songsfortheotherkind.com

21st of June 2012.

Then if you are amenable, I'd like to begin by exploring my perspective of why I experience this conflict as part of the mind virus.

When one holds a baby in one's arms, it is clear that there is no conflict within their body. As they grow, it's clear that they are *in* their body until they are frightened or trained out of it somehow. How does this happen? By the external influence of those around them. Conflict has as its roots a fundamental condition of opposition between two sttates- like magnets pushing against each other. This is not the natural state of a child. This has been demonstrated by the observation of children raised in native cultures that have a laid back approach to their children and their life; the more heavily invested in any particular paradigm- in native cultures, this tends towards heavy handed taboo/religious systems, external systems designed to create a specific kind of behaviour and thinking within the individual in such a way as to restrict, modulate, constrict in some way the individual's natural, free flowing state of Being.

As someone who both experienced this constriction and had a hacker's mind about it, I spent a lot of years plunged into the mind of the constriction and external authority, free falling through the space constantly on fire but with an unwavering eye on finding who or what was f*cking with me. I came to see the overmind directing these various systems of thinking that are fundamentally aimed at control and domination; always with the same agenda, to direct the natural, powerful energy of the individual towards some other place. This redirection was *never* a positive thing for the individual and resulted in a continual loss of autonomy and energy. This system is worldwide- it looks different in different places, sure, and sometimes it's hard to spot because it can be wearing the most benign face and make the most peaceful gestures, but the same purpose and intention is there- to divert the natural autonomy and individual's power to an external source. I have seen it so thoroughly now that I don't question its presence anymore- to my experience, it's a worldwide system that has at its core a system of energy and focus that very much has it's own purpose and intention. This is what I call the virus- because I understand the behaviours of viruses and parasites, I went investigating a raft of concepts to help me explore this mind system I was observing. What I observed fulfilled the description of both virus and parasite:

vi·rus  [vahy-ruhs]

noun, plural vi·rus·es.
1. an ultramicroscopic (20 to 300 nm in diameter), metabolically inert, infectious agent that replicates only within the cells of living hosts, mainly bacteria, plants, and animals: composed of an RNA or DNA core, a protein coat, and, in more complex types, a surrounding envelope.
2.Informal . a viral disease.
3. a corrupting influence on morals or the intellect; poison.
4.a segment of self-replicating code planted illegally in a computer program, often to damage or shut down a system or network

virus (vī'rəs)

Any of various extremely small, often disease-causing agents consisting of a particle (the virion ), containing a segment of RNA or DNA within a protein coat known as a capsid . Viruses are not technically considered living organisms because they are devoid of biological processes (such as metabolism and respiration) and cannot reproduce on their own but require a living cell (of a plant, animal, or bacterium) to make more viruses. Viruses reproduce first either by injecting their genetic material into the host cell or by fully entering the cell and shedding their protein coat. The genetic material may then be incorporated into the cell's own genome or remain in the cytoplasm. Eventually the viral genes instruct the cell to produce new viruses, which often cause the cell to die upon their exit. Rather than being primordial forms of life, viruses probably evolved from rogue pieces of cellular nucleic acids. The common cold, influenza, chickenpox, smallpox, measles, mumps, yellow fever, hemorrhagic fevers, and some cancers are among the diseases caused by viruses.

Computer Science A computer program that duplicates itself in a manner that is harmful to normal computer use. Most viruses work by attaching themselves to another program. The amount of damage varies; viruses may erase all data or do nothing but reproduce themselves.

par·a·site
 
[par-uh-sahyt]
noun
1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2.a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.
Origin:
1530–40; < Latin parasītus < Greek parásītos one who eats at another's table, orig. adj.: feeding beside, equivalent to para- para-1 + sît ( os ) grain, food + -os adj. suffix

parasite par·a·site (pār'ə-sīt')
n.

An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

In conjoined twins, the usually incomplete twin that derives its support from the more nearly normal fetus.

parasite (pār'ə-sīt') Pronunciation Key
An organism that lives on or in a different kind of organism (the host) from which it gets some or all of its nourishment. Parasites are generally harmful to their hosts, although the damage they do ranges widely from minor inconvenience to debilitating or fatal disease. ◇ A parasite that lives or feeds on the outer surface of the host's body, such as a louse, tick, or leech, is called an ectoparasite . Ectoparasites do not usually cause disease themselves although they are frequently a vector of disease, as in the case of ticks, which can transmit the organisms that cause such diseases as Rocky Mountain spotted fever and Lyme disease. ◇ A parasite that lives inside the body of its host is called an endoparasite . Endoparasites include organisms such as tapeworms, hookworms, and trypanosomes that live within the host's organs or tissues, as well as organisms such as sporozoans that invade the host's cells. See more at host.

host (hōst)

The larger of two organisms in a symbiotic relationship.

An organism or cell on or in which a parasite lives or feeds. ◇ A definitive host is an organism in which a parasite reaches sexual maturity. The anopheles mosquito is the definitive host for the malaria plasmodium because, while the mosquito is not adversely affected by the plasmodium's presence, it is the organism in which the plasmodium matures and reproduces. ◇ An intermediate host is an organism in which a parasite develops but does not attain sexual maturity. Humans and certain other vertebrates are the intermediate host of the malaria plasmodium. ◇ A paratenic host is an organism which may be required for the completion of a parasite's life cycle but in which no development of the parasite occurs. The unhatched eggs of nematodes are sometimes carried in a paratenic host such as a bird or rodent. When a predator eats the paratenic host, the eggs are ingested as well.

The recipient of a transplanted tissue or organ.

A computer containing data or programs that another computer can access by means of a network or modem.

From where I was hanging, out in the otherrealms, what I was observing was a vast, parasitic virus system, a powerful fusing of the elements of biological and computer analogies, that was designed to specifically interact and interfere with the sentient species on this planet. This clicked into place a language with which I could communicate concepts and experiences I had had since birth but had only had an energetic and telepathic language with which to communicate my experience- and I was in a world populated by telepathic deafness. It took the evolution of the computer world and language to truly find metaphors that could be understood.

There is an external system of control and manipulation that inserts itself, to a greater or lesser degree, through the instruction and transmission by the child's *outer world of caregivers*, into the child. The foundational purpose and intention of the virus- which is *sentient* to a degree in and of itself- is to replace the natural autonomy of the frequency of the evolution Consciousness that the child naturally carries with an external system of harvesting energy, which I have named the heteronomy- that which seeks to control and dominate the individual to the ultimate detriment of the individual. The virus has *it's own* agenda and intention, NONE of which are about the wellbeing of the host: how can it be, when the virus itself NEEDS the energy of the host in order to survive? This is the endoparasitic element of the virus, with sentient Beings as the target, for the specific purpose of diverting the enormous CREATIVE power of the fully expressed autonomy to it's OWN survival and dissemination.

