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