.:Out of Chaos:.

here is the train of thought..
>1 movie V
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/preview/1808632422
Based Upon: The graphic novel "V for Vendetta," written by Alan Moore and illustrated by David Lloyd, published by DC Comics in 1988.
Premise: In an alternate timeline where Germany won World War II and Great Britain is now a facist state, a masked vigilante known only as "V" conducts guerrilla warfare against the government. When he rescues a normal young woman (Portman), she joins his struggle against the forces of oppression.
=========================
>2 what is oppression?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression
OppressionFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oppression is the negative outcome experienced by people targeted by the arbitrary and cruel exercise of power in a society or social group. The term itself derives from the idea of being "sat on.'
The term oppression is primarily used to describe how a certain group is being kept down by unjust use of force, authority, or societal norms. When this is institutionalized formally or informally in a society, it is referred to as "systematic oppression". Oppression is most commonly felt and expressed by a widespread, if unconscious, assumption that a certain group of people are inferior. Oppression is rarely limited solely to government action. Individuals can be victims of oppression, and in this case have no group membership to share their burden of ostracization.
==========================================
>3 what is the UDHR?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
Universal Declaration of Human RightsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaWikisource has original text related to this article: Universal Declaration of Human RightsThe Universal Declaration of Human Rights (also UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (A/RES/217, December 10, 1948), outlining the organisation's view on the human rights guaranteed to all people. It was referred to by Eleanor Roosevelt as "a Magna Carta for all mankind".
Contents 1 Creation 2 Structure and legal implications 3 Major principles 4 Trivia 5 References in Entertainment 6 Notes 7 See also 8 Further reading 9 External links ==========================================
>4 what is the core idea of the UDHR?
http://www.unac.org/rights/question.html
Q: What are the main principles upheld by the Declaration?
A: The Declaration contains, in addition to its preamble, thirty articles that outline people’s universal rights. Some of the rights championed by the Declaration are:
the right to life, liberty and security of person the right to an education right to participate fully in cultural life freedom from torture or cruel, inhumane treatment or punishment freedom of thought, conscience and religion
========================================
oh look cool ethics link...
==========================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Core_issues_in_ethics
==========================================
::
::
::
So... what is power?
.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_power.
Toffler
Alvin Toffler's Powershift argues that the three main kinds of power are violence, wealth, and knowledge with other kinds of power being variations of these three (typically knowledge). Each successive kind of power represents a more flexible kind of power. Violence can only be used negatively, to punish. Wealth can be used both negatively (by withholding money) and positively (by advancing/spending money). Knowledge can be used in these ways but, additionally, can be used in a transformative way. Such examples are, sharing knowledge on agriculture to ensure that everyone is capable of supplying himself and his family of food; Allied nations with a shared identity forming with the spread of religious or political philosophies, or one can use knowledge as a tactical/strategic superiority in Intelligence (information gathering).
Toffler argues that the very nature of power is currently shifting. Throughout history, power has often shifted from one group to another; however, at this time, the dominant form of power is changing. During the Industrial Revolution, power shifted from a nobility acting primarily through violence to industrialists and financiers acting through wealth. Of course, the nobility used wealth just as the industrial elite used violence, but the dominant form of power shifted from violence to wealth. Today, a Third Wave of shifting power is taking place with wealth being overtaken by knowledge.
.
>repeat>
Today, a Third Wave of shifting power is taking place with wealth being overtaken by knowledge.
> what is the third wave?
The Third Wave is a book by Alvin Toffler.
The waves are as follows:
First - Origins of agriculture
Second - Industrial Revolution
Third - Information Age
.
.
::
Therefore, ergo, hence...
what do we the people do with power, with knowledge? with the digital age where by we can see get upload information before and unregulated by the industrialists? before the industrialists shut it (it, the internet, freedom of knowledge of information) down?
==
Mobcasting http://mobcasting.blogspot.com/ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=podcasts+katrina+bloggers
Hurricane Katrina Mobcast Launched. I've just launched an open blog and ... The blog is set up so that anyone can post a blog entry, podcast or photo to the ...mobcasting.blogspot.com/ - 37k - Cached - Similar pages
==
What’s this? The Blog Finder is Technorati's directory of blogs, organized by subject. This page shows blogs about katrina podcast in order of authority (most site links).
http://technorati.com/blogs/katrina+podcast
==
so what if...
==
what if we loose electricity after becomeing so digital and what happens to the access of knowledge as we move away from localized repositories of depth (library) and academia of quality as we move towards academia of convienence?
.
would we fall into a second dark age? would society reset falling back to power of violence being supreme? If we knew this was going to happen what would we, WE the people, what would we do to ensure knowledge is not lost? as we democratize knowledge, how do we protect it?
. think about it.
in today's america, how many people know how to sanatize their drinking water?
.
i am not calling for anything other then a discourse, to reach world unity and peace, how do we truely democratize knowledge and how to protect a pluralistic social construct? are we not abiding by the universal declaration of human rights that we helped create post world war II? The important freedoms are slipping away and who is getting mad about it?
.
we used to be the home of the free the home of the brave.
.
now perhaps we are just the home of the complacent while the world tide rises against us the industrialists will gasp to regain 'power' and in doing so kill the third wave of knowledge which will more likely then not, slide us all globally into a second dark age.
.
what to do to ensure our grandchildrens grandchildren still live free and live in peace, a global peace.... what to do?

