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).

Within Uncommon Sense, I have attempted to communicate my most primal thoughts with respect to the most primal of human exigencies.

What I have discovered (in throwing said bottle into the ocean of the human psyche) is that communication is an extremely complex process. That any concept of “giving, and receiving voice” in relation to anything of substance is extremely tenuous at best.

One might assume that after thousands of contacts and campaigns that at least one individual might be brave enough to have an opinion with respect to human purpose.

Instead what I have discovered is that few if any in the age of apathy durst give or receive voice with respect to anything of substance.

This is not unlike the concept of the Emperor’s clothes. Either the common individual is afraid of engaging in any reality apart from that which has been provided by the interests of the Emperor, or the ego simply will not allow critical thinking outside of the status quo.

 

 

 

 

Atheism, Agnosticism, and Symbolic Language

In the book beginning on ~ pg. 139 where we examine Supernatural Power, I liken the term “UFO” to the term “God.”

I argue that due to a common sense orientation to reasoning we imbue certain terms (hollow signifiers) with presumptuous meanings, i.e., UFO’s = “little green men,” flying saucers,” etc. as opposed to objects in flight which remain “unidentified” according to some particular nomenclature.

The term “God” is likewise infused with cultural meanings over a vast terrain of subjective ideology as though the noun God unconsciously stands in for innumerable adjectives.

Atheism, as a disbelief in “God,” seems to presuppose that “God” is a thing (in the same manner as a theoist) in itself as opposed to a description. Atheism is thus similar to someone who does not believe in “UFO’s,” all the while assuming that “UFO’s” = “little green men,” and “flying saucers,” etc.

A “UFO” is not a “thing” in and of itself across all cultural and linguistic perspectives but rather refers to any object, which could be described as “flying,” i.e., falling, drifting, souring, etc.

Therefore if the term “UFO” functions as a general description of objects which are unidentified while suspended above ground. The term “God” likewise is a general description rather than a particular thing imbued with presumed meaning across all cultures and linguistic perspectives.

Agnosticism therefore does not presume that the term “God” is a particular ideological object imbued with specific and particular cultural meanings, but rather that it is a generic description across a vast array of cultural and linguistic meanings.

Both the terms “God,” and “UFO,” are hollow signifiers utterly dependent upon who’s cultural meaning is being signified at any given point in time. Therefore both “God” and “UFO” represent a dialectic of descriptions as opposed to particular things.

To argue that one does not believe in “God” is similar to arguing that one does not believe in “UFO’s,” if said disbelief is built upon the common sense falacy that “UFO’s” consist in little green men, et al.

Both “UFO’s” and “God” signify a broad class of possibilities that are utterly dependent upon symbolic language, as opposed to assumed things in themselves.

An Agnostic then is similar to someone who is skeptical of the meaning of “God” or “UFO,” as opposed to assuming their meaning as fixed and immovable.

“God,” and “UFO,” are merely hollow signifiers containing a vast array of possible meanings which are culturally subjective and relative where there is nothing to be “proven” or “disproven” outright, but to be considered contextually. If “God” is merely a description, a description of what?

Until there is an objective description of “God,” Agnosticism is the more uncommon perspective for this writer.

 

 

 

 

 

What is the Limit of Human Rights?

…And who determines those limits?

Within socially constructed reality would it not be the people themselves, with respect to the extent to which they were capable of sharing substance (as per Kenneth Burke’s ‘consubstantiation’)?

If people were capable of sharing Burkeian consubstantiation to a higher degree than their government, such that their government became not only superfluous but a burden upon the people, would their government willingly and expiditiously adjourn?

By what lawful process? If there is no lawful process for dismantling a defunct government, and the government is charged with legislating rights, it is soely the power of the government to determine the limit of human rights.

If it is ultimately the power of government to establish a limit on human rights, and there is no lawful basis for dissolving a superfluous government, what cause is there for a government to refrain from eroding human rights?

