization, and, is the most efficient means of attaining an equitable civilization...and, that it is a fatal mistake to wholesale simply brand ourselves ''sinners'', and hence ban and, flee in cowardly flight from what we are as living beings...thus, Christianity is an inauthenticity which hides from being human, as, indeed, is all ''law''. So, in the stead of criticizing and disparaging what you deem a too frequent single word mention of the structure of the being you, as a Christian, are fleeing-hiding from, I would absolutely welcome you to seize upon anything I posit here, and attempt a reasoned theoretical destruction thereof which does not proceed via mere reference to scripture, for, I am in fact efficiently accomplishing, via writing on the high theoretical plane, precisely what Scripture proclaims in your signature, i.e. ''...He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power.''

I have never ever started by proclaiming what everyone ought do...I conclude by stating we ought for our sake attain reflective freedom...Duane

 

[bbyrd009]

.I conclude by stating we ought for our sake attain reflective freedom

ok, but what does that even mean, Duane? Or i mean what is stopping one from doing that now?

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

ok, but what does that even mean, Duane? Or i mean what is stopping one from doing that now?

009;
I have been waiting for someone to finally ask that question.

We are constantly forming projects to do things which we have not yet accomplished. Our projects are intentional choices to act on such and such a wise; and, we simply just normally go about the business of doing intentional chosen projects without even thinking about it, and, that, is what modern existential thinking calls "pre-reflective" comprehension of our freedom.

Existential thinkers like J.P. Sartre have focused on the human process of forming intentional projects to a point where they have constructed language specifically designed to describe the process from beginning to end. Existentialists generically refer to the intentional origination of a human act directed toward the achievement of the imagined project ''double nihilation''. To ''nihilate'' is to make nothing. Within the double nihilation are contained two negative moments wherein nothing is made such that on the one hand, the present is made nothing by transcending it toward the intended project, and, the intended project, as an absent, lacking, unaccomplished objective constitutes the other negative moment which is precisely the moment wherein consciousness makes the nothing which is the not yet achieved objective of the intended project; and that is the double nihilation. And, to learn this language of nihilation and to consciously watch one's self do one's intentional projects as one transcends the present toward an absent future, is to gain a reflective understanding of the doubly negative movement of a human consciousness toward a chosen goal. That attainment to awareness of the nihilative modus operandi of one's conscious project of doing one's future is reflective freedom, is being reflectively free, as opposed to being merely originally pre-reflectively free.
Furthermore, central to having a reflective knowledge of the doubly negative movement of the origination of an intentional human act, entails understanding that all determination to human action is negation, i.e., that it is a wholly negative process of making the present a nothing while transcending the present unto the nothing which is one's future, which negatively structured determination to act is expressed as "All determination is negation.", G.W.F. Hegel; and, before Hegel, as ''determinatio negatio est'', Baruch Spinoza.
Thus, to be reflectively free is to know that one's acts are predicated upon what is not yet, future, desired, absent, and, are not in any way founded upon or caused or determined by anything which is already contained in the world, i.e., that one's freedom is a particular transcendent consciousness which continually performs the double nihilation as a nothingness, which nothingness-consciousness is a particular nothing engaged wholly with the nothingnesses which are transcending present and making it past, and projecting unto a non-existent future which is not yet...
Duane

 

[bbyrd009]

Existential thinkers like J.P. Sartre have focused on the human process of forming intentional projects to a point where they have constructed language specifically designed to describe the process from beginning to end

ok, not sure whats wrong with today or tomorrow we will go to another town, and conduct business, and make a profit, but with you so far i guess; well i mean i dont do that stuff any more, but im a pod anyway lol...

