What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

LAW is ONTOLOGICALLY UNINTELLIGIBLE

aurelieus

Rookie
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Messages
20
Reaction score
4
Points
1
LAW is ONTOLOGICALLY UNINTELLIGIBLE

With the publication of Jean Paul Sartre's (1901-1980) ''Being and Nothingness'' (1943), an avante guard model of the mode of origin of free human action upsurged via the language of non-being/nothingness/negation. Human action is described as arising ex nihilo, wherein all determination to action is of negative origin, in the sense that every human act is predicated upon desideratum, absence, lack, non-being, via a modus operandi dubbed the ''double nihilation''; and, it is via Sartre's radically negative theory of the nihilative origin of human action, whereby all positivist materialist causalist theory of the origin of a human act, including that entertained by the jurisprudence of decisional and legislated law, is rendered ontologically unintelligible nonsense.

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

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

A human act does not, cannot, originate on the basis of given factual state(s) of affairs such as legislation or, case law precedent. Consider J. P. Sartre’s : “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.” 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.”

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.

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

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

Only the ''double nihilation'' is the negation, i.e., the negative process, the means, whereby human action originates/upsurges.

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 describes double nihilation.

Human existential absurdity designates givens as cause/motive/determinant of one’s action, while, in reality, human action exclusively originates ex nihilo,via consciousnesses’ nihilative capacity. (Sartre, J.P., “Being and Nothingness”, Part Four).

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.
 
Last edited:

Blackrook

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
20,680
Reaction score
10,053
Points
940
I'm pretty smart, so it impresses me that I don't have even the slightest clue what any of that means.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
67,418
Reaction score
22,599
Points
2,250
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
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…

Of course "intent' is key element of determining legal issues. So it's not normally nullified. And neither is motive.. Believe this all to be "overthunk" and not so much legal as it is philosophical.. Because for instance "informed consent" is an act recognized as a requirement for actions..
 
OP
A

aurelieus

Rookie
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Messages
20
Reaction score
4
Points
1
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…

Of course "intent' is key element of determining legal issues. So it's not normally nullified. And neither is motive.. Believe this all to be "overthunk" and not so much legal as it is philosophical.. Because for instance "informed consent" is an act recognized as a requirement for actions..
flacalten;
The portion of the OP which you quoted is Sartre's thought, not my own, though, of course, I agree with his thinking. Radically intense toughminded thinking, which is only deemed to be over the top by persons not engaged in original thinking, is necessarily requisite for purposes of positing a critical defeasement of the notion of law per se.
Who said anything about nullifying intention? Motive is the given which existential absurdity inauthentically designates as the reason for action. Intentionality is central and I am not questioning intention!
The OP is a critical study of idea(s), hence ideaology of a criticolegalo ilk. One does not correctly claim to be a philosopher, or, to be doing philosophy, ideaology is the appropriate modest claim...
aurelieus
 
Last edited:
OP
A

aurelieus

Rookie
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Messages
20
Reaction score
4
Points
1
I'm pretty smart, so it impresses me that I don't have even the slightest clue what any of that means.
Blackrook;
That is totally far-out Blackrook! One should only read material which he cannot understand for the time being, until he gets down to patient study and contemplative reflection regarding what is temporarily puzzling.
aurelieus
 
Last edited:

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
67,418
Reaction score
22,599
Points
2,250
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
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…

Of course "intent' is key element of determining legal issues. So it's not normally nullified. And neither is motive.. Believe this all to be "overthunk" and not so much legal as it is philosophical.. Because for instance "informed consent" is an act recognized as a requirement for actions..
flacalten;
The portion of the OP which you quoted is Sartre's thought, not my own, though, of course, I agree with his thinking. Radically intense toughminded thinking, which is only deemed to be over the top by persons not engaged in original thinking, is necessarily requisite for purposes of positing a critical defeasement of the notion of law per se.
Who said anything about nullifying intention? Motive is the given which existential absurdity inauthentically designates as the reason for action. Intentionality is central and I am not questioning intention!
The OP is a critical study of idea(s), hence ideaology of a criticolegalo ilk. One does not correctly claim to be a philosopher, or, to be doing philosophy, ideaology is the appropriate modest claim...
aurelieus

This must be why they blackballed people in the Roman Forum for reductio ad absurdum --- RIGHT? :badgrin: Good thing Sartre was practicing his "ideaology" post Enlightment..
 