Talking with a friend about an ethics class she is in. She is my age and her academic counterparts are kids, youth who have yet to experience raw life outside of the protectorate... she posted an IM to me and this is/was my reply to her....
::
::
phaedrus80503: ethic [1- A set of principles of right conduct.]
.....Morals [1- Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character] .... the difference is Morals is based on judgement and thereby variable ... ethics are concerning condcut for the greatest good ....
phaedrus80503: Instrumentalist morality [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism ]thus resembles utilitarianism [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism ]in defining moral rules only as tools for moral good. Thus the moral code rising from a given population is simply a collection of rules that are useful to the population. David Hume was perhaps the first person to suggest that there might not be any intrinsic or metaphysical value of rules, but that they are simply secular and natural rules that are human-madephaedrus80503: there is no moral absolutisim and to take that position is to not be philisophic, scientific, or academic... to take that position is dogma rhetoric and oppressive. It is very arguable that there are ethics that can be defined for the greatest good of a domain. whether the domain is medical, professional, national, family, or global... first, defining what is in the construct that can be determined.. and morality while it is a guiding light can also be an oppressive solar flare burning all possible options and leaving a burnt toast landscape... so.. ethics starts there, by determination of 'what is the domain in which we are speaking'
::
::
I feel this is important and this kind of talk needs to be more prevailant
we need more devils advocates, Promotor Fidei, Advocatus Diaboli.
::
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotor_Fidei
Formerly, during the canonization process by the Roman Catholic Church, the Promoter of the Faith (Latin Promotor Fidei), or Devil's Advocate (Latin advocatus diaboli), was a canon lawyer appointed by the Church to argue against the canonization of the proposed candidate. It was his job to take a skeptical view of the proceedings, to look for holes in the evidence, to argue that the miracles attributed to the candidate were fraudulent, etc.
::
In common parlance, the term has come to mean a person who argues a position that they do not necessarily believe in, simply for the sake of arguing; or who presents a counterargument for a position they do believe in to another debater. This process can be used to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure.
::
a real good quote
.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3664/is_200410/ai_n9453139
.
Yet Gebara always deconstructs "dualistic God-talk" (compare her Longing for Running Water [1999]). She denies any supernatural or Manichean force of evil.
.
"It is as if some ingredient has infiltrated everywhere and can be called 'evil.' It has the potential to destroy human relationships, our affinity with the earth, life in all its forms." "Evil" is pervasive: not stronger than good but inseparable from it. "Evil is the condition for naming the good [and vice versa]. Like Augustine's tapestry with its knotty back-side, we only recognize, appreciate and practice 'good' in contrast to 'evil.'" Christians often repress this relativity of good to evil. "This experience of realizing that almost all our solutions are, in fact, the result of a lesser evil or of some other type of evil frightens me."
.
"Good" for her is no absolute end but "a delicate flower always in danger of dying." Absolute good-versus-evil facilitates evil. Writing just before the new U.S. perpetration of death in the name of God and Good, Gebara observes, "there exists a control, an imperialism in the name of good, capable of killing others." The alternative to absolutism is not relativism but relationalism: "Empirical observation of the complex relatedness" suggests to her that "without evil, we would not know what is good; without sickness we would not know what health is." Who is God? For any believer, Gebara says, "to say 'God' is to call upon a presence of goodness, of support, of justice." But "God continues to be, in a certain sense, an empty concept, that is, a concept that admits of different meanings." She therefore proposes "the essediversity of God," a term suggesting irreducible interrelatedness: "All things live in God and God lives in everything."
.
::
I really like this ... "the essediversity of God," a term suggesting irreducible interrelatedness: "All things live in God and God lives in everything"
::
I reject Dante's Inferno of Devil, of Michaelangello's Creation of the human being [http://www.hofesh.org.il/freeclass/parashat_hashavua/9901_bereshit/michael_angelo.jpg] and that by saying 'we are created in God's image' means human form...


