What is Visualization.

We higher mammals have a gift that we call visualization.It is a cognitive function in conjunction with our senses that allows us to form a mental image of objects of our interest. We usually see, feel, touch,smell or taste something then using cues or previous experience form a model in our minds that we use for the various purposes we see fit. In this obvious statement, we see a profound truth in that we need a basic level of comprehension for visualization.


This implies many things. For one, Visualization is not immediate or universal. If two people see the same thing, one person might visualize it very different from the other person. If for example, two people see a dolphin; one person might be disgusted by the slick skin, one might not; one person might find its prehensile penis scary and the other person might be completely uncaring about the matter. The two people see the dolphin, put the dolphin label on, and then begin to visualize it each in their own way with imagery, sensations, and emotions . The visualization process also relies on understanding. Underlying concepts, ideas, philosophies form this understanding that is used in our mental image. For example, The dolphin has a flipper that moves up and down. Since most fish have anal fins that move side to side, Most people assume that all other aquatic animals have the same underlying structure. However dolphins are not fish and evolved from land mammals. Not knowing these facts can make people picture dolphins with fins and gills instead of how they are in real life. This shows that knowledge makes a big difference in the visualization of an object.


Visualization is seemingly an ethereal process. However as science continues to reveal the inner workings of the mind, We get a glimpse of how the brain visualizes stuff. The visual data gotten from the eye is processed in the occipital lobe. This is unsurprisingly the biggest data cachet that any living thing has and in complex animals like human beings, it is unsuprising that there is a whole lobe in our minds dedicated to processing for sight. The data goes through the various stages of processing before being sent to the parietal lobe through the dorsal stream. The parential lobe is then tasked with integrating all the information from the different modalities to form mainly the spatial and navigational models of reality but also seems to helps with understanding. The Frontal lobe is the other lobe crucial to visualization. "It is the part of each hemisphere of the brain located behind the forehead that serves to regulate and mediate the higher intellectual functions. The frontal lobes have intricate connections to other areas of the brain. In the frontal lobes, we meld emotions, cognition, error detection, volition, a sense of self, and more to create our social brain." It is also important for reward, attention, long-term memory, planning, and drive, however one of the bigger functions it seems to be related to is understanding.In a sense, Creating models ,maps of structures or in other words mental images from data. That is why people injured in this region have problems in problem solving, perceptions of results of actions in relation to systems and structures, mental flexibility e.t.c. This is also partially why teenagers have problems with accurate assesment of risks and regulations of their social,economic and judicial systems, due to immature frontal lobes. Scientist liken the mind to a computer, " It able to decompose any mental representations into its underlying mathematical propositions." We have to keep in mind though that all this processing would be greatly hampered without an sound underlying framework of information about the particular humans enviroment.

In this essay, I make no differentiation in this essay between imagination and visualization. The only real difference i see is that while the imagination term is restricted to mostly imaginary scenarios, we use the word visualization in both real and imaginary mind scenarios. As a matter of fact if you really think about it, humans live a sort of conceptualistic existance. All the structures one thinks he or she visualizes are copies of reality. You guys might think i'm being all Matrix like and doubting reality or i am being all descartes like and doubting existence but it is a fact that what we think we know of reality is just an imperfect copy. We all have to synthesize the data we get from our senses into an image, a copy, a visualization of the reality we see.


Visualization is not only useful in abstract philosophy. It has a great many applications in other fields. Plain simulation, scientific visualization, geo-visualization, information visualization, creative visualization, visualization in information graphics all require this mind skill. We need to remember though that all visualization relies on a proper understanding of the subject matter.

Religion and the use of it, again!

I would imagine that in the past, life was pretty harsh. The rule of law had not been established. One ran the risk of getting killed at any time, your property raided, your wife raped. You could also get sick and just die. In such a world, religion was very useful in taming the beast in men, as well as explaining the unpredictable world.

Now the question is: with the gradual "civilizing" of human beings and establishment of law and order, from the local police all the way to the hague, with education too, and health care, is there any further need for religion (christianity, islam and all the rest)? Considering also that they have now become a major source of misunderstanding and hatred between peoples?

Of course not all places have been tamed, and some wild frontiers still exist, but in principle, what say you?