Now, go back to the conflict that you first mentioned and look at it from my perspective: to me, the constriction of your natural ability is unnatural to your Being in itself, not part of the evolution Consciousness signal as you naturally would express it and therefore, *to me*, part of the expression and intention of the virus.

I am *not* here saying that the emergence of the virus is some kind of expression of 'evil' or any of the other concepts that religion is interested in pimping, that state of rigid duality, black and white: *to me*, the emergence of the entire system that created the virus in the first place is all ultimately part of the evolution signal its Self, because the evolution will *always* occur, regardless of how hard any individual or group is striving to prevent it: there's nothing going on here that 'shouldn't' be happening and at the same time, that doesn't mean that it's the *best option* either. Just as with all parasites and viruses, we have choices: we can create a symbiotic balance with it, in which we're never really well but aren't sick enough to stop being a host- religion, philosophy, government etc are ways that this sickening and draining symbiosis happens; we can be overwhelmed by the virus parasite and die, either spiritually or physically (and the former leads inevitably to the latter) OR we can use our spiritual/energetic immune system, get to know the symptoms of a virus incursion, pump our spiritual immune system to the max and dismiss the virus without nothing more than a mild temperature and a few cleansing glasses of superjuices. All viruses and parasites serve the evolution signal in that they challenge the immune and adaptive systems of the host with a view to either making these stronger, or discovering the weakness of the Being and exploiting it. So far, the collective has been trading autonomy for exploitation because of the perceived benefits of such exploitation, which in essence are nothing more than chemical tricks caused by the parasite itself, like toxoplasmosis chemically convincing the rat that the cat is the sexiest thing it's ever seen so that it will go and get eaten by the cat: all part of the parasite's plan and purpose, but not so great for the rat. Perhaps a more critical eye at the Great Green Head is in order, because at the foundation is a bunch of chemical and psychological contortions with a specific purpose and intention that is NOT positive to the host.

This is a glimpse into this world as seen by my mind. ANY preacher, no matter how cosily they are preaching, no matter how 'friendly' and 'helpful' the 'adjustment' they are attempting to assert might seem to be, no matter how 'spiritual' or 'enlightened' they may present themselves to be, ALL preachers are preaching nothing but the heteronomy: religion, philosophy, psychology, education, government: all are designed to force or entice the individual into giving away the thing of TRUE value, the creative power within them that is expressed in part as the individual's autonomy. That's what I look at, constantly: everything I experience is filtered through the overarching theme of 'is this something designed to siphon off my autonomy?'. I hold the lens of autonomy up to everything, like the stone in Spiderwick Chronicles: I got used to everything of the system looking like hideous toads underneath all the contortions and self serving and smiling manipulation disguised as 'helpfulness' or 'caring' or 'authority' or any of the myriads of other tactics the virus uses. For me personally, the bottom line is simple: if applied to its greatest expression, is this idea/concept/philosophy/platform just another fertile ground for the re-emergence of the heteronomy? Unless the expression is founded absolute in autonomy then the answer has always come back to me as 'yes', in which case everything halts there, my dragons at the gate, and the infected material cannot pass, no matter how precioussssssssssss it is to the host or how elaborate a rationalisation can be made for it.

Virus infected concepts only have two paths: in one, there are elements of the concept that can be resuscitated from the grip of the poison, detoxed, left to recover in a sunny spot in a comfy chair for awhile and then reintroduced to the signal; in the other, there's nothing but immune system response and natural dissolution, death and release of the energy back into the All to be recycled back as a less closed system form. There's no such thing as 'it's only a little bit infected'- try telling that to the Native Americans who died from blankets that were 'a little bit' infected by smallpox. As physical Beings who encounter viruses and parasites, we fundamentally grasp the nature of these things and we get that there's no such thing as healthy co-existence with a debilitating and draining parasite.

That's where I come from. I'm not here to make the lie more palatable, I'm here to call things what they are and reject the complex entangling- spiritual, physical, legal, psychological and energetic- that the virus creates. It's the system that has created the miasms and matrix we currently find our Selves in and for me personally, I've got waaaaaay better things to do, to create and to Be.

Now you know a bit more about how many pieces I hold in my head at one time regarding this issue: what I've written about are just a few of these elements, so when it's being discussed perhaps now my 'fnurgh, clunk' element can be seen as possibly something OTHER than others thinking I'm arrogant. *wolfish grin at you*

_________________
Evolution cannot be faked: agility of mind and Being demonstrates itself in every moment. Discarding dead Art in favour of what works indicates an individual's fluid mind. Rhetoric has no place within evolution. Let the dead bury the dead.

20th June.

This isn't me being snarky at all, it's me attempting to be clear about the particular subject. Autonomy is ridiculously easy to lose when certain language is used and I am endeavouring to point out the buried heteronomy in particular language. I am not an expert at it by any means- I live in a particular kind of mindspace and am fully aware that I can also inadvertently fall into a subtle element of it my Self, which is why I use triangulation, the multiple perspective. There is buried heteronomy in the language you used in the comment. I recognise that my comments regarding hijacking could be taken as snarky *and* my comments still stand: I have observed many threads that open up a discussion about unrelated topics be swallowed up by philosophical entanglement and convolution; frequently the 'silent/ no mind' platform is the vehicle used to achieve this.

I have experienced the stilling of the mind, in various ways. *MY* experience of it is different. Is this possible to accept? Is it possible that 'stilling of the mind' is a very very different experience to different Beings? And if *this* is so, is it therefore possible that saying 'this is the way it is' or 'this is what it looks like' in a *globalising* fashion is actually an expression of heteronomy? Even if it IS unintended? Are these things possible? Because that is what I am actually exploring here, the blind spot that has been cultivated socially to how subtle yet powerful heteronomy is exercised towards one another on a *daily basis*.

I say again, it's NOT personal. It's the heteronomy I am looking at, not the individual. I have no interest in saying 'you are a twit for thinking that' because I rarely think it those terms and an individual would have to really bring it right to my door for me to even move into that space with them. I'm a social hacker, married to a brilliant geek, in a family of various kinds of hackers- with hackers, the focus is on the particular bug, not the computer; in my realm, this means I'm focused on the issue, not the individual- if I was focused on the individual I'd be running hetereonomy.

Then it is something *other* than silence, so as a linguist I'm asking "what are you actually talking about here? Because from MY perspective you are speaking about an altered state of CONSCIOUSNESS, which I experience in all kinds of ways, none of which are silent as *I* know silence to be, in *my* realms. So if you're talking to an *Otherkind* they are going to have a brow furrowed and puzzled response to your expressing things this way."

