tMoA

~ The only Home on the Web You'll ever need ~


    The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Share
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 7483
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:36 pm

    Imagine a Solar System Studies and Governance PhD Program at the University of California at Berkeley in conjuction with a United States of the Solar System based at the deconsecrated St. Mary's Cathedral in San Francisco! This might be an interdisciplinary study based upon select classes from most of the 350 available major programs. http://berkeley.edu/academics/dept/a.shtml It might even include the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, complete with maglev-train fieldtrips to Area 51!!! This might be sort of a kinder and gentler Rand Corporation, with Soldiers of Common-Sense! Think long and hard about these three clips by Dr. Francis Schaeffer: 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6-z0GJiDB8&feature=related 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqTqEX1e8pU&NR=1 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Hl-28mFW4&feature=related Just remember that the 'best and the brightest' can be incredibly stupid and shortsighted, especially regarding simple common-sense! You guys and gals really don't like me much, do you?? Don't forget that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, compartmentalization, treaties, concordats, executive orders, and national security. Your weekend homework is to watch all of the linked classes on the U.C. Berkeley You Tube Channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/UCBerkeley Test on Monday! I would love to spend a couple of months on the moon, listening to 100 leading authorities (human and non-human, corrupt and non-corrupt) discussing Solar System Studies and Governance, with no notes, recordings, or minutes kept. Can you imagine what one might learn?! I think we should keep trying to figure things out, but such a gathering would probably be very different than anything we have been exposed to, or even imagined. Consider this thread as being a prerequisite to a University Solar System Studies and Governance Program, which might eventually lead to a post-graduate program which might involve being exposed to the aforementioned group. Just think about this for a while. We are merely scratching the surface. But try going through this thread, at least a couple of times. It is designed to make you think, and to arrive at your own answers. This is just the beginning of the Dawning of a New Day of a New Solar System! What would Jordan Maxwell say? What would Amen Ra say?

    Aerospace Studies (ROTC)
    African American Studies
    Agricultural and Resource Economics
    Air Force (ROTC)
    American Cultures
    American Studies
    Ancient History and Mediterranean Archaeology
    Anthropology
    Applied Science and Technology Graduate Group
    Architecture
    Army (ROTC)
    Art History
    Art Practice
    Arts & Humanities, College of Letters & Science Division
    Asian American Studies
    Asian Studies
    Astronomy
    Biochemistry, Comparative
    Bioengineering
    Biological Sciences, College of Letters and Science Division of
    Biology, Integrative
    Biology, Molecular and Cell
    Biology, Plant and Microbial
    Biophysics
    Biostatistics
    Buddhist Studies
    Business
    Celtic Studies
    Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering
    Chemistry, College of
    Chemistry, Department of
    Chemistry, Agricultural and Environmental
    Chicano Studies
    City and Regional Planning
    Civil and Environmental Engineering
    Classics
    Cognitive Science
    College Writing Programs
    Communications, Mass
    Comparative Biochemistry
    Comparative Literature
    Computer Science
    Computational and Genomic Biology Graduate Program
    Conservation Resource Studies
    Continuing Education (UC Berkeley Extension)
    Creative Writing
    Dance
    Demography
    Development Studies
    Disability Studies
    Dramatic Art
    Dutch Studies
    Earth and Planetary Science
    East Asian Languages & Cultures
    East Asian Studies
    Economics
    Economics, Agricultural and Resource
    Economics, Law &
    Education, Graduate School of
    Endocrinology
    Energy and Resources Group
    Engineering, College of
    Includes the following engineering departments & programs: bioengineering; civil & environmental engineering; electrical engineering and computer science; industrial engineering & operations research; materials science & engineering; mechanical engineering; nuclear engineering; and ocean engineering.
    Engineering, Chemical
    Engineering Science
    English
    Environmental Design, College of
    Environmental Economics and Policy
    Environmental Health Sciences
    Environmental Planning, Landscape Architecture and
    Environmental Science, Policy, and Management
    Environmental Sciences
    Environmental Sciences, College of Natural Resources
    Epidemiology
    Ethnic Studies
    Extension, UC Berkeley
    Film Studies
    Folklore
    Forestry and Natural Resources
    Forestry, Center for
    French
    Gender and Women's Studies
    Genetics and Plant Biology
    Geography
    Geology & Geophysics
    German
    Haas School of Business
    Health and Medical Sciences
    Health Sciences, Environmental
    Health Services and Policy Analysis
    History
    History of Art
    Humanities, College of Letters & Sciences Division
    Industrial Engineering and Operations Research
    Infectious Diseases and Immunity
    Information, School of (iSchool)
    Integrative Biology
    Interdisciplinary Studies
    International and Area Studies
    Italian Studies
    Jewish Studies Program
    Journalism, Graduate School of
    Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program
    Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning
    Latin American Studies
    Law
    Law & Economics Program
    Legal Studies
    Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies
    Letters & Science
    Liberal Arts
    Linguistics
    Logic and the Methodology of Science
    Materials Science and Engineering
    Mathematical and Physical Sciences, College of Letters & Science Division
    Mathematics
    Mechanical Engineering
    Media Studies
    Medical Program (Joint UCB-UCSF)
    Mediterranean Archaeology, Ancient History and
    Medieval Studies
    Microbiology, Graduate Group in
    Microbial Biology, Plant and
    Middle Eastern Studies
    Military Affairs Program
    Military Science (ROTC)
    Molecular & Biochemical Nutrition
    Molecular and Cell Biology
    Molecular Environmental Biology
    Molecular Toxicology (Graduate)
    Molecular Toxicology (Undergraduate)
    Music, Department of
    Native American Studies
    Natural Resources, College of
    Naval Science (Navy ROTC)
    Near Eastern Studies
    New Media, Berkeley Center for
    Neurobiology
    Neuroscience
    Nuclear Engineering
    Nutrition/Nutritional Sciences
    Ocean Engineering
    Operations Research, Industrial Engineering and
    Optometry, School of
    Peace and Conflict Studies
    Philosophy
    Physical Education
    Physics
    Plant and Microbial Biology
    Policy Analysis, Health Services and
    Political Economy
    Political Science
    Portuguese, Spanish and
    Psychology
    Public Health
    Public Policy, The Richard & Rhoda Goldman School of
    Range Management
    Religious Studies
    Rhetoric
    ROTC (Air Force)
    ROTC (Army)
    ROTC (Navy)
    Scandinavian
    School of Information
    Science and Technology, Applied
    Science and Mathematics Education, Graduate Group (SESAME)
    Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies, Institute of
    Slavic Languages and Literatures
    Social Sciences, College of Letters & Science Division
    Social Welfare, School of
    Society and Environment
    Sociology
    Sociology and Demography, Graduate Group in
    South and Southeast Asian Studies
    Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies
    Spanish and Portuguese
    Statistics
    Theater, Dance & Performance Studies
    Toxicology, Nutritional Science and
    Undergraduate and Interdisciplinary Studies
    Undergraduate Division, College of Letters & Science
    Urban Design
    Vision Science
    Women's Studies, Gender and



    Here are some cool space videos to enlighten Solar System Studies and Governance. http://www.youtube.com/user/SpaceRip I'm going to pretend that I'm the last person alive in the solar system - and that I'm making this thread just in case intelligent life from another solar system happens across this cyber-record of madness. The next step in my evolution is to learn to not give a $hi+ if no one gives a $hi+! I don't mean to be shrill. Wait a minute. Yes I do! Boy! Will the space-travellers be in for a disappointment when they see this! "Mork!!! Damn!!! All that way through space for this bs??? FOR THIS???!!! NOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo!!!!!! And those poor bastards thought they were going to be free..." I can do uber-refined extremely well, but remember, this is a test. This is only a test. A word to the wise, and to everyone else...

    1. The Asteroid That Flattened Mars http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlXuUxFTcLs&feature=fvsr

    2. Attack of the Sun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrIx6BKO6IE&feature=relmfu (This one has been removed. Is this significant, in light of recent reported developments associated with the Sun?)

    3. When Will Time End? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OFThORmR-s&feature=relmfu

    4. The Incredible Journey of Apollo 12 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlijkP0ogUU&feature=related

    5. Super Massive Black Hole in the Milky Way Galaxy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCADH3x56eE&feature=related

    6. The Search for Earth-Like Planets http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Kcw0UrIFI&feature=relmfu

    7. Voyage to Pandora: The First Intersteller Space Flight http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPjXxKpM4DM&feature=related

    8. Venus: Death of a Planet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehgs3qazcvw&feature=relmfu

    9. Crashing into the Moon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8OLcbxZ0cA&feature=relmfu

    10. The Pulse of Alien Life http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieKdvNJ20HE&feature=relmfu

    11. Exploding Stars http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfRiqwQBegQ&feature=relmfu

    12. To the Edge of Time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_IiiEF4rGw&feature=relmfu

    13. UC Berkley Lecture in Astronomy: Dr. Steven Beckwith http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x22o8TUdOuw&feature=related

    14. UC Berkley Lecture in Astronomy: Angels and Demons http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sqYh8puZ-I&feature=relmfu

    15. UC Berkley Lecture in Astronomy: How Did the Universe Begin? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_4bMIqmV9U&feature=relmfu

    16. Disclosure: The Truth About 2012 and Extraterrestrials http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u810PTA5Tc&feature=relmfu

    17. Is the Universe Infinite? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG1JpC5jels&feature=related

    18. Black Holes: The Other Side of the Universe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3AfNXdg2Tk&feature=relmfu

    19. Cold Sparks and Black Holes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lTbQ4nPFjg&feature=related

    20. Hubble Space-Shattering Discoveries http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--X9zfgZtS0&feature=related

    21. Carl Sagan: The Universe Was Not Made for Us http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxlPVSAnWOo&feature=related

    22. Carl Sagan: Consider Again That Pale Blue Dot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_naQhynOg0

    23. Carl Sagan: Wanderers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPM-vKpiKR0&feature=related

    24. Carl Sagan: The Gift of Apollo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xUAR6vbxxU&feature=related

    25. Carl Sagan: The Backbone of the Night http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zb6gAPG3yM&feature=related

    26. Carl Sagan: Pale Blue Dot - Extended Version (MUST SEE) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C8lG9L4XDk&feature=related


    Should the Academics Inherit the Earth? What if the PhD's ruled the solar system? Should most of the big libraries, state-houses, churches and cathedrals be turned into universities? Should there be a vast Solar System University System at the Center of Solar System Studies and Governance? Should spirituality and ethics be infused into every subject and activity imaginable? Should everyone in the solar system get paid the same, and have the same net-worth? Is money-making inherently corrupt? Should there be an income and net-worth ceiling? How much is too much? Is the love of money really the root of all evil? Is evil a prerequisite for success? Is there anyone who is truly good? How good is too good? Are any righteous? Even one? What is truth? What color is your parachute? Who's your daddy?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSxVO3EoCRM&feature=related Conservative and Progressive Modernity are Knocking on the Doors of Church and State! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfbA7_vjWLg&feature=related What if church services were like mini congressional or senatorial sessions - complete with elected officials and unelected observers? What if the elected officials wore robes (along with the choir) - and processed and recessed with sacred classical music? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ-pZp1FQPE&feature=related Political and Theological Issues would be discussed and voted upon. The choir/organist/orchestra would perform before and after the sessions. The utmost dignity and courtesy would be expected. Each comment or question would be a short and polished oration, which would be both informative and inspirational. These services would mirror the daily sessions of the United States of the Solar System - and would inform and assist the 10,000 representatives in arriving at their important and binding decisions. Might this be a safe and proper union of church and state? Imagine this sort of thing occurring at Notre Dame de Paris! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhBrYCq-cFU&feature=related Might this be a Latin Mass - Without the Mass? Do you see my point? Holy Deliberation Instead of Holy Sacrifice? Heresy? I think not! The Secular Must Become Sacred - and the Sacred Must Become Secular! BTW - how are things going in San Francisco??? Let Freedom Ring!!! 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xkx4inkewhM&feature=related 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq8i69-L-Fs&feature=related 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qhEgE7-K34&NR=1 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCsnSXRpXug&feature=related 5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxBjqrPAUg8 6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8tHPzmarvY&feature=related



    I'm liking the idea of a PhD program in Solar System Studies and Governance at Ivy League Universities throughout the solar system. A PhD in Solar System Studies and Governance might be a prerequisite to becoming a United States of the Solar System Representative. Then, perhaps one would serve a five-year 'apprenticeship' in connection with the United States of the Solar System, followed by five years of teaching and research, at one of the Ivy League Universities, in the area of Solar System Studies and Governance. Then one might seek to become a United States of the Solar System Representative. This is just something to think about. This would be a pretty select group, but it would be based upon merit, rather than fame, fortune, power, and bloodlines. Upon retirement from the United States of the Solar System, one might reenter academia. Who knows?

    I'm feeling incredibly drained, regarding what I have been dealing with over the past 18 months, or so. I feel as though I have failed in connection with all of this. Believe it or not, I feel as though I might've been able to prevent Fukushima, if I had done more, or if I had handled things differently. I continue to think that Fukushima was deliberately inflicted, and that this might've been the beginning of the end of the world. I have tried to be somewhat neutral regarding the Powers That Be - Terrestrial and Extraterrestrial - Human and Otherwise. But I still wished to press forward in a somewhat irreverent manner, regarding getting to the bottom of what was really going on in this solar system. Perhaps that was a mistake. I have chosen to seek the truth in a very passive and non-scholarly manner on this very small forum, and I have promised not to make a great big deal out of this. I have promised to not yell 'FIRE!!' in a crowded website or bookstore. This is a test. This is only a test. I really do think that the Old World Order and the New World Order should be replaced by a New Solar System, based upon a Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom United States of the Solar System. I really do wish for things to work out well for all concerned, but I obviously don't know what has really been going on for thousands, or even millions, of years. I truly see through a glass darkly. I hope to meet some of the Galactic Powers That Be face to face, and know even as also I am known. But for now, I know in part, and I prophecy in part. Namaste to the Beings of the Universe.



    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Tue Jun 28, 2011 8:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 7483
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:45 pm

    Think of a Solar System University system consisting of maybe 100 campuses throughout the solar system, which would have well developed departments of Solar System Studies and Governance. There might be 80 campuses on Earth, and 20 at other solar system locations, such as the Moon, Venus, Mars, (Nibiru!), various moons, asteroids, and even spaceships (such as the USSS Namaste aka Phobos). These campuses would be staffed by many United States of the Solar System Representatives, who would communicate with each other via an ubersecure interplanet computer system featuring the latest Cray supercomputers. Imagine attending the University of the Solar System at Nibiru!!! Imagine taking classes from Jesuits, Alphabet Agents, Nazis, Masons, Magicians, Dracs, Greys, Annunaki, Gods, Goddesses, visiting professors from Sirius, et al!!! Is this playing with the hellfire of a very hot Trojan Horse? Is this the way of the future? Damned if I know. Those bastards never tell me anything. They keep me guessing. I'm not necessarily saying that there should not be an oversight committee or a theocratic aspect to all of this, but I am saying that there should be appropriate checks and balances in place to keep this pipe-dream of responsible-freedom from spiralling out of control, getting hijacked, or blowing-up in our faces. The universe might be a VERY hostile and nasty place. I suspect that we are shielded from one helluva lot of upsetting information. Some of this is probably designed to deceive us, but some of the blackout is probably designed to prevent society from going to hell. Just more speculation. Once again, I am not shaking my fist at God in all of this. I am simply trying to proceed in a responsible manner. If the Creator God of the Universe imposes Divine Intervention, then So Be It. But I'm not very trusting toward the local gods and goddesses. I'm trying to figure out what has been going wrong on this planet for thousands of years. It isn't a pretty picture, despite the beautiful pictures of Earth from geosynchronous obit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C8lG9L4XDk&feature=related I feel an overwhelming sense of dread. I just want to repeat that I envision a perfected humanity living in a perfected solar system - WITHOUT ANY ARMAGEDDON OR EXTERMINATION OF ANY KIND. I think there may be malevolent forces in this universe who want us dead - or at least suffering - and wishing we were dead. I want to repeat also that if any of you (human or otherwise) are not here to help the human race achieve SUSTAINABLE RESPONSIBLE FREEDOM - then please leave this solar system now - without harming anyone or anything. I'm serious about a SOLAR SYSTEM EXORCISM. I'm serious about establishing a NAMASTE CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBLE FREEDOM SOLAR SYSTEM AKA THE UNITED STATES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM - BASED UPON RESPONSIBILITY AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. If any of you are waiting for me to change my mind - it isn't going to happen. I doubt that I have much clout - but I will continue to pretend that I do. What's funny about all of this - is that I'll probably be long-gone by the time this becomes a reality. This concept will probably rise from the ashes (phoenix-like) of a failed New World Order - so please prepare to rebuild this world - the right way.What Would Anu Do? (WWAD?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpl6ncyxLGw


    What do you think about 10,000 PhD's in Solar System Studies and Governance being Representatives of the United States of the Solar System? Would this be a first step toward the last, great renaissance of an enlightened democracy? I sure wish I could get even just a bit of a discussion going. Here is 'Doctor of Philosophy' From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy

    Doctor of Philosophy, abbreviated as PhD, Ph.D., DPhil or D.Phil. (for the Latin philosophiae doctor or doctor philosophiae), in English-speaking countries, abbreviated as Dr. Phil. or similar in several other countries,[1] is a postgraduate academic degree awarded by universities. The academic level of degrees known as doctorates of philosophy varies considerably according to the country, institution and time period, from entry-level research degrees to higher doctorates.

    The term "philosophy" does not refer solely to the modern field of philosophy, but is used in a broader sense in accordance with its original Greek meaning, which is "love of wisdom." In most of Europe, all fields other than theology, law and medicine were traditionally known as philosophy.

    The doctorate of philosophy as it exists today originated as a doctorate in the liberal arts at the Humboldt University, and was eventually adopted by American universities, becoming common in large parts of the world in the 20th century.[2] In many countries, the doctorate of philosophy is still awarded only in the liberal arts (known as "philosophy" in continental Europe, hence the name of the degree).

