[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>> 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 (çµ�): *FORMATIONAL* (circumscribed as   
   >>>>> bounding) #135 - níng (å‡�): *CONGEALING* / [#56, #79] concept of   
   >>>>> facilitated arbitration as #174 - CYBERNETIC SYSTEMIC /   
   >>>>> ANTHROPOMORPHIC PRINCIPLE which when disordered possesses an   
   >>>>> attenuated #152 / #174 - yí (ç–‘): *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 å   
   � - 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 (é–‘), #50 - VASTNESS / WASTING (å”�)] 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 å   
   � - SWASTIKA OBSTRUCTION as   
   >> ANTI-STATISM impetus HIJACKING ANZAC CENTENNIAL 2018 BY MARTIN TANZER,   
   >> ROSS JACKSON - RETURNED SERVICES LEAGUE / DARREN CHESTER / WELLINGTON   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)