Religions are not there to act as a deterrent for "uncivility", At least that is not their main purpose . The religions are systems or structures, social systems within a community that act like tools to be used by the community and by the individuals in the community for given purposes, structures in that they are built, step by step from bottom to top by a given social circle or society due to a variety of causes.

A community might use its religion to bring together people to raise funds for the sick, to provide food for the homeless, to chase bad influence out of town with peaceful protests or pitchforks and many other uses. The community can begin developmental corporations, youth programs e.t.c.

An individual may use religion in personal or small group settings in many ways. Many Farmers to this day send deacons or religious leaders to their fields to bless them, this is a way for the farmer and his family to seem to gain control over the uncontrollable, Families also use the concept of God or higher being as a tool for many things, to explain etheral concepts like emotional connections(love, hate, good, bad, morality), the universe, higher power e.t.c. to strengthen family structure by relying on religious structure for authority, moral superiority e.t.c. Some individual use religion for economic, political and physical reasons

In all this, the individual or groups of people use religion as a tool for some specific purpose whether these purposes are good or bad is irrelevant. Personally i think all religions are lies purported by terrible people for convoluted purposes, but i cant deny that religion still has a vital role in society.

Man has been able to explain things that were erstwhile mysterious and deemed supernatural, and as this knowledge progresses,so will the role of religion diminish.

Religion is not only used as a means of explaining the unexplainable, It has many other uses, one of its main uses in society is as a tool by a group or an individual to try and exert control, this control can be social, pschycological, authoritative or physical. It doesn't have to be good or bad influence but it is obvious religion can increase this influence in many settings.

For example, in the case of a sick child, Even if he or she is in the hands of the best doctors in the world, there is still things that are not under control. The family is unable to help with treatment, the emotions of the family members are in disarray, Panic and confusion might set in, They need to maybe display the emotions of love, affection and caring to the child to set him at ease, they need to voice out concerns even for pragmatic reason e.t.c. In this case, One of the very few tools that can accomplish these goals is maybe if they have a religious belief,they could say a prayer to give a measure of control, to project order, prevent panic and confusion, show love and affection, and voice out concerns at the same time.

Again i am trying to explain a situation where religion can be used positively, I am not claiming that religion is exclusively for people with sick children or something of that nature, I am simply saying that religion can be used to gain some control over that uncontrollable situation, i.e. psycological, emotional, mind(uncontrollable thoughts) e.t.c.

It is not that it is perfect at its role as this tool since all these religious beliefs require a quantity of irrationality and illogicality at their core and You are totally right when you say that the role of religion will continue decreasing, but for many people now these religions act as the only tool to perform some of these functions.

To really understand religious structure we have to change our viewpoint radically. We have to temporarily forget the flaws in these supernatural beliefs and see what they are able to accomplish. Religion for an individual and a group can be seen as a vice to exert influence, maybe it is by invoking supernatural beliefs, maybe it is by relying on the economic, social and organizational structures built by these religion but it is possible to use a religious system to direct the individual, the group or society.


If for example i want to get a child to stop performing an action, I could use religious fear or religious reward to do it. i.e. stop that or you will go to hell, or stop that and god will bless you. I can be a politician to do the same thing to a group like the tea party people. This is the basic religious purpose, another means to try and exert influence or control . You might say that these things could be done without requiring the belief in the supernatural but we still have to view it as an option to accomplish these goals .

But this is precisely what I was saying...that religion evolved as a tool to exert control. By instilling fear of hell, lack of blessings (which is a supernatural phenomenon) etc. The question is: since modern man has outgrown many of these notions, is religion still necessary?

I am not trying to argue that religion is righteous,on the contrary there alot of problems and bad things in religion,but if you change your veiwpoint and think of religion maybe as a product, it is able to deliver services that are not easily found elsewhere like the type of influence that people usually like to use individually or in groups and I meant control as in control of ones life or influence over a given group of people to a useful end, .I don't know what type of proof to give in this situation, but if you look at the examples i am giving, you will see what i am talking about.

Hopefully a time comes when the religions our society relies upon are not the bloody, murdering, money hungry , children fucking ,asexual, pedophilic things we have gotten used to in this age.



You are saying that the role of religions is decreasing, well that says nothing about the trends in the religions themselves. The growth rate in majority of the religions is actually on the rise with highest increases being in Islam and Hinduism. I was surprised since in some countries, we find astronomical growth rates for religious belief. In Australia for example, we find Buddhism having a growth rate of over 80%.

