Horses to Water

It has been suggested that one may lead a horse to water but one cannot coerce the same into drinking thereof.

This blog is based upon my latest (published) project by similar title: “Uncommon Sense: A Theory of Human Purpose.”

What do Horses and Water have to do with uncommon sense you may ask. Well if we assume that water is somehow significant to horses, than I’m suggesting that “Uncommon Sense: A Theory of Human Purpose,” is likewise significant to Humans.

Although an analogy only goes so far toward making sense, I shall attempt to continue here as far as it seems reasonalby sensible.

Firstly, (as in the book) I consider conditional words such as “if” to be of pivotal significance in the discovery of significances (or “truths”) if you will.

For instance, water may not be of any significance to a dead or dying horse. Therefore we cannot assume that under any particular set of circumstances that water is in fact significant to a Horse.

[At this juncture it seems likely that a significant number of readers may already have lost interest in this process of sense-making. In the book I refer to such an orientation as “common” as opposed to “uncommon sense-making.” If a horse or horses have ever actually gotten sick or died for the lack of water, yet water was provided in abundance, the analogy continues to hold water (if you will). However there is a marked difference between water and words. At this juncture I can only attempt to persuade any remaining “common-sense-makers” to “hold your horses” and at least attempt to hold out for just a drop of the deluge of uncommon-sense-making “significances” I have attempted to elucidate within the book as well as this blog]

…So, if we assume that water is fundamental to the health and life of any given horse, then I am likewise proposing that knowledge and information is fundamental to our ultimate purpose as Humans. But only if our ultimate purpose is significant.

If our ultimate purpose is of significance (which I argue it is) then purpose is the driver of all other motives (significances).

If we were to assume that a horse’s ultimate “motive” were to survive and reproduce (in which our analogy breaks down a bit in a distinction between motive and instinct), and said horse was capable of drinking and in a state of dehydration, it seems logical to assume that water would be highly significant to said horse.

As alluded to above there is a significant distinction between words and water. Water is highly significant to even a moderately dehydrated Human, however I would argue that Words are of much greater significance since words have become crucial in knowing where to find, how to store, purify, distribute, share, and trade value for, water.

I submit at this juncture that more humans have suffered and perished for the lack of knowledge than the lack of water in pursuit of purpose.

Ironically (particularly in this meridian of time), Humanity is drowning in words and rhetoric; it is more practicable and undemanding to the survival of the self to merely go along with whatever is rhetorically presented (en mass) as significant, regardless of “truth/s.”

Rather than a mere trough of water from which to drink for total instant gratification, we are consistantly presented with innumerable “troughs” sloping over with rhetoric in an attempt to persuade us that particular “significances” are of greater exigency than others.

Although in the book and Blog I support the idea that “truth” is relative to the observer, I also suggest that “gravities” of truth can and do exist between communicants. Just as with any rhetoric, Uncommon Sense: A Theory of Human Purpose exists to persuade the reader (symbolically) that particular significances are “truer” than others in our quest for Human purpose.

The jury is still out however as to what is actually significant in the pursuit of purpose in terms of both the book and the Blog (although I attempt to go to great lengths to suggest such). The main function of both book & Blog is to create a sort of dialogic “operating system” through which to analyze purpose, motive, and gravities of truth in pursuit of Human purpose.

Ironically it seems much easier to lead a horse to water and pursued it to drink – even though not particularly parched or in dire need – than to persuade Humans (which have been significantly dumbed-down through rhetoric), to pursue knowledge and information unassociated with gratuitous and superficial entertainments, i.e., “bread and circus,” even though the consequences – both concurrently and historically – have been and are much more dire than those of horses.











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.