That attainment to awareness of the nihilative modus operandi of one's conscious project of doing one's future is reflective freedom, is being reflectively free, as opposed to being merely originally pre-reflectively free.

and you prefer that to become like a little kid i take it

 

[bbyrd009]

Thus, to be reflectively free is to know that one's acts are predicated upon what is not yet, future, desired, absent, and, are not in any way founded upon or caused or determined by anything which is already contained in the world, i.e., that one's freedom is a particular transcendent consciousness which continually performs the double nihilation as a nothingness, which nothingness-consciousness is a particular nothing engaged wholly with the nothingnesses which are transcending present and making it past, and projecting unto a non-existent future which is not yet...

Hegel i am fam with, dont get me started, but anyway i would find some meaningful way to put this in english if you hope to make any headway, D. Ill marinate on it, as i do agree, but we are after all talking about human nature, so...

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Hegel i am fam with, dont get me started, but anyway i would find some meaningful way to put this in english if you hope to make any headway, D. Ill marinate on it, as i do agree, but we are after all talking about human nature, so...

If it is not in English what is it in!? It is some of the best and most beautifully written writing I have done recently and I tossed it right off in about fifteen minutes. It explains being reflectively free. One cannot introduce others to the notion of nihilation by using some other term!!!

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

ok, not sure whats wrong with today or tomorrow we will go to another town, and conduct business, and make a profit, but with you so far i guess; well i mean i dont do that stuff any more, but im a pod anyway lol...

and you prefer that to become like a little kid i take it

I fail to understand what you mean when you say I prefer to become like a little kid?!

 

[Willie T]

Byrd,
Some day he might learn what, "Write it in English!" means. LOL

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Byrd,
Some day he might learn what, "Write it in English!" means. LOL

What I think what persons are attempting to say with that exclamation is "I'm just plain too stuck on stupid and so horridly miserably minimally educated, that I can only read/think at third grade level, and, there is very very little chance that I can understand writing which is typical of higher educational endeavor, and, I am absolutely too too lazy and attention deficit to even attempt to cope with something I do not understand at first glance, so please reduce your intelligent writing into the kind of baby pablum which I can ingest...''

 

[Willie T]

On second thought, maybe he won't.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

On second thought, maybe he won't.

It cannot be gotten through your thick head that it is not about me as a person, but, rather, about the concepts I am describing, i.e., whether or not they are theoretically intelligible; however, if you absolutely cannot even begin to follow and understand what I am setting forth, you should not attempt to participate in this thread, for all you have done and all that you now do is oppressive and a downer. Continually railing against my person purely exhibits your lacks, not mine. I do not care to be subjected to any further samples of your woeful dread and depressing dreadfulness...

 

[bbyrd009]

well D we gotta ignore button for that, and wadr he does have a point imo. You might at least give it some thought, as your observations could serve to help someone in the future, who also has not heard the Scriptural version of your concept maybe, or maybe did not absorb it for the language or whatever

If it is not in English what is it in!? It is some of the best and most beautifully written writing I have done recently and I tossed it right off in about fifteen minutes. It explains being reflectively free. One cannot introduce others to the notion of nihilation by using some other term!!!

ill hafta try it again in the morning i guess; ive read it two or three times and i still dont really get what you are asking ppl to do, or not do? maybe bc "nihilation" is made-up philosophical crap? i mean, have you seen the def of nihilation lately bro? bam go with that if you like, but yikes already wadr

I fail to understand what you mean when you say I prefer to become like a little kid?!

well Duane, i didnt say that you prefer to become like a little kid; i asked if you prefer that to "become like a little kid?" which is the way Scripture puts the same concept

What I think what persons are attempting to say with that exclamation is "I'm just plain too stuck on stupid and so horridly miserably minimally educated, that I can only read/think at third grade level, and, there is very very little chance that I can understand writing which is typical of higher educational endeavor, and, I am absolutely too too lazy and attention deficit to even attempt to cope with something I do not understand at first glance, so please reduce your intelligent writing into the kind of baby pablum which I can ingest...''

its just that as Calvin noted earlier, overdone writing can easily become a cover, and wadr Hegel got his covers pulled long time ago already, not that he isnt still worth a semester to college kids, dont get me wrong. "Intelligent writing" would at least arguably be that writing best suited to disseminating a novel concept to the broadest possible audience, dont you think? So wadr its kinda like blaming filipinos for your dad's reaping, sorta?

and no offense but Hegel was an idiot anyway, at least imo. Possibly single-handedly responsible for warping the proper def of "dialectic" forever, i guess, when the man obv never had a dialectic exchange in his life. Used to love the guy too, hmm. If only his ears had worked!

