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