[continued from previous message]
> the question arise of whether the causality of the cause must itself
> also have a beginning, or whether the cause can originate an effect
> without its causality itself having a beginning. In the first case the
> concept of this causality is a concept of natural necessity, in the
> second of freedom. From this the reader will see that, since I have
> explained freedom as the faculty to begin an event by oneself, I have
> exactly hit that concept which is the problem of metaphysics.
>
> If this sort of influence of intelligible beings on appearances can be
> thought without contradiction, then natural necessity will indeed attach
> to every connection of cause and effect in the sensible world, and yet
> that cause which is itself not an appearance (though it underlies
> appearance) will still be entitled to freedom, and therefore nature and
> freedom will be attributable without contradiction to the very same
> thing, but in different respects, in the one case as appearance, in the
> other as a thing in itself. We have in us a faculty that not only stands
> in connection with its subjectively determining grounds, which are the
> natural causes of its [IDEA #345] actions – and thus far is the faculty
> of a being which itself belongs to appearances – but that also is
> related to objective grounds that are mere ideas, insofar as these ideas
> can determine this faculty, a connection that is expressed by ought.
>
> This faculty is called reason, and insofar as we are considering a being
> (the human being) solely as regards this objectively determinable
> reason, this being cannot be considered as a being of the senses;
> rather, the aforesaid property is the property of a thing in itself, and
> the possibility of that property – namely, how the ought, which has
> never yet happened, can determine the activity of this being and can be
> the cause of actions whose effect is an appearance in the sensible world
> – we cannot comprehend at all. Yet the causality of reason with respect
> to effects in the sensible world would nonetheless be freedom, insofar
> as objective grounds, which are themselves ideas, are taken to be
> determining with respect to that causality. For the action of that
> causality would in that case not depend on any subjective, hence also
> not on any temporal conditions, and would therefore also not depend on
> the natural law that serves to determine those conditions, because
> grounds of reason provide the rule for actions universally, from
> principles, without influence from the circumstances of time or place.
>
> What I adduce here counts only as an example, for intelligibility, and
> does not belong necessarily to our question, which must be decided from
> mere concepts independently of properties that we find in the actual world.
>
> I can now say without contradiction: all actions of rational beings,
> insofar as they are appearances (are encountered in some experience or
> other), are subject to natural necessity; but the very same actions,
> with respect only to the rational subject and its faculty of acting in
> accordance with bare reason, are free. What, then, is required for
> natural necessity? Nothing more than the determinability of every event
> in the sensible world according to constant laws, and therefore a
> relation to a cause within appearance; whereby the underlying thing in
> itself and its causality remain unknown. But I say: the law of nature
> remains, whether the rational being be a cause of effects in the
> sensible world through reason and hence through freedom, or whether that
> being does not determine such effects through rational grounds. For if
> the first is the case, the action takes place according to maxims whose
> effect within appearance will always conform to constant laws; if the
> second is the case, and the action does not take [IDEA #346] place
> according to principles of reason, then it is subject to the empirical
> laws of sensibility, and in both cases the effects are connected
> according to constant laws; but we require nothing more for natural
> necessity, and indeed know nothing more of it. In the first case,
> however, reason is the cause of these natural laws and is therefore
> free, in the second case the effects flow according to mere natural laws
> of sensibility, because reason exercises no influence on them; but,
> because of this, reason is not itself determined by sensibility (which
> is impossible), and it is therefore also free in this case. Therefore
> freedom does not impede the natural law of appearances, any more than
> this law interferes with the freedom of the practical use of reason, a
> use that stands in connection with things in themselves as determining
> grounds." [pages 93-97]
>
> DOLF: "How is the notion of a civil society related to the inherent
> human disposition of animus / anima and does such dynamic suggest there
> is an ontic #22 - jié (結): *FORMATIONAL* (circumscribed as bounding)
> #135 - níng (凝): *CONGEALING* / [#56, #79] concept of facilitated
> arbitration as #174 - CYBERNETIC SYSTEMIC / ANTHROPOMORPHIC PRINCIPLE
> which when disordered possesses an attenuated #152 / #174 - yí (疑):
> *DEFICIENCY* / [#29, #61, #62, #22] that may in a chronic ontological
> state be regarded as either delinquency or reprobation?"
>
> CAN REFUSAL OF COMMUNION BY IRISH CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP PELL ON BOER WAR
> MEMORIAL DAY / PENTECOST SUNDAY 31 MAY 1998 BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE
> INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT?
>
> Instances of the most serious international crimes, such as war crimes,
> crimes of aggression, genocide and crime against humanity (eg: RECLAIM
> THE #1827 - EUCHARIST / PENTECOST FROM
- SWASTIKA OBSTRUCTION), can
> be brought before the International Criminal Court, a permanent
> international tribunal. It was established by the ROME STATUTE in 2002.
>
> 
>
>
>
> [IMAGE SOURCE: Victorian Honour Roll of Women (2011) Inspirational women
> from all walks of life]
>
> SYNAPSE QUOTIENT FOR CONSIDERATION IN MAKING AN ACCUSATION OF CONTEMN
> (WHITE COLONIAL IMPERIALIST / HISTORICAL ANTI-STATISM REVISIONIST AS NON
> DIFFERENTIATED CHRISTO-FASCISM EXCEPTING BY HAUGHTY SELF-ENTITLEMENT)
> AGAINST DOCTOR DIANE SISELY VEOC (1994-2004): Given that the CENTRAL
> PREMISE to this SAPIENT UTILITARIAN / TEMPORAL DYNAMIC is the
> mathematical meta-descriptive dialectic as idea template (AS OUR
> INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO WHICH DOCTOR SISELY HAS NEVER CONFORMED) to the
> AMERICAN DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 4 JULY 1776 and BILL OF RIGHTS 15
> DECEMBER 1791 which frames #87 - UNALIENABLE RIGHTS that are also
> implicit within QUEEN VICTORIA'S LETTERS PATENT dated 29 OCTOBER 1900
> being principles upon which the respective REPUBLIC / COMMONWEALTH were
> established.
>
> [#74]
> [#14, #17]
> [#3, #11, #18, #32, #34, #49, #54, #60, #66, #67, #73, #76, #78]
> [#23, #26, #27, #31, #34, #38, #44, #67]
> [#5, #6, #17, #39, #57, #77]
> [#37, #47, #78]
> [#12, #67]
> [#68]
> [#13, #15, #27, #32, #49, #65, #71, #78]
>
> COGITO: #493 / IDEA: #1876 = [#74 - CLOSURE (䦯, #74 = [#74]), #14 -
> PENETRATION (銳, #31 = [#14, #17]), #78 - ON THE VERGE (將, #621 = [#3,
> #11, #18, #32, #34, #49, #54, #60, #66, #67, #73, #76, #78]), #27 -
> DUTIES (事, #290 = [#23, #26, #27, #31, #34, #38, #44, #67]), #57 -
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