    The doctorate was extended to philosophy in the European universities in the Middle Ages. At that time all academic disciplines, the first Doctor of Philosophy degree was awarded in Paris in 1150, but the degree did not acquire its modern status as an advanced research degree until the early nineteenth century, following the practice in Germany. Prior to the nineteenth century, professional doctoral degrees could only be awarded in theology, law, or medicine. In 1861, Yale University adopted the German practice (first introduced in the 19th century at the Humboldt University of Berlin) of granting the degree, abbreviated as Dr. phil., to younger students who had completed a prescribed course of graduate study and successfully defended a thesis/dissertation containing original research in science or in the humanities.[3]

    From the United States, the degree spread to Canada in 1900, and then to the United Kingdom in 1917.[4][5] This displaced the existing Doctor of Philosophy degree in some universities; for instance, the DPhil (higher doctorate in the faculty of philosophy) at the University of St Andrews was discontinued and replaced with the Ph.D., (research doctorate). Oxford retained the DPhil abbreviation for their research degrees. Some newer UK universities, for example Buckingham (est. 1976), Sussex (est. 1961), and, until a few years ago, York (est. 1963), chose to adopt the DPhil, as did some universities in New Zealand.

    The detailed requirements for award of a Ph.D. degree vary throughout the world and even from school to school. In some schools in the US, Canada and Denmark, for example, many universities require coursework in addition to research for Ph.D. degrees. In other countries (such as the UK) there is generally no such condition. It is not uncommon, however, for individual universities or departments to specify additional requirements for students not already in possession of a bachelor's degree or equivalent or higher.

    In schools requiring coursework there is sometimes a prescribed minimum amount of study — typically two to three years full time, or a set number of credit hours — which must take place before submission of a thesis. This requirement is sometimes waived for those submitting a portfolio of peer-reviewed published work. The candidate may also be required to successfully complete a certain number of additional, advanced courses relevant to his or her area of specialization.

    A candidate must submit a project or thesis or dissertation often consisting of a body of original academic research, which is in principle worthy of publication in a peer-refereed context.[6] In many countries a candidate must defend this work before a panel of expert examiners appointed by the university; in other countries, the dissertation is examined by a panel of expert examiners who stipulate whether the dissertation is in principle passable and the issues that need to be addressed before the dissertation can be passed.

    Some universities in the non-English-speaking world have begun adopting similar standards to those of the Anglophone PhD degree for their research doctorates (see the Bologna process).[7]

    A Ph.D. student or candidate (abbreviated to Ph.D.c)[8] is conventionally required to study on campus under close supervision. With the popularity of distance education and e-learning technologies, some universities now accept students enrolled into a distance education part-time mode.

    Neglect, wasted time, few marketable skills, negligible earnings premiums, and vastly out-numbered job offerings are some of the criticisms leveled against PhD programs in many developed countriesThe Economist published an article citing various criticisms against the state of PhDs. Richard B. Freeman explains that, based on pre-2000 data, at most only 20% of life science PhD students end up getting jobs specifically in research.[9] Only in the fastest developing countries (e.g. China or Brazil) is there a shortage of PhDs. Higher education systems often offer little incentive to move students through PhD programs quickly (and may even provide incentive to slow them down). Germany is one of the few nations engaging these issues, and it has been doing so by reconceptualizing PhD programs to be training for careers, outside of academia, but still at high-level positions. Mark C. Taylor opines that total reform of PhD programs in almost every field is necessary in the U.S., and that pressure to make the necessary changes will need to come from many sources (students, administrators, public and private sectors, etc.). These issues and others are discussed in an April 2011 issue of the journal Nature.[10][11][12][13]

    In Canada, where the overflow of PhD degree holders is not as severe, 80% of postdoctoral research fellows end up earning less than or equal to the average construction worker (roughly $38,000 a year).[9] The idea that PhDs are offering little return on investment, monetarily, is bolstered by evidence published in the Journal of Higher Education Management and Policy. Bernard H. Casey suggests that, over all subjects, PhD has an earnings premium of 26%, but notes that masters degrees provide a premium of 23% already. Casey thinks there are significant benefits to society for the extra research training, but points out that this does not change the fact that many individuals could have secured an almost identical salary far earlier (which adds an opportunity cost).[14] Some research suggests that overqualified workers are often less satisfied and less productive at their jobs.[9]

    Not all students, however, are motivated to pursue the PhD by hopes of monetary rewards. Some are driven by the desire for further education beyond the undergraduate level, scientific and humanistic curiosity, the desire to contribute to the academic community, service to others, or personal development.

    The admission to a PhD program at an Argentine University requires the full completion of a Master's degree or a Licentiate's degree. Non-Argentinian Master's titles are generally accepted into a PhD program when the degree comes from a recognized university.

    While a significant portion of postgraduate students finance their tuition and living costs with teaching or research work at private and state-run institutions, international institutions, such as the Fullbright Program and the Organization of American States (OAS), have been known to grant full scholarships for tuition with apportions for housing.[15]

    Upon completion of at least two years' research and course work as a graduate student, a candidate must demonstrate truthful and original contributions to his or her specific field of knowledge within a frame of academic excellence.[16] The doctoral candidate's work should be presented in a dissertation or thesis prepared under the supervision of a tutor or director, and reviewed by a Doctoral Committee. This Committee should be composed of examiners that are external to the program, and at least one of them should also be external to the institution. The academic degree of Doctor, respective to the correspondent field of science that the candidate has contributed with original and rigorous research, is received after a successful defense of the candidate’s dissertation.[17]

    Admission to a PhD program within Australia requires a Masters degree or a Bachelors honours degree (first or second class, upper division), or equivalent, and demonstrated capacity to undertake significant research in the proposed doctoral field.

    Framework for Best Practice in Doctoral Research Education in Australia

    PhD students are sometimes offered a scholarship to study for their PhD degree. The most common of these in Australia is the government-funded Australian Postgraduate Award (APA), which provides a living stipend to students of approximately A$ 22,500 a year (tax free). APAs are paid for a duration of 3 years, while a 6 month extension is usually possible upon citing delays out of the control of the student.[18] Some universities also fund a similar scholarship that matches the APA amount. In recent years, with the tightening of research funding in Australia, these scholarships have become increasingly hard to obtain. However, APAs have become less competitive as the number of scholarships were to be doubled by 2012.[19] Due to a continual increase in living costs, many PhD students are forced to live under the poverty line.[20] In addition to the more common APA and University scholarships, Australian students have other sources of scholarship funding, with options listed on the JASON Postgraduate Scholarship Database.

    Australian citizens and other eligible PhD and Research Masters students in Australia are generally not charged course fees as these are paid for by the Australian Government under the Research Training Scheme[21] International students and Coursework Masters students must pay course fees, unless they receive a scholarship to cover them.

    Completion requirements vary. Most Australian PhD programs do not have a required coursework component. The 72 credit points attached to the degree are all in the product of the research, which has to make a significant new contribution to the field. The PhD research product is sent to external examiners, experts in the field of research, who have not been involved in the work. In Australia a formal oral defense is generally not part of the doctoral examination (largely because of the distances that would need to be traveled by the overseas examiners). Examiners are nominated by the candidate's University (often by the Head of Department or Research Office), and their identities are often not officially revealed to the candidate until the examination is complete. Many New Zealand Universities have retained the oral examination requirement, but often external examiner's report is presented by one of the internal examiners. The Australasian Digital Theses Program provided access to PhDs produced recently, as there are generally automatically digitalised and added to this database available from http://adt.caul.edu.au/. As of March 2011, the site is being decommissioned.[22]

    Admission to a PhD program at a Canadian university usually requires completion of a Master's degree in a related field, with sufficiently high grades and proven research ability. In some cases, a student may progress directly from an Honours Bachelor's degree to a PhD program; other programs allow a student to fast-track to a doctoral program after one year of outstanding work in a Master's program (without having to complete the Master's).

    An application package typically includes a research proposal, letters of reference, transcripts, and in some cases, a writing sample or GRE scores. A common criterion for prospective PhD students is the comprehensive or qualifying examination, a process that often commences in the second year of a graduate program. Generally, successful completion of the qualifying exam permits continuance in the graduate program. Formats for this examination include oral examination by the student's faculty committee (or a separate qualifying committee), or written tests designed to demonstrate the student's knowledge in a specialized area (see below) or both.

    At English-speaking universities, a student may also be required to demonstrate English language abilities, usually by achieving an acceptable score on a standard examination (e.g., Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL)). Depending on the field, the student may also be required to demonstrate ability in one or more additional languages. A prospective student applying to French-speaking universities may also have to demonstrate some English language ability.

    While some students work outside the university (or at student jobs within the university), in some programs students are advised (or must agree) not to devote more than ten hours per week to activities (e.g., employment) outside of their studies, particularly if they have been given funding. For large and prestigious scholarships, such as those from NSERC, this is an absolute requirement.

    At some Canadian universities, most PhD students receive an award equivalent to the tuition amount for the first four years (this is sometimes called a tuition deferral or tuition waiver). Other sources of funding include teaching assistantships and research assistantships; experience as a teaching assistant is encouraged but not requisite in many programs. Some programs may require all PhD candidates to teach, which may be done under the supervision of their supervisor or regular faculty. Besides these sources of funding, there are also various competitive scholarships, bursaries, and awards available, such as those offered by the federal government via NSERC, CIHR, or SSHRC.

    In general, the first two years of study are devoted to completion of coursework and the comprehensive examinations. At this stage, the student is known as a "PhD student" or "doctoral student". It is usually expected that the student will have completed most of his or her required coursework by the end of this stage. Furthermore, it is usually required that by the end of eighteen to thirty-six months after the first registration, the student will have successfully completed the comprehensive exams.

    Upon successful completion of the comprehensive exams, the student becomes known as a "PhD candidate". From this stage on, the bulk of the student's time will be devoted to his or her own research, culminating in the completion of a PhD thesis or dissertation. The final requirement is an oral defense of the thesis, which is open to the public in some, but not all, universities. At most Canadian universities, the time needed to complete a PhD degree typically ranges from four to six years[citation needed]. It is, however, not uncommon for students to be unable to complete all the requirements within six years, particularly given that funding packages often support students for only two to four years; many departments will allow program extensions at the discretion of the thesis supervisor and/or department chair. Alternate arrangements exist whereby a student is allowed to let their registration in the program lapse at the end of six years and re-register once the thesis is completed in draft form. The general rule is that graduate students are obligated to pay tuition until the initial thesis submission has been received by the thesis office. In other words, if a PhD student defers or delays the initial submission of their thesis they remain obligated to pay fees until such time that the thesis has been received in good standing.

    Denmark and Norway were some of the first countries to introduce the Doctor of Philosophy degree, inspired by the German university system, in 1824. The degree was written as Doctor Philosophiae, abbreviated Dr. Phil. or Dr. Philos. The two countries' systems of higher education were more or less identical at that time; following the dissolution of Denmark-Norway in 1814, the only university of Norway (the Royal Frederick University) nonetheless followed the regulations of the only university of Denmark (and for centuries the only university of both countries), the University of Copenhagen, for several years.

    The Dr. Phil. degree was used for all other fields than theology, law and medicine, which had separate degrees: doctor theologiae, doctor juris and doctor medicinae. In the 20th century new degrees were created in the fields of natural sciences, humanities and social sciences, but it was still possible to obtain the Dr. Phil. degree in any field. Most people who started at a doctoral degree had already studied for six or seven years and obtained a Candidate degree (six years) or a Magister degree (seven years), sometimes a Licentiate (a "smaller doctorate"). The former were considered entry-level degrees required before finding permanent employment as a researcher, while the Dr. Phil. degree was often obtained by people who were already well established academics, sometimes even full professors.

    Following reforms in the late 1990s and early 2000s, both countries introduced a new Doctor of Philosophy degree, based upon the American PhD and written as Philosophiae Doctor (PhD). In Norway the PhD replaced all other doctoral degrees except Dr. Philos., while in Denmark, the traditional doctorates are still awarded. In Norway the new PhD and the Dr. Philos. are equivalent. In Denmark, the original Dr. Phil. degree is today considered a higher doctorate, as opposed to the PhD, which is considered a "smaller doctorate" at the same level as the former Licentiate. Unlike the PhD, the Dr. Phil. degree is not a supervised degree, does not include any coursework and requires a much larger degree of independent research in both countries.

    Students pursuing the PhD degree must first complete a Master's degree program, which takes two years after graduation with a Bachelor's degree (five years in total). The candidate must find funding and a formal doctoral advisor (Directeur de thèse) with an habilitation throughout the doctoral program.

    In France, the Masters program is divided into two branches: "master professionnel", which orientates the students towards the working world, and Master of Research (Master-recherche), which is oriented towards research. The PhD admission is granted by a graduate school (in French, "école doctorale"). A PhD Student has to follow some courses offered by the graduate school while continuing his/her research at laboratory. His/her research may be carried out in a laboratory, at a university, or in a company. In the last case, the company hires the student as an engineer and the student is supervised by both the company's tutor and a labs' professor. The validation of the PhD degree requires generally 3 to 4 years after the Master degree. Consequently, the PhD degree is considered in France as a "Bac +8" diploma. "Bac" stands for Baccalauréat which is the French High-school diploma.

    The financing of PhD studies comes mainly from funds for research of the French Ministry of Higher Education and Research. The most common procedure is a short-term employment contract called doctoral contract : the institution of higher education is the employer and the PhD candidate the employee. However, the student can apply for funds from a company who can host him/her at its premise (as in the case where PhD students do their research in a company). Many other resources come from some regional/city projects, some associations, etc.

    In India, a Masters degree is required to gain admission to a doctoral program. In some subjects, doing a Masters in Philosophy (M.Phil) is a prerequisite to start PhD. For some prestigious universities it is required to qualify the all India level examination such as ‘National Eligibility Test for Lectureship (NET)[23] conducted by ‘University Grants Commission' .

    In last few years, there have been many changes in the rules related to PhD in India. According to the new rules, most universities conduct entrance exams in general ability and the selected subject. After clearing these tests, the short-listed candidates need to appear for interview by the available supervisor / guide. The students are required to give presentations of the proposal at the beginning, need to submit progress reports, give pre-submission presentation and finally defend the thesis in an open defence viva voce. Some departments make it mandatory to have one of the examiners to be from US or Europe.

    In Germany an advanced degree (Master, Diploma, Magister or Staatsexamen) and above-average grades are often required to gain admission to a doctoral program. The degree should usually be in a related field. The candidate must also find a tenured professor or Privatdozent to serve as the formal advisor and supervisor (Betreuer) of the dissertation throughout the doctoral program. This supervisor is informally referred to as Doktorvater/Doktormutter (literally 'doctor's father/mother').

    Doctoral programs in Germany generally take one to four years – usually three, up to five in engineering – to complete, strongly depending on the subject. There are usually no formal classes or lectures to attend, and the doctoral candidate (Doktorand/-in) mainly conducts independent research under the tutelage of a single professor or advisory committee.

    Many doctoral candidates work as teaching or research assistants and are thus actually doing most of the research and teaching activities at their home institutions, but are not paid a reasonably competitive salary for that (in most cases, only a half position is granted). However, external funding by research organisations and foundations is also common. Furthermore, many universities have established research-intensive Graduiertenkollegs, which are graduate schools that provide funding for doctoral theses.

    In German-speaking countries, most Eastern European countries, the former Soviet Union, most parts of Africa, Asia, and many Spanish-speaking countries the corresponding degree is simply called "doctor" (Doktor), and is distinguished by subject area with a Latin suffix (e.g. "Dr. med." for doctor medicinae, "Dr. rer. nat." for doctor rerum naturalium — Doctor of Natural Science, "Dr. phil." for doctor philosophiae, "Dr. iur." for doctor iuris, etc.).

    In the former Soviet Union, the Doctor of Sciences is the higher of two sequential post-graduate degrees, with Candidate of Sciences (Russian – кандидат наук) being universally accepted as the equivalent of the PhD, while the Doctorate is a (Full) Professors' or Academicians' separate and subsequent degree, indicating that the holder is a distinguished, honoured, and outstanding member of the scientific community. It is rarely awarded to those younger than late middle age or lacking in achievement and is a symbol of success in an academic career.

    The Dottorato di ricerca (research doctorate), abbreviated to "Dott. Ric." or "Ph.D.", is an academic title awarded at the end of a course of not less than three years, admission to which is based on entrance examinations. In case of MD/PhD the Ph.D. programme may last only two years.

    Doctorate courses are open, without age or citizenship limits, to all those who already hold a "laurea magistrale" (master degree) or similar academic title awarded abroad which has been recognised as equivalent to an Italian degree by the Committee responsible for the entrance examinations.

    The number of places on offer each year and details of the entrance examinations are set out in the examination announcement.

    A doctor's degree (pl. Doktor), abbreviated to Phd (pl. dr) is an advanced academic degree awarded by universities in most fields [24][25][26][27][28] as well as by the Polish Academy of Sciences,[29] regulated by the polish parliament acts[30] and the government orders, in particular by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Poland. Commonly, students with a master's degree or equivalent are accepted to a doctoral entrance exam. The title of Phd is awarded to a scientist who 1) completed a minimum of 3 years of Phd studies (pl. studia doktoranckie), 2) finished his/her theoretical and/or laboratory’s scientific work, 3) passed all Phd examinations, 4) submitted his/her dissertation- a document presenting the author's research and findings,[31] 5) successfully defended his/her doctoral thesis. Typically, upon completion, the candidate undergoes an oral examination, always public, by his/her supervisory committee with expertise in the given discipline.

    The doctorate was introduced in Denmark-Norway in 1479 and awarded in theology, law and medicine, while the Magister's degree was the highest degree at the Faculty of Philosophy, equivalent to the doctorate.

