This was written by me this morning in response to an individual who was trying to point spiritual heteronomy at me. The quotes are from their post.
“I am just asking where do you get your “conclusions” to prove that you are right?”
I have been discussing a way of being called sui generis, which is embedded-very tightly constricted, but there nonetheless- in ‘the law'; what I have done is examined this principle in view of the nature of the cosmos, the world around us and within each individual and found this principle reflected constantly in the multiversal fractal. I have carefully compared this principle, embodied its nature and extrapolated the principle out into its fractal fullness- this is the sui generis that *I* speak of, the sui generis the law has had to embrace but tried to control by limiting its application to copyright and commercial settings. Sui generis, however, goes far, far beyond the fictional limitations that have been placed upon it by fictional ‘persons’ and corporate interests.
Sui generis- the principle that *all creation is unique* demonstrates itself continuously in daily life: no two individuals are identical, not even biologically: twins come from the same egg and sperm but are not clones of each other- clones require a deviation from the living Signal- and a massive techno-industrial system- in order to be produced. This is not Life, it is imitation of life- which is exactly what the system around us is, a pale, distorted representation of how Life behaves, moves energy, creates and organises its Self. The principle of sui generis constantly demonstrates its reality: no two snowflakes are the same, no two galaxies, no two lifeforms, no two *anything* are identical- everything we look at, if we look at it with eyes that are open to the signals of Life, evolution, the way the Consciousness expresses its Self, we observe the absolute demonstration of the principle of all Creation being unique, without peer, one of a kind. The *control paradigm* we are currently in will try to tell us differently, but our intuitions and observations allow us to see what is actually there- and what is there is the principle of sui generis.
I do not need some kind of external ‘authority’ to inform me of what I already intrinsically, intuitively and experientially know: I already know that I Am a unique expression of an overall Consciousness that is both a unique and peerless Being- not in a *humancentric* sense, because ‘human’ is a category and it is *not* the only expression of Being in the multiverse: to me it’s part of the heteronomy that suggests the Creatormind is fundamentally ‘human’ because ‘human’ is mammalian and has a distinctively warm blooded physiological approach to the universe- at least at this point in time while the possibilities are heavily restricted. It is observable to me that most who identify as ‘human’ can’t see the restrictions in their perspectives based on their *biology* and how this causes them to view the multiverse in very specific ways. This is one of the reasons ‘humans’ have very little empathy towards other expressions of sentience and are often at their most dangerous when they are confronted by anything ‘different’, including in such minor ways as different skin colouring and physical appearance to their own.
Embracing the universal/multiversal, observable, demonstrable foundation of sui generis undoes *all* these biases without any need for dogma, creed, belief, religion, ‘gods’, authorities, force, indoctrination or use of the familiar tools of heteronomy: we simply embrace an underlying principle that moves throughout the entire of Creation, because it is the only way that free will *can actually function* and we create our Selves, our communities, our societies, our ways of Being, our connections to the many eco-systems we are a part of and our singular experience of Consciousness from this foundational frequency. It’s not difficult to move into unless an individual is still deeply embedded in the fictions of the heteronomy, including the need *for* a heteronomy itself.
This is why I need no external ‘authority’ to ‘prove’ my observations: I Am my own authority because I Am an embodied expression of the evolution signal itself. Do you suggest that I Am *not* that? Any such suggestion is nothing more than heteronomy, which I do not give any energy to, so I would not be affected by your subjective opinion, which is all heteronomy actually is at the core: subjective opinion forced onto others by the use of escalating degrees of domination and control.
Your perspectives towards me in your writing are both judgemental and dogmatic, despite your assertions to the contrary, and this is one of the demonstrations of the logic fallacies that heteronomy has to use in order to keep looping around its own core dissonance, the core dissonance being that heteronomy *works*. I would be more inclined to keep writing on this subject to you if I felt that you had actually considered what it is that I’m writing about, rather than looking at it through your own subjective lens, taking bits and pieces that you can use to turn back to your own belief systems while ignoring the essential elements of what it is that I’m actually talking about. I have clarified a number of times what sui generis and do no harm is about, including a long reply to doone that specifically explored the do no harm element of the platform: you have again returned to judgemental and dismissive language in your response to me.
“I submit to an “anarcho-capitalist” view of dealing with society and “individuals” like you.”
“Individuals like me”- what kind of an individual have you subjectively judged/formed an opinion that I am? How has your forming this opinion influenced both your view of me, your assumptions about me and your decision as to how you will engage with me? Apparently in part it’s allowed you to make assumptions about me that you actually have no real information on because you a) don’t actually read what I’m writing about enough to b) investigate the terms and perspectives I’m discussing so that you can c) ask me relevant and explorative questions if necessary so that we can communicate from a clear platform. This, to my observation, is how much of the world’s conflicts arise- assumptions based on subjective opinion, interpretations and judgements based on the conclusions of those subjective opinions and behaviour arising from these conclusions: all based on fiction.
“But all religion is not “dogma“. I have tried to make a distinction between fanatical dogmas such as manmade religions and spirituality“.