OP
A

aurelieus

Rookie
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Messages
20
Reaction score
4
Points
1
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…

Of course "intent' is key element of determining legal issues. So it's not normally nullified. And neither is motive.. Believe this all to be "overthunk" and not so much legal as it is philosophical.. Because for instance "informed consent" is an act recognized as a requirement for actions..
flacalten;
The portion of the OP which you quoted is Sartre's thought, not my own, though, of course, I agree with his thinking. Radically intense toughminded thinking, which is only deemed to be over the top by persons not engaged in original thinking, is necessarily requisite for purposes of positing a critical defeasement of the notion of law per se.
Who said anything about nullifying intention? Motive is the given which existential absurdity inauthentically designates as the reason for action. Intentionality is central and I am not questioning intention!
The OP is a critical study of idea(s), hence ideaology of a criticolegalo ilk. One does not correctly claim to be a philosopher, or, to be doing philosophy, ideaology is the appropriate modest claim...
aurelieus

This must be why they blackballed people in the Roman Forum for reductio ad absurdum --- RIGHT? :badgrin: Good thing Sartre was practicing his "ideaology" post Enlightment..
Indeed. Nonetheless, I am horrified at the prospect of ever possibly employing my rationale in open court in this day. The ultimate defense would be to posit a theoretical defeat/destruction of the jurisprudential theory that the prosecutorial attorney and the magistrate act on the basis of language of law, one would never see the light of day again, via being held in contempt of court.
 
Last edited:

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
10,471
Reaction score
3,085
Points
140
I'm pretty smart, so it impresses me that I don't have even the slightest clue what any of that means.
Ontology is the philosophical study of being. More broadly, it studies concepts that directly relate to being, in particular becoming, existence, reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.[1] Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.
To get a decisive handle on such things, the first thing to do is to let go of any and all notions of humans being different from other animals in any sense beyond technological advancement. That frees us then to learn far more about ourselves through simple observance of our close animal relatives. Bonobos, for example, apparently spend zero time mentally masturbating over stuff like the ontological intelligibility of law. I take that as a sign of superior intelligence.
 
OP
A

aurelieus

Rookie
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Messages
20
Reaction score
4
Points
1
I'm pretty smart, so it impresses me that I don't have even the slightest clue what any of that means.
Ontology is the philosophical study of being. More broadly, it studies concepts that directly relate to being, in particular becoming, existence, reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.[1] Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.
To get a decisive handle on such things, the first thing to do is to let go of any and all notions of humans being different from other animals in any sense beyond technological advancement. That frees us then to learn far more about ourselves through simple observance of our close animal relatives. Bonobos, for example, apparently spend zero time mentally masturbating over stuff like the ontological intelligibility of law. I take that as a sign of superior intelligence.
Your insult angers me. If I ever cool-off I can and will explain why you are indeed grumblenuts.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
67,418
Reaction score
22,599
Points
2,250
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
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…

Of course "intent' is key element of determining legal issues. So it's not normally nullified. And neither is motive.. Believe this all to be "overthunk" and not so much legal as it is philosophical.. Because for instance "informed consent" is an act recognized as a requirement for actions..
flacalten;
The portion of the OP which you quoted is Sartre's thought, not my own, though, of course, I agree with his thinking. Radically intense toughminded thinking, which is only deemed to be over the top by persons not engaged in original thinking, is necessarily requisite for purposes of positing a critical defeasement of the notion of law per se.
Who said anything about nullifying intention? Motive is the given which existential absurdity inauthentically designates as the reason for action. Intentionality is central and I am not questioning intention!
The OP is a critical study of idea(s), hence ideaology of a criticolegalo ilk. One does not correctly claim to be a philosopher, or, to be doing philosophy, ideaology is the appropriate modest claim...
aurelieus

This must be why they blackballed people in the Roman Forum for reductio ad absurdum --- RIGHT? :badgrin: Good thing Sartre was practicing his "ideaology" post Enlightment..
Indeed. Nonetheless, I am horrified at the prospect of ever possibly employing my rationale in open court in this day. The ultimate defense would be to posit a theoretical defeat/destruction of the jurisprudential theory that the prosecutorial attorney and the magistrate act on the basis of language of law, one would never see the light of day again, via being held in contempt of court.

