On Subjective Annihilation Theory

In the book a major methodology I employ in search of human purpose is Subjective Annihilation Theory.

Essentially my theory suggests that our ultimate motive is the elimination of all subjectivity through the continuous pursuit of progress through technology.

However as of yet we are only at the very beginnings of our evolution towards annihilation of subjectivity which the Pandora’s Box of symbolic language has opened.

Symbolic language has sparked a chain reaction of ‘progress’ which can only be estinguished by the end of all symbolic language – which necessarily entails the end of humanity.

There is no evidence to suggest that science, technology, nor religion, will at any point in the future throw their collective hands in the air and declare ‘that’s it! that’s as far as we’re going, we’ve progressed adequately so we’re just going to stop right now and call it good.’

There is neither much evidence to suggest that human knowledge is approaching “saturation” in which there is no new knowledge to gain, rather it seems, the more we know, the more there is to know.

It has been hypothesized that in the future many human subjectivities will be eliminated or greatly reduced, i.e. illness may be eliminated and we may purhaps achieve immortality.

However, will everyone benefit equally? Will we also evolve fairness and equality? If so, by what method or technology?

I qualify my search for human purpose in the beginning of the book by stating “if” anything matters, or is of significance, then it follows that other logically connected artifacts of meaning must also “matter,” or be of significance.

Ultimately I argue that everything is significant – to one degree or another – in a meaningful world to symbol-using animals whose every action is in response to subjectivity.

Although it is very significant to this writer to hypothesize and theorize about abstract ideas and principles relating to human purpose, Uncommon Sense is intended as a touchstone for the purpose of stimulating exigent discourses in our co-construction of reality this very moment and far into the future.

As we hurtle head-long towards perfection through technology, we as yet are subject to many incongruencies as a symbol-using species.

How do (will) we decide who gets what in an advancing society? The current model seems to be that the wealthy and powerful will be the predominant beneficiaries of new technologies and resources as they are now and have always been.

Everything we are doing this moment and each moment of our lives sustains or resists the status quo. I am confident that each individual knows what matters (is significant) to the self, however is what matters to others really as significant if it doesn’t benefit the individual in some perceived way?

Like so many elephants in a room, all such incongruencies will continuously materialize and manifest themselves repeatedly as we claw our collective way towards unsubjectivity.

In the interim, we pursue our own interests regardless of cause and effect.

At this very moment the entire world is in a state of dire social conditions regardless of technology and “progress.”

“We will pay the price, but we will not count the cost…” Rush

Message in a bottle

Good day my friends,

I have achieved a major objective of my project encapsulated within the message of Uncommon Sense.

One of my objectives was not dissimilar to placing a message in a bottle ( as per a castaway on a deserted island).

With Uncommon Sense, I have attempted to communicate my most primal thoughts with respect to the most primal motives of humanity.

What I have discovered (in throwing my bottle into the oceans of the human psyche) is that communication is an extremely complex process. That any concept of “giving, and receiving voice” is extremely tenuous indeed.

From an alternative perspective one might assume that after thousands of contacts and campaigns that at least one individual might have an opinion with respect to human purpose.

Instead, what I have discovered (apart from a couple of responses relating to the interests of the responders), is that seemingly no one durst respond to ostensibly one of, if not the most primal of human inquiries.

This is not unlike the concept of the Emperor’s clothes. Either the general public is afraid in engaging in reality apart from that which they have been provided by the interests of the Emperor, or the ego simply will not allow it apart from the status quo.