From this point there are a number of options.

1. Ignore the differences that are being expressed. Continue on with the same explanation and perspective. Assume that those who have a different perspective just don't get what one is talking about and that they just need to hear the explanation repeatedly and they'll get it, or they simply aren't able to have the experience and therefore can be dismissed. This option can also include factoring in various levels of spiritual/intellectual superiority.

2. Consider the possibility that there is lurking heteronomy in the expression. Hold up the ideas to the hologram and ask some interesting questions about the whole subject, including 'does my expression of my perspective hold the idea that others cannot have different experiences and expressions of this subject? Are there more useful ways of describing this particular thing so that it becomes one possible experience in a wide spectrum of experience rather than THE experience?'

Look at the language. Look at the way the language is used. I have had nearly 50 years on this planet and look at the misunderstandings my concepts and expressions create because of the [personal interpretations that are being made about the *way* I'm saying things, yet *I* am striving to communicate as clearly as I can. I am constantly watched from the Otherrealms and many ask me 'why do you keep trying to do this?' because they cannot stand to engage in any way the convoluted language spoken by the dominant paradigm. I don't use my voice in those realms for that very reason. I know the language of those realms and if anyone is interested in the cross realms communication, that's what I speak. If there is no interest in that, then that's fair enough. I'll be totally ok with that. Until I have had it definitively stated to me that it isn't possible then I will continue.

I readily see that it would have been different if I'd written 'I am speaking pre-emptively here, because I have seen this happen before, and I have no wish for this thread to be hijacked in the same way'. I see that my original phrasing can be taken personally although no such intention was there. I do keep reiterating 'it's not *personal*, it's not *personal*, but that doesn't seem to be effective, so I'll explore other ways: to me, the autonomy discussion is far more important than my own situation.

Some of the things I am is a linguist and a social hacker. I have no doubt at all that with the pieces on the table and us holding them up and asking interesting questions, anything can be transformed. Some individuals think I'm an idiot for having this perspective, but I get that.

The compulsion [to 'correct' others] itself is curious. The concern that others might get the wrong idea about the subject is the foundation of external authority- why the concern? What will happen if others HAVE these ideas *you* think are wrong? What happens if their experience is utterly and diametrically different from yours- does this means *theirs* is 'wrong'? Or yours? IS there a 'wrong'? Or is there simply infinitely *different* experiences and the infinite possibility/autonomous paradigm needs a different language to fully express this way of Being?

Can you see what I'm doing? What my focus and intention is? Because I really really don't do this personally. My mind really isn't interested in engaging that way. I want what works in terms of undoing the heteronomy.

_________________
"For every lie I unlearn, I learn something new"- Ani DiFranco

Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go. ~ TS Elliot

22nd June.

What I'm doing on this thread is pointing to something I see, describe it as I see it, ask 'does anyone else want to explore this?' and create my Art. The heteronomy is something that likes to play all those games; I don't. If I experience something as an argument then I simply go and do something else, because my personal experience is that arguing is a boring and useless exercise, with the purpose and intention of persuading another to one's perspective. That's heteronomy in my experience and I'm not interested in its boring, constricting and death dealing tactics: getting caught in that is what appears in part to have kept the paradigm in place.

The issue with what happens that I've observed is that it becomes a situation where once the heteronomy starts it keeps bombing, attempting to derail the discussion with incursions specifically designed to derail the discussion. Whatever. If others want to keep thanking the heteronomy for its useful posts, that's entirely their choice and I'm not going to engage. I am frequently bemused by the suggestion of 'argument', because it leaves me a little puzzled as to what the expected 'proper' response is- tolerate abusers using invasive tactics? Ignore them? (the old stupidity adults spouted at me- 'ignore them and they'll go away'. No, actually, that is utter rubbish; they don't go away, they up their game.) These days, I do what I do regardless, and despite how it might be interpreted via the written word there's no argument going on- how can one argue anything? Blargh. I'm interested in the evolution, not getting trapped in the recursive, like Neo in the subway station. Yeah, right.

_________________
"For every lie I unlearn, I learn something new"- Ani DiFranco

Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go. ~ TS Elliot

22nd June.

(in reply to an individual suggesting that differentiating between autonomy and heteronomy is an 'us vs. them' approach)

Curious. I am struck by the perspective of 'healthy/unhealthy'- if differentiation is undesirable in terms if choosing particular signals, then the act of differentiating between an organic vegetable and a McDonald's burger is essentially an act of the organic being 'on high' and 'looking down' on the McDonalds. This would also extrapolate out to include every single issue that is mentioned in this forum- the 'on high' perspective of wanting chemtrail free skies 'versus' the existence and presence of the chemtrails themselves, as well as the perspective of those who feel they have the 'right' to spray these over the population. Given the perspective that you are demonstrating, I cannot see how one can choose anything at all, because any choice can be seen as the act of putting one's Self 'on high' from all those things that one has *not* chosen.

Ah, so again, we're back to the 'not choosing anything' realm, which isn't one I choose. Then again, I can see that perhaps the issue is the notion that the autonomy group is holding its Self 'on high' from heteronomy: here again, personal interpretation and suggestion hold sway. I speak my observation, singularity experience, perspective and Art regarding something that I have observed holding a curious grip on the collective and individual mind; what others do with my observations is entirely up to them. Someone doesn't like them? That's perfectly fine- I'm expressing, not demanding consensus or homogeny: those are things I've observed as being antithesis to autonomy and I'm not interested in them personally. It doesn't bother me if I'm not anyone's cup of tea- it does puzzle me when said individual comes marching into wherever I am to bang on about how I'm *not* their cup of tea and all the reasons why I'm not and how it would behoove me to do these things here, here an here in order to *become* their approved cup of tea and that they're going to move into my house and follow me around constantly talking at me until I *do* change to meet their standards.

0-o

I'm discussing autonomy in part by contrasting the shadows outside it. It's an artist's tool. There's no malice in it. So where has this idea that there's 'argument' or 'us vs them' come into it? Does this automatically arise when an individual as a boundary? That in itself is interesting, because who or what has issues with individuals having boundaries? Skin is a boundary. Huh. There are also issues with the physical embedded within the heteronomy's mantras. *To me*, it all makes sense and is interconnected at a greater source point. I'm going to keep exploring that and the heteronomy can do what it likes, although I do find it telling that part of what it does is keep invading spaces in order to exert its doctrines. Oddly enough, all dictatorships have done exactly the same thing. I don't have an interest in tolerating abusers, this came up in the Pub regarding this subject and unsurprisingly, involved the same individual. Go figure.