    Scandinavian countries were among the early adopters of a modern style doctorate of philosophy, based upon the German model. Denmark and Norway both introduced the Dr. Phil(os). degree in 1824, replacing the Magister's degree as the highest degree, while Uppsala University of Sweden renamed its Magister's degree Filosofie Doktor (Fil.Dr.) in 1863. These degrees, however, became comparable to the German Habilitation rather than the doctorate, as Scandinavian countries did not have a separate Habilitation.[32] The degrees were uncommon and not a prerequisite for employment as a professor; rather, they were seen as distinctions similar to the British (higher) doctorates (D.Litt., D.Sc.). Denmark introduced an American-style PhD in 1989; it formally replaced the Licentiate degree, and is considered a lower degree than the Dr. Phil. degree; officially, the PhD is not considered a doctorate, but unofficially, it is referred to as "the smaller doctorate", as opposed to the Dr. Phil., "the grand doctorate".[33] Currently Denmark and Norway are both awarding the traditional (higher) Dr. Phil(os). degree, and American-style PhDs. Sweden is only awarding the Fil.Dr. degree.

    Doctor Degrees are regulated by Royal Decree (R.D. 778/1998),[34] Real Decreto (in Spanish). They are granted by the University on behalf of the King, and its Diploma has the force of a public document. The Ministry of Science keeps a National Registry of Theses called TESEO.[35]

    All doctoral programs are of a research nature. A minimum of 4 years of study are required, divided into 2 stages:

    A 2-year-long period of studies, which concludes with a public dissertation presented to a panel of 3 Professors. If the projects receives approval from the university, he/she will receive a "Diploma de Estudios Avanzados" (part qualified doctor).
    A 2-year (or longer) period of research. Extensions may be requested for up to 10 years. The student must write his thesis presenting a new discovery or original contribution to Science. If approved by his "thesis director", the study will be presented to a panel of 5 distinguished scholars. Any Doctor attending the public presentations is allowed to challenge the candidate with questions on his research. If approved, he will receive the doctorate. Four marks can be granted (Unsatisfactory, Pass, "Cum laude", and "Summa cum laude"). Those Doctors granted their degree "Summa Cum Laude" are allowed to apply for an "Extraordinary Award".
    A Doctor Degree is required to apply to a teaching position at the University.

    The social standing of Doctors in Spain is evidenced by the fact that only PhD holders, Grandees and Dukes can take seat and cover their heads in the presence of the King.[36] All Doctor Degree holders are reciprocally recognized as equivalent in Germany and Spain ("Bonn Agreement of November 14, 1994").[37]

    Earning a PhD or DPhil infers the title Dr. There is a common misconception (especially among women who are unmarried at the end of their PhD[citation needed]) that this title is specific to the surname which the person had when the degree was obtained. However, this is incorrect and regardless of whether a person changed their name they will not lose the title. Once the title is earned it cannot be removed unless the person requests it to be by Deed Poll.

    The top ten UK universities ranked by research quality according to the Times Literary Supplement[38] with their designatory letters:

    University Letters University Letters
    Cambridge PhD Manchester PhD
    Oxford DPhil Warwick PhD
    LSE PhD Essex PhD
    Imperial PhD York PhD
    UCL PhD Edinburgh PhD

    Universities admit applicants to PhD programmes on a case-by-case basis; depending on the university, admission is typically conditional on the prospective student having successfully completed an undergraduate degree with at least upper second-class honours, or a postgraduate master's degree, but requirements can vary.

    In the case of the University of Oxford, for example, "The one essential condition of being accepted...is evidence of previous academic excellence, and of future potential."[39] Commonly, students are first accepted on to an MPhil programme and may transfer to PhD regulations upon satisfactory progress and is referred to as APG (Advanced Postgraduate) status. This is typically done after one or two years, and the research work done may count towards the PhD degree. If a student fails to make satisfactory progress, he or she may be offered the opportunity to write up and submit for an MPhil degree.

    In addition, PhD students from countries outside the EU/EFTA area are required to comply with the Academic Technology Approval Scheme (ATAS), which involves undergoing a security clearance process with the Foreign Office for certain courses in medicine, mathematics, engineering and material sciences.[40][41] This requirement was introduced in 2007 due to concerns about terrorism and weapons proliferation.[41]

    In the United Kingdom, funding for PhD students is sometimes provided by government-funded Research Councils or the European Social Fund, usually in the form of a tax-free bursary which consists of tuition fees together with a stipend of around £13,000 per year for three years (higher in London),[42] whether or not the degree continues for longer. Scientific studentships are usually paid at a higher rate, for example, in London, Cancer Research UK, the ICR and the Wellcome Trust stipend rates start at around £19,000 and progress annually to around £23,000 a year; an amount that is tax and national insurance free. Research Council funding is sometimes 'earmarked' for a particular department or research group, who then allocate it to a chosen student, although in doing so they are generally expected to abide by the usual minimum entry requirements (typically a first degree with upper second class honours, although successful completion of a postgraduate master's degree is usually counted as raising the class of the first degree by one division for these purposes). However, the availability of funding in many disciplines (especially humanities, social studies, and pure science[citation needed] subjects) means that in practice only those with the best research proposals, references and backgrounds are likely to be awarded a studentship. The ESRC (Economic and Social Science Research Council) explicitly state that a 2.1 minimum (or 2.2 plus additional masters degree) is required – no additional marks are given for students with a first class honours or a distinction at masters level.

    Since 2002, there has been a move by research councils to fund interdisciplinary doctoral training centres such as MOAC[43] which concentrate on communication between traditional disciplines and an emphasis on transferable skills in addition to research training.

    Many students who are not in receipt of external funding may choose to undertake the degree part time, thus reducing the tuition fees, as well as creating free time in which to earn money for subsistence.

    Students may also take part in tutoring, work as research assistants, or (occasionally) deliver lectures, at a rate of typically £25–30 per hour, either to supplement existing low income or as a sole means of funding.[44]

    There is usually a preliminary assessment to remain in the programme and the thesis is submitted at the end of a 3- to 4-year program. These periods are usually extended pro rata for part-time students. With special dispensation, the final date for the thesis can be extended for up to four additional years, for a total of seven, but this is rare.[citation needed] Since the early 1990s, the UK funding councils have adopted a policy of penalising departments where large proportions of students fail to submit their theses in four years after achieving PhD-student status (or pro rata equivalent) by reducing the number of funded places in subsequent years.[45]

    There has recently been an increase in the number of Integrated PhD programs available, such as at the University of Southampton. These courses include a Masters of Research (MRes) in the first year, which consists of a taught component as well as laboratory rotation projects. The PhD must then be completed within the next 3 years. As this includes the MRes all deadlines and timeframes are brought forward to encourage completion of both MRes and PhD within 4 years from commencement. These programs are designed to provide students with a greater range of skills than a standard PhD.

    In the United Kingdom PhD degrees are distinct from other doctorates, most notably the higher doctorates such as D.Litt. (Doctor of Letters) or D.Sc. (Doctor of Science), which may be granted on the recommendation of a committee of examiners on the basis of a substantial portfolio of submitted (and usually published) research. However, most UK universities still maintain the option of submitting a thesis for the award of a higher doctorate.

    Recent years have seen the introduction of professional doctorates, which are the same level as PhDs but more specific in their field.[46] These tend not to be solely academic, but combine academic research, a taught component and a professional qualification. These are most notably in the fields of engineering (Eng.D.), education (Ed.D.), occupational psychology (D.Occ Psych.) clinical psychology (D.Clin.Psych.), public administration (D.P.A.), business administration (D.B.A.), and music (D.M.A.). These typically have a more formal taught component consisting of smaller research projects, as well as a 40,000–60,000 word thesis component, which collectively is equivalent to that of a PhD degree.

    In the United States, the Ph.D. degree is the highest academic degree awarded by universities in most fields of study. American students typically undergo a series of three phases in the course of their work toward the Ph.D. degree. The first phase consists of coursework in the student's field of study and requires one to three years to complete. This often is followed by a preliminary, a comprehensive examination, or a series of cumulative examinations where the emphasis is on breadth rather than depth of knowledge. The student is often later required to pass oral and written examinations in the field of specialization within the discipline, and here, depth is emphasized. Some Ph.D. programs require the candidate to successfully complete requirements in pedagogy (taking courses on higher level teaching and teaching undergraduate courses) or applied science (e.g., clinical practice and predoctoral clinical internship in Ph.D. programs in clinical or counseling psychology).[citation needed]

    Another two to four years are usually required for the composition of a substantial and original contribution to human knowledge in the form of a written dissertation, which in the social sciences and humanities typically ranges from 50 to 450 pages in length. In many cases, depending on the discipline, a dissertation consists of (i) a comprehensive literature review, (ii) an outline of methodology, and (iii) several chapters of scientific, social, historical, philosophical, or literary analysis. Typically, upon completion, the candidate undergoes an oral examination, sometimes public, by his or her supervisory committee with expertise in the given discipline.[citation needed]

    As the Ph.D. degree is often a preliminary step toward a career as a professor, throughout the whole period of study and dissertation research the student, depending on the university and degree, may be required or offered the opportunity to teach undergraduate and occasionally graduate courses in relevant subjects.[citation needed]

    There are 282 universities in the United States that award the PhD degree, and those universities vary widely in their criteria for admission, as well as the rigor of their academic programs.[47] Typically, PhD programs require applicants to have a Bachelor's degree in a relevant field (and, in many cases in the humanities, a master's degree), reasonably high grades, several letters of recommendation, relevant academic coursework, a cogent statement of interest in the field of study, and satisfactory performance on a graduate-level exam specified by the respective program (e.g., GRE, GMAT).[48][49] Specific admissions criteria differ substantially according to university admissions policies and fields of study; some programs in well-regarded research universities may admit less than five percent of applicants and require an exceptional performance on the GRE along with near-perfect grades, strong support in letters of recommendation, substantial research experience, and academically sophisticated samples of their writing.[citation needed]

    As applicants to many Ph.D. programs are not required to have master's degrees, many programs award a Master of Arts or Master of Science degree "en route", "in passing", or "in course" based on the graduate work done in the course of achieving the Ph.D. Students who receive such master's degrees are usually required to complete a certain amount of coursework and a master's thesis or field examination. Not all Ph.D. programs require additional work to obtain a master's en route to the Ph.D. (e.g., a master's thesis). Depending on the specific program, masters-in-passing degrees can be either mandatory or optional. Not all Ph.D. students choose to complete the additional requirements necessary for the MA or MS if such requirements are not mandated by their programs. Those students will simply obtain the Ph.D. degree at the end of their graduate study.[citation needed]

    Depending on the specific field of study, completion of a PhD program usually takes four to eight years of study after the Bachelor's Degree; those students who begin a PhD program with a master's degree may complete their PhD degree a year or two sooner.[50] As PhD programs typically lack the formal structure of undergraduate education, there are significant individual differences in the time taken to complete the degree. Many U.S. universities have set a ten-year limit for students in PhD programs, or refuse to consider graduate credit older than ten years as counting towards a PhD degree. Similarly, students may be required to re-take the comprehensive exam if they do not defend their dissertations within five years after submitting it to their self-chosen dissertation advisors.[citation needed] Overall, 57% of students who begin a PhD program in the US will complete their degree within ten years, approximately 30% will drop out or be dismissed, and the remaining 13% of students will continue on past ten years.[51]

    PhD students are usually discouraged from engaging in external employment during the course of their graduate training. As a result, PhD students at U.S. universities typically receive a tuition waiver and some form of annual stipend.[citation needed] The source and amount of funding varies from field to field and university to university. Many U.S. PhD students work as teaching assistants or research assistants. Graduate schools increasingly[citation needed] encourage their students to seek outside funding; many are supported by fellowships they obtain for themselves or by their advisers' research grants from government agencies such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Many Ivy League and other well-endowed universities provide funding for the entire duration of the degree program (if it is short) or for most of it.[citation needed]

    A PhD program candidate, or PhDc (sometimes called Candidate of Philosophy), is a postgraduate student at the doctoral level who has successfully satisfied the requirements for doctoral studies, except for the final thesis or dissertation. As such, a PhDc is sometimes called an "ABD" (All But Dissertation or All But Defended). Although a minor distinction in postgraduate study, achieving PhD Candidacy is not without benefit. For example, PhDc status may coincide with an increase in the student's monthly stipend and may make the student eligible for additional employment opportunities.[citation needed]

    Some programs also include a Master of Philosophy degree as part of the PhD program.[52] The MPhil, in those universities that offer it, is usually awarded after the appropriate MA or MS (as above) is awarded, and the degree candidate has completed all further requirements for the PhD degree (which may include additional language requirements, course credits, teaching experiences, and comprehensive exams) aside from the writing and defense of the dissertation itself.[citation needed] This formalizes the "all but dissertation" (ABD) status used informally by some students, and represents that the student has achieved a higher level of scholarship than the MA/MS would indicate – as such, the MPhil is sometimes a helpful credential for those applying for teaching or research posts while completing their dissertation work for the PhD degree itself.[53]

    PhDc is not to be confused with Candidate of Sciences, an academic degree that has been used in certain countries in place of PhD.

    A PhD title holder must fulfill a number of strict requirements including:

    - Passing entrance examinations including a professional examination, a foreign language examination, and successfully defending the dissertation proposal
    - Conducting the research work as approved in the entrance examination
    - Publishing research results in respective professional journals
    - Successfully defending the research results twice, first with a scientific panel designated by the university. If passed, the PhD candidate will have to defend in a nation-wide panel including two hidden external reviewers; the panel is formulated by the ministry of education and training.
    Vietnam is trying to improve its PhD training quality as well as simplifying the procedures required to obtain the degree.

    At some universities, there may be training for those wishing to supervise PhD studies. There is now a lot of literature published for academics who wish to do this, such as Delamont, Atkinson and Parry (1997). Indeed, Dinham and Scott (2001) have argued that the worldwide growth in research students has been matched by increase in a number of what they term "how-to" texts for both students and supervisors, citing examples such as Pugh and Phillips (1987). These authors report empirical data on the benefits that a PhDc may gain if he or she publishes work, and note that PhD students are more likely to do this with adequate encouragement from their supervisors.

    Wisker (2005) has noticed how research into this field has distinguished between two models of supervision: The technical-rationality model of supervision, emphasising technique; The negotiated order model, being less mechanistic and emphasising fluid and dynamic change in the PhD process. These two models were first distinguished by Acker, Hill and Black (1994; cited in Wisker, 2005). Considerable literature exists on the expectations that supervisors may have of their students (Phillips & Pugh, 1987) and the expectations that students may have of their supervisors (Phillips & Pugh, 1987; Wilkinson, 2005) in the course of PhD supervision. Similar expectations are implied by the Quality Assurance Agency's Code for Supervision (Quality Assurance Agency, 1999; cited in Wilkinson, 2005).

    Belgium (Dutch-speaking): Doctor
    Belgium (French-speaking): Doctorat
    Brazil: Doutorado
    Bulgaria: Доктор
    China: 博士
    Colombia: Doctorado
    Croatia: Doktor
    Ecuador: Doctorado
    Egypt: Doctorat
    Estonia: Doktor
    Finland: Tohtori
    France: Doctorat
    Germany: Doktor
    Greece: Διδακτορικό
    Hong Kong: 博士Doctor
    Indonesia: Doktor
    Iran: دکترا
    Iraq: دكتوراه (Duktorah)
    Israel: דוקטורט ("doctorat")
    Italy: Dottorato di ricerca
    Japan: 博士
    Korea: 박사
    Latin America: Doctorado/Doctorate
    Latvia: Zinātņu doktors
    Lithuania: Daktaras
    Macau: 博士Doutoramento
    Malaysia: Doktor Falsafah
    Mexico: Doctorado
    Mongolia: Эрдэмтэн
    Netherlands: Doctor
    Norway: no: Doktorgrad
    Peru: Doctorado
    Philippines: Doktor
    Poland: Doktor
    Portugal: Doutoramento
    Romania: Doctorat
    Russia: Кандидат наук (Candidate of Sciences)
    Singapore: Doctor
    Serbia: Доктор
    Spain: Doctorado
    Syria: دكتوراه (doktorah)
    Taiwan: 博士
    Thailand: ดุษฎีบัณฑิต
    Turkey: Doktor
    Ukraine: Кандидат наук
    Vietnam: Tiến sĩ
    [edit] See alsoRelated Terminology:

    Doctor of Education – Preparation for academic, administrative, clinical or research positions in education.
    PhD in Management – A program designed for students interested in becoming professors in Business.
    Doctorate – A general term describing a set of degrees analogous to the PhD.
    Terminal degree – The highest degree awarded in a field, usually a PhD.
    Graduate student – A student pursuing education past the bachelor's degree, such as Masters Degree or a PhD.
    C.Phil. (also ABD) – Term, usually used unofficially, for a graduate student who has completed all PhD coursework but has yet to defend his or her dissertation.
    Доктор наук – Degree awarded by USSR and post-Soviet states (for example Russia, Ukraine).
    Licentiate – Degree awarded in various countries, including Portugal, Belgium, the UK, Argentina, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico and Poland.
    Sandwich PhD Programme
    PhD in popular culture:

    Piled Higher and Deeper – Life (or the lack thereof) in Academia, a comic strip by Jorge Cham
    [edit] Notes^ Such as Germany, the Scandinavian countries and formerly the United States
    ^ "History of the Ph.D.". Phdcourse.net. http://phdcourse.net/history-of-the-ph.d./history-of-the-ph.d./. Retrieved 2011-02-01.
    ^ See, for instance, Rosenberg, R. P. (1962). "Eugene Schuyler's Doctor of Philosophy Degree: A Theory Concerning the Dissertation". The Journal of Higher Education 33 (7): 381–386. doi:10.2307/1979947. JSTOR 1979947. edit
    ^ Simpson, Renate (1984). How the PhD came to Britain : A Century of Struggle for Postgraduate Education. Taylor and Francis. ISBN 0900868953.
    ^ "The Mathematics PhD in the United Kingdom". http://www.economics.soton.ac.uk/staff/aldrich/PhD.htm. Retrieved 2010-11-17.
    ^ Dinham, S.; Scott, C. (2001). "The Experience of Disseminating the Results of Doctoral Research". Journal of Further and Higher Education 25: 45–55. doi:10.1080/03098770020030498. edit
    ^ The term "doctor of philosophy" is not always applied by those countries to graduates in disciplines other than philosophy itself. These doctoral degrees, however, are sometimes identified in English as Ph.D. degrees.
    ^ What does PhDc stand for? Acronyms and abbreviations by the Free Online Dictionary
    ^ a b c http://www.economist.com/node/17723223, The disposable academic, The Economist, December 18, 2010
    ^ "Fix the PhD". Nature 472 (7343): 259–260. 2011. doi:10.1038/472259b. PMID 21512527. edit
    ^ Taylor, M. (2011). "Reform the PhD system or close it down". Nature 472 (7343): 261–261. doi:10.1038/472261a. PMID 21512530. edit
    ^ Cyranoski, D.; Gilbert, N.; Ledford, H.; Nayar, A.; Yahia, M. (2011). "Education: The PhD factory". Nature 472 (7343): 276–279. doi:10.1038/472276a. PMID 21512548. edit
    ^ Fiske, P. (2011). "What is a PhD really worth?". Nature 472 (7343): 381–381. doi:10.1038/nj7343-381a. edit
    ^ Journal of Higher Education Management and Policy, the economic contribution of PhDs, http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a912992314
    ^ "Scholarships in Argentina". Spuweb.siu.edu.ar. http://spuweb.siu.edu.ar/studyinargentina/pages/study1203.php. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    ^ "GFME: Global Foundation for Management Education" (PDF). http://www.gfme.org/global_guide/pdf/13-18%20Argentina.pdf. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    ^ "Comisión Nacional de Evaluación y Acreditación Universitaria (Spanish)}". Coneau.edu.ar. http://www.coneau.edu.ar/index.php?item=29&apps=16&id=428&act=ver&idioma=en. Retrieved 2010-04-28. [dead link]
    ^ http://www.utas.edu.au/graduate-research/scholarships/domestic-scholarships/australian-postgraduate-awards
    ^ http://www.phdseek.com/logbook/funding/postgraduate-scholarships-for-study-in-australia/
    ^ ABC (2008). "PhD students living below poverty line". ABC News 2008 (April): 1–2. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/30/2231306.htm.
    ^ "http://www.heimshelp.deewr.gov.au/2_Glossary/R/RESEARCH_TRAINING_SCHEME_RTS.htm. Research Training Scheme". DEEWR. 2011.
    ^ http://www.caul.edu.au/caul-programs/australasian-digital-theses
    ^ "N E T – Inside H E – University Grants Commission". Ugc.ac.in. 1988-07-22. http://www.ugc.ac.in/inside/net.html. Retrieved 2010-02-07.
    ^ Medical Centre of Postgraduate Education in Warsaw,
    ^ Over 600 years of Jagiellonian University in Cracow,
    ^ University of Warsaw ,
    ^ Cracow University of Technology ,
    ^ Warsaw University of Technology,
    ^ Polish Academy of Science ,
    ^ Sejm of the Republic of Poland,
    ^ Exemplary results of a laboratory studies – publication,
    ^ Dommasnes, Liv Helga; Else Johansen Kleppe, Gro Mandt and Jenny-Rita Næss (1998). "Women archeologists in retrospect – the Norwegian case". In Margarita Díaz-Andreu García and Marie Louise Stig Sørensen. Excavating women: a history of women in European archaeology. London: Routledge. ISBN 0415157609. "[...] a Dr. philos. degree, which is the highest academic degree in Norway, roughly equivalent to the German Doktor Habilitation. Traditionally, this degree, which was considered a prerequisite for obtaining top positions within academia, was earned rather late in life, often after one had passed 50 years of age."
    ^ Elisabeth Vestergaard (2006). Den danske forskeruddannelse. Rapporter, evalueringer og anbefalinger 1992 – 2006. Aarhus: Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse
    ^ Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (Spanish)
    ^ Base de Datos TESEO
    ^ "Raíces de las normas y tradiciones del protocolo y ceremonial universitario actual: las universidades del Antiguo Régimen y los actos de colación. Protocolo y Etiqueta" (in (Spanish)). Protocolo.org. http://www.protocolo.org/gest_web/proto_Seccion.pl?rfID=459&arefid=2871&pag=8. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    ^ "Boletín Oficial del Estado. Texto del Documento". Boe.es. 1995-05-24. http://www.boe.es/g/es/bases_datos/doc.php?coleccion=iberlex&id=1995/12243&codmap=. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    ^ "University Rankings". timesonline.co.uk. http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/stug/universityguide.php?sort=RESEARCH. Retrieved 26 April 2011.
    ^ "University of Oxford". Ox.ac.uk. http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/postgraduate_courses/index.html. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    ^ FCO Counter terrorism & weapons proliferation staff: Advice for PHD/doctoral level students applying for an ATAS certificate. Retrieved 16 September 2008.
    ^ a b Postgrad checks worry scientists BBC News, 12 March 2007
    ^ Arts and Humanities Research Council[dead link]
    ^ "University of Warwick". Warwick.ac.uk. http://www.warwick.ac.uk/go/moac. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    ^ Bray, M.; Kwok, P. (2003). "Demand for private supplementary tutoring: Conceptual considerations, and socio-economic patterns in Hong Kong". Economics of Education Review 22 (6): 611–620. doi:10.1016/S0272-7757(03)00032-3. edit
    ^ "ESRC Society Today". ESRC Society Today. http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/res_grant_linked_studentships_tcm6-12550.pdf. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    ^ "Professional Doctorate". http://www.professionaldoctorates.com/explained.asp. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    ^ Listing of Research I Universities, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching – 282 is the sum of all three categories of doctoral universities.
    ^ "Wharton Doctoral Programs: Application Requirements". Wharton.upenn.edu. 2009-12-15. http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/doctoral/admissions/apply/requirements.cfm#scores. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    ^ Columbia University in the City of New York[dead link]
    ^ "Research Doctorate Programmes". US Department of Education. 2006-06-18. http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-research-doctorate.html.
    ^ In humanities, ten years may not be enough to get a PhD, "The Chronicle of Higher Education" July 27, 2007
    ^ "Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.)". Columbia.edu. 1999-02-22. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsas/rules/chapter-7/pages/deg-req/sec/mphil.html. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    ^ "Policies and Regulations". Yale.edu. http://www.yale.edu/bulletin/html2003/grad/policies.html. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    [edit] ReferencesDelamont, S., Atkinson, P. & Parry, O. (1997). Supervising the Ph.D.: A guide to success. Buckingham: Open University Press. ISBN 0-335-19516-4
    Dinham, S. & Scott, C. (2001). The experience of the results of disseminating the results of doctoral research. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 25 (1) 45–55. ISSN: 1469-9486
    Drury, V., Francis, K., & Chapman, Y. (2006). Walking the void – being a rural PhD student. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 14, p233.
    MacGillivray, Alex; Potts, Gareth; Raymond, Polly. Secrets of Their Success (London: New Economics Foundation, 2002).
    Phillips, E. & Pugh, D.S. (1987). How to get a PhD : managing the peaks and troughs of research / Estelle M. Phillips and D.S. Pugh. Milton Keynes: Open University Press ISBN 0-335-15537-5
    Simpson, Renate. How the PhD came to Britain: A century of struggle for postgraduate education, Society for Research into Higher Education, Guildford (1983).
    Wellington, J. Bathmaker, A._M., Hunt, C., McCullough, G. & Sikes, P. (2005). Succeeding with your doctorate. London: Sage. ISBN 1-4129-0116-2
    Wilkinson, D. (2005) The essential guide to postgraduate study. London : SAGE ISBN 1-4129-0062-X (hbk.)
    Wisker, G. (2005) The Good Supervisor: Supervising Postgraduate and Undergraduate Research for Doctoral Theses and Dissertations. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1-4039-0395-6.
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 7483
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:56 pm

    As I try to go underground (in more ways than one!), please continue to study the words "Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom United States of the Solar System" as a group, and as individual words. Think about this from every conceivable angle, and contemplate every possibility, probability, and eventuality. This is more of a monumental task than a casual observer might delude themselves into believing. Consider the psychological, ethical, religious, and political implications and ramifications. This could (and should) be the subject of thousands of doctoral dissertations. Think of these words being at the center of ivy-league university programs in Solar System Studies and Governance. Please review this entire thread, including all of the books mentioned and videos linked. Please do not disregard this thread, or the subject upon which it is based. I don't have a problem with idealistic conceptions of God and Theocracy - but I am profoundly troubled by the history of theology and theocracy - as well as by the idiotic religious expressions in modernity. We should know better by now. We seem to have a lot of minor gods and goddesses flying around the solar system in ufo-asteroids, pretending to be Major Gods and Goddesses. Indeed, using God's Name in Vain. I seek a constructive integration of democracy and theocracy - based upon RESPONSIBILITY. If only I could learn to be responsible.

    Here are the links to my threads on AV1 and MOA. I included them here because they are really an ongoing research project. I'm trying to change myself - and I am trying to encourage others to think in unconventional yet productive ways. This is a unique approach - which may make it of some value to someone somewhere or somewhen. This thread is an experiment (aren't they all?)...which includes mostly threads based on videos...or threads which contain many video links...which I have started. I'm not particularly bright or noteworthy...but the videos which I have viewed...especially when viewed as a group...are earth shattering to me. The threads are a healthy mixture of problems and solutions. If you have the time...which is doubtful...please look at all of these threads...and look for commonalities. There is a bit of a theological slant...but certainly not an orthodox or Bible thumping slant. Prepare to be shocked...to cry...to get mad...to be enlightened...and to experience the Eureka Phenomenon!

    I would love to read a twenty page critique of all of these threads - written by a Jesuit or a CIA analyst - complete with a psychological evaluation, etc. I'm very serious. I don't need to be right. I just don't feel as though anyone has seriously considered these threads. They were designed to make people think - and then to arrive at their own conclusions - but I don't think that happened at all. I honestly feel as though Gabriel, Michael, Lucifer, and a couple of alphabet agents and Jesuits are the only ones who looked at this material with a penetrating gaze. Even if I was very close to the mark - I wasn't a threat (I didn't try to be) - because no one seemed to pay much attention to any of it. I had hoped for some very detailed and passionate debating. The 'Amen Ra' thread seemed to generate the most interest (18,067 views and counting) - but I have no idea what the reactions were and are now that AV1 is closed to posting. I feel very empty and lost in all of this. I feel as though I wasted my time and energy - accomplishing nothing. I am making a renewed call for help - into the vast regions of space and cyberspace - for intelligent life-forms to seriously look at this material as a group - and tell me what you think - positive or negative. Where are the scholars? Is there any intelligent life out there that isn't so high and mighty that they can't take a few hours to make a proper evaluation of all of this? Come down out of your ivory tower - I dare you! The water's warm. Come-on in! I'm waiting - but I'm not holding my breath. You important people with your degrees and badges have more important things to do - don't you? Like getting us into even more trouble than we're already in? Don't take what I just said too seriously. I am impatient and frustrated - and I'm simply taking my dissatisfaction with life out on those who don't deserve it. Life isn't fair - is it? At this point, I seem to know less than when I started this quest.

    Consider Teutonic Zionism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfMwK0kCccI Also, consider reading 'Hitler's Pope'. Supposedly there is an SS/Jesuit connection. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COYHwApueFE I don't take sides in any of this. I just want to defuse a very dangerous situation, but I don't know how. I have no idea how deep and dark all of this really is. How is one to know who the good guys and bad guys really are? Does it take a bad guy to overthrow a bad guy? Can a truly good guy really accomplish much of anything in this sick and stupid world??? Are the Old and New World Orders really two sides of the same coin, or are they really in genuine conflict with each other? I keep sensing that we are dealing with Bad Guys vs Bad Guys - with the Good Guys not having a clue about what's REALLY going on. I think that a deep and fair study of the Vatican and the Nazis is essential to really understanding what has and is going on in our world. Is there both a good and a bad side to the Vatican and the Nazi phenomenon? I am proceeding on the theory that just about everyone and everything are mixtures of good and evil. I try to avoid 'all or nothing' thinking. I also think that Gizeh Intelligence has a lot to do with all of this, but very little seems to be known about them, and I'm sure they'd like it to stay that way. If all of the crap got exposed, and all of the bad guys and gals got kicked out of the solar system - would we be capable of handling the uncovered mess? I really wonder. We might get ourselves into an even worse situation. It's almost as if the present diabolical state of affairs needs to somehow be reformed in an evolutionary manner. But once again, I don't have a clue how to do this. I almost seem to be trying to positively reinforce the best of the Vatican and the Nazi phenomenon - while exposing and attacking the worst aspects. But this approach ends up making everyone angry - right? That's why I pretty much stick to myself, and why I'm trying desperately to stop posting on the internet. I'd like to start extricating myself from some of the lists I'm undoubtedly on. What would the Masonic Teutonic Zionist Nazi Martian Catholic Dracs on Phobos say??? "orthodoxymoron REALLY needs to shut-up"?

    On the political front, internet, PBS, town-hall, and bumper-sticker campaigning should be sufficient to properly inform the general public. I HATE roadside political signs. Perhaps senatorial and congressional voting should be supplemented with internet voting by the public. The elected representatives and the public might have 50% of the votes each. The public overwhelmingly did not want the damn bankster-bailout - but guess what we got??

    I'm still a bit puzzled regarding the definition of 'regressive'. Perhaps a lot of us might be 'regressive' if we were in the 'regressives' situation. I am very frightened that even if my unproven ideas were accepted, that the human race might screw things up even worse than the 'regressives'. I support a representative republic, but are we really ready to pull this off on a global or solar system level - especially if we were dealing with other than human beings who would undoubtedly want a piece of the pie? If Greys and Dracs really exist - they probably want us out - and most of the human race would probably want them out - especially if we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of years of star wars. I keep wondering if the hypothetical Greys and Dracs would prefer to live in subsurface bases and cities throughout the solar system, or if they really want our skyscrapers and waterfront homes? Would a significant percentage of the human population choose to live in subsurface bases and cities throughout the solar system, if given the opportunity to do so? I think it would be really cool, especially if space travel, surface exploration, maglev trains, and coed saunas were part of the deal.

    I have come to the sickening conclusion that just about everyone is capable of reprehensible corruption and horrific brutality. Put a pure and noble soul in a certain context, and they might do just about anything. I guess this is why I like the checks and balances of a United States of the Solar System. But this is just a pipe-dream. It would sure help to know what's REALLY going on. I continue to wish for everything to work out well for all concerned. Hope springs eternal. I will continue to wish the best for everyone as I lurk in the shadows. I might reemerge in a couple of months - a couple of years - or never. I sought answers and happiness - but I have mostly uncovered problems and sadness. I hurt before - but now the pain is nearly unbearable. I might sound self-centered, and I probably am, but all of these threads have, in a sense, been diaries of feeling, reflection, and speculation. If I ever do reemerge, I think I will be a lot more polished and sanitized, which might be a good or a bad thing, depending on your point of view. I sense that I have been a great disappointment. Perhaps this is because I am greatly disappointed. Perhaps my silence and absence will make everyone happy. I'm not going away mad. I'm just going away.

    Take all of these threads with a sea of salt, and get informed without getting mad. Just consider them carefully, and then move on. I try to listen to a wide variety of sources in a rather non-committal manner. Neutrality might be impossible, but I'm trying to be as neutral as possible. I can see myself partnering with virtually all races and members of nearly all organizations - AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT AS CORRUPT AS HELL. There are good individuals EVERYWHERE. Unfortunately, I really am quite naive. I really am a completely ignorant fool when it comes to how the world and solar system really works. I would love to be involved in solar system governance, but it would take me several lifetimes to really get up to speed, and I'm not joking. I am sort of burned-out, and I probably seem to lack backbone, in my efforts to be neutral. I'm not exactly a 'shouting in a megaphone and running in the streets' type of person. I don't really know much of anything for certain. I tend to think that whoever REALLY runs the solar system is into EVERYTHING. So, it might be futile to blame any particular group for most of the world's problems. Perhaps a lot of the individuals and groups we love to hate - really hate carrying out the orders they are given. I think this thing is incredibly complex and messy. We might be dealing with a lot of very ancient baggage, which might include other solar systems, archangels, gods, goddesses, star wars, and who knows who or what? I think Bill Cooper had the right idea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fHmWcRZ72A I listen to Latin Masses as I study the Jesuits. I think I could probably get along quite well with most of them, including the Black Pope aka Jesuit General. I think I could get along very well with top-level Israelis. Please keep an open mind in all of this controversial madness.