Here is a dictionary definition of ‘dogma':
1. A doctrine or corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith set out in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.
3. A principle or a belief or a group of them.
The term ‘church’ is not exclusively christian but is sometimes used to denote any place of worship, group of individuals belonging to that faith or body of beliefs that constitute the foundations of a religion.
You have identified yourself as relying on the Vedas as your source of information and authority; the Vedas are identified as the spiritual texts- the body of doctrines- of the Hindu religion. This religion is built on record that has one claim of being “not of human agency” but directly from Brahma- there is no ‘proof’ that can be offered of this claim and the claim requires that the individual simply believes the claim. There is a second body of record of authoritative statements from various individuals such as those identified as ‘sages’, ‘saints’, ‘spiritually enlightened masters’ etc, although again the substantiation of this ‘sainthood’ etc by an external authority- and a willingness on the part of an individual to submit or subjugate themselves to this authority- is a part of this element.
All of this: these doctrines, authoritative principles and beliefs from an ‘external authourity’, absolutely qualify as ‘dogma’, which in turn is part of the definition of heteronomy- the domination and control of others by an individual or group of individuals for whatever reason. If you care to investigate this for yourself, you will discover that ‘spiritual heteronomy’ is a recognised element of heteronomy as a whole. Your use of external ‘authorities’ to ‘prove’ your statements aligns with the definition of heteronomy and demonstrates that you as an individual are comfortable with it, as is your sui generis right: where this begins to fall down is that you take your personal beliefs and claim these to be ‘absolute truths’ because someone else said they are and you believe them.
Here is the crux of this: YOU are free to believe whatever you like. In *your subjective experience of the multiverse* your experience *is* true for you: this does NOT mean that this experience will be true for ANY OTHER BEING, it just means that it is true for you. You are utterly free to immerse in your experience, to express this in an “I” way rather than a universal way because some Beings will be exploring a multiverse that looks and behaves *nothing* like yours. This happens all the time on this planet and what ultimately happens? They go to war because they cannot stand the concept that the multiverse is ok with seemingly conflicting ways of Being. The infinitely possible nature of the quantum fields demonstrates that the underlying foundations of Creation have no problem with dichotomies and apparent conflicts of ‘realities’- the quantum field is cool with it all because at the core of it it’s *all the same thing*- we are unique elements of Consciousness exploring possibilities. I’m not making this up, this is foundational quantum physics stuff: the multiverse hangs about in a cloud of possibility and responds to *choice*, intention, purpose- it’s playdough for Creators. I don’t need external ‘authority’ to prove this, I just look at what’s going on around me and the multiverse constantly demonstrates that it’s a pretty interesting and unlimited space.
(I don’t get into the heteronomy’s view of the predator/prey, ‘the heart of all Beings is inclined to evil’ perspective so I’m not even going to bother to go into that- I don’t experience Life/ the multiverse being in a constant state of war with itself, I observe/experience that as being a human thing.)
“This entire website is for everyone to get out of the matrix. So why not bring the spiritual side into also?”
My whole way of Being is spiritual: the sui generis/do no harm is, for me, the ultimate expression of spirituality in its purest form: what could be more exquisite than being able to absolutely Be and to support the space for all other Beings to experience the same, free of any Empire, heteronomy, dogmas or external authorities? I started talking about the sui generis precisely because I too want individuals to get out of the matrix- the WHOLE matrix- the heteronomy in all its expressions. That’s why I speak the sui generis- it requires no other authority than the individual’s own intuitions, observations and experiences. I am absolutely disinterested in *any platform that can be used to recreate Empire*- and Empire requires, at its foundational level, a *willingness to give away one’s own authority and unique Self*.
“ I base my authority not on blind dogma, but sages that have gone have the same questions for thousands of years. I am asking you what is your basis for your conclusions? ”
I have demonstrated my answer to this as well as my perspective on dogma and sages being part of the same thing- external authority–> heteronomy. You now have some of the foundational basis for my conclusions, as well as further clarification of specific terms.
“Again, I appreciate your views, but please understand/overstand the difference between dogma and spirituality. Otherwise, go on, respecting each other’s viewpoints.”
I am very aware- more than you, it appears- regarding the difference between dogma and spirituality: contrary to your erroneous conclusion I observe and experience the sui generis to be a deeply spiritual expression of creation and Consciousness. The last sentence is really interesting as I don’t experience needing your permission to do anything at all.
I welcome further discussion with you when you are able to actually discuss what it is that *I* am discussing, without filtering it through your own dogmas: the sui generis is a very specific, heteronomy free platform that has its own language and way of Being. Part of the beauty of it is that it cannot be co-opted into the purpose and intention of the heteronomy, which is where its power begins to be demonstrated: when individuals begin to walk free of heteronomy, the heteronomy in all its expressions simply loses its power and reveals the little man on the bicycle behind the curtain, furiously peddling away to keep the illusion of the Great Green Head of Oz going.
The sui generis brings a completely new paradigm with it, in which heteronomy has no place at all.