I know the recursive nature of the 'tolerate everything, have no boundaries' perspectives. I'm not interested in the slightest in exploring that which advocates doing nothing about anything because of blah blah blah. I'll say it again- I take responsibility for what I write. I take no responsibility for the way these things are interpreted and I'm not interested in soothing the heteronomy's feathers. If what I write about, what I explore, how I see things doesn't suit the individual then they can exercise their autonomy and *not engage with my Art*. There's no mystery in it: infinite possibility is going to generate some expressions that aren't everyone's cup of tea, such as country music. Does that mean those who don't enjoy country music are justified in laying siege to those who do, setting up picket lines, shouting slogans and abuse, deriding and denigrating those who simply like a different form of expression? Yet that's what happens all the time in a forum, when a simple 'ah, not my cup of tea' and strolling on with nary a snarky thought towards the individual that enjoys that sort of tea would make far more sense, at least to me.

*sips her psychedelic tea appreciatively* I also have fresh baked hash cookies here if anyone wants one..

_________________
"For every lie I unlearn, I learn something new"- Ani DiFranco

Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go. ~ TS Elliot

My *personal* approach to the things individual's express as being their Art rather than expressions of 'universal truth' makes things much easier *for me*. I have found that it's the purpose and intention of the writing that I more respond to, rather than if the language is complex or not; frequently the use of complex language is seen as suspicious or a sign of arrogance on the part of the writer when it's simply their expression and Art. Some are minimalists, some aren't- it's just their Art, and it's rather easy to tell propaganda from expression if one can see the purpose and intention. What is the marker that individuals use to decide if another individual is intending spell binding? That's a really interesting exploration in itself, at least to a mind like mine. Others may have no interest at all in discovering the operating system they're using to make these distinctions.

I personally enjoy exploration of subjects that many find triggering and controversial. This is ok with me- I've got my autonomy, my sui generis and my singularity as my compass, so I'm cool about what happens as a result of my explorations. Others can be not so fun with that, and that goes with part of the territory- go poking about in the matrix and the agents and sentinels are bound to pop up *somewhere*. I'm happy to do my thing regardless, because I figure I'll stumble across others who like to play in the same elements I do at some point or another; given that I like fluid mind, that's a lot of room for possibility as *I* see it. Others may see it entirely differently.

On a personal note: far out, I'm going to get sick of making those repetitious distinctions really quickly. Perhaps I have to go put it into my sig, just to save the hassle, because the 'normality provider' one doesn't seem to work. This is *not* aimed at you personally, it's something that's just occurred to me.

_________________
"For every lie I unlearn, I learn something new"- Ani DiFranco

Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go. ~ TS Elliot

I've been observing with interest the temporary sliding around in muddy areas of purported conflict and I've been engaging in it with a view to exploring it and discovering what expression aligns with my own perspective and autonomy. I've discovered it this morning, wrapped in my Art.

Here is my perspective:

I'm into infinite possibilities. It's the quantum floor that everything else is built on. As an expression of that infinite possibility, I'm here adding my singularity expression to the mix, in the ways I am inspired to. I experience this as my Art; I experience the multiverse as infinite Art, expression of creativity, exploration, dance. To me personally, there is the evolution Consciousness signal and it's this that I explore. There are also those who *don't* like the perspectives that I have and this is utterly to be expected: there are those who create Art, the Artists, and there are those who sit in their chairs with no creative inspiration or talent whatsoever and who make it their business to do nothing but criticise the expressions and perspectives of others- the self appointed critics. These ones have nothing to contribute, they just rely on the ignorance of other non-creatives so that their self importance can be elevated to that of 'expert' in nothing at all.

These ones I have zero interest in. They're empty of true creativity, regardless of how it looks to those even less creative: it's really easy to tear down someone else's work in comparison to coming up with anything truly innovative and risk taking. That's part of the illusion- they like to come across as innovative and insightful wherein what they are is simply a regurgitator, doomed to consuming the work of others so that they can vomit it somewhere else and make it look original. To true Originals and Creatives, the works of regurgitators are readily discernible and are profoundly disinteresting.

I'm here doing my thing. These conversations are part of my Art, here in the Gallery that is this forum; I don't require agreement, homogeny, approval, accolades or anything else, that's not why I create. I create because these are the things in me; what I do in putting my Art out there is it's my way of contributing to the signal, in my way, and this is connected to being open to discovering others who want to co-create and play in the spaces that I find interesting.

I find them interesting. Not expecting *everyone else* to find them interesting. Having said that, I find it bizarre and absurd when others march into the gallery and start shouting that the art is ****e, that it should all be landscapes, and in blue, with clouds here, here and here or else it's not REAL art, and where's the artist so that I can shout at them and force them to paint what *I* think is appropriate or else they are wrong and I can stand here calling them names?'

0-o

So here's the thing- if you don't agree with my Art, that's totally fine, I get that. If I'm personally not your cup of tea, or you don't like the language I use, the way I see things, the stuff I'm hanging here on the walls, that's utterly perfect and within the expression of the infinite possibility multiverse. There's nothing at all amiss there. Where it goes pear shaped and not so great is where that experience is interpreted internally as permission to have a go at me about my Art.

I'm utterly up for discussion, framed in autonomous language, that intends actual exploration or clarification of the subjects/Art at hand. I'm happy to co-create, to clarify, to engage in exchange, to be evolved, to share perspective with a view to increasing the complexity and richness of the signal. I love evolution and I'm utterly, absolutely up for it.

And here's where that ENDS- if any individual wants to make my Art about *them personally*, if they want to attack me *personally* about the issues that have come up *for them* due to my Art, if they want to constantly bombard me with criticism- no matter how floridly it speaks, how festooned with courtly flourishes, how artfully bewigged and powdered it might think itself to be



its still nothing I'm interested in.

I am no longer going to respond to those sorts of posts with anything *other* than a link to this one. That's it. I am giving that signal not one iota more energy or attention than it has already garnered from me, because that's precisely what feeds it. So this is my response- all individuals have the freedom to respond to any Art in whatever way they wish, and the Artist has the same. Artist's don't have to stand there and listen to individuals *talk crap* at them: if someone doesn't like *my* brand of Art and wants to do something about it, they can MAKE THEIR OWN AND PUT IT OUT THERE. That's a far more constructive thing to do than tearing down the work of others, as I see it- this too is my own personal perspective and I'm happy to stand on that platform.

Here is my permanent response to those that love the sound of their own rhetoric and self importance and who have nothing but criticism, in whatever form, to add to the discussion:

_________________
"For every lie I unlearn, I learn something new"- Ani DiFranco

Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go. ~ TS Elliot

22nd June.

