Animal Rights

Recently Domesticated turkeys were released prior to Thanksgiving as a gesture of amnesty. The following is my response…

Utterly ridiculous. While fellow humans suffer starve and die, special interest groups are taking upon themselves the moral task of defining and defending animal “rights” as though no living organism in nature or elsewhere should ever suffer or die, as though it we’re a moral duty to put an end to all animal tevail and survival of the fittest. As though it we’re somehow okay to meddle with nature producing genetically inferior puppies in puppy mills prone to genetic maladies and diseases as long as they appeal to our anthropomorphic Disney fantasies, or mass produce turkeys only for human consumption which struggle under their own body weight and require artificial insemination in order to reproduce. As though allowing such physically deformed and domesticated animals to continue to live out their “happy” lives under such conditions constitutes justice, utterly ridiculous.

In a post modern world of special interest, spectacle, and disconjunction, let us turn a blind eye to social causalities while we blindly participate in them in an endless cycle of utter ridiculousness.


Extra Terrestrial Intelligence & Articles of The Emperor’s New Clothes

If we are to believe scientific prognosticators it is not only probable but quite likely that other forms of extraterrestrial intelligence exist elsewhere in the known Universe.

Even if we distrust or reject the scientific method many of us by default believe in some alternate form/s of intelligent alien life, i.e., deities, angels, and demons, etc.

This leaves a vast majority of us who believe in not only extra terrestrial Intelligent beings but extra terrestrial life in general.

The discovery of any extra terrestrial life will be of great significance to Earthlings since it will elucidate much more clearly our own nature as well as our place (purpose) in the Universe.

One of the first if not the singular most question we may have upon the discovery of intelligent life, will most likely be what is it’s/their “end game,” ultimate “business,” or “purpose”?

For all non-symbol using creatures on Earth we might ascertain that it’s/their main “purpose” or “occupation” is merely to survive; whatever non-symbolic (non-meaningful) form of life this may entail exists because it does, and survives.

For meaning-seeking-symbol-using-and-abusing-beings-“rotten with perfection,” mere “survival” is not a “good” enough answer (although it may provide a compelling argument for evolution as the method of creation).

Our uneasiness and uncertainty about our own true nature and place in the Universe (precisely the anxieties which fuel our desire for discovery), will likely bias our evaluations and critiques of any newly discovered intelligent life forms.

We will may judge and evaluate them as though we ourselves are the standard of judgement or “control group” from which to mete out unbiased objectivity. We will most likely do so since our language-bourne hegemonic social structure of power is built upon the precepts of our ultimate authority and truth. It would be unthinkable if not unbearble to discover greater intelligences and or truths superior to Earth’s dominion.

If we now consider the tables turned and an alien (symbol-using) intelligence should discover Earth, they likewise may enjoy similar liberties of “objectivity” in their judgement of Earthlings from their particular perspective.

Assuming an alien intelligence had somewhat dissimilar sets of values and therefore a dissimilar modus operandi in relation to their main purpose or raison d’être, They would be likely be less inclined to critique themselves as objectively as Earthlings, and visa versa.

Similarities and differences between us and them may constitute our initial fascination as whatever those entailed could become as a sort of Rosetta Stone for deciphering the nature of life and the Universe in general.

Until that first contact we may suffice it to say that for symbol-using beings, control over subjectivity (i.e., subjectivity to other things and conditions such as illness, mortality, ignorance, etc) is our ultimate purpose.

We have (as well perhaps as other symbol-using beings) constructed through symbolic meaning a world and reality which firmly places us at the center of our Universe of purpose and meaning even though we continue to pursue knowledge in our quest for control.

Any organizational belief system which supports a status quo of power relationships (regardless of truth or reason) I refer to as Articles of The Emperor’s New Clothes, i.e., any ideas and or beliefs which are symbolically created to preserve a hegemonic and ego-centric hierarchy of power as a function of our individual quest for power over subjectivity.
















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 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.