WHY LAW IS NOT HONORABLE Duane Clinton Meehan 3/2018
In so far as all persons enacting our American legal system mistakenly presuppose man-made language of law to be determinative of both jurisprudential action and, of human conduct in general, our legal system exhibits failure to comprehend how human action originates, how human freedom proceeds, and, what human freedom is. These several jurisprudential failures display an absence among Americans of a reflective/knowing comprehension of the modus operandi of their personal ontological freedom, whereby unreflectively free Americans currently live trapped in a subjugate peonage, imposed via tyrannical language of law, itself unable to reflectively participate-in, and able only to suffocate, our beauteous original human ontological freedom, for the protective sake of which America was originally conceived .
A profound error is transpiring in law, herein dubbed the “jurisprudential illusion”, which error is recognizable via the perspectival view afforded by J.P. Sartre’s theory of origin of human action, a theory predicated upon Baruch Spinoza’s “...determinatio negatio est...”, i.e., “...determination is negation...”. Via Sartre’s model of the origin of human action, it is demonstrable that while upholding law, one cannot correctly claim given published language of law to be a means of determining one’s self to act in accordance with language of law; hence the subjoined explanation of how, via the Sartreian theory of origin of human action, description of jurisprudential illusion is possible.
Recent description of the ontological mode of originative upsurge of personal determination to act, presented consistently in works by J.P. Sartre (1905-1980), permits critique of American grassroots/legislative/jurisprudential presupposition presuming enforced language of law to be determinative of human action/inaction, and/or, that persons determine themselves to action/inaction by the enforced language of published law.
We Americans perform our civilization in the mode of Constitutional determinism, bent upon police-prosecutorial-judicial enforcement of given language of law, i.e., legislative enactments and judicial decisions, which law, administered as a supreme and inviolable determinative force, is deemed to “rule” the conduct of human action as a “rule of law”; which “rule of law” is ultimately predicated upon a vast series of attendant violent “punishments”, for “violation of law”, up to, and including, death; —- while, all the while, human determination to action actually originates and transpires in keeping with Baruch Spinoza’s (1632-1677), “…determinatio negatio est…” (i.e., “… determination is negation…”) (Spinoza, Letter 50 to Jareg Jelles, in Letters. Trans. Shirley. Hackell, 1995, p. 260.) —- i.e., human action/inaction originates ex nihilo, with all circumstances attendant upon the originative upsurge of human action being negative, e.g., absence; future; objective lack; double nihilation (“The Transcendence of the Ego” Sartre 98-99). —- Spinoza’s dictum is a terse original description of the human ontological mode of originative upsurge of human action, standing at the antipode of a positivist, materialist, causalist, mechanistic, enforced, punitive, language of law, which given language of law is an ontologically inaccurate; ontologically illegitimate; ontologically unintelligible; artificial; false; failing; existentially absurd; incompetent attempt to determine/originate human action, and/or inaction, by givens.
The originative ontological modus operandi of the upsurge of human action, comprehension of which constitutes a person reflectively ontologically free, is the “double nihilation” (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 435,486). Original human ontological freedom is fundamentally the double nihilation.
When imagining doing an intentional act, consciousness performs the double nihilation; which is a thrust away from, an escape from, a given state of affairs, toward a not yet existing, future state of affairs. To “nihilate” means “to make nothing”. The nihilative movement of consciousness, since it is a refusal of a given state of affairs in the name of a non-existent, projected, future state of affairs, is doubly nihilative. Consciousness’ determination to flee the given toward the future makes the particular nothing which is a future/intended state of affairs, and, in the thrust toward that future nothingness, makes the given state of affairs nothing, as a surpassed past (“Being and Nothingness” Sartre 431-434).
Only the double nihilation is the negation, i.e., the negative process, whereby human action originates/upsurges.
Human existential absurdity designates givens as cause/motive/determinant of one’s action, while, all the while, human action exclusively originates ex nihilo, via consciousnesses’ nihilative capacity. (Sartre, J.P., “Being and Nothingness”, Part Four, entire).
Jurisprudential illusion is an instance of human existential absurdity wherein the illusion consists in blindly, mistakenly, presupposing given language of law to be determinative of human action and inaction; --- jurisprudential illusion is the ontologically unintelligible misconception of mistakenly presupposing given language of law determines one’s acts, and/or, that one determines one’s self to act, or forbear action, by given law.
Law arbitrarily designated by jurisprudence as determinative of human conduct is an existential ontological absurdity, for human determination is solely predicated upon negation, and, language of law is a presence, a given, a factual.
Positivist materialist determinist jurisprudentially oriented persons lack reflective consciousness of the human ontological fact that determination to action, or inaction, for original human freedom, upsurges only as two negative moments of the doubly nihilative movement of consciousness, vectoring unto an intended future.
The American legalistic jurisprudential illusion of ascribing to human action an origination in, and/or, by, given written law, is a mistaken, silent, absurd jurisprudential presupposition; consider thusly : “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action. If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or itself, this amounts to putting a given at the beginning of the series. Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements...The existence of the act implies its autonomy...Furthermore, if the act is not pure motion, it must be defined by an intention. No matter how this intention is considered, it can be only a surpassing of the given toward a result to be attained. This given, in fact, since it is pure presence, can not get out of itself. Precisely because it is, it is fully and solely what it is. Therefore it can not provide the reason for a phenomenon which derives all its meaning from a result to be attained; that is, from a non-existent… This intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.”(“Being and Nothingness”, Sartre, 477).
The in-authority of American legal authority consists in the jurisprudential illusion whereby said legal authority absurdly claims given language of law to be determinative of all actions by legal authority against persons, while, all the while, defense against the in-authoritative authority of American law consists in the human ontological reality that all human determination to action transpires only via doubly nihilative conscious moments, whereby each and every originally absolutely ontologically free human consciousness intentionally imagines and, intentionally upsurges unto an absent future.
One can possibly appear to determine to act in accord with given language of law, however, one cannot legitimately, accurately, and humanely claim and declare given language of law to be an ontologically authentic and correct basis for subjecting, for example, in one’s role as legislator or prosecutor, or magistrate, another human being to punishment; i.e., as a being for whom action originates and upsurges as a function of the doubly nihilative movement characterizable of the pursuit of one’s every conscious project, it is absurd, illusory, and in bad faith, as ex nihilo nihilative originator of one’s acts, to claim that one is determined to judicial action against another person by given language of law; therefore, ultimately, one cannot in fact legitimately act, is not in fact legitimately, honorably, acting against another human being on the basis of, and in accord with, one’s false notion that given published enforced language of law is determinative of one’s conduct.
The designation of given language of law as a means for punishing another human being is entirely inconsistent with the sole ontological process whereby the originative upsurge of human action transpires.
No magistrate can in fact be determined to action, or, determine himself to action by law, therefore, any punishment which said magistrate declares against a person, in the name of “law”, is predicated upon the legal/jurisprudential error of mistakenly presupposing a determinative efficacy of law, which error constitutes ongoing legal malpractice of an inhumane and unethical jurisprudential illusion.