(note: this post contains content written by another Pub member, chinaski. I've left it on here for now, will take it off if Mike wants me to. )



My perspective on this is that many engage in automatic behaviours, operating unconsciously within parameters and constructs that they don't actually understand. An illustration of this programming is the willingness to sit at a deserted intersection, with nothing in sight, because the red light is the determiner of when it is and isn't safe to go forward, rather than one's own intelligence and personal responsibility. There are many, many layers to this giving of Self away and one of these is to live a concept that one actually doesn't comprehend.

Having a conversation about a conceptual framework gives rise to the opportunity, at least, for these unconscious concepts to be made conscious, and then *choice* exercised as to whether the individual wants to continue to hold this position or move to one that suits their perspective and intention better. It wasn't until Rosa Parks refused to sit at the back of the bus that the idea that perhaps there was something inherently dodgy about the entrenched concept that blacks were inferior to whites bubbled up into the possibilities to be explored. Thus, within a framework of a culture that has a fluid mind approach to evolution, part of the exploration would be around the questions 'Does this thing mean what we think it means? Does this express what we are communicating when we use this word? Are there more expressive ways of communicating this concept?'.

This means that individuals who aren't in the habit of exploring their own thinking are going to find it challenging to have their concepts poked at, even indirectly. Most respond badly to this, as what happened *after* Rosa Parks didn't sit at the back of the bus. The evolution isn't interested in those that need to fling poo at those who speak outside the paradigms, it already knows what to do with *them*: it's looking for the next iteration.

*edit: I've been writing for over 14 hours and I have to rest, *and* I want to go more deeply into a teased out exploration of the frequency of when an individual *chooses* heteronomy and the implications of that from an autonomy pov. I'm leaving my Self notes so I don't forget.



I have always laughed at the thought that *objectivity* is possible, like 'altruism'- it's *all* subjective. That perspective makes it much easier for me to navigate the slide and otherrealms, which is what I'm interested in amping. I would like to get far more slidey, because it's my intuition that this leads to unlocking places that I want to explore. Subjectivity releases me from the requirement of having to take on any other Being's perspective, which then moves all things to the realm of Art and Play, co-creation and fun. The other way is unfun and leads to things like the Nazi pogroms.



it may or may not be a bowl of petunias.



there are two markers for this that might be useful to consider with regards this: one is the internal law of Consciousness that lets an individual know that *some action* is actually not ok, regardless of the rationalisations made in its favour. Murder is something that most Beings of certain intelligence and awareness comprehend as something to be avoided. There is a natural signal, a frequency, that seeks to inform the sentient Being of a universal connection and perception. The other thing is information, triangulation, which is why I'm big on having these discussions despite the firehosing I occasionally get for it.

With these two things in mind, what is true for me is that I have discovered focusing on *my own* path makes the most sense. How can I set the markers for *another's* personal responsibility? I can only work with my own, and step out of the way of the path of others, while holding the 'do no harm' in the space- so perhaps this is where the markers are? This is why the discussions around 'abuse' are so important to me: there are many who dispute the nature and scope of 'abuse' because the autonomy is not the foundational platform from which they investigate their parameters. The exploration of 'abuse' within the foundational concept of autonomous sui generis reveals a whole different world from the current constructs. These are the markers I'm interested in: the current ones allow for all kinds of far reaching and insidious abuse that is a perfect carrier for the virus. Zero interest in that.



if you are a sensible man, your socks will all be black. This saves much mental confusion, anguish, and the rage at losing one sock.



The way I triangulate the virus and its behaviours has nothing to do with fear p0rn because the triangulation is interlaced within other concepts: sui generis, autonomy and absolute are the platforms for investigating the machinations of the virus. It's building a holographic model where all the points interlock; it's a really simple means to discern the difference between a system that supports all expressions of Life that encompass the do no harm principles- and every thing else, which is nothing but a doorway to the re-creation of Empire and all the sh!t that brings. From where I have been mapping things, there's no room for anything that is remotely infected with Empire- there's no playing nice with it, no dressing it in white so it looks humbler, no using different words to describe the same desecrations and machinations. 'A whitewashed grave full of dead men's bones' is still a home for the dead, and I'm happy to let the dead bury their dead, as I was reminded tonight by someone I treasure.

This is one of the baselines when interacting with me: I have an eye on what is going to bring the evolution, not rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic. If I can dismiss a perspective because it's full of virus, it's not me being a cast iron bitch, it's me doing my kind of hacking- very little is *personal* (unless an individual really wants to make it so and even then, it's still all about the signal and autonomy rather than 'you suck! so there!' which I have no time for, literally or metaphorically.



unlike your socks?



*grins at you* dunno, we can mix it up: it seems some in the main forum think the Pub is dead... and I've realised that the next part of the discussion is better had in the safety of the Pub, so yeah. We're now moving venue.




*looks over my book at you* Seriously, Michael, you have *seen* my epic posts- this is lightweight indeed, sir, although definitely a good effort.

*laughing*

_________________
"For every lie I unlearn, I learn something new"- Ani DiFranco

Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go. ~ TS Elliot

23rd June.

(I have left quoted text from an other writer in this piece until I can reword it so that the quoted text is unnecessary. I have eliminated all identifiers for the writer to maintain privacy.)

The following post, and all writing of mine, is made completely from the perspective of my singularity autonomy. This is the framework from which I write.

I do not personally consider that autonomy is a naturally inherent state. It certainly is an option for an individual *and* this option is not one that is necessarily recognised *by* the individual. I see free will and autonomy as two different things; all Beings continually exercise their free will even if the way they exercise this is by enslaving themselves. Autonomy- by definition of the word itself and in the exercise of it- requires a personal responsibility and self awareness that not many actually aspire to. There is a great deal of *talk* about it, and a great deal of grand sounding language, and very little of this translates into adopting a path and practice of autonomy that becomes deeply embodied. It can't even be a topic of actual discussion in most cases, without the deep entraining towards heteronomy rising up in one way or another, so I don't experience it as a *natural* state that is simply waiting some kind of triggering; there is much more consciousness involved than that. Which is why I discuss it so much; to me it's not at all a concept readily comprehended and can use as much triangulation as possible.

"Autonomy is a natural by-product of awareness": is it? If this were true, would there not be a plethora more truly autonomous Beings on the planet? Awareness of what, in your experience, creates this embodied knowing of autonomy? These may seem like obvious or rude questions and yet if these things were so clear cut and automatic there would be far less heteronomy in the dominant culture than there is. To me, this indicates that the subject may actually *not* be so simple and therefore a more robust and clear language developed that actually transmits the concepts that are intended instead of creating a blur that actually doesn't express much at all, particularly to those unfamiliar with the concepts in the first place. I'm interested in developing a language that actually holds the signal for these platforms, so to this end I'm asking the questions that I have. I am interested in your singularity perspective.