taking the idea of God as living in everything, aka the Cosmos, we are ergo, small versions of the Cosmos. This Chimaera of a human form crap is our ego's sticking us with a cosmic joke. until we let go of, our ego, we will never be capable of unity of mankind or peace on earth, until we can seperate ethics from morality, our ego from defining good, our vanity from defining God, we will continue to be nothing more then a self distructive virus on the planet.
::
let's hope no other entity creation life form comes along and applies a medicine to get rid of us so dogs and dolphins can continue with evolution.
::

Why is it that 'freedom of expression' is associated with 'anything goes' is it believed that freedom is free?
::
The issue is similar to the fact that in today's America the publishing community no longer prints political cartoons that depict the African American as a black faced fool like they did back in the turn of the century. On college campuses it is no longer OK for fraternity brothers to paint their faces black and do the 'dance party' skit thing they all used to do back in the mid 50's and early 60's. These things it is realized are extremely degrading to a particular group, the African American group.
::
This cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammad is the same thing. It is extremely degrading and it is considered a sign of complete lack of morality to do so in the eyes of the Islamic followers. It is a direct path to Hell, just as it is or would be to not show respect to the book, the collection of words on paper that is more then just a book to the Islamic, the Koran. There are very strict rules that are to ensure that respect is shown to the book that contains the words of a Prophet.
::
Making and printing a cartoon depicting an image of Mohammad that is not 'reverent' is just as bad as going out and putting on a KKK outfit and hanging a manikins painted black, or just as bad as going out and torturing kittens and video taping it and publishing that on the internet, it is considered a lack of morality to do so by everybody.
So, is doing something that is lacking of morality, and doing it for public consumption, is that free speech? Doing a crime as an artistic statement or political statement make the crime ok to get away with under the guise of free speech? I think not. Freedom and free speech come with responsibility. The price of Freedom is we all have to work at understanding, at finding compassion, at calling out injustice when it is found.
::
Now, the reactionary behavior of those who are making the news and creating riots and protests where people are being killed... that is morally wrong and just as bad, not good.
::
If we look for one person to blame and point and say it is 'his fault, his fault!' we are getting caught up in a waste of time. Just like the Katrina debacle and failing of aid from our own government, if we spend time saying 'his fault his fault' and then do nothing to address the issue, to fix the problem so it does not happen twice, then we are all fools.
::
Free speech does not mean we have a right to say something with out regard. There are things that should not be said. This is the price of Freedom, that we understand our responsibility and understand what we poke fun of.
Do you have any idea WHY it was not ok to depict the Prophet Mohammad in such a way? Do you have any understanding of the Muslim faith? If the answer is no, it is now a good time to learn a little. There is no reason to stack fire wood and gasoline and leave a book of matches around a hot issue and then walk away. Someone who is a moron with out understanding will come along and light it, then others will scream and yell and what is accomplished?
::
There are some rules for the greater good, rules like stop for red lights, rules like do not steal, rules like wait your turn in line, these are all for the public good and order.
::
To not understand the public good and order does not give one the right to use 'Free Speech' as a mask for going against public good and order. The publishing company that printed the cartoon, the political artist/pundit who created it, they did not fully ask the question, WWJD.
::
I use the same logic on my elementary school aged kid, I suggest to her, when she is faced with a choice, make the choice that you feel you can stand in front of your mom, your dad, your grandmother and explain what you did and why. If you would not be comfortable doing so, then it is most likely not the thing to do, that is a good guideline for making a choice of right and wrong.
::
In the end, right and wrong is a social construct and ethics and morality have a degree of relativity of time. What was right and wrong a thousand years ago is not the same as what is right and wrong today. We all have a responsibility to question to ask to think to understand what these right and wrong things are and mean. If we do things in life with out asking 'is this ok' and then taking your own Devils advocate role and asking from the point of view of 'the other side' asking 'is this ok' and why.. that process is the cost of Freedom. If we do not take this step, we will eventually loose freedom. That is what people are at struggle with here, too many people take things A PRIORI take things for granted take things as a given right that can't be lost.... well, nothing is 'FREE' we all have responsibility if we want to live together.
::
The world is changing, it is getting smaller and what someone does in Denmark can effect the world. When MacBeth did his deeds the world did not shudder and ignite, but today to act with out conscious in the land of Danes has a differect affect. Do you know what that responsibility REALLY MEANS? What is the individuals responsibility in society today?

