A brief exposition on Natural Law.
PUBLIC N°24. DIVULGATION ARTICLE. JUL 2025. JAVI JAMES´PORTFOLIO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. IUS NATURALIS.
The following exposition is just that — an exposition. It might seem that I'm trying to communicate a model applicable to a community, but that isn't my intention, since communities will only become true communities once we recognize divinity within individuality, because that is what will let us resonate with the one thing we truly have in common, and the one thing that unites us all... love. On the other hand, the magnificence of this planet and the perversion of its game challenges us to love above all things, as the first law. The Emerald Tablet, hermetic philosophy.
Customary law is that unwritten norm that is upheld through use and custom. For example, a community that has the custom of burning leaves in a given month of the year, because it has been done that way for generations, becomes an implicit agreement — and stepping outside that date would be seen as defiance of the traditionalists. Eventually, that customary law can be written down and pass into what is called positive law. The latter is the system of norms and rules written by humans to order their own conduct. Put another way, one person writes what another must do, and if someone doesn't adhere to that model they are repressed, since they'd be seen as a minority — interpreted as having no voice and as adhering to the system by tacit assumption. A clear injustice, which paradoxically ends up being the one that must bend the diminished party. Under these circumstances, the right to an independent alternative is earned, since the game in this world answers to an algorithmic, factual, and tactical agenda. There will always be some kind of dictatorship, only more or less aggressive, more or less deceptive.
Both customary and positive law should conform to natural law, which transcends human will and reaches toward the universal principles that govern the mentalism of consciousness and its duality, as a sacred science. In simple words, this means that discernment, common sense, and autonomy come before everything else. But of course, if the individual still lacks the autonomy and the consciousness needed to declare themselves sovereign and free of resentment, their ius naturalis position cannot be justified — that is, they cannot act from natural jurisdiction, because they neither understand nor accept the ambiguity of the game, and by failing to set the example, they remain entangled in the fiction of positive law.
The assumption of a legal status that omits, distorts, or claims to stand above natural law is nothing more than that — an assumption — and insisting on it violates these universal principles, generating injustice. No system should claim or perpetuate such a status; rather, the individual should strategically stop feeding it, since what is unjust should not be given value. A matter of discernment.
In light of the above, it's clear these principles don't align with what's projected by the legal fiction. And as the OPPT filing presented in Washington DC in 2012 already showed, corporations disguised as nations are structures backed by force, and therefore act de facto.
The much-debated concept of autonomy of the will is, for positive law, a fundamental principle — yet at the same time it is absorbed by the normative order of that very structure. Incoherent, isn't it?
Note that natural-law theory and legal positivism tend to clash within a philosophical, even idealistic, framework — one that has stayed far from an epistemological approach grounded in neuroscience. This philosophical, non-scientific framework is itself an objection, since concepts are born from thought, and thought is born from an expression conditioned by mental function. So, before creating debates and questioning expressions, the dynamics of human consciousness should be studied and taken very much into account as a conditioning factor of expression — and only then should a parallel be drawn, with the aim of running 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.
Being more specific, and drawing that exact parallel with the human organism, neuromotor autonomy is achieved when the autonomous outweighs the automatic — understanding autonomy as the capacity to master impulsive responses, and automaticity as a parameter that sustains an altered nervous system, where impulsive responses are conditioned by a pre-established matrix. The neural field and genetic condition would be that matrix, but where neuromotor autonomy exists, those structures fall in line with that autonomy — a functional dynamic known as homeostatic plasticity — so automaticity would then answer to the human system, not precede it. Ergo, an autonomous human is not the same as a human on autopilot. We are talking about science and logic.
Extrapolating to the legal realm, the matrix would be the normative framework, but where there is discernment, there is also autonomy of the will with the effect of one's own right (sui iuris), and the normative framework becomes whatever the autonomous individual disposes, not the pre-established legal matrix. In other words, it's clear the legal fiction administered by positive law aims at public order — but, keeping in mind the natural sense of precedence laid out above, and understanding that the individual is the essential factor of the collective, it becomes evident that public order balances between two poles: the autonomous individual and the automatic one. The individual who fails to discern is controlled by the normative matrix; the one who possesses discernment, or fair judgment, is not reached by the legal automaticity of positive law, but instead lives in natural jurisdiction with autonomy of the will, recognizing themselves as a sovereign and free being, with no need to be approved by anything external. At the same time, being autonomous, they respect the matrix and don't confront it — they interact with it, earning the right not to be disturbed. While this individual experiences a divergent state within themselves, they cause no disorder, yet they do stand firm against any unjust measures with implicit or deceptive ends that wrong them or their peers.
Any idea or thought is created through electrical impulses, and that activity follows circuits established by a given neural network. What I mean by this is that it's laughable that, for the sake of order, a human should have to answer to texts written by another human, assuming that other person isn't capable of using their own mental faculties correctly. It's practically an insult — in fact, a violent and fraudulent one — because by generalizing, it represses not only the incapable but also those who fully possess their capacities. Still, it's clear that for the game to be a good game, it has to be exactly 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 fair judgment can only be pointed to by one who is able to discern. The scheme of abstract equalities and concrete divergences respects the science of neuromotor autonomy set out in the matter at hand. And I state, as a therapist and student of the neurofunctional models of consciousness, that any literary exposition on legal order should take neuroscience into account — otherwise, the principle of the thing is being omitted, because the logic of the states of consciousness and their mental function is being ignored, a logic expressed in neurofunctional processes that are clearly demonstrable in these times. Year 2025 of the Gregorian calendar.
The free being who does not use force to confront does not do so for lack of it, but because their autonomy allows them to wield it appropriately.