Even with the advent of the modern scientific age, It is ultimately impossible to rid humanity completely of its elements of irrationality, as the supernatural beliefs involved in these religions are some of the greatest irrationality in place today.We also have to remember any religion is always changing to suite its environment, evolving to mirror its audience. As such it is not social and scientific progress that will remove religion from society, It might decrease religion's place but it will not completely remove it.

The example of Australia about the growth of Buddhism there is due to migration from the far east. If before there were 10 buddhists in Australia, and 10 more move in, that will be a 100% rise...but there will be a decrement of 10 buddhists from whence those came. This does not reflect an overall rise in religiosity in the world. You must agree that OVERALL, the world is a much more secular place now than it was 100 years ago. And if the trend continues, who can imagine what it will be like in another 100 years? Maybe religions will have become extinct.

Indeed we can see a decrease in some aspects of religion today,already we are seeing religion being sidelined more and more in debates of government, morality and even philosophy as scientific progress continues. However the prevalence of religion is another different trend and it seems to be on the rise.

According to religious tolerance site, we find that even though the biggest religion i.e. christianity is shrinking, we find that other religions like Islam have astounding growth, and there is an increase in new religions like Wiccas,New age, Neopaganism e.t.c. and resurgence of older minor religions like the tribal religions of Shamaisms and Animisms, and others like Confucianism. and even with the shrinking christian faith, we still see a great growth in smaller churches and group meetings.


We see things like the tea party being immensely popular, using things such as moral panic, mob hysteria, and incessant propaganda to build a sort of civil religion with loyal followers and big impacts.

That is why i say that even though all the religions we see might be based on falsehood and mysticim, they do offer services that are in high demand in our irrational society.Certainly as the impact of the modern scientific age continues to sink into humanities thick skull, religion will decrease but religion is unlikely to be eliminated due to progress.

Trends among U.S. Christians
Religions of the world: numbers of adherents; growth rates
http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/re...-chapter-2.pdf

It is ultimately impossible to justify religion and its irrationality but it is important to see what is its use in society and individual life.Thankfully I am like Laplace and have no need for such a hypothesis or system.

The article was from exerts from a discussion on Mashada

What is an emotional connection?
What is an emotional attachment?
What role do these things play in a relationship?

I view an emotional connection as sort of like a link between two people that lets them communicate emotions fear, rejection, hope e.t.c. If our cognitive emotions are like data and what we speak, voice, show in things like body language, written outlets like diaries, facebook e.t.c is the signal. It is inherently impossible to relate to another human being without a basic level of emotional connection. As in any Signals processing scenario, you are always dealing with Noise, signal decoding, bandwidth and more noise as such one might not be able to communicate as intended but in any interpersonal relationship whether casual or intimate, an emotional connection is inherently present whether good or poor.

I view an emotional attachment as a link between two people. This is of course an analogy since there cannot be a physical link between two people like the popular myth of the invisible string to the heart :rolleyes: but an emotional attachment is a tie to another person that is built on maybe a reliance on somebody for things like approval,trust,intimacy,security even physical material like money, shelter e.t.c. or being relied on for these things. An emotional attachment is not an intrinsic property in a relationship. It is like a bridge that is built. This is a popular view that has been adapted in the leading psychological and ethological viewpoints with the name of the attachment theory. one of this theory's basic premise says that even though some attachments like maternal ones are easy to form, All attachments are built.

To form a relationship specifically an intimate relationships, there has to be some level of emotional connection where the two beings in question have a level of understanding on the basic personalities, needs and emotions of their partners and can communicate this info to some level. There also has to be some given emotional attachment whether it is a platonic Ineffability or just a causal sex relationship(booty call) . This is part of the reason why there is a long flirting period needed to substantiate emotional attachments in human courting. All i am saying in all this is that establishing a meaningful intimate relationship requires to tons of work and patience. Patience to be able to establish a connection with someone(cause there is tons of noise!) and patience to build an attachment, to form a reliance on your patner that is beyond the empty headed ,simplistic and hedonistic limerance that govern behaviors, cognition and emotions in many peoples relationships.

Pictures

Here are some more photos to make the blog seem more colourful

The GT-R; I snapped a picture of it at a local dealership. These guys treated it like gold, wouldn't let a fellow even touch it, let alone taking a test drive.


