Sui Generis and the evolution of consciousness.

Musings on the sui generis platform as I express it and the evolution of consciousness:

I am familiar with the misconceptions regarding the word ‘evolution’ and how individuals of various philosophical, religious and political persuasions have liked to distort and misuse the concept. The quantum universe demonstrates that it does, indeed, evolve and that this evolution is an absolutely necessary element of the continuation of the multiverse. Evolution is not ‘the fiction that creates tyranny’- *heteronomy*, the belief that for whatever reason- including ‘spiritual’- one individual or group of individuals can dominate and control, repress, restrict and limit another individual or group of individuals, is the foundational platform that creates tyranny.

Heteronomy restricts the expression of the individual Being- verbal or non-verbal sentience of all flavours and expressions- which is why I am not humancentric in my approach to the living world and the cosmic eco-system around me: heteronomy serves to repress experimentation, exploration, co-creation and interaction with possibility by strangling down ‘how things are’ to that which is already known. Copernicus learned that one, as did Galileo and any other individual that observed the natural phenomenon’s disagreement with the earth-as-centre-of-the-universe dogma of the ‘guardians of the gate’, the religionists. In ┬áheteronomy *everything* is religion, because heteronomy requires a fixation of ‘faith’ and dogma in order for it to be implemented; individuals must be psychologically/emotionally attached to the ideas that they are promoting in order for the logical fallacies embedded in heteronomy to be ignored. There *has to* be an element of attachment to the identity of the individual in order for the mind virus that is heteronomy to work: anything that becomes a part of this source of identity is, essentially, a religion to that individual and has exactly the same effect. The religious arm of heteronomy does exactly the same repressing and restricting of thought, expression, observation, experimentation, exploration and questioning that every other arm of the heteronomy achieves: to me, there are not many heads of the hydra, there’s just one- heteronomy.

I have no interest at all in a multiverse dominated by restriction, prohibition and a base platform of belief that says sentient Beings cannot form intelligent, evolving, engaged and connected ways of Being without having some kind of Overlord controlling everything they do. I do not for one nanosecond entertain the notion that the Intelligence of the multiverse was- and is- incapable of evolving because it already ‘knew it all’- quantum physics points constantly to the fractally embedded nature of *free will* within the base framework of the structure that underlies the entire multiverse. Free will is impossible within an atmosphere of control and the kind of ‘ownership’ that is maintained by the concept of some creator god/king that sees its creations as its *property*- free will and sui generis are intertwined. No Being that is under the domination and control of another, for whatever reason that domination and control is being exercised, has free will; following the example of ‘as above, so below’, in such an environment heteronomy and its toxic, deathly fruit will continue to arise because the entire behavioural platform in that model is seeded with the virus of heteronomy.

One cannot *act* with domination and control to *remedy* domination and control: one cannot suggest that a ‘little bit’ of heteronomy ‘just to get the parameters clear’ isn’t creating Empire again because it absolutely is. I have no issue with individuals who wish to experiment with the experience of engaging with a heteronomous god, to experiment with the experience of domination and control *for themselves*: where my own sui generis maintains my boundaries is that no individual may extend their internal experience out to *me*, to insist that I must obey their idea of the multiverse. I *am* sui generis, there is no question of this domination and control being extended towards me because I Am the evolution signal expressing its signal at this time: I Am the ‘proof’ that it’s here because this is the signal that I carry. I’m not interested in domination by consensus, domination by force, domination by threat, by persuasion, by fiction or by any other means; I’m not interested in domination and control for any reason whatsoever.

I do not follow the fiction that intelligent, connected Beings cannot create exquisite, fractally cohesive and resonant platforms with their own unique perspectives; I Am the ‘proof’ that this is not so because I talk about the sui generis platform and how it creates a shift in the entire multiverse, micro to macro. I’m not interested in the heteronomy and its fear based systems- I’m not afraid of evolving.

~*~

 

5 Comments

  1. Songs Moon November 24, 2013 6:01 pm  Reply

    Woah! Yum! That’s what I’m talking about indeed! :D

  2. Cheryl-ann March 24, 2014 7:18 am  Reply

    Thanks Jim – Have been on my alone island for a long time – So heartful to know others have my opinion. xxx

  3. Mark April 28, 2014 12:25 am  Reply

    Great thoughts. It reads a bit like a Doc Bronner’s soap bottle, though. Try to be more systematic in your writing.

    That said, I understand your frustration with the concept of a heteronomous God imposing his will on the observable world. Although, I’m curious how you made the leap to “the multi-verse.” Aside for Brian Greene, et al’s hypothesizing, It’s not exactly good science and doesn’t seem to be affected by your argument.

    What I want to know is whether your sui generis soul is a non-physical entity (like God) that exerts heteronomous control over your own body. In other words, is the relationship of your soul and your body akin to the hypothetical relationship of God and the universe?

    If so, is it possible for one’s individual autonomy to coexist in apparent but not actual antinomy with with the autonomy of GOD.

    • Songs Moon May 13, 2014 2:18 pm  Reply

      Hello Mark.

      You asked about the sui generis soul in relationship to the body. The way I observe the framing of that question is the same way that essentially every individual who thinks of their Self as an *single personality* expresses it- two states, body and ‘soul’. I don’t experience that at all and I never have. I also experience my body as having its own consciousness and intelligence so I don’t ‘rule’ it like a god- it is/is not Me but then, at the heart of it, so is everything. The concept of ‘soul’ then becomes a great deal more complicated than most individuals like it to be: add into the mix the experience of being ‘many’ and yet ‘one’ and it really isn’t as simple, at least for me, as you’ve framed the question.

      “the autonomy of god”- like all gods, without worshippers gods are just Beings doing whatever they’re doing so I don’t really see how such a dependent individual- a ‘god’- is autonomous. A ‘god’ that proclaims itself as such is practicing heteronomy; a ‘god’ that is proclaimed as such has a choice to practice heteronomy or not. ‘god’ is a job description or label, it means nothing unless there are others to support, uphold or reject the claim. Yurtle the Turtle tried that one and it didn’t go well. All ‘rulers’ are only such by the support of individuals; if all individuals are more occupied with their *own* lives and power then the ‘god’ has the choice to just a) mind their own sui generis and get on with doing whatever they’re doing that involves zero heteronomy or b) cause a fuss in some way or another, all of which involve heteronomy. Co-existence is one of the tenets of sui generis; ‘gods’ can’t co-exist, their egos won’t allow it. True Creators, on the other hand, don’t give two figs for the opinions- or worship- of others: they’re too busy expressing, exploring, creating and looking for fun individuals to hang out with.

      I experience a multiverse full of Creators; I don’t experience gods, nor do I need to. Other individuals may wish to experiment with such constructs and they’re free to *providing* they don’t force that construct onto any other individual; that’s part of what sui generis is about.

      As for your opinion regarding my use of the term ‘multiverse’, I have a different life experience to others which informs me of the existence of a multiverse. I don’t need the tick of approval from anyone, particularly a bunch of individuals who can’t seem to make up their minds about anything much, least of all the things that they can’t envision. I actually don’t read much of other individual’s work so I don’t know who Brian Greene is or his particular perspective: I speak from my *own sui generis experience and perspective*, not the platforms of others. :)

Leave a reply to Mark Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *