No, I am not claiming Sartre's entire thinking is without foible.
Good start.
All that I am doing is employing his ontological description of how a human act originates. I am not employing his entire radically vast writings. Sartre's description of the origin of a human act is predicated upon Spinoza's "...determinatio negatio est...",i.e., determination is negation. His position is a historical one grounded in Spinoza.
You're taking a small piece of Sartre's writings, wildly extrapolating from that, then complaining that people who don't immediately fall in line with your philosophy can't possibly know what they're talking about because your boy Sartre backs you up with some word salad that doesn't remotely address what you're trying to claim.
Look, I agree that humans are capable of rejecting law. We do it all the time. We may face consequences for that rejection, but we can do so. I don't see how your utopian view of anarchy flows from that. Nor did Sartre, or Hegel, or Spinoza.
Hegel also said "All determination is negation."
Hegel was another advocate of a powerful, centralized state as well.
The origination of a human act is a purely negative process and, law deems itself, a given positive extant language, to be a means to originating human action, which is simply incorrect.
In what way is law "a given positive extant language"? I'm not even sure what you're trying to convey with that phrase. Again, is English a second language for you? You use (and misuse) a lot of five dollar words, but also get tripped up on a lot of simple words. "Inacceptable", for instance, instead of "unacceptable". I wonder if there is a language barrier that is interfering with this discussion to some extent.
The claim that I am not correctly positing Sartre's theory of the origin of action, and, that I do not make it intelligible is absolutely absurd. I have explained it over and over and over.
If you've had to explain it over and over is it possible you're not doing a great job at communicating it? Or that your understanding conflicts with other's understanding? Surely someone as dedicated as you are to a radical subjectivist like Sartre wouldn't be trying to push his own reality on other independent actors ...
It is the membership of this forum which appears to be so radically bigoted against Sartre, that they cannot do other than use ad hominem thinking against him, and, apparently are not energetic enough to work to understand the mere two texts of Sartre which I employ.
That may be true. Maybe you're the only one who is mentally capable of truly grasping it.