I absolutely agree that as a truly autonomous Being, I need no external authority whatsoever. I do not speak from 'we' because in autonomy language 'we' is heteronomy. I don't assume I have a clue what is and isn't true for others, regardless of how they perceive that. I wasn't sure at first what you meant by intelligence of the heart, until I considered the next sentence-



This is a massive assumption and globalisation. Am I correct in thinking that *for you* this is your experience? It most certainly is not mine, on many levels and for many reasons. I do not consider at all that it is in any way possible for my every act to be one of love unless I am referencing the love that I have for my Self and my relationship with the evolution Consciousness, which many frequently interpret as a massive *lack* of 'love' towards them because I'm not getting tangled up in their emotional, psychological or social agendas. And this is on the part of those who would be outraged if it was suggested to them that perhaps they aren't as 'aware' as they like to think they are.

Those that know me know that I am dismissive of the way the word 'love' is used in the dominant paradigm, which loves its shoes, the latest film, this fantastic car and that gorgeous actress, as well as everything else. It's a fuzzy word, one that has as many meanings as there are Beings. What, exactly, are you meaning when you say 'love'? How does an autonomous Being arrange their actions to be of the 'maximal benefit' to the community, when the members of said community, in their own infinitely possible, subjective interpretations of 'community', 'love' and 'maximal benefit', may have *vastly* different ideas about these things? What then?

This is *not* empty consideration on my part: I've lived as part of three intentional communities at different times and watched with interest as the members tore each other and the community to pieces over *personality* issues disguised as many different and often lofty things. Each of them could point to the others as 'failing' the spirit of the community in one way or another, and what they were actually talking about was their own agenda and the particular brand of heteronomy they were wishing to impose on everyone else. It was hideously fascinating, watching this process over and over again and I realised that until the subjective nature of language- and thus its limitations- was recognised, and effort made to create a useful and stable operating platform of concepts and language, every endeavour was doomed because of the subjective and emotionally driven nature of the individuals. I'm interested in a platform that doesn't rely on feelings to operate well; it's so easy for individuals to fall into the bazillion judgement traps that they carry internally when it comes to dealing with one another that something beyond this needs to be created so that the inbuilt blinds spots and tar pits are avoided. 'Love' is one of these.

It's interesting that some individuals have assumed that because I keep pointing to the inherent limpness of the word 'love' as a descriptor for anything useful I must be an uncaring, heartless Being, and these associations have only served to highlight further the problematic nature of the word, because what these individuals are frequently speaking of isn't *love* but a willingness to observe social mores and rules. It's all very entangled and unhelpful.



This appears to be your opinion, globalised. Is there some way you can reframe it in autonomous *I* language, that points to your own experience and doesn't lay that experience over all other Beings as some kind of truth? This is the one of the foundations of autonomy- an utter absence of the need to ascribe one's personal and subjective experience and solutions on to everyone else. I have many personal differences with the globalised perspective that you have put forth, and I'd like to wait until you have reframed it so that I can engage in a more useful exploration of this with you.



One cannot *have* a sufficient state of Self awareness to engage autonomy without sufficient ability *to* think about the subject. I worked in a home for disabled children and made the horrific discovery one day of one of the boys in the process of chewing off the fingers of one of the autistic girls, a girl with the face of an angel who was able to feel enough physically that the pain was causing her distress, as evidenced by her increased rocking back and forth, but unable to process the situation any further and so she neither pulled her hand back or made any sound as he chewed. She lost two fingers because she could not express her Self in any way. Clearly, not being able to think in certain ways did not help her autonomy, because that needed to be upheld and defended by *others*- so not all Beings can exercise it, which means what they have is not autonomy but something that is utterly dependent on the attitudes and level of awareness of *others* in their external world.

It's not so simple as it originally appears, exploring these concepts. So, given what I have just said, what in your perspective does autonomy look like now?

_________________
"For every lie I unlearn, I learn something new"- Ani DiFranco

Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go. ~ TS Elliot

24th June.

The language of autonomy, the language of heteronomy; language as a tool, language as a weapon. This, for those that may be interested, is why I bother with 'semantics'; without a form by which ideas can be expressed and explored, without a construct of feedback there is no possibility of enriching and evolving the signal of the Whole. The constant bum rap that verbal expression gets is undeserved in my perspective, because it isn't the verbal expression that is the problem, it is the unconscious embedded signals of programmed purpose and intention within the verbal expression and words that is the problem.

Verbal/written expression is one of the choices within a rich palette of feedback mechanisms that are built into all expressions of manifestation within everything *outside* Source; within Source the beginning of this feedback mechanism is choice- before choice there is simply infinite possibility existing simultaneously, there is no feedback available and thus no evolution is possible. An infinite sea of endless possibilities and none taken until choice happens. Choice is the plucking of that particular string out of the infinite strings that *could* have been plucked. This particular string vibrates its note through the All, which includes the manifested realms, and this vibration creates an interaction with the Whole, feedback within the system that *wasn't there before the string was plucked*.

All feedback mechanisms are language that is specific to that organism or group of organisms. It arises from the function, the purpose and intention of the organism or system and the degree of complexity of the purpose and intention of the organism or system is the degree of complexity within the language/feedback system these develop. The mechanism involved in sending a message to one other individual is far different from the kind of complex infrastructure necessary to co-ordinate a global postage system; the connected language and communication systems that arise from this function, purpose and intention are going to contain specific words and concepts that are relevant to that environment and those elements that are connected to it but will find few that understand these *outside* that system. All specific systems are the same- the language/feedback system of the orchid that is dependent on one particular wasp breed for its survival is a very, very specialised and specific language- it won't work on other wasps, and the language the wasp speaks is also specific because the orchid is the only plant the wasp interacts with. Without this finely tuned and extremely specialised language, both organisms die. This is a very tightly closed system and from the perspective of the evolution Consciousness it's not going to be a long lived one because the parameters are far too narrow- one thing out of place and both organisms fail.