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

well D we gotta ignore button for that, and wadr he does have a point imo. You might at least give it some thought, as your observations could serve to help someone in the future, who also has not heard the Scriptural version of your concept maybe, or maybe did not absorb it for the language or whatever ill hafta try it again in the morning i guess; ive read it two or three times and i still dont really get what you are asking ppl to do, or not do? maybe bc "nihilation" is made-up philosophical crap? i mean, have you seen the def of nihilation lately bro? bam go with that if you like, but yikes already wadr

well Duane, i didnt say that you prefer to become like a little kid; i asked if you prefer that to "become like a little kid?" which is the way Scripture puts the same concept

its just that as Calvin noted earlier, bloviated writing can easily become a cover, and wadr Hegel got his covers pulled long time ago already, not that he isnt still worth a semester to college kids, dont get me wrong. "Intelligent writing" would at least arguably be that writing best suited to disseminating a novel concept to the broadest possible audience, dont you think? So wadr its kinda like blaming filipinos for your dad's reaping, sorta?

and no offense but Hegel was an idiot anyway, at least imo. Possibly single-handedly responsible for warping the proper def of "dialectic" forever, i guess, when the man obv never had a dialectic exchange in his life. Used to love the guy too, hmm. If only his ears had worked!

Deeply appreciate you taking the time to consider and respond to my description of the origin of an intentional human act; which description is purely Sartreian and is employing the precise language Sartre employs in Chapter 4 of his ''Being and Nothingness'', 1943.
I have already posted lengthy explanation that when encountering a difficult text it is up to the reader to buckle-down and work to decipher the sense thereof by toughminded hard study, employing reference works/internet/whatnot...and members have endorsed my exhortation hard study is requisite.
Wish you would explain your ''imo'' et.al....for those enigmas only you can assist...Yes, had to put the just-plain-mean Willie T on ignore for protecting my psyche, he is relentlessly cruel.
Duane

 

[bbyrd009]

Deeply appreciate you taking the time to consider and respond to my description of the origin of an intentional human act; which description is purely Sartreian and is employing the precise language Sartre employs in Chapter 4 of his ''Being and Nothingness'', 1943.
I have already posted lengthy explanation that when encountering a difficult text it is up to the reader to buckle-down and work to decipher the sense thereof by toughminded hard study, employing reference works/internet/whatnot...and members have endorsed my exhortation hard study is requisite.
Wish you would explain your ''imo'' et.al....for those enigmas only you can assist...
Duane

nah, google knows them all, heck, chrome will even say the whole acronym now with a Rclick, audio. Its an active survey (there is a fascinating social bias against unfamiliar acronyms, even when the syntax clearly establishes that the acronym is functionally irrelevant to the intent of the clause). And, we resist the intake of new information, i guess as a survival mechanism, but anyway i agree they are mostly just annoying, yes.

Anyway, working up, the men dont know what the little girls understand i guess, Duane, i mean dont get me wrong i love thinking, but there is a point where intelligence gets in the way. Anyway, one man's hard study is prolly another's light reading...especially where philosophy is concerned? And nihilism is an ideal description of why, perhaps. Trees and fruit and all that
anyway, there is life after Hegel, and i think nihilism, like most disciplines, gets a little part right?
but you are essentially advocating chaos, aren't you? how might that be avoided iyo?

