Natural Law | Javi James

BRIEF EXPOSURE ON NATURAL LAW

The following exposition is simply that. It may be understood that I am trying to communicate a model applicable to a community, but that is not my intention. Communities will be true communities only when we recognize divinity in individuality, for then we will resonate with the only thing we have in common, and with the only thing that unites us all: love. On the other hand, the magnificence of this planet and the perversion of its play challenges us to love above all else, as the first law. Emerald Tablet, Hermetic philosophy.

Customary law is an unwritten norm that is followed through custom and tradition. For example, a community might have the custom of burning leaves in a specific month of the year because it has been done that way for generations, forming an implicit agreement. Outside of that month, it would be considered disrespectful to the traditionalists. Eventually, this customary law can be codified and become part of what is known as positive law. Positive law is the system of norms and rules written by humans to regulate their own conduct. In other words, one person writes what another must do, and if someone does not adhere to that model, they are repressed, as they would be seen as a minority, interpreted as having no voice and adhering to the system through tacit acceptance. This is a clear injustice, which, paradoxically, the marginalized must accept. Under these circumstances, the right to an independent alternative is hard-won, since the game in this world operates according to an algorithmic, factual, and tactical agenda. There will always be a kind of dictatorship, but in contexts that are more or less aggressive, more or less deceptive.

Both customary and positive law should conform to natural law, which transcends human will, moving toward the universal principles that govern the mentalism of consciousness and its duality, as a sacred science. In simple terms, this means that discernment, common sense, and autonomy come first. However, if an individual still lacks autonomy and sufficient consciousness to declare themselves sovereign and without resentment, their position of natural law cannot be justified; that is, they cannot act from a position of natural jurisdiction because they neither understand nor accept the ambiguity of the game. And by failing to set an example, they will remain entangled in the fiction of positive law.

The assumption of a legal status that omits, distorts, or claims to be above natural law is nothing more than that, and insisting on it violates these aforementioned universal principles, generating injustice. No system should claim or perpetuate such a status, and individuals should strategically cease to perpetuate it, as what is unjust should not be valued—it is a matter of discernment.

In light of the foregoing, it is clear that these principles are inconsistent with what is projected by legal fiction. And as the op-ed action filed in Washington, D.C., in 2012 already demonstrated, corporations disguised as nations are structures backed by force; therefore, they act de facto.

The much-debated concept of autonomy of the will is a fundamental principle for positive law, yet at the same time, it is absorbed by the normative order of this structure—incoherent, isn't it?

Note that natural law and legal positivism often clash within a philosophical, even idealistic, framework, but this has been far removed from an epistemological approach based on neuroscience. This philosophical, rather than scientific, framework represents an objection in itself, since concepts arise from thought, and thought arises from an expression conditioned by mental function. Therefore, before creating debates and questioning expressions, the dynamics of human consciousness should be studied and carefully considered as a conditioned factor of expression, and only then should a parallel be drawn, with the aim of implementing a legal system that reflects and respects the human biological system—that is, individual freedom as a product of neurofunctional capacity, which some will know how to use better than others.

To be more specific, and drawing a parallel with the human organism, neuromotor autonomy is achieved when the autonomous prevails over the automatic. Autonomy is understood as the capacity to control impulsive responses, while automaticity is understood as a parameter that sustains the altered nervous system, where impulsive responses are conditioned by a pre-established matrix. The neuronal field and genetic makeup would constitute this matrix, but if neuromotor autonomy exists, these structures will conform to this autonomy, a functional dynamic known as homeostatic plasticity. Therefore, automaticity would take precedence in the human system. Thus, an autonomous human is not the same as a human operating on autopilot. We are talking about science and logic.

In extrapolation to the legal field, the matrix would be the regulatory framework, but if there is discernment, there is also autonomy of will with the effect of its own law (sui iuris), and the regulatory framework will be that which the autonomous person provides, not the pre-established legal matrix. However, considering the aforementioned sense of natural precedence, and understanding that the essential element of the collective is the individual, it becomes evident that public order is balanced between two approaches: the autonomous individual and the automatically controlled individual. The individual who lacks discernment is controlled by the normative framework, while the individual who possesses discernment or sound judgment is not subject to the automatic application of positive law. Instead, they live within the natural jurisdiction and with autonomy of will, recognizing themselves as a sovereign and free being, without needing external approval. At the same time, being autonomous, they respect the framework and do not confront it; rather, they interact with it, earning the right to be left undisturbed. Although this individual experiences a divergent state within themselves, they do not cause disorder, but they do subdue any unjust measures with implicit or deceptive aims that harm them or their peers.

Any idea or thought is created through electrical impulses, and this activity follows established circuits based on a specific neural network. What I mean by this is that it's ludicrous to suggest that, for the sake of order, a human should respond to texts written by another human, assuming that the other is incapable of using their mental functions correctly. It's practically an insult—in fact, violent and fraudulent—because by generalizing, it represses not only the incapable but also those who possess their abilities. However, it's clear that for a game to be a good game, it must be that, but at the same time, for a good player to be a good player, they must be a self-determined sovereign. The divine paradox.

All order is just, and only he who can discern can make a just judgment. The framework of abstract equalities and concrete divergences respects the science of neuromotor autonomy discussed in the aforementioned topic. And, as a therapist and student of neurofunctional models of consciousness, I understand that any literary exposition concerning the legal order should consider neuroscience; otherwise, the fundamental principle is being omitted because the logic of states of consciousness and their mental function, expressed in neurofunctional processes clearly demonstrable in our time, is being ignored. Year 2025 of the Gregorian calendar.

A free being who does not use force to confront others is not free because they lack it, but because their autonomy allows them to wield it appropriately.