You could try.. But then you'd need a lawyer for sure... And if ya do -- post it to YouTube... :up:
 
OP
A

aurelieus

Rookie
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Messages
20
Reaction score
4
Points
1
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…

Of course "intent' is key element of determining legal issues. So it's not normally nullified. And neither is motive.. Believe this all to be "overthunk" and not so much legal as it is philosophical.. Because for instance "informed consent" is an act recognized as a requirement for actions..
flacalten;
The portion of the OP which you quoted is Sartre's thought, not my own, though, of course, I agree with his thinking. Radically intense toughminded thinking, which is only deemed to be over the top by persons not engaged in original thinking, is necessarily requisite for purposes of positing a critical defeasement of the notion of law per se.
Who said anything about nullifying intention? Motive is the given which existential absurdity inauthentically designates as the reason for action. Intentionality is central and I am not questioning intention!
The OP is a critical study of idea(s), hence ideaology of a criticolegalo ilk. One does not correctly claim to be a philosopher, or, to be doing philosophy, ideaology is the appropriate modest claim...
aurelieus

This must be why they blackballed people in the Roman Forum for reductio ad absurdum --- RIGHT? :badgrin: Good thing Sartre was practicing his "ideaology" post Enlightment..
Indeed. Nonetheless, I am horrified at the prospect of ever possibly employing my rationale in open court in this day. The ultimate defense would be to posit a theoretical defeat/destruction of the jurisprudential theory that the prosecutorial attorney and the magistrate act on the basis of language of law, one would never see the light of day again, via being held in contempt of court.

You could try.. But then you'd need a lawyer for sure... And if ya do -- post it to YouTube... :up:
The attorney would be necessary to insure procedural accuracy, however, he probably would never be able to articulately describe the nihilative reasoning at the heart of the matter. Expert witnesses would be required in multiple. Going against city hall would be nigh impossible given the coefficient of adversity attendant upon the biases of preconception entertained by city ha

It would make for a hell-of-a movie script...a David and Goliath scenario in futureistic terms...
 
Last edited:

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
67,418
Reaction score
22,599
Points
2,250
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
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…

Of course "intent' is key element of determining legal issues. So it's not normally nullified. And neither is motive.. Believe this all to be "overthunk" and not so much legal as it is philosophical.. Because for instance "informed consent" is an act recognized as a requirement for actions..
flacalten;
The portion of the OP which you quoted is Sartre's thought, not my own, though, of course, I agree with his thinking. Radically intense toughminded thinking, which is only deemed to be over the top by persons not engaged in original thinking, is necessarily requisite for purposes of positing a critical defeasement of the notion of law per se.
Who said anything about nullifying intention? Motive is the given which existential absurdity inauthentically designates as the reason for action. Intentionality is central and I am not questioning intention!
The OP is a critical study of idea(s), hence ideaology of a criticolegalo ilk. One does not correctly claim to be a philosopher, or, to be doing philosophy, ideaology is the appropriate modest claim...
aurelieus

This must be why they blackballed people in the Roman Forum for reductio ad absurdum --- RIGHT? :badgrin: Good thing Sartre was practicing his "ideaology" post Enlightment..
Indeed. Nonetheless, I am horrified at the prospect of ever possibly employing my rationale in open court in this day. The ultimate defense would be to posit a theoretical defeat/destruction of the jurisprudential theory that the prosecutorial attorney and the magistrate act on the basis of language of law, one would never see the light of day again, via being held in contempt of court.

You could try.. But then you'd need a lawyer for sure... And if ya do -- post it to YouTube... :up:
The attorney would be necessary to insure procedural accuracy, however, he probably would never be able to articulately describe the nihilative reasoning at the heart of the matter. Expert witnesses would be required in multiple. Going against city hall would be nigh impossible given the coefficient of adversity attendant upon the biases of preconception entertained by city ha

It would make for a hell-of-a movie script...a David and Goliath scenario in futureistic terms...

It just gets better and better with expert witnesses.. And yeah it would be like Scopes Monkey trial except for an audience of mainly philosophy buffs.. And what crime did you plan to commit to trigger this great showdown?? :eek:
 
OP
A

aurelieus

Rookie
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Messages
20
Reaction score
4
Points
1
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…

Of course "intent' is key element of determining legal issues. So it's not normally nullified. And neither is motive.. Believe this all to be "overthunk" and not so much legal as it is philosophical.. Because for instance "informed consent" is an act recognized as a requirement for actions..
flacalten;
The portion of the OP which you quoted is Sartre's thought, not my own, though, of course, I agree with his thinking. Radically intense toughminded thinking, which is only deemed to be over the top by persons not engaged in original thinking, is necessarily requisite for purposes of positing a critical defeasement of the notion of law per se.
Who said anything about nullifying intention? Motive is the given which existential absurdity inauthentically designates as the reason for action. Intentionality is central and I am not questioning intention!
The OP is a critical study of idea(s), hence ideaology of a criticolegalo ilk. One does not correctly claim to be a philosopher, or, to be doing philosophy, ideaology is the appropriate modest claim...
aurelieus

This must be why they blackballed people in the Roman Forum for reductio ad absurdum --- RIGHT? :badgrin: Good thing Sartre was practicing his "ideaology" post Enlightment..
Indeed. Nonetheless, I am horrified at the prospect of ever possibly employing my rationale in open court in this day. The ultimate defense would be to posit a theoretical defeat/destruction of the jurisprudential theory that the prosecutorial attorney and the magistrate act on the basis of language of law, one would never see the light of day again, via being held in contempt of court.