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Deeply appreciate you taking the time to consider and respond to my description of the origin of an intentional human act; which description is purely Sartreian and is employing the precise language Sartre employs in Chapter 4 of his ''Being and Nothingness'', 1943.
I have already posted lengthy explanation that when encountering a difficult text it is up to the reader to buckle-down and work to decipher the sense thereof by toughminded hard study, employing reference works/internet/whatnot...and members have endorsed my exhortation hard study is requisite.
Wish you would explain your ''imo'' et.al....for those enigmas only you can assist...Yes, had to put the just-plain-mean Willie T on ignore for protecting my psyche, he is relentlessly cruel.
Duane

nah, google knows them all, heck, chrome will even say the whole acronym now with a Rclick, audio. Its an active survey (there is a fascinating social bias against unfamiliar acronyms, even when the syntax clearly establishes that the acronym is functionally irrelevant to the intent of the clause). And, we resist the intake of new information, i guess as a survival mechanism, but anyway i agree they are mostly just annoying, yes.

Anyway, working up, the men dont know what the little girls understand i guess, Duane, i mean dont get me wrong i love thinking, but there is a point where intelligence gets in the way. Anyway, one man's hard study is prolly another's light reading...especially where philosophy is concerned? And nihilism is an ideal description of why, perhaps. Trees and fruit and all that
anyway, there is life after Hegel, and i think nihilism, like most disciplines, gets a little part right?
but you are essentially advocating chaos, aren't you? how might that be avoided iyo?

009;
What I am proposing is bringing enough American grassroots people to a sufficient understanding of how their human freedom actually ticks, that they are fully and dangerously able to tell all the actually intellectually-sissy Willie T type cruel personalities, currently legislating and dishonorably practicing dishonest law, that their legal/illegal approach to civilization is a total crock of pure nonsense, (due to the central mistaken presupposition employed therein, i.e., that law is a determinative), and, that Americans will not be ruled by an absurd predatory nonsense-of-law, whereby their substance is continually being eaten-out, by what are, actually, jurisprudentially oriented fools/nitwits.

If one is proposing kicking the ass of the horridly cruel jurisprudential classes, one had better be holding an intellectual instrumentation radically more toughminded, and valid, than the nonsense which jurisprudence currently employs to hold Americans in peonage. Nihilism? Perhaps. Toughminded-Kickassism is more what I am thinking. Expose the absolute existential absurdity of jurisprudential illusion/delusion and, thereby, break the chains of bondage to a venal legal system, which is a voracious black hole, which predatorily employs what is actually unethical parasitical injustice, for the sake of immorally ripping-off a grassroots too uneducated, and too unreflective to see what is happening to them, via a criminally ignorant, backward, and raping jurisprudence. I am radically hatefully angry and, I am, therefore, undertaking the theoretical destruction of all predatory chaotic/loose-cannon dominion, authority, and power, currently exercised by an insane greedy ontologically/theoretically unintelligible 'law''.
Absolutely Sincerely, Duane

 

[bbyrd009]

that Americans will not be ruled by an absurd predatory nonsense-of-law, whereby their substance is continually being eaten-out, by what are, actually, jurisprudentially oriented fools/nitwits.

leave the world is what we are commanded, but really who wants to do that? Under the law then becomes a schoolmaster i guess, for the voluntarily enslaved, who also enjoy its benefits? After all, if your car gets stolen, your daughter raped, 1% maybe seems like a small price to pay for the ability to pick up the phone for help, even if it will surely bankrupt us in the long term.

you rail against the law, but an argument can also be made there for a lack of it, or its application, yes? Not Federal, No Reserves, but evabody still going to work today, for dollars, right?

If one is proposing kicking the ass of the horridly cruel jurisprudential classes, one had better be holding an intellectual instrumentation radically more toughminded, and valid, than the nonsense which jurisprudence currently employs to hold Americans in peonage.

well my reaction there is that now you are going in the direction that them what gots the Biggest Dog actually hope, but fwiw an emotional appeal will whip an intellectual one every time? Intellectually speaking you use dollars, right, you drink the "clean" water, use the community sewers, plug your appliances into the power, etc? And i am full anarch, just so you know.

