I’d like to start with your suggestion that Sui Generis is “a non-hackable platform in its foundation”. I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. One possibility is that it ties in with your notion of the Virus, and by “non-hackable” you mean that it is not susceptible to being coopted by the Virus. If this is correct, then it’s almost tautological, and I agree with you: it’s not that surprising that a platform whose basis is the utter repudiation of the Virus would be immune from it.

S: Yes, it’s not possible for the Sui Generis platform to be co-opted by Empire: Empire’s interests cannot be enforced or enacted within a community that applies the Sui Generis as the foundational principle.

A more debatable interpretation would be if by “non-hackable” you mean “indisputably true”.

S:  In other of my writings I demonstrate that I don’t adhere to ‘truth’, I adhere to foundational principles: what demonstrates in the living system of things is that *all things are unique*, thus demonstrating the sui generis embedded within the dimensional layers of the multiverse.

In a very limited, sanitised and reduced sense, Sui Generis might be the idea that “sentient beings are personally responsible for the free will choices that they make”.

Unless Beings are truly free then their choices are being manipulated. I wrote about that here  http://songsfortheotherkind.com/blog/it-isnt-adaptation-we-want-its-evolution/

In this sense, I would agree that it is indisputably true (tautological even). It gets more questionable though when we express it more like it actually is: that “unique creations are their own authority and jurisdiction [as long as they do no harm to others]“. I actually really like this idea, and I hope that it’s true. The only problem for me is that personal experiences lead me to belief in a spiritual reality, which suggests the possibility of spiritual *authority*, to which we might be bound, despite that we might (and that I do) like the idea that we are (entirely) our own authorities. This is why I asked you what your metaphysical views are, because in this sense they are relevant.

S: It seems what you’re actually saying is that it isn’t the sui generis *platform* you’re having an issue with, it’s your own subjective experience that is causing you a conflict with it. And that’s exactly what sui generis is about: *you* can have whatever experience you want with the multiverse, it’s simply when that experience is transferred out to others that the problems arise.

I, for instance, have experienced external authorities (including energies claiming to be this or that ‘god) as nothing but Empire in its myriads of forms, including *spiritual*- spiritual heteronomy is part of Empire’s administration pattern and I’ve written about that here http://songsfortheotherkind.com/blog/explorations-in-how-the-sui-generis-works/  and the following two essays that accompany this one. I’m not ‘bound’ to ANY Being, Creator or otherwise- I explain my view of that here http://songsfortheotherkind.com/blog/dissolving-the-gods-how-sui-generis-undoes-old-and-new-age-spiritual-slavery/

My own views, as incomplete as they are, stem partly from experiences with negative spirit entities – this is why I asked you the specific question about your belief in such beings. I experience them even as I write this. I infer both from the existence of spiritual evil, and from an answered prayer – I prayed to God and all of His spiritual helpers for help in overcoming addiction to alcohol, and, immediately after that prayer, the cravings left me, and didn’t return for another two years – that a corresponding spiritual good exists. I don’t know what its nature is other than good – whether it is authoritative or liberal; whether it is happy for us to adopt the Sui Generis approach or whether it has other plans for us – I just mention this because of the possibility that spiritual authority overrides Sui Generis.

S: Nothing overrides the Sui Generis because the Sui Generis isn’t a *philosophy*, it’s a PRINCIPLE- a demonstrable, physical principle that embeds other principles within it. I too have had similar kinds of ‘spiritual’ experiences and eventually realised that they’re exactly the same as the black ops and disinformation practices that are engaged in constantly by other elements of Empire. The essays I’ve linked to will demonstrate why any Creator would reject the notion of control and domination: ‘gods’ are tools of domination and control, interested in very specific outcomes and carrying very specific intentions, none of which are the *evolution* of the Beings and systems involved. 

OK, from here on I’ll ignore that possibility and discuss Sui Generis as a legitimate (and appealing) possibility in itself. So, let’s say that it’s right. Then there are a whole lot of other things that you say that don’t seem to follow from it, even though they could. For example, you seem to suggest that anarchism follows from Sui Generis, but equally possible is that, using their own personal (Sui Generis) authority, “the people” decide that government is the most practical way to organise society – I might even suggest that this is what we *have* done. This is why I was interested in your outline of how a Sui Generis-based (anarchist) society would function pragmatically, because assessing pragmatic results is one of the ways in which people (including myself) would decide whether or not we think that we should adopt it (i.e. disband our government). I have thought a *little* about anarchism versus government-based democracy, I’ve discussed it with a thoughtful friend, and I’ve seen a few written discussions/debates on the issue, and, to be honest, the arguments in favour of government-based democracy seem stronger to me.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty of room to improve our current democracies, but dispensing with government altogether seems to me to be a little foolhardy, particularly whilst there are so many damaged people getting around.