Chaos- also known as randomness- exists within all systems as a function of testing, refining and evolving the system. (This is why I personally do not experience the virus as something 'wrong', I experience it as something to observe, learn by and evolve beyond). The degree of complexity that arises within a system requires a corresponding degree of ability and scope within the language/feedback mechanisms it uses; part of the challenge of evolving systems is to parallel the evolution of the communication mechanisms with the increasing complexity within the system itself. An example of this can be found in the progression of communication systems on the planet: small tribes only occasionally encountering one another and thus having little reason to develop a common platform (often resulting in territorial conflicts or passing each other by with little more than a nod and keeping a wary eye on one another; more frequent contact resulting in the development of such things as the intertribal sign language used by certain Native American communities, or the smoke signal language that allowed members of a tribe to communicate in a unique language with one another over long distances (and resulted in some members of other tribes, with their own purpose and intention, to learn the language of another tribe's smoke signals); increased intertribal contact requiring the creation of treaties or boundaries and a system of agreements around particular territorial arrangements- which requires the skills of bi-lingual or polyglot members of each tribe; expansion into new territories with a desire to keep in touch with family left behind results in things like the pony express, which is problematic and results in the telegraph and the development of a new language- Morse code- based in part on older languages such as drum language and smoke signals; more complex systems develop that require more complex responses and languages, until we arrive at the current global system of interglobal and instant communications in a variety of interfaces, all with their own specific and situational subcontexts and languages. To ignore this natural development process- as an entirely different element from the consideration of the *purpose and intention* that such systems might be turned to- is akin to ignoring the body's need to sustain its own processes; in both cases, unwanted outcomes eventually arise.

As I see it, the world is currently in a mess in part because it hasn't learned how to effectively communicate across a wide range of platforms- there hasn't been an effective base platform created in an open source kind of way. What do I mean by open source? In the computer world there are two major streams of programming development: one is the closed system, proprietary approach taken by Microsoft and Apple (although interestingly Microsoft has begun to shift this because the company has essentially realised it's lost the war)- the proprietary approach to their source code has meant that their products have been locked down and cannot be tweaked- or 'hacked', which is NOT 'cracking', the black hat, mayhem causing activities designed to create chaos and disorder- the creators of major viruses, trojans and worms are crackers, not hackers, which is a much more ubiquitous term; so the proprietary software cannot be altered or changed in any way. This means hackers cannot get in and fix any bugs- and in the case of Microsoft, there are MANY bugs- and thus the platform was only useful for those who didn't want a more fluid and responsive system that could be tweaked to suit the specific requirements of the user. Proprietary software is an expression of the heteronomy- it provides a 'one size fits all badly' service that restricts the user to a narrow band of experience and interface- you get what you get and you either like it or lump it, because there is no room for change.

Open source is a platform that has been created worldwide in a giant co-operative co-creation that has efficiency, elegance and usability as some of the baseline parameters. What open source does is keep all the code out in the open and able to be changed as suits the individual- it is a dynamic system that can respond to the degree of competence of *the individual*, rather than being rigidly locked into the parameters and thinking of someone else, which is what proprietary anything does: proprietary religions, systems, thinking, social constructs- all are *external authorities* attempting to exert their particular brand of heteronomy onto the individual. Software hackers just happen to be a particularly non-compliant bunch, who don't see why something needs to be done stupidly just because someone with less vision and ability says so, and so they just go and create more robust and fluid systems which eventually bring monopolies- like Microsoft- to their knees. Microsoft dominated while the masses were mostly unfamiliar with the language and protocols, individuals who were content to point and click; now there are many many more individuals who, having grown up with the systems, are far more selective and discriminating in the freedom with which they wish to engage their technology. More and more users are turning to the open source freedom of Linux based operating systems, Dell- the previous bastion of Microsoft's proprietary control of operating systems- has recently indicated that it is installing Linux based systems on their machines in the developing markets of India and Russia. Education of the individual and an evolution of understanding has resulted in the looming extinction of the software monopoly that Microsoft enjoyed. I see this as a reflection of the demise that all heteronomies are doomed to- as the individual becomes familiar with the new language and feedback, the system is changed and either evolution happens or the particular platform dies .

In part, what I am doing is exploring the open source approach to social systems hacking- *hacking* as it refers to improving, making more functional, robust and capable of being a stable platform that can support a wide framework of individual requirements- I am interested in creating something that works for the widest range of expressions. I am fully aware that there will be many who want nothing more than 'point and click' in most functions, either physically or otherwise- point and click philosophies, thinking and behaviour are the way the majority wish to live. I'm aware of that. So is the evolution. What I am discussing is something that is not the point and click anything, but rather a willingness to consciously co-create the experience of the physical reality I engage in, and discovering those that wish to do the same.

For those who are interested in a more robust consideration of the principles I'm talking of here, this is an excellent place to start- http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/ca....html#catbmain

So perhaps now there can be more of an understanding of what I'm discussing and less of the personal attacks regarding my language and perspective.

I'm engaged in open sourcing social constructs and their connected platforms. Where the signal now appears to be at is a process of distillation of the best of these systems into a new base platform, because all complex systems regularly undergo this defragging process- it's the way that the evolution Consciousness engages in its own energy efficiency auditing. It's observed on the planetary level in the regular cycles of extinction and emergence of new and more complex life forms- part of the current auditing is an interest in avoiding a complete reboot of the sentient Beings and their systems. This is in connection with some complex interweaving of a whole raft of interconnected elements, the consideration of which I'm writing about in other places. In this particular post I'm concentrating on the communication systems , in particular the development of a high level of awareness around language and the way it's used; what I observe in the general population is that they're running about with the power of creation at their fingertips and they mostly use it to fling poo at one another, or to feed the heteronomy. There are very relevant connections in why so many spiritual and religious traditions say that the word brought all the physical realms into Being- and here 'word' does not have to be restricted to spoken because that's just *one* way to do it. Given the way I think and what I have researched, immersed my Self in as a result of this, it seems to me that taking language and feedback systems as part of the whole system, not as the dirty bathwater that needs to be thrown out, is part of the increasing of the complex signal. All complex systems are going to develop correspondingly complex and nuanced communication systems as part of their feedback mechanisms; what I am aiming for is one that is more harmonious with my personal preferences and pleasure in communication, which in part involves telepathic and energetic engagement.

I utterly constrict my telepathic receiving here at this point in time and have done so since early childhood. So many individuals ask 'why can't we activate our abilities?' and I find the answer totally obvious- there's enough noise generated out there as it is to cause real harm to natural receivers, telepaths and sensitives- it would become almost impossible for any such Beings to live here were those who cannot think cohesively to suddenly be able to broadcast their mental chaos on all bandwidths; even as restricted as what it is, I still have to run major shields against the white noise while being in any group of size. I for one am grateful that the abilities are not yet evident en masse: it would not result in a less chaotic world, as I see it. And I think about things in a fairly interconnected way, so I'm not being uninformed when I say this.

_________________
"For every lie I unlearn, I learn something new"- Ani DiFranco

Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go. ~ TS Elliot

The hidden languages of entrapment.