    I keep flying blind, and I keep feeling as though I am walking through a minefield as I keep speculating. This all seems to be a most dangerous and deceptive game. I think that my posting has angered both the good and evil guys and gals. I guess I'm sort of a rebel against everyone at this point. I feel as though I might be very comfortable in a very holy heaven, surrounded by the most evolved beings in the universe. OR, I think I could hang-out with Bartleby and Loki (from Dogma) and get along with them. I can do the 'holier than thou' routine, and I can do the 'this is all a bunch of bs' routine as well. I would really like to see a highly refined integration of politics and religion, but I don't have a clue how to make it happen. If I travelled between the Vatican, the City of London, the United Nations, and Washington D.C. on a daily basis, I might be able to work something out over a few decades. But presently, I am completely disillusioned with politics and religion. I think humanity is being taken advantage of, but perhaps to some extent, we deserve it. Everything important continues to be a great, big, deceptive mystery. I've sort of had it. I really think I need to just shut-up and research. I'm enjoying reading 'Hitler's Pope'. Who knows? I might've been Eugenio Pacelli, so I probably shouldn't throw stones. I seem to be strangely interested in Pope Pius XII, the Vatican, the Nazi Party, and Gizeh Intelligence. I keep wondering why things had to get so insane and violent. I mostly want the violence and war to go bye-bye. I think I might be able to live with a litte bit of corruption - but not too much. I need to stop. Thank-you for having this website. It's really shown me how little I really know about a lot of things. I need to keep reading the 'Holy Tablets'. Also, Biblical Egyptology is a VERY interesting area of research. Anyway, I am going to try to not post for a while. It's liberating to just research, and not have to attempt to convince anyone of anything. Who says that no man is an island, and that no man stands alone? Here I stand. I can do no other. You won't have orthodoxymoron to ignore anymore...

    sunny Namaste and Have a Nice Day jocolor

    1. God, Jesus, Satan, Lucifer, et al: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15014&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    2. Secrets of the Vatican: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13767&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    3. Tell Me Who I Am: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14402&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    4. Waco Revisited: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15185&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    5. Al Bielek - Philadelphia Experiment and Montauk Project: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14348&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    6. Xcon Potpurri: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14241&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    7. Kevin Trudeau with Alex Jones - 5-26-09: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14241&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    8. Red Letter Church: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13495&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    9. Reptilians and Mind Control: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13373&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    10. 'V' Movie(Series) Revisited: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13202&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    11. Jesus: The Last Pharaoh?: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13776&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    12. Important Mass Manipulation Video: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12702&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    13. 1990's Prophets: Vindicated or Debunked?: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11000&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    14. Alien Advice: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10158&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    15. Cool Music Videos: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15470&highlight=cool+music+videos

    16. NASA: Triumph and Tragedy: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15618&highlight=tragedy+triumph

    17. United Nations Charter: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15552&highlight=Shadow+moon

    18. In the Shadow of the Moon: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15635&highlight=Shadow+moon

    19. TWA 800 Revisited: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15187

    20. Unique War Video: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14409

    21. Bilderberg Video: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12970

    22. Dogon Sirius Mystery - C2C: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15731&highlight=dogon

    23. The Point: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=158238#post158238

    24. The Washington Mutual Story: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13996&highlight=washington+mutual+story

    25. Oklahoma City Bombing Revisited: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=158668#post158668

    26. The United States of the Solar System: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15878

    27. What is Giza Intelligence? http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11123&highlight=giza+intelligence

    28. Called to Be Free - a Video: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13882&highlight=worldwide+church

    29. Lucifer: Deity of the Elite: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=163179#post163179

    30. Tesla: Master of Lightning: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16193

    31. Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=165729#post165729

    32. The Dulce Book: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=167075#post167075

    33. New World Order: Devil in the Vatican: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=167745#post167745

    34. The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16609&highlight=lucifer+effect

    35. Enron Video: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=175040#post175040

    36. No End In Sight: Iraq War Documentary: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16897

    37. Ted Gunderson Interviews Chip Tatum (CIA, Drugs, Etc.): http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=177127#post177127

    38. Sirius Issues: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=178234#post178234

    39. Superimposed Parallel Universes: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=178255#post178255

    40. Lawyerese Goes Galactic: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17276&highlight=wall+street+journal

    41. Stargate SG-1: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17834

    42. Amen Ra: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18223

    43. The Dark Side of the Moon Mission: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18273&highlight=moon+video+orthodoxymoron

    44. Open Letter to the Beings of the Universe: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19065&highlight=open+letter+beings+universe

    45. Moonraker: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19284

    46. Who Are Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer? http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19376&highlight=gabriel%2C+michael%2C+lucifer%3F

    47. Krlll: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=238849#post238849

    48. Cartoon Aliens: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20141&highlight=cartoon+aliens

    49. Thuban Thoughts: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20379

    50. Thuban Thoughts II: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20963

    51. Very Cool Short Videos: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20400&highlight=cool+short+videos

    52. Violent Movies, Books, Games, Cartoons, and Toys: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20849

    53. Abortion, Euthanasia, Suicide, and Murder: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20852

    54. Prevention is Central to Healthcare: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21143

    55. I Have a Dream! Free at Last! http://www.projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=261981#post261981

    orthodoxymoron threads from the Mists of Avalon: http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t876-orthodoxymoron-threads?highlight=orthodoxymoron+threads

    1. Who is Lucifer? What are they doing? http://www.themistsofavalon.net/universal-lounge-f8/who-is-lucifer-what-are-they-doing-t841.htm?highlight=lucifer

    2. United Nations + City States + Underground Bases + Secret Space Program = Secret Government? http://www.themistsofavalon.net/universal-lounge-f8/united-nations-city-states-underground-bases-secret-space-program-secret-government-t853.htm?highlight=secret+government

    3. Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom Solar System http://www.themistsofavalon.net/universal-lounge-f8/namaste-constitutional-responsible-freedom-solar-system-t918.htm#16374

    4. Tibet, Kali, and the Trinity Goddess http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1019-tibet-kali-and-the-trinity-goddess?highlight=orthodoxymoron+threads

    5. Three Interesting Ladies http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1347-three-interesting-ladies?highlight=orthodoxymoron+threads

    6. Swiss Politicians to March on Bilderberg to Demand Arrest of Kissinger http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2705-swiss-politicians-to-march-on-bilderberg-to-demand-arrest-of-kissinger

    7. How Should We Then Live? http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2717-how-should-we-then-live

    8. The KGB Psychic Files http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2622-the-kgb-psychic-files

    9. Reptilian Queens http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2639-reptilian-queens

    10. Very Interesting Jordan Maxwell Interview http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2531-very-interesting-jordan-maxwell-interview

    11. The Hidden Story of Jesus http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2618-the-hidden-story-of-jesus

    12. Death and Taxes http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1158-death-and-taxes

    13. 'V' Revisited http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1616-v-revisited

    14. Grace Cathedral http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1327-grace-cathedral

    15. Red Letter Church http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1040-red-letter-church

    16. What is Gizeh Intelligence? http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1348-what-is-gizeh-intelligence

    17. The United Nations and the City States http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1538-the-united-nations-and-the-city-states

    18. Lucifer, Pagan Rome, Alexander the Great, Constantine the Great, and Papal Rome http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1572-lucifer-pagan-rome-alexander-the-great-constantine-the-great-and-papal-rome

    19. Amen Ra, et al http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1116-amen-ra-et-al

    20. The Jesuits http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1407-the-jesuits

    21. Bill Cooper, Commander X, and Branton http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1098-bill-cooper-commander-x-and-branton

    22. St. Ouen and St. Sulpice http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1397-saint-ouen-and-saint-sulpice

    23. Project Isis http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1303-project-isis

    24. Complexity, Technology, Competition, Greed, Power-Hunger, Self-Exaltation, and the Quickening http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1033-complexity-technology-competition-greed-power-hunger-self-exaltation-and-the-quickening?highlight=complexity

    25. Eric Jon Phelps http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2779-eric-jon-phelps

    26. Moral Responsibility http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2806-moral-responsibility#49793

    27. The Holy Tablets http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2867-the-holy-tablets

    28. The University of Solar System Studies and Governance http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2881-the-university-of-solar-system-studies-and-governance

    sunny Namaste and Have a Nice Day jocolor



    So - who is the rightful owner of this solar system? Who is the rightful head of the Christian Church? Who is the rightful head of the Monarchy? Who is the rightful and legitimate head of this solar system? Do we need to make some changes? These changes should be made immediately. You know what I'm talking about - and you know that I know what's really going on. There will be consequences and reprecussions - throughout the whole damn solar system. You had all better get right with your maker - and I'm not bluffing or kidding. GAME OVER.

    Is the above bold paragraph really too bold? It reflects how I really feel, but does it reflect reality? I made it elsewhere in this thread, quite some time ago, and nothing seems to have happened. Should I have expected anything to happen? It would help if I knew more about what is really going on throughout the world, solar system, galaxy, and universe. I know a lot more than I did a couple of years ago, but I still don't know nearly enough. Or, do I know too much? Should someone simply call in a strike on this god-forsaken solar system? Should probation close in 2011? Should the wheat be separated from the tares? Should the righteous be separated from the filthy? Should the Bottomless Pit be utilized? Would a changing of the guard from competent-corruption to incompetent-goodness really just make things worse? Are we really too stupid and unstable to rule ourselves? Must we continue to be ruled by very powerful and evil individuals, as seems to have been the case for thousands of years? Have we contributed to the delinquency of the Queen of Heaven and the God of This World - by being Completely Ignorant and Irresponsible Fools?

    Are the best and brightest Roman Catholics working in the Vatican? Are the best and brightest Americans working in Washington DC? Are the best and the brightest of Great Britan and Europe working in the City of London? Are the best and brightest people of the world working at the United Nations? Are the people in the Vatican, Washington DC, the City of London, and the United Nations really running the world - or are they simply employees or minions of a Secret Government and a Queen of Heaven / God of This World? I would really like to know the innermost thoughts of the 10,000 best and brightest Human Beings - regarding Life, the Universe, and Solar System Governance. Would a Vatican-Based Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom United States of the Solar System result in the 10,000 best and brightest Human Beings running the Solar System?

    My idealistic bottom-line is RESPONSIBILITY IN EVERYTHING. My pragmatic bottom-line is GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT. TELL THEM WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR. COMPETE WITHOUT CEASING WITH POSITIVE RESPONSE ABILITY. Perhaps my idealism needs to mate with my pragmatism. Perhaps I need to infiltrate and subvert the Old and New World Orders with Responsibility to produce the New Solar System aka the United States of the Solar System. Perhaps I need to aspire to become a kinder and gentler version of the Queen of Heaven and the God of This World. Think long and hard about the contents of this post (including all linked threads and materials). That's exactly what I will be doing privately. I'm not going to whine, whimper, and beg anymore. Godspeed.

    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 7483
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:06 pm

    Here is a rather scholarly article on Moral Responsibility, taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This is the sort of thing which might be studied in a university program devoted to Solar System Studies and Governance, as a prerequisite to being a Representative of the United States of the Solar System. Enjoy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-responsibility/ I'm also reading a book titled 'Free to be Responsible' by Ben Thomson Cowles, Ph.D. I'm trying to transition from being a whining speculator to being a erudite scholar. Wish me luck, as I stop posting and start studying. I hope that some of you are joining me in this pursuit. Again, the tempest in a teapot, which I have been in the middle of, is just scratching the surface. Really.

    Moral Responsibility

    First published Sat Jan 6, 2001; substantive revision Wed Nov 18, 2009

    When a person performs or fails to perform a morally significant action, we sometimes think that a particular kind of response is warranted. Praise and blame are perhaps the most obvious forms this reaction might take. For example, one who encounters a car accident may be regarded as worthy of praise for having saved a child from inside the burning car, or alternatively, one may be regarded as worthy of blame for not having used one's mobile phone to call for help. To regard such agents as worthy of one of these reactions is to ascribe moral responsibility to them on the basis of what they have done or left undone. (These are examples of other-directed ascriptions of responsibility. The reaction might also be self-directed, e.g., one can recognize oneself to be blameworthy). Thus, to be morally responsible for something, say an action, is to be worthy of a particular kind of reaction—praise, blame, or something akin to these—for having performed it.[1]

    Though further elaboration and qualification of the above characterization of moral responsibility is called for and will be provided below, this is enough to distinguish concern about this form of responsibility from some others commonly referred to through use of the terms ‘responsibility’ or ‘responsible.’ To illustrate, we might say that higher than normal rainfall in the spring is responsible for an increase in the amount of vegetation or that it is the judge's responsibility to give instructions to the jury before they begin deliberating. In the first case, we mean to identify a causal connection between the earlier amount of rain and the later increased vegetation. In the second, we mean to say that when one assumes the role of judge, certain duties, or obligations, follow. Although these concepts are connected with the concept of moral responsibility discussed here, they are not the same, for in neither case are we directly concerned about whether it would be appropriate to react to some candidate (here, the rainfall or a particular judge) with something like praise or blame.[2]

    Philosophical reflection on moral responsibility has a long history. One reason for this persistent interest is the way the topic seems connected with a widely shared conception of ourselves as members of an importantly distinct class of individuals—call them ‘persons.’[3] Persons are thought to be qualitatively different from other known living individuals, despite their numerous similarities. Many have held that one distinct feature of persons is their status as morally responsible agents, a status resting—some have proposed—on a special kind of control that only they can exercise. Many who view persons in this way have wondered whether their special status is threatened if certain other claims about our universe are true. For example, can a person be morally responsible for her behavior if that behavior can be explained solely by reference to physical states of the universe and the laws governing changes in those physical states, or solely by reference to the existence of a sovereign God who guides the world along a divinely ordained path? It is concerns like these that have often motivated individuals to theorize about moral responsibility.

    A comprehensive theory of moral responsibility would elucidate the following: (1) the concept, or idea, of moral responsibility itself; (2) the criteria for being a moral agent, i.e., one who qualifies generally as an agent open to responsibility ascriptions (e.g., only beings possessing the general capacity to evaluate reasons for acting can be moral agents); (3) the conditions under which the concept of moral responsibility is properly applied, i.e., those conditions under which a moral agent is responsible for a particular something (e.g., a moral agent can be responsible for an action she has performed only if she performed it freely, where acting freely entails the ability to have done otherwise at the time of action); and finally 4) possible objects of responsibility ascriptions (e.g., actions, omissions, consequences, character traits, etc.). Although each of these will be touched upon in the discussion below (see, e.g., the brief sketch of Aristotle's account in the next section), the primary focus of this entry is on the first component—i.e., the concept of moral responsibility. The section immediately following this introduction is a discussion of the origin and history of Western reflection on moral responsibility. This is followed by an overview of recent work on the concept of moral responsibility. For further discussion of issues associated with moral responsibility, see the related entries below.

    1. Some Historical Background
    2. Recent Work on the Concept of Responsibility
    2.1 Strawson and the Reactive Attitudes
    2.2 Developments After Strawson
    Bibliography
    Other Internet Resources
    Related Entries

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Some Historical Background

    What follows in this section is a brief outline of the origins and trajectory of reflection on moral responsibility in the Western philosophical tradition. Against this background, a distinction will be drawn between two conceptions of moral responsibility that have exerted considerable influence on subsequent thinkers.

    An understanding of the concept of moral responsibility and its application is present implicitly in some of the earliest surviving Greek texts, i.e., the Homeric epics (circa 8th century BCE but no doubt informed by a much earlier oral tradition).[4] In these texts, both human and superhuman agents are often regarded as fair targets of praise and blame on the basis of how they have behaved, and at other times, an agent's behavior is excused because of the presence of some factor that has undermined his/her control (Irwin 1999: 225). Reflection on these factors gave rise to fatalism—the view that one's future or some aspect of it is predetermined, e.g., by the gods, or the stars, or simply some facts about truth and time—in such a way as to make one's particular deliberations, choices and actions irrelevant to whether that particular future is realized (recall, e.g., the plight of Oedipus). If some particular outcome is fated, then it seems that the agent concerned could not be morally responsible for that outcome. Likewise, if fatalism were true with respect to all human futures, then it would seem that no human agent could be morally responsible for anything. Though this brand of fatalism has sometimes exerted significant historical influence, most philosophers have rejected it on the grounds that there is no good reason to think that our futures are fated in the sense that they will unfold no matter what particular deliberations we engage in, choices we make, or actions we perform.

    Aristotle (384–323 BCE) seems to have been the first to construct explicitly a theory of moral responsibility.[5] In the course of discussing human virtues and their corresponding vices, Aristotle pauses in Nicomachean Ethics III.1–5 to explore their underpinnings. He begins with a brief statement of the concept of moral responsibility—that it is sometimes appropriate to respond to an agent with praise or blame on the basis of her actions and/or dispositional traits of character (1109b30–35). A bit later, he clarifies that only a certain kind of agent qualifies as a moral agent and is thus properly subject to ascriptions of responsibility, namely, one who possess a capacity for decision. For Aristotle, a decision is a particular kind of desire resulting from deliberation, one that expresses the agent's conception of what is good (1111b5-1113b3). The remainder of Aristotle's discussion is devoted to spelling out the conditions under which it is appropriate to hold a moral agent blameworthy or praiseworthy for some particular action or trait. His general proposal is that one is an apt candidate for praise or blame if and only if the action and/or disposition is voluntary. According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has two distinctive features. First, there is a control condition: the action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That is, it must be up to the agent whether to perform that action or possess the trait—it cannot be compelled externally. Second, Aristotle proposes an epistemic condition: the agent must be aware of what it is she is doing or bringing about (1110a-1111b4).[6]

    There is an instructive ambiguity in Aristotle's account of responsibility, an ambiguity that has led to competing interpretations of his view. Aristotle aims to identify the conditions under which it is appropriate to praise or blame an agent, but it is not entirely clear how to understand the pivotal notion of appropriateness in his conception of responsibility. There are at least two possibilities: a) praise or blame is appropriate in the sense that the agent deserves such a response, given his behavior and/or traits of character; or b) praise or blame is appropriate in the sense that such a reaction is likely to bring about a desired consequence, namely an improvement in the agent's behavior and/or character. These two possibilities may be characterized in terms of two competing interpretations of the concept of moral responsibility: 1) the merit-based view, according to which praise or blame would be an appropriate reaction toward the candidate if and only if she merits—in the sense of ‘deserves’—such a reaction; vs. 2) the consequentialist view, according to which praise or blame would be appropriate if and only if a reaction of this sort would likely lead to a desired change in the agent and/or her behavior.[7]

    Scholars disagree about which of the above views Aristotle endorsed, but the importance of distinguishing between them grew as philosophers began to focus on a newly conceived threat to moral responsibility. While Aristotle argued against a version of fatalism (On Interpretation, ch. 9), he may not have recognized the difference between it and the related possible threat of causal determinism (contra Sorabji). Causal determinism is the view that everything that happens or exists is caused by sufficient antecedent conditions, making it impossible for anything to happen or be other than it does or is. One variety of causal determinism, scientific determinism, identifies the relevant antecedent conditions as a combination of prior states of the universe and the laws of nature. Another, theological determinism, identifies those conditions as being the nature and will of God. It seems likely that theological determinism evolved out of the shift, both in Greek religion and in Ancient Mesopotamian religions, from polytheism to belief in one sovereign God, or at least one god who reigned over all others. The doctrine of scientific determinism can be traced back as far as the Presocratic Atomists (5th cent. BCE), but the difference between it and the earlier fatalistic view seems not to be clearly recognized until the development of Stoic philosophy (3rd. cent. BCE). Though fatalism, like causal determinism, might seem to threaten moral responsibility by threatening an agent's control, the two differ on the significance of human deliberation, choice, and action. If fatalism is true, then human deliberation, choice, and action are completely otiose, for what is fated will transpire no matter what one chooses to do. According to causal determinism, however, one's deliberations, choices, and actions will often be necessary links in the causal chain that brings something about. In other words, even though our deliberations, choices, and actions are themselves determined like everything else, it is still the case, according to causal determinism, that the occurrence or existence of yet other things depends upon our deliberating, choosing and acting in a certain way (Irwin 1999: 243–249; Meyer 1998: 225-227; and Pereboom 1997: ch. 2).

