I’m Songs, also known as songsfortheotherkind. I’m using this blog to gather all my writing together from various places around the internet: much of this writing was originally posted under songsfortheotherkind at Project Avalon (before I realised that actual evolutionary discourse is unwelcome there). Please read through the collected writings here- chances are any questions you have regarding the Sui Generis will be answered somewhere.  If it isn’t, feel free to write and ask.

17 June 2012

Those who know me know that I speak about a concept called Sui Generis: it’s a term that I learned from my deep law studies and it basically means that one is unique, without peer, one’s own jurisdiction and authority. In the terms of the law, it raises an individual above every act, statute and external authority on the planet, but that aspect requires some discussion and isn’t the focus of my current post. It’s a really important concept.

What I am interested in discussing is the powerful nature of the Sui Generis in terms of facilitating transformation, and how this power is often annulled by the diminishing actions of others. To this end, I’d like to introduce a concept: Heteronomy.

Here’s a dictionary definition:

Het`er`on´o`my
n. 1. Subordination or subjection to the law of another; political subjection of a community or state; – opposed to autonomy.

(note: there’s a second definition here which defines the word according to Kant, which is a heteronomous definition in itself, so I’ve ignored it)

Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co.

heteronomy
1. the state or condition of being ruled, governed, or under the sway of another, as in a military occupation.
2. the state or condition of being under the influence or domination, in a moral, spiritual, or similar sense, of another person, entity, force, etc. Cf. autonomy. — heteronomous, adj.
See also: Government
the condition of being under the moral control of something or someone external; inability to be self-willing. — heteronymous, adj.
See also: Will
the condition of being under the rule or domination of another.
See also: Politics

-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heteronomy

According to this definition, heteronomy is the opposite of autonomy- so here’s a look at what autonomy means:

au·ton·o·my Pronunciation (ô-tn-m)
n. pl. au·ton·o·mies
1. The condition or quality of being autonomous; independence.
2.
a. Self-government or the right of self-government; self-determination.
b. Self-government with respect to local or internal affairs: granted autonomy to a national minority.
3. A self-governing state, community, or group.
[Greek autonomi, from autonomos, self-ruling; see autonomous.]

autonomy [ɔːˈtɒnəmɪ]
n pl -mies
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the right or state of self-government, esp when limited
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a state, community, or individual possessing autonomy
3. freedom to determine one’s own actions, behaviour, etc.
4. (Philosophy) Philosophy
a. the doctrine that the individual human will is or ought to be governed only by its own principles and laws See also categorical imperative
b. the state in which one’s actions are autonomous
[from Greek autonomia freedom to live by one's own laws; see autonomous]
autonomist n

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

autonomy – From Greek autos, “self,” and nomos, “law,” i.e. a person or unit that makes its own laws.

Farlex Trivia Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.

au·ton·o·mous Pronunciation (ô-tn-ms)
adj.
1. Not controlled by others or by outside forces; independent: an autonomous judiciary; an autonomous division of a corporate conglomerate.
2. Independent in mind or judgment; self-directed.

Sui generis encompasses all of the relevant concepts within these definitions, as well as an abundance more, which I’m not going to go into now or else this post will move beyond ‘possibly epic’ and into ‘War and Peace, redux’. What is of interest is the contrast between heteronomy- authority that comes from *external* to the Self- and autonomy, the authority, direction and law that comes from within.

Much of the debate- and occasionally, discussion- that goes on regarding these two concepts revolves around the idea of discarding the current paradigm by replacing it with a different paradigm, as suggested by better authorities and Purveyors of Reality, so that the *new* paradigm will have a more solid footing. Better Politicians. A Shinier Economy. Nicer Religions.

It seems to me that almost all mainstream discussions of this topic fall into the category of encouraging nothing more than a different form of heteronomy: here is an authority! no, HERE is the authority, with impressive credentials and a pointy stick to point at the points with! NO, you’re all wrong, the TRUE authority is this guy over here – and then the noise ensues, which is nothing more than the different brands of heteronomy arm wrestling with themselves while the mind virus laughs hugely in the back ground at the whole debacle, knowing that the individuals concerned are all still firmly stuck in the tarpits.

Heteronomy will never, ever be user friendly, because the user isn’t engaged in the process of their own life: they’re engaged in the process of trading their autonomy for whatever bright beads and trinkets they’re willing to settle for. Sometimes these beads and trinkets are elaborate psychological and intellectual constructs that can appear so excellently and persuasively presented as to surely be spiritual wisdom of the highest order because it resonates, it creates an internal vibration that feels right.

There’s only one problem: if one has been profoundly, down to the level of the genes, immersed in the deeply layered indoctrination to the heteronomy, then how can one trust one’s responses if there’s nothing to contrast with? There is very little autonomy discussed  in a way that indicates that the writers or respondents themselves practice deep level autonomy or are comfortable with the infinitely singular expressions of such autonomy: what I observe instead are claims to autonomy that then degenerate into ideological battles, which amount to nothing more than an attempt to overlay one individual’s autonomy with another’s authority- which, by definition, is heteronomy. And is thus the foundation of all the current things about the paradigm that many say they are against.

Is it a case that autonomy is only ok as long as others agree with the version favoured by any particular individual? This is heteronomous in intent. When any individual advocates the election of *this* individual rather than *that* one, they are advocating heteronomy. The same goes with religious and spiritual perspectives- when there are individuals that do not feel the same way, or have a different perspective, the superior and condescending tones of the heteronomy emerges, or the ‘gentle correction’ or the not so gentle admonition; however it is couched, the heteronomy, the constant tracking back to submission to some kind of external authority, is the guiding force.