There are many committed and sincere individuals in the 'freedom' movement who have spent decades trying to work their way through the entanglements and contortions of legalese. It took many years for these seekers to realise that there was a hidden and encoded language layered beneath the seemingly obvious meanings of the words. "Do you understand these charges against you?" has nothing to do with 'understand' in relation to comprehension- in legalese, 'understand' means 'stand under', a legal term meaning that the individual not only agrees to and accepts the charges against them, but that the individual also accepts the jurisdiction of the court as having authority over them. This is a *profoundly* different meaning to the one the ordinary individual believes is being used when they say 'yes' to the question. In terms of the controlling mechanisms of the current paradigm, the entire miasm is filled with such 'weasel words', words that are designed to bespell or enslave an individual into a situation that, in terms of technicality, they have actually agreed to. It is an entanglement that, if one takes it on face value and seeks to answer in its own territories, is doomed to failure- the freeman and sovereign movement is filled with examples of those who tried to turn the law's weasel words on itself only to find themselves incarcerated for their efforts and frequently having lost everything in the process.

I spent two and a half years, averaging 50 hours a week, delving into the weasel words of the law. I made connections with many individuals who were deep into the world, and the private world of the other law that operates below the 'public' arena and that does not use acts and statues as its operating platform; in partnership with my friend and colleague we were responsible for private equity documents that ended up coming back to us as 'you should see this, this is amazing!' because others didn't know we'd created it. I know my stuff in that realm. I know how deep it goes and I kept looking for a much deeper signal.

I began to learn the hidden legalese for 'human being'. It was so disturbing that on two occasions I had to walk away from the studies because of the distress what I was learning was causing me. I found reference after reference to 'cattle, property, chattel, collateral' and in several very old books found much uglier references; I was inspired to go looking through the law definitions in my own country and search for what was being used here in Australia. Here is one example I found:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/n...tic_goods_laws

4 Definitions

(1) In this Act, unless the context or subject matter otherwise indicates or requires:
"Advisory Committee" means the Poisons Advisory Committee constituted by section 6.
"Analyst" means an analyst appointed or taken to be appointed under section 37A.
"Animal" means any animal (other than a human being), whether vertebrate or invertebrate, and includes but is not limited to:

(a) mammals, birds, bees, reptiles, amphibians, fish, crustaceans and molluscs, and

(b) the semen, ova or embryo of an animal (other than a human being) or any other substance or thing directly relevant to the reproduction of an animal (other than a human being).

For any individual remotely familiar with the position animals have in terms of the law, this was a profound revelation. I began to trace the interlinking connections between the various definitions contained in different laws and over a few months a pattern began to emerge, one in which human beings , by their own willing acceptance of the external authorities, had *in terms of the law* given away their autonomy and sui generis rights and agreed to be things rather than Beings in return for being taken care of. I moved this information around in many different ways, for quite some time, and began to look in other directions for remedies. What I kept coming across were repeated references to a state of Being that put an individual completely *outside* the paradigm's laws and dictates. It was in this realm that I came across the term 'sui generis', which is a legal term that is known to the upper courts. The upper courts recognise the living, autonomous Being as being *outside* their jurisdiction. There are many, many reasons for this and many cross-referencing laws, statues and equity principles, and one of the foundational concepts is that the law recognises that it is not a living thing- modern courts are *corporations* and have been since ecclesiastical courts were replaced, although in the strictest sense even ecclesiastical courts were corporate and recognised this on a deep level. There have been contortions after contortions with the baseline view held as the operating platform- the average individual constantly gives away their spiritual autonomy in return for an illusion of being taken care of by an external authority. I began to investigate the concept of sui generis and came across other interconnected terms- autonomy, absolute- that indicated a way of Being that had at its roots a profoundly spiritual perspective and foundation. Essentially, the entirety of the law is created upon a knowing that individuals do not want real autonomy- and every time an individual engages with the controlling authorities it is from this position- as a no-thing, as one who has been declared property and under dominion- that all actions spring. The individual is always the trustee, never the beneficiary- and the trustees *always* pay- have you noticed that inmates in prison are called trustees?- there are all these multilayered traps that exist because the individual allows the entrapment.

There are many, many ways that this allowance happens. There are many rationalisations and explanations for it. The rationalisations and explanations do nothing to free the individual from their situation and as actual transformation is what I am interested in, I was looking for what actually *works* in terms of answering the entanglements of the system. I kept coming across the same references again and again. These became entwined with concepts and platforms that I had been born with but had never been able to discuss because of the extremely triggered responses that I encountered until I began to speak about the sui generis, the autonomy and the interlinking of these and the undoing of the construments that have been pointed at society for a very, very long time. These entanglements are not just legal- they are on every level of existence: spiritual, physical, mental, psychological and biological. They are utterly insidious and the undoing of them has *nothing to do with laws, or reforming laws, or revolutions, or arresting bankers, or shouting slogans, or voting in a different prison guard*- the remedy is in truly knowing and living into being a sui generis, autonomous and absolute Being. This has many aspects and the law has partly been created as a *detection device* regarding those that claim to 'know who they are'; there are many youtube videos that demonstrate the dubious nature of going into a court and claiming one's Self as 'sovereign'- if it were the answer, this would work, but it frequently does not. The interesting question around that is 'why not'?

The truly autonomous Being, the Being who *utterly and completely groks that they ARE their own authority, their own jurisdiction, their own alpha and omega points, the captain of their vessel, their own conscience, the Creator of their own life's path- such a Being never *argues* their autonomy. There's utterly nothing to debate. They'll engage to a certain point *and* they will never 'defend'- there is a world of difference between holding a discussion and defence or argument, both of which are deeply embedded in legalese and have powerfully disempowering meanings, if one investigates them from the legal perspective. A Sui Generis Being is one who is utterly, totally unique, not animal, not chattel, not property- they are a law and authority to themselves, with a jurisdiction that begins and ends with themselves- and the law can tell these Beings from the general. The terms 'general' and 'special' are also deeply embedded law words that absolutely govern the way an individual is perceived and treated, *and* if the individual does not know who they really are then they remain in the 'general population', which is fundamentally translated as 'property'.

I have been striving to triangulate in many ways the importance of the true autonomy as activates this undoing mechanism. It's impossible to discuss without having a solid foundation and I've been endeavouring to create the platforms for moving into those discussions because I thought there was in interest in this, I thought that evolution was a subject of interest. I now recognise that establishing such a platform is currently impossible and so I'm going to write how I have come to see things and how they interlock in my mind without attempting to engage the discussion as much. I am deeply interested and absorbed by the connections I've been shown, on many different platforms, and how they all interlock. The key has always been fundamentally spiritual *and* it has utterly nothing to do with any form of philosophy, religion, spiritual 'wisdom', gurus, dogmas or external authorities of any kind. This is what I'll focus on exploring.

_________________
"For every lie I unlearn, I learn something new"- Ani DiFranco

Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go. ~ TS Elliot