You could try.. But then you'd need a lawyer for sure... And if ya do -- post it to YouTube... :up:
The attorney would be necessary to insure procedural accuracy, however, he probably would never be able to articulately describe the nihilative reasoning at the heart of the matter. Expert witnesses would be required in multiple. Going against city hall would be nigh impossible given the coefficient of adversity attendant upon the biases of preconception entertained by city ha

It would make for a hell-of-a movie script...a David and Goliath scenario in futureistic terms...

It just gets better and better with expert witnesses.. And yeah it would be like Scopes Monkey trial except for an audience of mainly philosophy buffs.. And what crime did you plan to commit to trigger this great showdown?? :eek:
The county I live in has a mandatory trash collection ordinance, wherein they want to take your home and property for failure to pay the mandatory fee; it is purely a peonage system and ilk of slavery prohibited under the fourteenth amendment. I have been going round and round with the county attorney for many years and have prepared a fifty page affirmative defense, whereby I believe I can beat them via their own instruments, however, to put the finishing touch on the defense by positing a theoretical overthrow to their so-called justice system, would be an interesting gamble...
 
Last edited:

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
67,418
Reaction score
22,599
Points
2,250
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
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…

Of course "intent' is key element of determining legal issues. So it's not normally nullified. And neither is motive.. Believe this all to be "overthunk" and not so much legal as it is philosophical.. Because for instance "informed consent" is an act recognized as a requirement for actions..
flacalten;
The portion of the OP which you quoted is Sartre's thought, not my own, though, of course, I agree with his thinking. Radically intense toughminded thinking, which is only deemed to be over the top by persons not engaged in original thinking, is necessarily requisite for purposes of positing a critical defeasement of the notion of law per se.
Who said anything about nullifying intention? Motive is the given which existential absurdity inauthentically designates as the reason for action. Intentionality is central and I am not questioning intention!
The OP is a critical study of idea(s), hence ideaology of a criticolegalo ilk. One does not correctly claim to be a philosopher, or, to be doing philosophy, ideaology is the appropriate modest claim...
aurelieus

This must be why they blackballed people in the Roman Forum for reductio ad absurdum --- RIGHT? :badgrin: Good thing Sartre was practicing his "ideaology" post Enlightment..
Indeed. Nonetheless, I am horrified at the prospect of ever possibly employing my rationale in open court in this day. The ultimate defense would be to posit a theoretical defeat/destruction of the jurisprudential theory that the prosecutorial attorney and the magistrate act on the basis of language of law, one would never see the light of day again, via being held in contempt of court.

You could try.. But then you'd need a lawyer for sure... And if ya do -- post it to YouTube... :up:
The attorney would be necessary to insure procedural accuracy, however, he probably would never be able to articulately describe the nihilative reasoning at the heart of the matter. Expert witnesses would be required in multiple. Going against city hall would be nigh impossible given the coefficient of adversity attendant upon the biases of preconception entertained by city ha

It would make for a hell-of-a movie script...a David and Goliath scenario in futureistic terms...

It just gets better and better with expert witnesses.. And yeah it would be like Scopes Monkey trial except for an audience of mainly philosophy buffs.. And what crime did you plan to commit to trigger this great showdown?? :eek:
The county I live in has a mandatory trash collection ordinance, wherein they want to take your home and property for failure to pay the mandatory fee; it is purely a peonage system and ilk of slavery prohibited under to fourteenth amendment. I have been going round and round with the county attorney for many years and have prepared a fifty page affirmative defense, whereby I believe I can beat them via their own instruments, however, to put the finishing touch on the defense by positing a theoretical overthrow to their so-called justice system, would be an interesting gamble...

I love that. It's worth the efforts and the preparation.. Just IN CASE you need to fight that tyranny.. You realize that most attorneys will tell you that "homeowner associations" are the biggest authoritarian dictators on the planet and usually CAN'T be defeated in a court. But you could open a whole chapter on nullification of their powers...
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
67,418
Reaction score
22,599
Points
2,250
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Just went thru about 4 months of arguing with my HOA about a "leaning mailbox"... Wish I had read this sooner... :2up:
 
OP
A

aurelieus

Rookie
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Messages
20
Reaction score
4
Points
1
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…

Of course "intent' is key element of determining legal issues. So it's not normally nullified. And neither is motive.. Believe this all to be "overthunk" and not so much legal as it is philosophical.. Because for instance "informed consent" is an act recognized as a requirement for actions..
flacalten;
The portion of the OP which you quoted is Sartre's thought, not my own, though, of course, I agree with his thinking. Radically intense toughminded thinking, which is only deemed to be over the top by persons not engaged in original thinking, is necessarily requisite for purposes of positing a critical defeasement of the notion of law per se.
Who said anything about nullifying intention? Motive is the given which existential absurdity inauthentically designates as the reason for action. Intentionality is central and I am not questioning intention!
The OP is a critical study of idea(s), hence ideaology of a criticolegalo ilk. One does not correctly claim to be a philosopher, or, to be doing philosophy, ideaology is the appropriate modest claim...
aurelieus

This must be why they blackballed people in the Roman Forum for reductio ad absurdum --- RIGHT? :badgrin: Good thing Sartre was practicing his "ideaology" post Enlightment..
Indeed. Nonetheless, I am horrified at the prospect of ever possibly employing my rationale in open court in this day. The ultimate defense would be to posit a theoretical defeat/destruction of the jurisprudential theory that the prosecutorial attorney and the magistrate act on the basis of language of law, one would never see the light of day again, via being held in contempt of court.

You could try.. But then you'd need a lawyer for sure... And if ya do -- post it to YouTube... :up:
The attorney would be necessary to insure procedural accuracy, however, he probably would never be able to articulately describe the nihilative reasoning at the heart of the matter. Expert witnesses would be required in multiple. Going against city hall would be nigh impossible given the coefficient of adversity attendant upon the biases of preconception entertained by city ha

It would make for a hell-of-a movie script...a David and Goliath scenario in futureistic terms...

It just gets better and better with expert witnesses.. And yeah it would be like Scopes Monkey trial except for an audience of mainly philosophy buffs.. And what crime did you plan to commit to trigger this great showdown?? :eek:
The county I live in has a mandatory trash collection ordinance, wherein they want to take your home and property for failure to pay the mandatory fee; it is purely a peonage system and ilk of slavery prohibited under to fourteenth amendment. I have been going round and round with the county attorney for many years and have prepared a fifty page affirmative defense, whereby I believe I can beat them via their own instruments, however, to put the finishing touch on the defense by positing a theoretical overthrow to their so-called justice system, would be an interesting gamble...

I love that. It's worth the efforts and the preparation.. Just IN CASE you need to fight that tyranny.. You realize that most attorneys will tell you that "homeowner associations" are the biggest authoritarian dictators on the planet and usually CAN'T be defeated in a court. But you could open a whole chapter on nullification of their powers...
It is not a homeowner's association, it is what is called a 'fiscal court'', which is a county entity alike a city council. They would resort to claiming police powers, however, police conduct must adhere to the Constitution as well. Would you have the guts to gamble, in court, via using my rationale, and perhaps precipitate a theoretical overthrow of our extant processes of ''justice''?! I think it best to remain on the theoretical level...what attorney would participate in an intellectual revolt against the system which is his bread and butter? I love the nullification of powers notion, which I am totally uncognizant of...In my state all county ordinances require State statutory authorization, which the mandatory garbage ordinance absolutely does not have, even though, somehow, twenty-some counties have the mandatory sanitation system in place via ordinance. Ordinance lacking statutory authorization of void/voided as law; however, I deem these people so devious and corrupt that one could never get a fair hearing and, that makes an honest attempt at having honor and honesty within the County legal system an essentially vain exercise; but, a HOA is likely subject to attack via demonstration of their rules as, in fact, non-determinative, due to ontological considerations...
 
Last edited:
OP
A

aurelieus

Rookie
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Messages
20
Reaction score
4
Points
1
Just went thru about 4 months of arguing with my HOA about a "leaning mailbox"... Wish I had read this sooner... :2up:
Yes, for sure you could address the HOA via my reasoning; neither they nor their legal counselors could make either head nor tail of it, and you could, possibly, thereby, gain significant compromise, via scaring the dickens out of them per using an intellectual instrumentation which they cannot possibly viably deny, for, it would require the overthrow of Spinoza's dictum, which I deem an impossibility. If you thus approached the HOA, keeping everything in writing at all times, you might sort of lay a foundation for employing the same tack in a courtroom!
 

đź’˛ Amazon Deals đź’˛

Forum List

Top