My brother and sister; nice picture of them, laban will really be unhappy to see this posted!

Me and a Delorean; First time to see one of these live. I was trying to look cool but there is no way i was going to succeed with the lawn service in the back and the tahoe interrupting the shot on the road.
















My tercel; Trying to replace the transmission without buying a stand. It was tiresome and unfruitful as well since the replacement tranny was faulty!

The fiesta movement; Either they were delivering these cars for display to dealers or some lucky guy all the way in alabama got a fiesta! I snapped this photo quite a long time ago though.

USF1, Go Race or Bust

I have been quite interested in USF1 for a while. The First F1 team based in the USA, i hoped that it could garner an increase formula one audience where i live or at least give me a chance to veiw an F1 car in action but this sadly is not the case.


In february 2009, way before Lola,Campos-Meta(now HRT),Lotus or even the ever ready team of Pro-drive, Peter Windsor and Ken Anderson announced their intent in participating in the 2010 Formula one season. It would be American technology and American drivers going to conquer the world.It was promise, hope and change from America.With financial backers such as Chad Hurley(co-founder of Youtube), Truth be told, at that time USF1 was the best positioned privateer team.Mad Max(Max Mosley) had decreed that 2010 would bring a two tier system with the cheaper tier being subjected to as budget cap with a maximum of about 50 million( well in the price range of the new team) but given more technical freedom and the other tier being limitless in budget but limited in capabilities.For example there was to be more KERS power, AWD and unlimited revs allowed for lower tier teams but not for the more pricey category. As such it would be possible for privateer teams to compete with the big teams. With America in support partly due to Ken Windsor's influence through speed programming, It was quite a great opportunity for the team.
However the doubts about this team started appearing quite early. First of all there were huge logistical problems with setting up a team in America. This was the first team ever to try and be stationed outside Europe which is a monumental hurdle in itself. Current teams have a big problem even with circuits in Europe. Coordinating convoys with race equipment, spares and tools even for a top team is a huge task. When we start talking about non-European races, you have to think about designing cargo crates, we have to talk about renting planes etc. And even if they did have an office in Europe like they planned,it would not the same as being stationed there.

In any case,they had the opportunity to buy Honda, Toyota and they just refused for some obscure reasons. They would have been winning Titles like brawn did instead of closing shop.

There were also doubts about the technological capabilities of the team. The team released very little material on their actual operations. But with the little they released, it was easy to see that there was a certain lacklusterness that is uncharacteristic in other teams. I am no expert but what i saw was a renovated Nascar shop with some autoclaves and cnc machines. Their partners are mostly affiliated with Nascar and alot of their staff like star designer Eric Warren came from nascar and believe me there is a huge technological,Monetary, skill,environmental and mental gap netween Nascar and F1. For example in terms of money, top teams like ferrari and mclaren can spend in excess of a billion dollars in a season while a car in Nascar costs only 7 million.

"The irony of all this is that there has been precious little in the way of formal planning and documentation. No production schedules, simply very little in the way of planning."

With all these concerns, one starts to question if they really had the ability to participate in the season. Certainly if they had the money, they could have fielded a decent entry but did they really have such funds? The Two tier system was scrapped when FOTA finally stood up to Mad Max and his diabolical plans and even though some budget cuts were instituted, the cost associated with an entry would have almost doubled. This should have been a big blow but supposedly since usf1 had been planning its entry for a long time it wasn't phased, Mr. Anderson told his employees and the public that he had a long-term budget in place. However there were serious cash flow issues within the team according to sources, there were reports of late pay cheques, lack of resources,unhappy suppliers, employees leaving in droves e.t.c. In all this Mr. Anderson stuck to his story that sponsors, partners and team were just waiting for Bahrain.When he was pressured, he admitted to some monetary concerns but he said they were secondary issue. However it has recently come to light that the budget issues were there even last year in October and with partners like Locstein bailing, there was alot of doubt of them ever making it to the grid. Some say that the whole team was in essence an idea and some scratchwork that was announced in an effort to garner support to actually create the team and go to F1?

Mr. Anderson might have seemed to be a nice all American guy that everybody likes in public but many inside sources say his governing process within the team is authoritarian and destructive.This is part of an Exclusive Interview in a German gazette from an anonymous senior member of the team.