    Since the Stoics, the thesis of causal determinism and its ramifications, if true, have taken center stage in theorizing about moral responsibility. During the Medieval period, especially in the work of Augustine (354–430) and Aquinas (1225-1274), reflection on freedom and responsibility was often generated by questions concerning versions of theological determinism, including most prominently: a) Does God's sovereignty entail that God is responsible for evil?; and b) Does God's foreknowledge entail that we are not free and morally responsible since it would seem that we cannot do anything other than what God foreknows we will do? During the Modern period, there was renewed interest in scientific determinism—a change attributable to the development of increasingly sophisticated mechanistic models of the universe culminating in the success of Newtonian physics. The possibility of giving a comprehensive explanation of every aspect of the universe—including human action—in terms of physical causes now seemed much more plausible. Many thought that persons could not be free and morally responsible if such an explanation of human action were possible. Others argued that freedom and responsibility would not be threatened should scientific determinism be true. In keeping with this focus on the ramifications of causal determinism for moral responsibility, thinkers may be classified as being one of two types: 1) an incompatibilist about causal determinism and moral responsibility—one who maintains that if causal determinism is true, then there is nothing for which one can be morally responsible; or 2) a compatibilist—one who holds that a person can be morally responsible for some things, even if both who she is and what she does is causally determined.[8] In Ancient Greece, these positions were exemplified in the thought of Epicurus (341–270 BCE) and the Stoics, respectively.

    Above, an ambiguity in Aristotle's conception of moral responsibility was highlighted—that it was not clear whether he endorsed a merit-based vs. a consequentialist conception of moral responsibility. The history of reflection on moral responsibility demonstrates that how one interprets the concept of moral responsibility strongly influences one's overall account of moral responsibility. For example, those who accept the merit-based conception of moral responsibility have tended to be incompatibilists. That is, most have thought that if an agent were to genuinely merit praise or blame for something, then he would need to exercise a special form of control over that thing (e.g., the ability at the time of action to both perform or not perform the action) that is incompatible with one's being causally determined. In addition to Epicurus, we can cite early Augustine, Thomas Reid (1710–1796), and Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) as historical examples here. Those accepting the consequentialist conception of moral responsibility, on the other hand, have traditionally contended that determinism poses no threat to moral responsibility since praising and blaming could still be an effective means of influencing another's behavior, even in a deterministic world. Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), David Hume (1711–1776), and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) are, along with the Stoics, representatives of this view. This general trend of linking the consequentialist conception of moral responsibility with compatibilism about causal determinism and moral responsibility and the merit-based conception with incompatibilism continued to persist through the first half of the twentieth century.

    2. Recent Work on the Concept of Responsibility

    The issue of how best to understand the concept of moral responsibility is important, for it can strongly influence one's view of what, if any, philosophical problems might be associated with the notion, and further, if there are problems, what might count as a solution. As discussed above, philosophical reflection on moral responsibility has historically relied upon one of two broad interpretations of the concept: 1) the merit-based view, according to which praise or blame would be an appropriate reaction toward the candidate if and only if she merits—in the sense of ‘deserves’—such a reaction; or 2) the consequentialist view, according to which praise or blame would be appropriate if and only if a reaction of this sort would likely lead to a desired change in the agent and/or her behavior. Though versions of the consequentialist view have continued to garner support (Smart; Frankena 1963: ch. 4; Schlick 1966; Brandt 1992; Dennett 1984: ch. 7; and Kupperman 1991: ch. 3), work in the last 50 years on the concept of moral responsibility has increasingly focused on: a) offering alternative versions of the merit-based view; and b) questioning the assumption that there is a single unified concept of moral responsibility.

    Increased attention focusing on the stance of regarding and holding persons morally responsible has generated much of the recent work on the concept of moral responsibility. All theorists have recognized features of this practice—inner attitudes and emotions, their outward expression in censure or praise, and the imposition of corresponding sanctions or rewards. However, most understood the inner attitudes and emotions involved to rest on a more fundamental theoretical judgment about the agent's being responsible. In other words, it was typically assumed that blame and praise depended upon a judgment, or belief (pre-reflective in most cases), that the agent in question had satisfied the objective conditions on being responsible. These judgments were presumed to be independent of the inner attitudinal/emotive states involved in holding responsible in the sense that reaching such judgments and evaluating them required no essential reference to the attitudes and emotions of the one making the judgment. For the holder of the consequentialist view, this is a judgment that the agent exercised a form of control that could be influenced through outward expressions of praise and blame in order to curb or promote certain behaviors. For those holding the merit view, it is a judgment that the agent has exercised the requisite form of metaphysical control, e.g., that she could have done otherwise at the time of action (Watson 1987: 258).

    If holding responsible is best understood as resting on an independent judgment about being responsible, then it is legitimate to inquire whether such underlying judgments and their associated outward expressions can be justified, as a whole, in the face of our best current understanding of the world, e.g., in the face of evidence that our world is possibly deterministic. According to incompatibilists, a judgment that someone is morally responsible could never be true if the world were deterministic; thus praising and blaming in the merit-based sense would be beside the point. Compatibilists, on the other hand, contend that the truth of determinism would not undermine the relevant underlying judgments concerning the efficacy of praising and blaming practices, thereby leaving the rationale of such practices intact.

    2.1 Strawson and the Reactive Attitudes

    In his landmark essay, ‘Freedom and Resentment,’ P. F. Strawson (1962) sets out to adjudicate the dispute between those compatibilists who hold a consequentialist view of responsibility and those incompatibilists who hold the merit-based view.[9] Both are wrong, Strawson believes, because they distort the concept of moral responsibility by sharing the prevailing assumption sketched above — the assumption that holding persons responsible rests upon a theoretical judgment of their being responsible. According to Strawson, the attitudes expressed in holding persons morally responsible are varieties of a wide range of attitudes deriving from our participation in personal relationships, e.g., resentment, indignation, hurt feelings, anger, gratitude, reciprocal love, and forgiveness. The function of these attitudes is to express “…how much we actually mind, how much it matters to us, whether the actions of other people—and particularly some other people—reflect attitudes towards us of good will, affection, or esteem on the one hand or contempt, indifference, or malevolence on the other.” (p. 5, author's emphasis) These attitudes are thus participant reactive attitudes, because they are: a) natural attitudinal reactions to the perception of another's good will, ill will, or indifference (pp. 4–6), and b) expressed from the stance of one who is immersed in interpersonal relationships and who regards the candidate held responsible as a participant in such relationships as well (p. 10).[10]

    The reactive attitudes can be suspended or modified in at least two kinds of circumstances, corresponding to the two features just mentioned. In the first, one might conclude that, contrary to first appearances, the candidate did not violate the demand for a reasonable degree of good will. For example, a person's behavior may be excused when one determines that it was an accident, or one may determine that the behavior was justified, say, in the case of an emergency when some greater good is being pursued. In the second kind of circumstance, one may abandon the participant perspective in relation to the candidate. In these cases, one adopts the objective standpoint, one from which one ceases to regard the individual as capable of participating in genuine personal relations (either for some limited time or permanently). Instead, one regards the individual as psychologically/morally abnormal or undeveloped and thereby a candidate, not for the full range of reactive attitudes, but primarily for those objective attitudes associated with treatment or simply instrumental control. Such individuals lie, in some sense or to some varying extent, outside the boundaries of the moral community. For example, we may regard a very young child as initially exempt from the reactive attitudes (but increasingly less so in cases of normal development) or adopt the objective standpoint in relation to an individual we determine to be suffering from severe mental illness (P. F. Strawson 1962: 6–10; Bennett: 40; Watson 1987: 259–260; R. Jay Wallace: chs. 5-6).

    The central criticism Strawson directs at both consequentialist and traditional merit views is that both have over-intellectualized the issue of moral responsibility—a criticism with which many subsequent thinkers have wrestled.[11] The charge of over intellectualization stems from the traditional tendency to presume that the rationality of holding a person responsible depends upon a judgment that the person in question has satisfied some set of objective requirements on being responsible (conditions on efficacy or metaphysical freedom) and that these requirements themselves are justifiable. Strawson, by contrast, maintains that the reactive attitudes are a natural expression of an essential feature of our form of life, in particular, the interpersonal nature of our way of life. The practice, then, of holding responsible—embedded as it is in our way of life—“neither calls for nor permits, an external ‘rational’ justification” (p. 23). Though judgments about the appropriateness of particular responses may arise (i.e., answers to questions like: Was the candidate's behavior really an expression of ill will?; or Is the candidate involved a genuine participant in the moral sphere of human relations?), these judgments are based on principles internal to the practice. That is, their justification refers back to an account of the reactive attitudes and their role in personal relationships, not to some independent theoretical account of the conditions on being responsible.

    Given the above, Strawson contends that it is pointless to ask whether the practice of holding responsible can be rationally justified if determinism is true. This is either because it is not psychologically possible to divest ourselves of these reactions and so continually inhabit the objective standpoint, or even if that were possible, because it is not clear that rationality could ever demand that we give up the reactive attitudes, given the loss in quality of life should we do so. In sum, Strawson attempts to turn the traditional debate on its head, for now judgments about being responsible are understood in relation to the role reactive attitudes play in the practice of holding responsible, rather than the other way around. Whereas judgments are true or false and thereby can generate the need for justification, the desire for good will and those attitudes generated by it possess no truth value themselves, thereby eliminating any need for an external justification (Magill 1887: 21; Double 1996b: 848).

    Strawson's concept of moral responsibility yields a compatibilist account of being responsible but one that departs significantly from earlier such accounts in two respects. First, Strawson's is a compatibilist view by default only. That is, on Strawson's view, the problem of determinism and freedom/responsibility is not so much resolved by showing that the objective conditions on being responsible are consistent with one's being determined but rather dissolved by showing that the practice of holding people responsible relies on no such conditions and therefore needs no external justification in the face of determinism. Second, Strawson's is a merit-based form of compatibilism. That is, unlike most former consequentialist forms of compatibilism, it helps to explain why we feel that some agents deserve our censure or merit our praise. They do so because they have violated, met, or exceeded our demand for a reasonable degree of good will.

    2.2 Developments After Strawson

    Most agree that Strawson's discussion of the reactive attitudes is a valuable contribution to our understanding of the practice of holding responsible, but many have taken issue with his contentions about the insular nature of that practice, namely that a) since propriety judgments about the reactive attitudes are strictly internal to the practice (i.e., being responsible is defined in relation to the practice of holding responsible), their justification cannot be considered from a standpoint outside that practice; and b) since the reactive attitudes are natural responses deriving from our psychological constitution, they cannot be dislodged by theoretical considerations. Responding to the first of these, some have argued that it does seem possible to critique existing practices of holding responsible from standpoints outside them. For example, one might judge that either one's own existing community practice or some other community's practice of holding responsible ought to be modified (Fischer and Ravizza 1993: 18; Ekstrom: 148–149). If such evaluations are legitimate, then, contrary to what Strawson suggested, it seems that an existing practice can be questioned from a standpoint external to it. In other words, being responsible cannot be explicated strictly in terms of an existing practice of holding responsible. This then, would suggest a possible role to be played by independent theoretical conditions on being responsible, conditions which could prove to be compatibilist or incompatibilist in nature.

    Objecting to the second of Strawson's anti-theory contentions, some have argued that incompatibilist intuitions are embedded in the reactive attitudes themselves so that these attitudes cannot persist unless some justification can be given of them, or more weakly, that they cannot but be disturbed if something like determinism is true. Here, cases are often cited where negative reactive attitudes seem to be dispelled or mitigated upon learning that an agent's past includes severe deprivation and/or abuse. There is a strong pull to think that our reactive attitudes are altered in such cases because we perceive such a background to be deterministic. If this is the proper interpretation of the phenomenon, then it is evidence that theoretical considerations, like the truth of determinism, could in fact dislodge the reactive attitudes (Nagel: 125; Kane: 84–89; Galen Strawson 1986: 88; Honderich 1988: vol. 2, ch. 1; and replies by Watson 1987: 279–286 and 1996: 240; and McKenna 1998).

    Versions of Strawson's view continue to be very ably defended, and shortly, more will be said about the significant way in which his work continues to shape contemporary discussion of the concept of responsibility. However, many have taken objections of the above sort to be decisive in undermining the most radical of Strawson's anti-theory claims. Incompatibilists, in particular, seem largely unpersuaded and so have continued to assume a more or less traditional merit-based conception of moral responsibility as the basis for their theorizing. A number of compatibilists also remain unconvinced that Strawson has successfully shown independent theoretical considerations to be irrelevant to ascriptions of responsibility. It is noteworthy that some of these have accorded the reactive attitudes a central role in their discussions of the concept of responsibility. The result has been new merit-based versions of compatibilism (see e.g., Fischer & Ravizza 1998).

    It is likely that Strawson and others writing on moral responsibility have traditionally seen themselves as attempting to articulate an account of responsible agency that would map onto what was presumed to be a unitary and shared concept of moral responsibility. However, more recently a number of authors have suggested that at least some disagreements about the most plausible overall theory of responsibility might be based on a failure to distinguish between different aspects of the concept of responsibility, or perhaps several distinguishable but related concepts of responsibility.

    Broadly speaking, a distinction has been drawn between responsibility understood as attributability and responsibility as accountability.[12] The central idea in judging whether an agent is responsible in the sense of attributability, say for an action, is whether the action discloses something about the nature of the agent's self (Watson 1996: 228). Some hold additionally that a judgment of responsibility in this sense includes an assessment of the agent's self as measured against some standard (though not necessarily a moral standard)-i.e., that our interest is in what the action discloses about the agent's evaluative commitments (Watson 1996: 235; Bok: 123, nt. 1).[13] Perhaps the clearest example of a conception of responsibility emphasizing attributability is the so-called “ledger view” of moral responsibility. According to such views, the practice of ascribing responsibility involves assigning a credit or debit to a metaphorical ledger associated with each agent (Feinberg: 30–1; Glover: 64; Zimmerman: 38–9; and discussion of such views in Watson 1986: 261–2; and Fischer and Ravizza 1998: 8–10, nt. 12). To regard an agent as praiseworthy or blameworthy in the attributability sense of responsibility is simply to believe that the credit or fault identified properly belongs to the agent.

    To be responsible for an action in the sense of being accountable (or “appraisable” according to the terminology of some) presupposes responsibility in the sense of attributability. However, to judge that an agent is responsible in the further sense of being accountable entails that the behavior properly attributed to the agent is governed by an interpersonal normative standard of conduct that creates expectations between members of a shared community (whereas the standard invoked above may or may not be thought to generate interpersonal expectations). In this way, the concept of moral responsibility as accountability is an inherently social notion, and to hold someone responsible is to address a fellow member of the moral community (Stern; Watson 1987; McKenna). By emphasizing the way the reactive attitudes were tied to expectations of good will grounded in our interpersonal relationships, Strawson drew attention to this social aspect of responsibility. Recent attempts to further articulate how best to understand the relevant notion of holding responsible and its relation to being accountable reflect his on-going influence.

    An agent is praiseworthy or blameworthy, in the sense of accountable, if one is warranted, or justified, in holding her responsible. On one popular view, holding someone responsible is interpreted as regarding him or her as an apt candidate for the reactive attitudes and possibly other forms of reward or censure based on what the agent has done (Zimmerman; R. J. Wallace: 75-77; Watson 1996: 235; Fischer & Ravizza 1998: 6–7). On another view, holding someone responsible is fundamentally a matter of making a moral judgment accompanied by an expectation that the agent who performed the act acknowledge the force of the judgment or provide an exonerating explanation of why she performed the action. To hold someone responsible is thus to be one to whom an explanation is owed. On this view, the reactive attitudes and associated practices are grounded in this more fundamental expectation (Oshana: 76–7; Scanlon 1998: 268–271). Since the reactive attitudes and associated practices may have consequences for the well-being of an agent (especially in the case of those blaming attitudes and practices involved in holding someone accountable for wrong-doing), they are justified only if it is fair that the agent be subject to those consequences (R.J. Wallace: 103–117; Watson 1996: 238–9). The fairness of being subject to those consequences has often,in turn, be interpreted as the source of the idea that praise and blame are justified only if they are merited in the sense of deserved (Zimmerman: ch. 5; Wallace: 106–7; Watson 1996: 238–9; Magill 1997: 42–53). [14]

    The recognition and articulation of diversity within the concept (or amongst concepts) of moral responsibility has generated new reflection on the nature of and prospects for theories attempting to spell-out the conditions on being morally responsible. While some continue to believe that a plausible unified theory can be offered that captures the conceptual diversity sketched above, a number of others have concluded that at least some of the conditions for the applicability of our folk concept are in tension with one another (Nagel; G. Strawson 1986, 105-117, 307–317; Honderich 1988: vol. 2, ch. 1; Double 1996a: chs. 6–7; Bok: ch. 1; Smilansky: ch. 6); For example, some have argued that while a compatibilist sense of freedom is necessary for attributability, genuine accountability would require that agents be capable of exercising libertarian freedom. A rapidly expanding body of empirical data on folk intuitions about freedom and responsibility has added fuel to this debate (Nahmias et. al. 2005 and 2007; Vargas 2006; Nichols and Knobe; Nelkin; Roskies and Nichols; and Knobe and Doris).