The quote about not fighting the old but superceding it with an obviously better new is prolly apropos here, so with that in mind your position might bear some review imo. "Horridly cruel jurisprudential classes" i have a couple issues with, and tbh that seems pretty emotional too, but "horridly cruel" seems as biased as "jurisprudential classes" which im not sure even exist? However there are many communities of ppl who feel the same way, and by and large they are tolerated as long as they dont cause trouble? Amish, Mennonites, Preppers, etc? But again i am minded of Chaos, essentially, in reading your post?

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

leave the world is what we are commanded, but really who wants to do that? Under the law then becomes a schoolmaster i guess, for the voluntarily enslaved, who also enjoy its benefits? After all, if your car gets stolen, your daughter raped, 1% maybe seems like a small price to pay for the ability to pick up the phone for help, even if it will surely bankrupt us in the long term.

you rail against the law, but an argument can also be made there for a lack of it, or its application, yes? Not Federal, No Reserves, but evabody still going to work today, for dollars, right?

well my reaction there is that now you are going in the direction that them what gots the Biggest Dog actually hope, but fwiw an emotional appeal will whip an intellectual one every time? Intellectually speaking you use dollars, right, you drink the "clean" water, use the community sewers, plug your appliances into the power, etc? And i am full anarch, just so you know.

The quote about not fighting the old but superceding it with an obviously better new is prolly apropos here, so with that in mind your position might bear some review imo. "Horridly cruel jurisprudential classes" i have a couple issues with, and tbh that seems pretty emotional too, but "horridly cruel" seems as biased as "jurisprudential classes" which im not sure even exist? However there are many communities of ppl who feel the same way, and by and large they are tolerated as long as they dont cause trouble? Amish, Mennonites, Preppers, etc? But again i am minded of Chaos, essentially, in reading your post?

009;
I am saying that the state of affairs we are living now wherein we deem ourselves to be ruling ourselves via the language of law is precisely a chaotic state because we are deluded to think that law is in fact a means of controlling human conduct, when, as a given state of affairs, law cannot, does not, in fact determine anyone to do or not do anything, even though everyone currently believes that law does determine both grassroots and so called authorities in their actions.

I have been reflecting intently regarding 1 Corinthians 15:24, which describes one of Christ's primary objectives, i.e., to destroy all dominion, authority, and power; which is exactly what my theoretical destruction of the concept of law has in fact achieved, in writing, whether or not the vast majority of people are educationally equipped at this time to follow my reasoning; and, I am thinking that Christians, therefore, in so far as they are dedicated to Christ, cannot legitimately differ with His objective regarding destruction of the Christ-disdained structure of our extant ilk of sociospheric organization.

I have explained precisely why all dominion, authority, and power is readily subject to destruction at the theoretical level, which level is the most cardinally important, and, brute physical strength cannot exert itself within the purely cognitive realm of theoretical constructs, whereby we govern ourselves.

I want to thank you for bringing that verse to my attention, for, since I have become conscious of the intension of the verse, I must of necessity embrace Christians and further attempt to instruct them, in as simple a language as I can possibly employ, how Corinthians 15:24 can only peacefully transpire via reflective human ratiocination; this is an attractive prospect and challenge.

I have several times given the members here the American patriot Thomas Paine's description of America immediately after we won the Revolutionary War, i.e., it was peaceful due to the extreme need to do commerce; I think I have already given you that historical data...your fear that chaos will reign within a state of affairs without law is not necessarily justified. It is not chaos to kill someone who is acting to do you harm, which is acceptable behavior now, in our particular state of legalistic barbarity.

Police; attorneys; judges; legislators; prosecutorial officers; govenors; presidents; these and their families are the various jurisprudential classes in America..
(No, I do not have city water; sewer; or power. I have owned about fifteen generators in nine years; I use composting; I buy water and, a beautiful fast running spring just opened-up on my twelve acre estate, where a tiny part of a hillside, luckily, caved-in.)
Duane