I am fully aware of the endless earnest and persuasive arguments of the heteronomy, particularly those that insist Beings cannot be trusted to be their own authority: these indoctrinations begin before birth and continue to the moment of death- and even after; this constant bespelling of who and what we ‘really’ are, the ‘sin’ and ‘untrustworthy’ nature that Beings on this planet are subject to and thus in need of a benevolent saviour of *some* kind or another, some grand external authority to tell the masses what is the correct thing to think, to do, to not do…

I’m aware of all of these arguments and I have never, ever found a single one that was not pimping, either overtly or covertly, the agenda of empire’s heteronomy. Which, as the recent history of the majority species currently on this planet attests, creates nothing but closed systems that eventually collapse on themselves and simply arise again to recreate themselves in another, corruptive and polluted form. The desperate rhetoric of “this time”- this time it will work, we’ll have the *right* king, the *right* president, the *right* religion, the *better* economy, blah blah blah- and each time the answer comes in the negative because ultimately an externally governed group cannot spiritually evolve in their own singularity.

This may seem like obvious stuff, yet in relation to the dominant paradigm it actually isn’t- the general tone of communications are heteronomy in one form or another, the general tone of the replies are the same: where is the cutting edge evolution that has the actual power to truly bring the controllers and their agendas to their knees?

Apparently, it’s buried beneath more rhetoric and heteronomy.

Autonomy as a concept is one that has infinite depth, flavour, expression and intention to explore and consider. It is also a concept and practice that cannot be embraced while the other hand is firmly glued to the teat of heteronomy. Autonomy has nothing whatsoever to do with homogeny of thought, nothing to do with ‘agreement’, nothing to do with compromise or any of the other things that the heteronomy has bleated is necessary for groups to get along together: truly autonomous, sui generis Beings are as interested in engaging with those concepts as they are in removing their left foot with a fork, for reasons that I’m not going to go into right now. Suffice to say, the practice of ‘autonomy’ is one where a constant interested eye is kept on any indicators of lurking heteronomy with a view to prompt removal.

So how interested are individuals in the prompt removal of the heteronomy that emerges in every attempt at intelligent discussion? Are there any individuals- interested in evolution- that truly believe modified heteronomy is the answer? The benevolent hand of those that consider themselves truly able to rule in a fair and considerate fashion? (for a price, of course). Is anyone who is truly interested in transformation rather than recycling going to suggest to me that behaving like an insane Being (doing the same thing again and again while expecting a different result) is the best tool of the evolution there is?

I’m interested in what actually works, what is actually going to work in terms of true evolution of Being. Which means some sacred cows of belief, thought, psychology, ‘wisdom’ and other bastions of the paradigm are going to have to be left on the roadside no matter how much the programming within screams not to. That’s the nature of programming and it’s been done very very well- protect and serve the virus at all costs. Viruses and parasites do that- they alter the behaviour of the hosts to serve the interests of the parasite rather than the best interests of the host.

http://tobiastenney.com/2010/06/toxoplasma/ You *really* think you’re in control of your Self? You really think there’s no virus? Perhaps try this experiment: see what happens internally when you embrace and practice the idea of autonomy for all Beings and watch what triggers inside of you.

How would this practice manifest? For a start the criticism of anything ‘different’ would cease- the criticism of *any* perspective that did not involve the direct harm to another would cease, because the pervading platform of connection would be with the respect for the autonomy of all individuals, not just those that agree with any particular individual. There would be a sense of co-creation and exchange rather than going into any discussion with the intention of ‘correcting’ any ‘wrong’ thinking, or to go in and call another individual (using various benign- and not so benign-words) a prime idiot for believing/thinking/saying/doing that. All such self righteous actions would cease, or be something that other individuals would question.

The superior tones of self importance regarding *any* belief or perspective would cease, as would the self congratulatory enclaves of consensus reality coralling when an individual dares to express something that the rest find impossible to embrace. There would be a genuine focus on exploring the skills of communication rather than debate; there would be a genuine interest in and exploration of the differences between the practical expressions and skills of a group that is consciously cultivating autonomy of all Beings. There would be an interest in expressing from “I” rather than globalising, which is an assumption that ‘as it is for the individual expressing the opinion, it must also be so for everyone else’. Autonomy says otherwise.

This is what interests me. I’ve always been interested in connecting with individuals who genuinely want to explore the deep level expression of sui generis autonomy rather than engaging in heteronomous onanism. This is still my interest and intention. I am underwhelmed by the current possibility of true evolution on a planetary scale if the tone of this forum- in which the focus itself is in part supposedly towards doing things on this planet in a more cohesive and intelligent way- is any indicator. Fortunately for me, I have never been interested in mass conversion or dependent on the idea that the future of the planet relies on *everyone* Getting A Clue. Still, the level of uninspiration is rather a bummer.

So rather than being bummed I thought I’d send out a flare and see what it lit up. I am looking for individuals that want to approach all things from the perspective of a sui generis, autonomous Being, comfortable with the infinite possibility and expressions that arise from these, and who can tell the difference between acceptance of autonomy and having to participate in things Unfun.

To me, this is where my personal evolution is heading. Does anyone else want to play in this realm?

~*~