    If there are irreconcilable tensions within the concept of responsibility, then the conditions of its application cannot be jointly satisfied. Of course, there have always been those—e.g., hard determinists — who have concluded that the conditions on being morally responsible cannot be met and thus that no one is ever morally responsible. However, a noteworthy new trend amongst both contemporary hard determinists and others who conclude that the conditions for the applicability of our folk concept cannot be jointly satisfied has been the move to offer a revisionist conception of moral responsibility and its associated practices rather than to reject talk about being responsible outright (For this general trend, see Vargas 2004 and 2005). Revisionism about moral responsibility is a matter of degree. Some revisionists seek to salvage much if not most of what they take to be linked to the folk concept (Dennett 1984: 19; Honderich 1988: vol. 2, ch. 1; Scanlon 1998: 274–277; and Vargas 2004 and in Fischer et. al. 2007), while others offer more radical reconstructions of the concept and associated practices (Smart; Pereboom: 199–212; Smilansky: chps. 7–8; Kelly).[15]

    The future direction of reflection on moral responsibility is uncertain. On the one hand, there has been a resurgence of interest in metaphysical treatments of freedom and moral responsibility in recent years, a sign that many philosophers in this area have not been persuaded by Strawson's central critique of such treatments. On the other hand, discussion of the place and role of the reactive attitudes in human life continues to be a central theme in accounts of the concept of responsibility. What is clear is that the long-standing interest in understanding the concept of moral responsibility and its application shows no sign of abating.

    Bibliography

    Adams, Robert Merrihew, 1985. “Involuntary Sins.” Philosophical Review 94: 3–31.
    Aquinas, Thomas. 1997. Basic Writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, ed. A. C. Pegis (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.).
    Aristotle, 1985. The Nicomachean Ethics, trans. by Terence Irwin. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.).
    –––, 1984. The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, ed. Jonathan Barnes, 2 Vols. (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
    Arpaly, Nomy, 2003. Unprincipled Virtue: An Inquiry into Moral Agency (New York: Oxford University Press).
    –––, 2006. Merit, Meaning, and Human Bondage: An Essay on Free Will (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
    Augustine, 1993. On Free Choice of the Will (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.).
    Austin, J.L., 1979. “A Plea for Excuses” in Philosophical Papers, J.O. Urmson and G.J. Warnock, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Ayer, A.J., 1980. “Free Will and Rationality” in van Straatan.
    Bair, Annette, 1991. A Progress of Sentiments: A Reflection on Hume's Treatise. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
    Baier, Kurt, 1991. “Types of Responsibility.” in The Spectrum of Responsibility, Peter French, ed. (New York: St. Martin's Press).
    Benson, Paul, 1990. “The Moral Importance of Free Action.” Southern Journal of Philosophy 28: 1–18.
    Berofsky, Bernard, ed., 1966. Free Will and Determinism. (New York: Harper & Row).
    Bennett, Jonathan, 1980. “Accountability” in Philosophical Subjects, Zak Van Straaten, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
    Bobsien, Susanne, 2001. Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
    Bok, Hilary, 1998. Freedom and Responsibility. (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
    Brandt, Richard, 1969. “A Utilitarian Theory of Excuses” The Philosophical Review 78:337–361. Reprinted in Morality, Utility, and Rights. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
    –––, 1959. Ethical Theory. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.).
    –––, 1958. “Blameworthiness and Obligation” in Meldon.
    Broadie, Sarah, 1991. Ethics with Aristotle. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Burrington, Dale, 1999. “Blameworthiness.” Journal of Philosophical Research 24: 505-527.
    Curren, Randall, 2000. Aristotle on the Necessity of Public Education (New York: Roman & Littlefield).
    –––, 1989. “The Contribution of Nicomachean Ethics iii.5 to Aristotle's Theory of Responsibility.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 6: 261–277.
    Dennett, Daniel, 2003. Freedom Evolves (New York: Viking Press).
    –––, 1984. Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
    Darwall, Stephen, 2006. The Second-Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
    Doris, John M., 2002. Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior (New York: Cambridge University Press).
    Double, Richard, 2000. “Metaethics, Metaphilosophy, and Free Will Subjectivism.” in Kane 2002.
    –––, 1996a. Metaphilosophy and Free Will. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    –––, 1996b. “Honderich on the Consequences of Determinism.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (December): 847–854.
    –––, 1991. The Non-reality of Free Will. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Ekstrom, Laura Waddell 2000. Free Will: A Philosophical Study. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).
    Everson, Stephen, ed., 1998. Companions to Ancient Thought 4: Ethics. (New York: Cambridge University Press).
    –––, 1990. “Aristotle's Compatibilism in the Nicomachean Ethics.” Ancient Philosophy 10:81–103.
    Feinberg, Joel, 1970. Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
    Feldman, Fred, 1995. “Desert: Reconsideration of Some Received Wisdom” Mind 104 (January): 63–77.
    Fingarette, Herbert, 1967. On Responsibility. (New York: Basic Books, Inc.).
    Fischer, John Martin, 1999. “Recent Work on Moral Responsibility” Ethics 110 (October): 93–139.
    –––, 1994. The Metaphysics of Free Will: An Essay on Control. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell).
    –––, ed., 1986. Moral Responsibility (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).
    Fischer, John Martin and Ravizza, Mark, 1998. Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility (New York: Cambridge University Press).
    –––, eds., 1993. Perspectives on Moral Responsibility (Cornell University Press).
    Fischer, J.M., Kane, R., Pereboom, D., and Vargas, M. 2007. Four Views on Free Will (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers).
    Frankfurt, Harry, 1969. “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility.” The Journal of Philosophy 66: 828–839.
    Gibbard, Allan, 1990. Wise Choices, Apt Feelings: A Theory of Normative Judgment (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
    Glover, Jonathan, 1970. Responsibility (New York: Humanities Press).
    Haji, Ishtiyaque, 2002. “Compatibilist Views of Freedom and Responsibility” in Kane 2002.
    –––, 1998. Moral Appraisability: Puzzles, Proposals, and Perplexities. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Hart, H. L.,, 1968. Punishment and Responsibility. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Hieronymi, Pamela, 2004. “The Force and Fairness of Blame.” Philosophical Perspectives 18: 115-148.
    Honderich, Ted, 2002. “Determinism as True, Both Compatibilism and Incompatibilism as False, and the Real Problem.” in Kane 2002.
    –––, 1996. “Compatibilism, Incompatibilism, and the Smart Aleck.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (December): 855-862.
    –––, 1988. A Theory of Determinism: The Mind, Neuroscience, and Life Hopes. 2 Vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press)
    Hume, David, 1978. A Treatise of Human Nature, 2nd ed., ed. by L.A. Selby-Bigge and P.H. Nidditch. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Irwin, Terrance, ed., 1999. Classical Philosophy. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    –––, 1980. “Reason and Responsibility in Aristotle.” in Rorty 1980.
    Kane, Robert, ed., 2002. The Oxford Handbook of Free Will (New York: Oxford University Press).
    –––, 1996. The Significance of Free Will. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Kant, Immanuel, 1993. The Critique of Practical Reason, trans. by Lewis White Beck, 3rd. ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Macmillan Publishing Co.).
    Kelly, Erin, 2002. “Doing Without Desert.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 83: 180–205.
    Knobe, J. and Doris, J. Forthcoming. “Strawsonian Variations: Folk Morality and the Search for a Unified Theory.” In The Handbook of Moral Psychology, ed. John Doris (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Kupperman, Joel, 1991. Character. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Levy, Neil, 2005. “The Good, the Bad, and the Blameworthy.” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 2/1: 2–16.
    Mackie, John L., 1985. “Morality and the Retributive Emotions.” In Persons and Values: Vol. 2. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
    Magill, Kevin, 2000. “Blaming, Understanding, and Justification.” In T. van den Beld 2000.
    –––, 1997/ Freedom and Experience: Self-Determination without Illusions. (New York: St. Martins Press).
    McKenna, Michael, 1998. “The Limits of Evil and the Role of Moral Address: A Defense of Strawsonian Compatibilism.” Journal of Ethics. 2: 123–142.
    McKenna, Michael and Russell, Paul, eds., 2008. Free Will and Reactive Attitudes: Perspectives on P.F. Strawson's “Freedom and Resentment”. (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing).
    Meldon, A.I., ed., 1958. Essays in Moral Philosophy. (Seattle: University of Washington Press).
    Meyer, Susan Suave, 1988. “Moral Responsibility: Aristotle and After.” in Everson 1998.
    –––, 1993. Aristotle on Moral Responsibility. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Pub.).
    Mill, John Stuart, 1884. A System of Logic, 8th ed. (New York: Harper and Brothers).
    Milo, Ronald D., 1984. Immorality (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
    Nagel, Thomas, 1986. The View From Nowhere. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Nahmias, E., Morris, S., Nadelhoffer, T., and Turner, J. 2005. “Surveying Freedom: Folk Intuitions about Free Will and Moral Responsibility.” Philosophical Psychology 18:561–584.
    Nahmias, E., Coates, D. Justin, Kvaran, Trevor, 2007. “Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Mechanism: Experiments on Folk Intuitions.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 31: 214–242.
    Nelkin, Dana, 2007. “Do We Have a Coherent Set of Intuitions About Moral Responsibility?” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 31: 243–259.
    Nichols, Shaun and Knobe, Joshua, 2007. “Moral Responsibility and Determinism: The Cognitive Science of Folk Intuitions.” Nous 41/4: 663–685.
    Nozick, Robert, 1981. Philosophical Explanations. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
    Oshana, Marina, 1997. “Ascriptions of Responsibility.” American Philosophical Quarterly 34: 71–83.
    Pereboom, Derk, 2001, Living Without Free Will (New York: Cambridge University Press).
    –––, 2000. “Living Without Free Will: The Case for Hard Compatibilism” in Kane 2000.
    –––, ed., 1997. Free Will. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.).
    Roberts, Jean, 1984. “Aristotle on Responsibility for Action and Character.” Ancient Philosophy 9: 23–36.
    Rorty, Amelie Oksenberg, ed., 1980. Essays on Aristotle's Ethics. (Los Angeles: University of California Press).
    Roskies, A.L., and Nichols, S. 2008. “Bringing Responsibility Down to Earth” Journal of Philosophy 105/7: 371–388.
    Russell, Paul, 2000.“Pessimists, Pollyannas, and the New Compatibilism.” in Kane 2000.
    –––, 1995. Freedom and Moral Sentiment: Hume's Way of Naturalizing Responsibility. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    –––, 1992. “Strawson's Way of Naturalizing Responsibility.” Ethics 102: 287–302.
    Scanlon, T. M., 1998. What We Owe to Each Other (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
    –––, 1988. “The Significance of Choice.” In The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol. 8 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press).
    Schlick, Moritz, 1966. “When is a Man Responsible,” in Berofsky, 1966.
    Schoeman, Ferdinand, ed., 1987. Responsibility, Character, and the Emotions. (New York: Cambridge University Press)
    Sher, George, 2006. In Praise of Blame. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Slote, Michael, 1990. “Ethics Without Free Will.” Social Theory and Practice 16:369–383.
    Smart, J.J.C., 1961. “Free Will, Praise, and Blame.” Mind 70: 291–306.
    Smilansky, Saul, 2000. Free Will and Illusion. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    –––, 1996. “Responsibility and Desert: Defending the Connection.” Mind 105:157–163.
    Smiley, Marion, 1992. Moral Responsibility and the Boundaries of Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
    Smith, Angela M., 2007. “On Being Responsible and Holding Responsible.” The Journal of Ethics 11:465-484.
    –––, 2008. “Control, Responsibility, and Moral Assessment.” Philosophical Studies 138:367–392.
    Sorabji, Richard, 1980. Necessity, Cause, and Blame (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).
    Stern, Lawrence, 1974. “Freedom, Blame, and the Moral Community.” The Journal of Philosophy 71: 72–84.
    Strawson, Galen, 1994. “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility.” Philosophical Studies 75: 5-24.
    –––, 1986. Freedom and Belief. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Strawson, P. F., 1980. “Reply to Ayer and Bennett.” In van Straaten 1980.
    –––, 1993. “Freedom and Resentment.” Proceedings of the British Academy 48 (1962):1–25. Reprinted in Fischer and Ravizza, 1993.
    Taylor, Gabrielle, 1985. Pride, Shame, and Guilt (New York: Oxford University Press).
    van den Beld, T., 2000. Moral Responsibility and Ontology. (Dordrecht: Kluwer).
    van Inwagen, Peter, 1978. An Essay on Free Will. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    van Stratten, Z., ed., 1980. Philosophical Subjects: Essays Presented to P.F. Strawson (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Vargas, Manuel, 2004. “Responsibility and the Aims of Theory: Strawson and Revisionism.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 85: 218–241.
    –––, 2005. “The Revisionist's Guide to Responsibility.” Philosophical Studies 125:399–429.
    –––, 2006. “Philosophy and the Folk: On Some Implications of Experimental Work for Philosophical Debates on Free Will.” Journal of Cognition and Culture 6/1–2: 239–254.
    Wallace, James, 1974. “Excellences and Merit.” Philosophical Review 83: 182–199.
    Wallace, R. J., 1994. Responsibility and the Moral Sentiments. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
    Watson, Gary, 1996. “Two Faces of Responsibility.” Philosophical Topics 24: 227–248.
    –––, 1987. “Responsibility and the Limits of Evil.” in Schoeman, 1987.
    Williams, Bernard, 1993. Shame and Necessity. (Los Angeles: University of California Press).
    Wolf, Susan, 1990. Freedom Within Reason. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    –––, 1981. “The Importance of Free Will.” Mind 90: 386–405.
    Zimmerman, Michael, 1988. An Essay on Moral Responsibility. (Totowa, NJ: Roman and Littlefield).
    Other Internet Resources
    The Determinism and Freedom Philosophy Website edited by Ted Honderich, University College London.
    The Garden of Forking Paths: A Free Will/Moral Responsibility Blog (multiple contributors, coordinated by Neal Tognazzini and Gustavo Llarull)


    Come on! This isn't that hard to read! I think that to really get this philosophical thing right, we need to be scholars. I'm trying, but the spiritual and emotional pressure I experience is often overwhelming. I really and truly am pretending, at this point, that I am working on a PhD in Solar System Studies and Governance. I know this sounds ridiculous, and in many ways it is, but I think we need to have this sort of a goal clearly in mind. I should really put together some sort of a curriculum, but until I do, consider all of my threads to be your homework. I will be interested to read the first doctoral dissertation based upon the works of orthodoxymoron. This might be somewhat self-aggrandizing, but I really do think that there should be this type of a doctoral study. Once again, I just might create my own doctoral program, and be the first teacher and first student - simultaneously!!


    ORTHODOXYMORON GETS HIS DISSERTATION BACK FROM THE NSA!!

    It might be cool to be an Indiana Jones kind of professor, but I sort of like to just research and reflect. I think that a room filled with bright college students would be too much for me! They'd probably eat me alive! It might be easier to face a room filled with Illuminati, Jesuits, Nazis, Masons, Magicians, Greys, and Dracs! Anyway, I do like the idea of a PhD program in Solar System Studies and Governance as a prerequisite to being a United States of the Solar System Representative. On the other hand, have all of the universities of the world saved us from the absurd situation we find ourselves in presently? There is such a phenomenon as 'Educated Idiots'. So how in the hell do we achieve an Enlightened Democracy? Are human beings too stupid and unstable to rule themselves? I used to think that was a stupid question, but I really wonder if we are capable of such a feat. Do we simply need a less corrupt secret government? Do we really need to be ruled from the shadows? I know what I idealistically want, but what is the reality? A celebration of a newly formed United States of the Solar System might be very short indeed. Again, I wonder if society is past the point of no return on the road to hell? Will there be a core meltdown, no matter what we do? I don't have a problem with 'crowd control' or with the human race being managed, educated, and disciplined in a kind, fair, and orderly manner. What I object to is irresponsible management and cruel exploitation. There are huge problems with the present campaign and election/selection process. The PhD thing would help, but perhaps voters should have to get a two-year degree in voting. To do ANYTHING, one should have to prove that they know what they're doing. Some have even suggested a lottery to 'elect' our leaders! How 'bout a dartboard, like the Wall Street Journal used to 'select' stocks?!

    God does not play dice with the solar system. Or does she? "Hillary or Obama? Snake-Eyes!!"


    In gambling, snake eyes is the outcome of rolling the dice in a game and getting only one pip on each die. The pair of pips resembles a pair of eyes, which is appended to the term 'snake' because of the long-standing association of this word with treachery and betrayal. The dictionary of etymology traces that use of the term back to 1929,[1] although it may be traced all the way back to the ancient Roman dice games, where 'Dogs' represented two ones. They referred to this as "the dog throw". In modern parlance, it refers to such a roll in any game involving dice. Snake eyes also refers to looking one way and passing the ball the other in the game of Taps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_eyes

    WHY DID IT HAVE TO BE SNAKES? I HATE SNAKES!

    IS ARCHANGEL MICHAEL DR. WHO AND INDIANA JONES? HOW MANY DOCTORS HAVE THERE BEEN?
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 7483
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:27 am

    This is an amazing interview. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVwKKsvtdag&feature=player_embedded All roads really do lead to Rome, and I continue to think that everything we discuss should be viewed from the Roman context. I continue to imagine myself as being a well-connected Renegade French Jesuit Organist. I continue to love the artistic aspects of Rome, but the history, theology, and politics are horrible, and I'm sure that most upper-level and well-informed Roman Catholics know this, but they have a Dragon by the Tail, and they are probably terrified of what might happen if they let go. As the general public finds out about all of this, things could get very, very nasty. I'm interested in this area of research, but it scares the hell out of me. I'm trying to be open and fair in all of this, and I'm trying to look at both the positive and negatives in all of this. All roads lead to Rome, but where did all of these roads originate?