S: In case you haven’t noticed, the ‘damaged individuals’ are most frequently the ones IN government: those who are more than capable of coming up with far more Interesting and Intelligent systems are being kept out of the Sphere of Global Influence by some very powerful mechanisms. I’m not interested in *change*, I’m interested in transformation, which are two profoundly different elements. Change is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic into a more pleasing configuration, transformation is getting off the Titanic completely, letting it sink and doing something utterly different like learning to translocate. (And for those that like to find a word and go into a frenzy of denialism, I’m not here suggesting that the *only* solutions we’re going to create new solutions is developing superpowers, I’m just using that as an example of what ‘change’ *isn’t*.)

I am utterly interested in *what works* to evolve the global consciousness and dissolve Empire. Governments and their various offshoots of domination don’t work to achieve the evolution of global social consciousness and have repeatedly demonstrated that they’re used as active mechanisms of suppression and control of that evolutionary signal. Why, if I’m interested in evolution, would I support dinosaurs in the forms of institutionalised models such as governments? Why, if I’m interested in sui generis, would I be interested in forms of heteronomy, regardless of such labels as ‘democratic’?

Perhaps, though, you can point me to strong arguments and/or a model that would change my mind? I’ve looked a little into Stefan Molyneux’s anarcho-capitalist model of Dispute Resolution Organisations (DROs), and I don’t find it to be at all plausible. Is there anything more convincing on the scene?

S: You are asking the wrong individual these questions: I found the Sui Generis because I observed that *little to nothing* was sound in the systems around me. I have no interest in ‘from within the box’ solutions: what good are solutions that stay contained within the parameters that have been set previously? I’m not interested in *any* ‘solution’ that isn’t a solution at all.

You were interested in what I would challenge in one of your comments on your Facebook page, so I’ll go ahead and mount the challenges. I’ll ignore the more minor challenges and focus on the main ones.

You write that “disagreement is predicated upon the foundational idea of domination/superiority”, but I’m not so sure that this is right. Sometimes, people just want different things. Maybe a concrete example will help: let’s say that there is one weekend free in the local stadium’s annual schedule, and some (Sui Generis) people want the stadium to host a sporting event on that weekend, but others (also Sui Generis folk) want it to host a festival. Isn’t this an example of a disagreement *not* predicated on domination/superiority, just different people with different wants? And doesn’t this disagreement need to be solved in some way? How would it be solved in a Sui Generis society?

S: Your example is flawed: you equate ‘disagreement’ with ‘wanting different things’. I can entirely want something different from what you want, I don’t have to get into a *disagreement* with you about it- we want different things, this is what’s so: everything AFTER that unfolds based on the embedded ideologies of the individuals concerned. If neither of us has a problem with the other wanting something different, then what arises will be a co-creative solution to the issue, one that contains within it the acceptance that *want* does not equate with NEED, does not equate with ‘right to have one’s own way’, does not equate to ‘moral (or any other kind of) superiority’. If, then, there is no fundamental concept of ‘I want=you have to give me’, then things can unfold in any number of creatively solutioned ways.

(As an aside, the paradigm of domination and control is the killer of creative solution, which is why open source anything comes up with way more interesting ideas than, say, Microsoft does- and it’s also why the commercial system is so constantly stealing the creations of the non-limited thinkers. That’s a different conversation from this one though. )

*Disagreements* arise when one individual or group decides that another individual or group *doesn’t have the rights, privileges or advantages* that the first group gives themselves. If, in your example, the sports group decides they have more ‘right’ to the resources than the second, then the sports group has just moved from Sui Generis to heteronomy, in which case the second group has a stronger base of engagement: does the sports group *really* wish to divest itself of the myriads of advantages that Sui Generis gifts them? Any individual or group who wishes to behave towards others in a heteronomous fashion demonstrate that they’re not interested in ANY of the tenets that Sui Generis embodies- autonomy, freedom from domination and control, freedom of evolution and exploration, to name a few- and this has serious ramifications for the individuals making the decision to engage in heteronomy.