“But because of the stubbornness of one individual, USF1 will continue in limbo until it dies,” said a source on condition of anonymity. “It has no chance while Anderson is still here. And it’s shame, the team has really come together and there’s a sense of camaraderie throughout the organization barring one person. This will be the greatest disappointments of my career if that’s the way we go down. I think some soul searching needs to be happening in the front office. Falcon 2 this is being called.”

The problems in the team gained visibility in the public eye in about January when it emerged Chad Hurley had bailed out. Cutting all his association with the team, it was theorized that he was seeking an opportunity into F1 with HRT. Then Peter Windsor and Mr. Anderson came out and said that they might miss Bahrain and just go to Australia. Then after some time, they said that they would miss four races and just show up in Spain in may. By this time the FIA had gotten antsy and sent Charles whiting to inspect the usf1 entry. Nobody knew what he saw but it wasn't pleasant, some say that they didn't have the main tub of the car in any form, and most of the mills and other machines were still in shrink-wrap; but after his visit, it was all over. The factory closed and the employees were dismissed with Peter Windsor and Mr. Anderson dropping off the radar.The most recent activity to do with the team concerns The en-signed driver Jose Lopez who is now in a huge feud with the company. It is surprising that even when the team is under they still have the manpower to update the online profile, even though it is only to remove the references of the hopeful driver.


Now in the tabloids, we hear that Stefan GP is wishing to use USF1's slot to gain entry into F1.

Stefanovic hopes that once his AMCO company has completed its takeover, it will be granted US F1’s entry for 2010 and then can begin racing.

However, it is understood that in correspondence between Stefanovich and the FIA this week the governing body’s view on the matter is very different.

Although Stefanovic believes that in purchasing the US F1 assets he should get the team’s original entry, it is understood that the FIA has written to the team to explain that the American team forfeited the entry when it failed to start the season.

Furthermore, the FIA is poised to begin disciplinary action against US F1 for its failure to make the grid – which could theoretically result in Stefanovic’s company getting dragged into any penalties that are eventually handed down if he owns the American team.

With practice for australia going on tommorow, i can only imagine what the entry would have been like, But I guess i should not count them out, Mr. Anderson has announced the intention of his team on competing in next year's f1 season in the slot they left. I admit this is very unlikely since the FIA is so unhappy with usf1 that it is looking for any legal penalties it can impose. It is as this speed report says

In order to do so, they'd have to retain a workforce that largely blames the team's two principals - Peter Windsor and Ken Anderson - for misleading and mismanaging the team's entry, re-apply through a selection process which the FIA intends to re-open for next season, and face possibly penalties from its World Motor Sports Council.

But the saga will never end for usf1 unless it reaches the grid or completely goes bust.

P.s: Check out this F1 fanatic article on usf1 about a year ago, pretty much a letter to letter telling of what occured

Christian Missionaries in Haiti

My thoughts on the Christian NGO's on a previous post were quite negative, I recieved quite alot of criticisms on Mashada but i still retain alot of these veiws. A story has cropped up that might help to elaborate on my viewpoints . Recently a number of bapist missionaries from Idaho have been charged with trying to kidnap children from Haiti. They have been charged with trying to take children, some of whom parents object out of the country illegally, supposedly in the name of rescuing orphans. Even when confronted with such evidence, they refuse to admit any guilt, even the church itself support these kidnappers! The Religious convictions of these people like those of other religious fundamentalists such as those of islamic fundamentalists have driven them to act irrationally. In these peoples minds of their purposes are infallable and you can clearly see their willingness not to let anything be it the law, common sense, morality or even their own theology stand in their way, You will find the same sort of people operating religious NGO's, Church based charities and organizations extending through many the commercial and personal circles around you, some might be friends, neighbours, kin or even within your immediate family. Be wary of anything in conjunction with these people that is religious motivated. Any Action, gesture, gift, literature, emotion, opportunity linked to these sort of people might be used to ends that you might not like!


U.S. Missionaries In Haiti Charged With Child Kidnapping

US Baptists charged with Haiti child abduction face 15 years in jail

[Audio]-Some Haitians Wary Of Baptist Missionaries

What is freedom? One definition it has is "exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc." I simplify this as escape from unwanted ties. The begining of freedom seems to inherently entail a sort of rebellion or pushing back aganist forces or powers perceived as wrong or sinister. This applies in political, personal and social circles.

