Comment: Base…do you remember

(See in situ)

Base…do you remember

the concept of thought that had slipped my mind in the above post….well I came across it. Please don’t make me regret sharing it with you.

Your thought process is a intuitive knowledge (explained below) and positive law of the State. My thought process is based upon the philosophy of Positivism and the natural law of the individual.
This will help you understand why you will never be able to convince me of anything, because I am knowledgeable of our philosophical differences…..where you think that I am just ignorant to the information that you think you have that I haven’t ever seen….what I keep trying to tell you….i know what you know…..but you haven’t even began to scratch the surface to what I know…..but I am willing to teach you….you just have to open your mind that I am not James Corbett or Karen Hudes.

Intuitive knowledge is the ability to acquire knowledge without inference and/or the use of reason. The word intuition comes from Latin verb intueri which is usually translated as to look inside or to contemplate. Intuition is thus often conceived as a kind of inner perception, sometimes regarded as real lucidity or understanding. Cases of intuition are of a great diversity, however processes by which they happen typically remain mostly unknown to the thinker, as opposed to our view of rational thinking.

Intuition provides us with views, understandings, judgements, or beliefs that we cannot in every case empirically verify or rationally justify. For this reason, it has been not only a subject of study in psychology, but also a topic of interest in various religions and esoteric domains, as well as a common subject of New Age writings. The right brain is popularly associated with intuitive processes such as aesthetic or generally creative abilities. Some scientists have contended that intuition is associated with innovation in scientific discovery.

Positivism is a philosophy of science based on the view that information derived from logical and mathematical treatments and reports of sensory experience is the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge, and that there is valid knowledge (truth) only in scientific knowledge. Verified data received from the senses are known as empirical evidence. Introspective and intuitive knowledge is rejected. This kind of positivism is not to be confused with positive law, the main alternative to natural law.

IF, THEN, THE NATURAL law is discovered by reason from “the basic inclinations of human nature . . . absolute, immutable, and of universal validity for all times and places,” it follows that the natural law provides an objective set of ethical norms by which to gauge human actions at any time or place. The natural law is, in essence, a profoundly “radical” ethic, for it holds the existing status quo, which might grossly violate natural law, up to the unsparing and unyielding light of reason. In the realm of politics or State action, the natural law presents man with a set of norms which may well be radically critical of existing positive law imposed by the State. At this point, we need only stress that the very existence of a natural law discoverable by reason is a potentially powerful threat to the status quo and a standing reproach to the reign of blindly traditional custom or the arbitrary will of the State apparatus.

In fact, the legal principles of any society can be established in three alternate ways: (a) by following the traditional custom of the tribe or community; (b) by obeying the arbitrary, ad hoc will of those who rule the State apparatus; or (c) by the use of man’s reason in discovering the natural law—in short, by slavish
conformity to custom, by arbitrary whim, or by use of man’s reason. These are essentially the only possible ways for establishing positive law. Here we may simply affirm that the latter method is at once the most appropriate for man at his most nobly and fully human, and the most potentially “revolutionary” vis-à-vis any given status quo.

"Before we can ever ask how things might go wrong; we must first explain how they could ever go right"