[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>> causes determining it from outside, nevertheless is determined in   
   >>>>>>> his eternal reason, hence in the divine nature. Only if something   
   >>>>>>> should begin through an action, hence the effect be found in the   
   >>>>>>> time series, and so in the sensible world (e.g., the beginning of   
   >>>>>>> the world), does 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 (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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)