Since it is not the function of government to produce wealth, but to regulate commerce, and it is commerce which sustains government, is it not in fact those who control commerce which ultimately determine the limits of human rights?

In as much as profit is a motive of commerce, i.e., personal gain as opposed to shared substance, and governments are sustained by the structure of commerce, than it is those pulling the levers of commerce which ultimately determine human rights, both implied and explicit.

COMMON vs UNCOMMON SENSE

“Common Sense” has come a long way since the time of Thomas Paine. Due to demassification and technology there are a multiplicity of special interests and specialized knowledges which are not easily disseminated nor understood by the masses of today.

Common sense-making (coloquialism) as a defualt methodology, has become a necessary but archaic mode of communicating; we know which side of the road to drive upon, or how to properly greet one another in the street or in formal situations, yet fewer of us understand how to construct an automobile from scratch, or the nature of language and it’s function in the co-constructing of social reality.

Ever fewer of us are experts within every highly specialized field of science and technology. Therefore those within a given specialized field of knowledge could be said to possess an “uncommon sense,” or knowledge with respect to their particular special interest.

This leaves a great majority of people utterly dependent upon the “uncommon” knowledge of others – in so far as the masses are dependent in one way or another upon said technologies – and susceptible to the will thereof in the construction of social reality.

As Marshall McLuhan sugessted – “first we build the tools, then the tools build us.”

In as much as knowledge is a function of power, i.e., a function of social hierarchy such that the more privileged generally receive better educations, the demarcation between Common, vs Uncommon, sense tends to occur along the lines of knowledge vs ignorance.

However ego factors in as well. Ego is so primal to the human (symbol using and abusing animal) condition that no matter what mode of sense-making one is born into, it necessarily becomes implicated within the individual’s value-based system of sense-making.

For better or worse – in a technologically driven world – knowledge (as a tool), will ultimately determine the values and meanings of it’s minions. Knowledge then is the only reasonable approach to sense-making.

The most fundamental step towards gaining knowledge is openness, i.e., the questioning of everything; who? what? why? how? when? etc. One who is not open to new knowledge must either assume that they are already in possession of sufficient knowledge, or are resistant to knowledge in defense of the ego.

A common sense perspective provides a safe and simple sense of belonging and meaning for the ego thereby promoting a general sense of apathy and even resistance to the pursuit of knowledge.

An uncommon sense perspective does not assume or presume, is risky, but is neccessary in the acquisition of a quality existance (an existence in which the common sense maker later becomes acclimated).

A common sense orientation is so ensconced within a myopic worldview that it is unable to comprehend let alone engage an uncommon perspective.

An Uncommon sense orientation cannot escape the interconnectivity of phenomena within a meaningful, technological, language constructed world.

I’d Gladly Pay You Tomorrow For a Hamburger Today, If Only My Debit Card Weren’t Frozen

The nature of money is the basis of social reality…

Longreads

Brett Scott explores the emerging cashless economy in Aeon magazine. Is ubiquitous digital payment the harbinger of a glorious future, or a smokescreen for powerful interests that want to control (and undermine) choice and capitalism?

This is no longer a deal between me and the seller. I am now dealing with a complex of unknown third parties, profit-seeking money-passers who stand between us to act as facilitators of the money flow, but also as potential gatekeepers. If a gatekeeper doesn’t want to do business with me, I can’t do business with the seller. They have the ability to jam, monitor or place conditions upon that glorious core ritual of capitalism – the transfer of money for the transfer of goods. This innocuous device exudes mechanical indifference, reporting only to invisible bosses far away, running invisible algorithms in invisible black boxes that don’t like me.

If we are going to refer to…

View original post 38 more words

On Subjectivity

When we consider the “container” and the thing “contained,”in relation to human purpose, is not the container of all meaning subjectivity?

Does not the concept of “purpose” reside within the paradigm of oppositional meaning, i.e., Good vs Evil?

We seek “purpose” in relation to something which is lacking. There is no need for purpose in the absence of opposition.