We can easily understand political freedom and rebellion. We are surrounded by such a virulent political atmosphere that alot of humanity can easily come to terms with it. It is hard for common people to identify with any ideology that ignores individual death but it is even harder to find many people supporting something that refuses to try and understand or in any way bellitles these struggles. We can draw examples from the civil war in USA, or world war 2 or even various dictators where the 'villains' are committing and supporting terrible atrocities like slavery or genocide or other bad things, but it is quite easy for alot of people to understand or at least sympathize with some of the 'villains" concerns.

We however are plagued to almost always misunderstand and misjudge personal struggles for freedom or personal rebellion. The reasons for this problem are not easy to understand. Is it because of the nature of individual human conscience that we find it hard to 'put ourselves in another person shoes'? Is it beacuse humanity is essentially always in a rat race to exert power and influence that many of us deem alot of this'personal drama' as silly and distracting? Is it part of an instinctive mob psychological mentality? I can't tell, but it is easily visible in practice. If a part of a country wants to break up that is easy to comprehend and rationally argue about, but what if it is a case of an individual wanting more freedom from his family like for example, a young individual rebelling against parental or family ties,a celebrity having an affair or filing a divorce, a young man or woman's choice for sexual freedom in terms of clothing,actions and relationships or maybe it is the case of individual standing in rebellion against a country by moving away or criticizing it or in the case some given politicians escaping it? These scenarios seem alot more misunderstood by common people. There is more hatred, more overbearing moral stands, much more predisposition of thought and mindset against the 'villain' than there is in cases of the larger political factions.

These concerns are usually much higher in cases of social groupings or subcultures. If there are cases of political and individual rebellion, Is it not possible for a collection of people to have concerns that warrant them to Rebel against society? I am not referencing things like public racial and discriminational debate because the aggreable mob gabble are highly politicized and publicized and does not fit the definition i have in mind. I want examine about cases like street and prison gangs,social and religious fringe groups, cultures and subcultures that have sprung up because of these groups of people chosing to take action and not just engage in debate about convictions. Today's black street gangs such as crips,black disciples and bloods might be known alot for drug and crime ties but they begun in the 60's and 70's as groups to protect black communities aganist racial violence, police injustice and promote community interests. The situation is not the very same as those days since civil rights gained the momentum it did and gangbangin' gained the dimensions it has now but there are parallels to this in todays society. Alot of mexica gangs in Carlifornia are known for their support for immigrant welfare, opposition to deportation(They are sometimes known to hire lawyers and get legal help for these cases), racism and discrimination against Mexicans(which is very much alive), and other various social stand for the Mexican population ,legal and illegal in nature or for legal and illegal immigrants. These actions have been very much eclipsed by the crimes commitied by these societies in the media unsuprisingly. The strange thing however is that it is hard or outrightly impossible to find an understanding or even a little sympathetic position in day to day debate.Unless there are active supporters of these organizations, Most talk of such subjects carries labels similar to "Dumb nigga's feuding" or "Stupid Immigrant Beaners."

Udoubtedly it is possible to for such concerns to be possible in organizations such as Islamic terrorist organization like al-qaeda, Or fundamentally racist and bigotist organization as Aryan Nation,KKK,or even crazy Organizations such as the Nazi Lowrider but these organization seem too overly sinister and evil to warrant anything more than a passing glance.It also quite possible that i am unwarranted to use such examples due to their criminal actions, But is it OK for policemen carrying submachine guns and heavy wepoanry to attack and kill teenagers in carlifornia with nothing more than some knives and a 9 mm in the name of eradicating urban violence and not suffer even the slightest of backlash from American public? Is it alright for carlifornia law system and other states to use the crime in these organizations to unfairly imprison and judge(three strikes,gang profiling,documented police brutality) these people and the general public to be supporting them with little or no effort to understand the situation.

Since nature does not have definitions,lines or boundaries to reference for this,Can we define freedom in a way that accounts for struggles such as these? Is it not possible for an individual to break ties for the sake of freedom in non-traditional forms such as clothing, music, religion, livelihood e.t.c.? Is it not possible for us to recognize a community to seek freedom even while being able to disagree on moral standards, violent action or any harm to society. What of these entities? What is entailed in their freedom and their boundaries?