10:49 AM 2/18/2006

Dissecting God
Philosopher Daniel Dennett argues that America is drowning in religion -- and that faith needs to be analyzed with the tools of science.
.
By Gordy Slack [http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/02/08/dennett/index.html] Feb. 8, 2006
.::.
Daniel C. Dennett is a big man with a big appetite for intellectual fights. A celebrated philosophy professor and the director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, he is best known for his arguments that human consciousness and free will boil down to physical processes. When theologians, New Agers and other philosophers and scientists complain about scientific reductionism -- the effort to reduce everything, including human behavior and spirituality, to material properties -- they are complaining about Dennett.
.
:: "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" ::
:: By Daniel C. Dennett :: Viking, 464 pages, Nonfiction ::
.
religious attitudes of people are clearly interfering with the political discussion. So if we fail to understand why religions have the effects they do on people, we will screw up our efforts to solve these problems.
::
.
We cannot let any group, however devout, blackmail us into silence by their expressions of hurt feelings whenever they feel that we are getting close to the truth. That is what con artists do when their marks begin to get suspicious, and that is what children do when they can't have their way, and it should be beneath the dignity of any religious group to play that card. The responsibility of science is to safeguard the well-being of those it studies and to tell the truth. If people insist on taking themselves out of the arena of reasonable political discourse and mutual examination, they forfeit their right to be heard. There is no excuse for deliberately insulting anybody, but people who insist on putting their sensibilities on a hair trigger demonstrate that they prefer pity to respect.
::
.
In every culture, people are inclined to personify the forces of nature. What do the weather gods want? What does the sun god want? Out of this bias, built into our nervous systems, comes a machine of sorts for generating ghosts and phantoms and gods and goddesses and goblins and imps. That's not religion, that's superstition. But I think that's part of the biological underpinning of religion.
::