You also write: “Agreements are fine; contracts are not. Agreements are living, healthy systems when they have the element of ‘withdrawal of consent’ built into them, for whatever reason: if I suddenly get uncomfortable and withdraw without giving another an explanation, upon what basis is the idea that they DESERVE an explanation from me?”. Firstly, I’m not sure of the distinction you make between agreements and contracts – aren’t contracts simply a type of agreement, albeit a more formal type?

S: Simply put, no, they are not. I’ve written a substantial essay on the difference between the two and comprehending the nature of contracts is part of the getting clear of heteronomy. Essentially, *agreements*, as I said, contain the awareness of the shifting nature of Life within them, they are not set in stone; contracts, on the other hand, are absolutely written in stone and are designed to be enforced, which requires enforcers, which sets up the new platforms of the next Empire.  http://songsfortheotherkind.com/blog/external-authorities-contracts-and-the-illusion-of-transformation/

In any case, I don’t understand your objection to contracts, nor why you object to contracts that stipulate non-rescindable performance items. If a person wants to accomplish a large goal that requires many people working together in an interdependent way, and s/he has the financial resources to hire people to help achieve his/her goal, then isn’t it very reasonable for that person to ask each of those people to commit very strictly to their part in the project, given that with all of the interdependencies, if one person fails to do what they were contracted to do, the project might fail, or at least that many other people in the project who were relying on that person would be very inconvenienced? Isn’t a contract a reasonable way to ensure this commitment?

S: You are thinking in terms of a whole heap of embedded heteronomies that I don’t function in. You might want to read through my other essays before engaging me on these subjects because I’ve written about all this before. ‘Financial resources’= Economy=Empire. I’m not into Economy, Economics and Markets, all of which are tools of domination and control. You might like to read this article for further thought  http://www.unterstein.net/su/docs/CathBaz.pdf

Essentially, you’re operating in this example from the paradigm that says *autonomous individuals will not operate intelligently unless forced to do so*. Contracts are a threat of consequence if a specific demand for performance is not adhered to: these threats have no place in a sui generis community because there’s no commerce, there’s no ‘economy’, there’s no coercion, no domination of any kind. Your examples are moot in the paradigm I’m describing.

You write: “If that individual decides my behaviour is unacceptable to them, they’re totally within their right to decide not to interact with me in the future: what they’re NOT within any right to do is to then tell others their opinion about me, make an analysis of my character based on those opinions and put them forth as fact”. Why should someone be prevented from letting others know that I have failed to honour my agreement? Isn’t this socially useful information? As for analysing my character – sure, that might be going a little far in some cases, but what if that person has had extensive experience with me, and has found that I regularly dishonour my agreements, with any and all people – don’t they have reliable information about my character, which it is in the interests of those who interact with me to know?

S: Again, you are blurring things that are *distinctly different*. Firstly, every circumstance is different -sui generis- and the circumstances I engaged with you in might be vastly different from the ones I’m engaging another individual in. On what basis would you then have any comparison? The *only* thing you could ever talk about is your own experience with me based purely on the experience, not any subjective interpretations of those events: “this is what happened” not, “this is what happened and here’s my subjective analysis of that individual’s inner workings, despite my knowing precisely zip about that individual as a Being and my not being them, which makes these comments nothing but a reflection of my *own* inner processings”. Mmm, very different patterns, these.

You say “why should someone be prevented from letting others know I have failed to honour my agreement?” Why is that someone telling others? Have others specifically asked that question or are they simply broadcasting their experience? Again, there’s a difference between a factual telling- “They didn’t fulfill the agreement”- and adding a pile of subjective interpretation into that. Subjective interpretation is the key- when individuals start adding their ‘take’ on the situation they’re asserting that they’re some kind of *peer* of the other individual and thus ‘qualified’ to analyse and proclaim *as some kind of truth* their opinions. Opinions are not *facts*.

If something happens between mySelf and another individual, then it’s up to me to go to them and attempt to sort something out; if that doesn’t work, then I just let it go and get on with my life *unless they’re harming me*, in which case entirely different principles come into play. It’s difficult for individuals raised in a commercial world to imagine how a *non-commercial* way of Being with one another is, because it’s a different world.