[continued from previous message]
>>>>>>>> – 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 / 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
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