<<>>
<<>>
<<>>

By being superstitious, we tie ourselves into the natural construct that we live IN. By elevating ourselves to this 'end of days' ' God given story line, there is a dangerous schism that we are building between our humanity and our connection to our environment and world. Our world is what keeps us alive, we can not introduce things like 'kill the wolfs' out of our fear of the creature and then later realize that the animal keeps balance to populations and if we kill this entity in the wheel of balance in our world, the tilt has effects we do not yet know or understand. Look at how we build our cities and man made environment, what is this doing to the global balance? Are we painting ourselves into a corner we won't be able to get out of?
.
Religion originally was a describer of the unknown. To help people from quivering in complete fear of the unknown like a herd in panic. Religion became a community unification force. Religion became a social construct that aligned the chaos of Europe and stopped the pure anarchy of the dark ages. While this was taking place, what is now the Arab world was the flourishing culture. The events that Mohammad lived during that became the second largest world faith were all about unity as well.
.
Has anyone actually asked about the deep psychological issues at play for the Christ focus world to realize that their religious force is declining and the Mohammedan religious force is growing? There is a huge unknown and lack of social understanding because we western hemisphere folks have not been taught during our youth about the eastern hemisphere folks. It is as if in our consciousness, the east is like the moon or mars or some other far away impossible place. Yet it isn't. We the inhabitants of this planet are every day flattening and shrinking. An issue in a remote part of the world that we never knew about before the age of communication and digital connectivity had no effect on us because we never KNEW. Now, we know about 'stuff' we know about exotic flu's about shrinking ice, about what is happening world wide.
.
Perhaps the NEXT social unification construct, religion, needs to address the reality that we have to get back to a place were we are intimately aware and worried and doing something about our effect on the balance of the planet. If we tout that there is a force that will swoop in and rescue us so we therefore do not need to worry about what we do to the planet because we will be saved. Will we be rescued by something other then ourselves?
.
We MUST realize that we are the only savior that will ensure our children and grandchildren's' grandchildren will survive. We, humanity can easily go the way of the Dodo. Why not? The masses tipping the scale outweigh the few who are aware and trying to restore or to find balance.
.
What we have today is a bunch of juvenile whining and tantrum throwing masses of humanity. This brouhaha over that cartoon of Mohammad. One, do we make and publish cartoons anymore like the way we (American's) used to portray people of African race? No we don't and the reason is that it is not free speech to knowingly or because 'we' are idiots and moron's and pour gasoline on puppies and light a match and toss it in with out regard to the result. That is not art or a valid form of free speech. In the same token, to not comprehend the sacred cow, to be with out regard or care to understand the result of making and publishing such a cartoon is completely unacceptable.
.
JUST as unacceptable is the reaction, the juvenile reaction that large groups across the planet are doing as a result of the moron's that created then printed the cartoon. Gandhi was an enlighten being, his reaction to moron's was in the end a vastly more powerful and positive force of change. I call upon the reactionaries to take a breath, deepen on the meaning of Truth from what ever your source of Truth. Find in your future behavior the decision to act out in a way that will INSPIRE compassion where there is no compassion, to inspire a DESIRE for understanding where there is no understanding, to show by example that while what was done by moron's is UNACCEPTABLE that revenge is not in destruction but revenge is to be played out over time by being points of light of TRUTH. That for the world et all to strive to understand with out prejudice all that is our past and our future, that individuals are more capable of learning and being each responsible to the social entirety of humanity.
.
When Nietczhe said post world war that 'God is dead' he meant that the people were not connected to the positive force of what we call god that people in his environment were instead holding onto icons and false hope about what it meant to be 'religious' that in doing so they were individually allowing the horrors to occur that were part of the construct of Europe at that time. To be truly spiritual and to be focused on the positive energy of 'God' was dead in Europe.
.
We, the people of East and West are heading to the same place that Nietczhe experienced. God is dead if we allow the darkness of hate and lack of understanding to rule our actions. We the people of the third planet from the sun need to as a social entirety focus on every action being filled with Light, being filled with positivness in the midst of the storm. If we do not resurrect what it means to live in the light of God, we et all will pass like the Dodo. The tidal wave of occurrence will at some point become greater then our collective 'smartness' and trickiness that we build our belief that we of the humane species are outside of the natural reality that we really do live in.
.
What would Jesus do?
What would Mohammad do?
What will YOU do?

.::.