[continued from previous message]
>>>> 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 /
> BABYLONIAN [#314 - mágos (G3097): *WISE* *MEN* / #335 - Kasday (H3779):
> CHALDEAN / #87 - BABYLONIAN KING (circa 721 BC) as [#2 - FULL CIRCLE
> (周), #30 - BOLD RESOLUTION (毅), #1 - CENTRE (中), #4 - BARRIER (閑),
> #50 - VASTNESS / WASTING (唐)] being ANTI-STATISM ARTIFICE as
> UNCONSTITUTIONAL: SECTION II: UNALIENABLE RIGHTS TRANSFERENCE PROTOCOL ]
> PERSECUTION OF JEWISH - CHRISTIANS AS SUBSTANTIATED CLAIM TO BELIEF #100
> + 40 AM as 3860 BCE + 20 x (293 x 365.2423 TROPICAL YEARS | 294 x 364 |
> 6J) + 1 (NO 0 CE) = 2001 CE (NEW MOON 20 MARCH 1996 + 5 x 364 + 182 =
> 12 SEPTEMBER 2001 + 182 = NEW MOON 13 / 14 MARCH 2002), can be brought
> before the International Criminal Court, a permanent international
> tribunal. It was established by the ROME STATUTE adopted 17 JULY 1998.
>
> On 11 APRIL 2002, ten countries ratified the statute at the same time at
> a special ceremony held at the United Nations headquarters in New York
> City,[21] bringing the total number of signatories to sixty, which was
> the minimum number required to bring the statute into force, as defined
> in Article 126. The treaty entered into force on 1 July 2002; the ICC
> can only prosecute crimes committed (vis a vis in support of the
> EUCHARIST / PENTECOST FROM
- SWASTIKA OBSTRUCTION as ANTI-STATISM
> impetus HIJACKING ANZAC CENTENNIAL 2018 BY MARTIN TANZER, ROSS JACKSON -
> RETURNED SERVICES LEAGUE / DARREN CHESTER / WELLINGTON SHIRE COUNCI
> ANTI-SEMITISM / VISCERAL RACIAL HATRED AS PERSECUTION) on or after that
> date. and entered into force JULY 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]),
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