    My present working assumption is that the solar system probably contains thousands of unconventional craft, including asteroid and moon spacecraft, which might be friendly or unfriendly toward the human race. I get the feeling that this solar system is like the wild, wild west -- and that we might be facing a showdown at the ok corral. I certainly do not desire peace at any price, nor do I desire to end-up as space-dust. What would Anna Hayes say? I'd still like to hang-out on Phobos for a while, regardless of whether it is populated by friend or foe. But I would have to have a solid guarantee that I wouldn't be harmed or kidnapped. I still like the idea of a Theocratically-Implemented, Responsibility-Based, United States of the Solar System -- with the governmental personnel mostly located within the University of Solar System Studies and Governance campuses throughout the solar system. I've spoken of using a deconsecrated cathedral as the headquarters of a New Solar System, so just for the fun of it, today I'm thinking of either the Crystal Cathedral or St. Mary's Cathedral (or both!!) as being the headquarters, with the University of California system serving as the core of the University of Solar System Studies and Governance system. Again, this is just for the conceptual heck of it. This is a test. This is only a test. And yes, I realize that I am insane, but it's more fun that way! The UC system has solid ties to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and to the Los Alamos National Laboratory. I don't wish to reinvent the wheel. I just wish to have 10,000 PhD's with clipboards and safety-goggles, watching it rotate... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 7483
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:06 pm

    The original Project Avalon, combined with The Mists of Avalon, might be excellent places to begin your University of Solar System Studies and Governance academic career. I'm very serious. You won't end up with a Marketable Job Skill, and it might even drive you nuts, but perhaps this is a Missing Link in the Consciousness Evolution of Humanity. I'm overwhelmed by all of this. I'm becoming more confused and bewildered, each and every day. Things are not resolving, yet I press onward, even as I slide further and further downhill. I am a supporter of the progressive release of forbidden knowledge, yet I do not support cramming all of the new and upsetting information down the throats of the general public. If most people wish to watch football and chase skirts -- so be it. Those who wish to spend (waste?) their lives on the internet, digging into this and that, can do so, even though it probably won't make them as happy as watching football and chasing skirts. I'm really not into forcing people to do things -- other than being responsible in everything they do. I even like the idea of the Mafia becoming more ethical and responsible -- and becoming increasingly legitimate and less violent. Come on guys! Do it! I think there are responsible and irresponsible ways of doing just about anything. I like the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights -- but look at some of the Reprehensible Horrors connected with the United States of America over the past couple of hundred years. I like the Teachings of Jesus -- but look at some of the Reprehensible Horrors connected with the Professed Followers of Jesus Christ over the past couple of thousand years. My preference for a Responsibility-Based United States of the Solar System is not an attempt to strong-arm or force people to do anything. It is Intended to Provide a Safe Environment for the Human Race to Pursue Responsible Freedom in a Plurality of Methodologies. There might be such things as Responsible Socialism or Responsible Communism -- even though that would not be my preference. What would the English Model combined with the American Model look like? You know, the Monarchy, the Church of England, and the U.S. Constitution -- living together as one, big, happy family! Might this pave the way for a Modified Roman Model of Church and State? Do you understand what I am hinting at here, without spelling it out?
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 7483
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:40 pm

    What if a completely reformed City of London were the Actual Physical Headquarters of a New United Nations, a Visible and Open 'Secret Government', the United States of the Solar System, a Largely Ceremonial Church of the Solar System, a Non-Corrupt Solar Financial System, and the Nerve Center of a Solar Defense System (Including the Underground Bases, the Secret Space Program, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction)? What if the Vatican and the United States of America were deeply involved in all of this, but neither gave orders or took orders? I haven't thought this through, so don't crucify me just yet. What if St. Paul's Cathedral were the primary meeting place for all of the above -- with lots of pomp and circumstance? What if the other buildings in the City of London were devoted to the administrative and financial aspects of all of the above? What if the Area Beneath the City of London were devoted to the Solar System Defense Activities? What if 2,500 of the 10,000 Representatives of the United States of the Solar System lived in and around the City of London -- with the other 7,500 spread throughout the Solar System -- communicating with each other and the public via Secure and Encrypted InterPlaNet? What if Oxford and Cambridge were the primary campuses of the University of Solar System Studies and Governance? What if everyone had a Seat at the Table - with no one left out in the cold? Can you visualize what I'm saying? Where there is no vision, the people perish.
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 7483
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:07 pm

    I had a brain-storm today (which is a very dangerous thing), and I've tentatively decided to do a post by post review of the 'Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System' thread -- right here on this thread. I'll probably just provide a link to the original thread, at the beginning of each post on this thread. Then I'll probably just provide elaboration and extrapolation. I've been attempting to end the U.S.S.S. thread ("End the Thread!! End the Thread!! End the Thread!!") for years now -- and there have been no new posts on that thread for a couple of months (although I keep adding to the last dozen posts)!! This thread might be a 'Middle-Way' wherein I simply review territory already covered. I have no clue about alot of the stuff I've posted. My questions have mostly been non-rhetorical. No one has fed me secret information in parking-garages at 3:00AM (or any other time or place). I simply make this stuff up as I go (just like Indiana Jones)!! I have never disputed the nasty accusation of me being a completely ignorant fool. If you knew me in 'real-life' you'd know why. But I swear that I could seamlessly fit into the most sensitive and technical discussions imaginable. The hows and whys of this phenomenon allude me. I really am sort of a Latter-Day Beautiful-Mind. What Would John Nash Say?? I just finished watching 'Fail-Safe', the fifth-season of 'Star Trek Voyager', 'Star Wars: The Phantom Menace', 'Star Trek: First Contact', and the 'Saviour of the Universe Edition' of 'Flash Gordon' (I liked it! I liked it alot!!). I might do some minimal editing of the original thread -- but not to cover-up embarrassing comments, images, or links. Expect me to just clean-up dead-links, grammatical-errors, etc. I might do some elaborating and extrapolating within the U.S.S.S. thread -- in a different font and/or color -- and then transfer the entire post to this thread. I'm not really sure just how to proceed, at this point. All I know is that I want to attempt to stay in shape by continuing to post -- but without introducing nasty surprises which might really tick-off all factions. I've sort of made an effort to be everyone's friend -- and everyone's enemy -- simultaneously. Imagine Lilly, Picard, the Borg-Queen, and Orthodoxymoron -- all in one -- in the context of the Borg-infested Voyager orbiting Earth in the year 2063!! Class is Now in Session!! Silence!! Completely Ignorant Fool at Work!!
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 7483
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:41 pm

    http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t3240-archangelic-queens-of-heaven-and-the-united-states-of-the-solar-system

    **************************************THE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM***************************************


    ****************************************************************************PREAMBLE*************************************************************************

    WE THE PEOPLE OF EARTH are determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from the Constitution of the United States of the Solar System can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. To practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain interplanetary peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ interplanetary machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.

    Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. Disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people. It is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law. It is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between Member States. We the people of Earth have reaffirmed our faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United States of the Solar System the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. A common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance.

    Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom...in the context of The United States of the Solar System...is a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all Member States, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping these principles, concepts, and documents constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, interstate and interplanetary, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance among the peoples of Member States.

    All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms inherent in the United States of the Solar System, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, territorial or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political or jurisdictional status of the Member State to which a person belongs.

    Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent Member State tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under state or interplanetary law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each Member State. Everyone has the right to leave any Member State, and to return. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other Member States asylum from persecution. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United States of the Solar System. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

    Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, state or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

    Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

    Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his state, directly or through freely chosen representatives. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his Member State. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

    Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through state effort and interplanetary co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each Member State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

    Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. Everyone has the right to work to achieve a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

    Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all Member States, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United States of the Solar System for the maintenance of peace. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

    Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United States of the Solar System.



    ****************DECLARATION OF HUMAN SOVEREIGNTY REGARDING CONTACT WITH EXTRATERRESTRIAL NATIONS AND FORCES****************

    We, the People of Earth, extend greetings to all races in the Greater Community of the Universe. We acknowledge our common heritage before the Creator of all the Universe, both visible and invisible. We declare the planet Earth as our sacred inheritance. We pledge henceforth to sustain and preserve the Earth for all generations to come. We call upon all humanity to treat all races everywhere with wisdom and justice, here on Earth and throughout the Universe.

    Fundamental Rights

    We, the People of Earth, regard the need for freedom to be universal. Therefore, we hold that all individuals in all worlds are created equal and are endowed by the Creator with sacred and inalienable rights. Fundamental among these are the right to live as a free race; the right of self-determination, self-sufficiency, and creative expression; the right to life without oppression; and the right to pursue in life a higher purpose and a higher calling that the Creator has provided to all.

    Before the Greater Community of the Universe, we, the People of Earth, do now invoke these fundamental rights for ourselves, along with certain rights that naturally derive from them, including:

    -The right of sovereignty. The People of Earth shall be self-governed and independent, neither subject to nor dependent upon any other authority. No extraterrestrial force shall contravene or abrogate the human sovereignty of this planet.

    -The right of planetary sanctity. Earth shall be free from extraterrestrial intervention, intrusion, interference, or exploitation, both mental and physical. No extraterrestrial force shall make close approach, or assume close orbit, or make any landing, or engage in trade, except openly and with the expressed consent of the People of Earth achieved through a democratic means.

    -The right of sanctity of biological and genetic material. No extraterrestrial power shall take, possess, or manipulate human biological or genetic material for any purpose whatsoever.

    -The right of occupation. We the People of Earth claim this Solar System as our sphere of influence. No extraterrestrial bases may be established on bodies or stations orbiting the Earth, nor on other planets or bodies of this Solar System, except with the expressed consent of the People of Earth.

    -The right of peaceful navigation. We claim the right to travel and explore within our Solar System without interference or restraint from extraterrestrial forces, and maintain the right to deny access to this Solar System by any extraterrestrial forces.

    We, the People of Earth, consider it our rightful responsibility to assert and defend these fundamental rights, and to give and receive aid consistent with these rights.

    The Assessment

    When in the course of their evolution it becomes necessary for the native people of a planet to unite, to transcend the conflicts and differences that have separated them from one another, and to assume among the powers of the Universe a separate and equal sovereignty, a respectful consideration of that sovereignty requires that they declare the causes which impel them to this present course of action.

    Although the Earth has undergone a long history of extraterrestrial visitation, the current situation is that the People of Earth are now suffering the effects of a global extraterrestrial intervention into human affairs. This intervention employs a strategy of deception, manipulation, and exploitation, the goal of which is control over humanity, which will result in the loss of human freedom and self-determination. It is now the sacred right and duty of the People of Earth to oppose, resist, and repel this extraterrestrial intervention, to declare and defend our sovereignty, our freedom, and our independence from all extraterrestrial forces.

    Let these violations be considered by those supporting the cause of freedom throughout the Greater Community:

    -Intervening extraterrestrial forces have refused to openly disclose and reveal the nature and intent of their activities on and around Earth. This extraterrestrial presence is clandestine, covert, uninvited, and unapproved by the People of Earth. These extraterrestrial forces have concealed their own identity, their political or economic alliances and allegiances, as well as the authorities and powers which they serve.

    -As is becoming increasingly apparent from their actions, extraterrestrial forces intend to exploit the Earth, its resources, and its people, and are engaged in a systematic program of colonizing humanity into a subservient client state to be ruled by agents of these extraterrestrial forces. The extraterrestrial intervention and occupation seeks commercial gain, economic power, and the strategic advantage offered by this world in relation to other worlds.

    -Extraterrestrial forces have repeatedly and with impunity violated national and international laws of the Earth’s people. These offenses, which still continue today, have included violation of restricted airspace; abduction and transportation of humans without their consent; murder, rape, torture, sexual abuse, interbreeding with humans, and cruel experimentation; theft and trade of human biological and genetic materials; theft and trade of Earth’s natural resources; covert mental and psychological influence; mutilation of humans and animals; tampering with and disabling of military defense systems; and clandestine infiltration into human society.

    -Extraterrestrial forces have secretly negotiated treaties and agreements with human individuals and groups, without the informed consent of the People of Earth.

    -Extraterrestrial forces have systematically attempted to persuade and mislead humans through extending false hopes and promises of wealth, power, and protection; rescue from planetary catastrophe; membership in a “galactic federation”; and spiritual salvation and enlightenment.

    -Extraterrestrial forces have exploited and exacerbated human conflicts to serve their own ends.

    -Extraterrestrial forces have been disempowering humanity by leading us to believe that we can only survive with their help and their advanced technology, thus fostering our complete dependence upon them and denying our ability to ensure our own survival.

    Demands and Declarations

    Accordingly, we, the People of Earth, do hereby declare all previously existing agreements or treaties between any human government, group, or individual and any extraterrestrials to be forthwith null, void, and permanently suspended. We demand that any such previously existing treaties or agreements be fully and publicly disclosed. Any future agreements or treaties between human governments, groups, or individuals and extraterrestrials must be negotiated only with the full consent of the People of Earth, publicly and openly expressed by an international democratic body representing the nations and peoples of Earth.

    We demand that all extraterrestrials now cease all operations and activities and immediately vacate and depart from the Earth and its surroundings including the Sun, Earth’s Moon, and all planets of this Solar System. This includes vacating any natural or artificial satellites, as well as all space within the Solar System.

    We demand that all extraterrestrial organizations who have established or operated bases on the Earth, its Moon, or anywhere else within this Solar System, to vacate these bases, and fully disclose their nature. These bases should then be used to defend the Solar System.

    We further demand that all living humans who are now in custody of extraterrestrials be returned immediately in good health; further, we demand a full accounting of all humans who have been taken or held by extraterrestrials, including those who have died in captivity. In addition, we demand that all human biological or genetic materials taken from any individuals be accounted for and destroyed, and their intended use be identified. Any devices implanted in living individuals must be identified so that they may be safely removed.

    We demand full public disclosure of the purpose and details of the extraterrestrial hybridization program, including the location, identity, and activities of all living human-extraterrestrial hybrids, whether on Earth or elsewhere.

    Be it known throughout the Universe that from this time forward, extraterrestrials may only enter our Solar System, approach our Earth, fly in our skies, set foot on our soil, or enter our waters with the explicit consent of the People of Earth.

    We, therefore, do solemnly declare that the People of Earth are and should be a free and independent people; that all humans are hereby absolved from all allegiance to extraterrestrial powers, and that all political and economic connections between them and the People of Earth are totally dissolved; that as a free and sovereign race in the Greater Community of the Universe, we assume full power within this Solar System to conclude peace, levy war, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to undertake all other actions which a sovereign planetary race may rightfully and ethically do.

    Concluding Statement

    Let it be understood that in making this Declaration of Human Sovereignty, we, the People of Earth, affirm our future and destiny as a free race within a Greater Community of intelligent life. We recognize that we are a part of this Greater Community and that we are destined over time to encounter many different races from beyond our world.

    To them and to all others, we hereby declare that our intention is not conquest or domination in space. We declare that the rights and privileges that we affirm here for ourselves, we also affirm for all races of beings whom we might encounter.

    In making our Declaration of Human Sovereignty, we proclaim our rights, responsibilities, and privileges as a free race in order that we may pursue greater unity, peace, and cooperation within the human family without unwanted or unwarranted intrusion and interference by any outside nation or force from the Greater Community. We make this proclamation as an expression of our Divine right and honorable intent for the human family and for all races in the Universe who seek to be free.

    www.humansovereignty.org



    *******************************************THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM*****************************************

    We the People of the United States of the Solar System, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of the Solar System.

    Article 1.

    Section 1
    All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States of the Solar System, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

    Section 2
    The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

    No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States of the Solar System, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which they shall be chosen.

    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers.

    When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

    The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

    Section 3
    The Senate of the United States of the Solar System shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

    Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

    No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States of the Solar System, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which they shall be chosen.

    The Vice President of the United States of the Solar System shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

    The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States of the Solar System.

    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States of the Solar System is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

    Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States of the Solar System: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

    Section 4
    The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Choosing Senators.

    The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

    Section 5
    Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

    Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

    Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

    Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

    Section 6
    The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States of the Solar System. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

    No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States of the Solar System which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States of the Solar System, shall be a Member of either House during their Continuance in Office.

    Section 7
    All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

    Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States of the Solar System; If they approve they shall sign it, but if not they shall return it, with their Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to them, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

    Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States of the Solar System; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by them, or being disapproved by them, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.


    Section 8
    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States of the Solar System; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States of the Solar System;

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States of the Solar System;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States of the Solar System;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States of the Solar System;

    To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high seas and outer space, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land, Water, and in Space;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy and a Space Force;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land, naval, and Space Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States of the Solar System, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States of the Solar System, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
    Constitution in the Government of the United States of the Solar System, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    Section 9
    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

    No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

    No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

    No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

    No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

    No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

    No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States of the Solar System: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

    Section 10
    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States of the Solar System; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.

    No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

    Article 2.

    Section 1
    The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of the Solar System. They shall hold their Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States of the Solar System, shall be appointed an Elector.

    The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States of the Solar System, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall choose from them by Ballot the Vice-President.

    The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States of the Solar System.

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States of the Solar System, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States of the Solar System.

    In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said
    Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

    The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States of the Solar System, or any of them.

    Before they enter on the Execution of their Office, they shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States of the Solar System, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of the Solar System."

    Section 2
    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy, and Space Force of the United States of the Solar System, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States of the Solar System; they may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States of the Solar System, except in Cases of Impeachment.

    They shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States of the Solar System, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

    The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

    Section 3
    They shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as they shall judge necessary and expedient; they may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, they may adjourn them to such Time as they shall think proper; they shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; they shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States of the Solar System.

    Section 4
    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States of the Solar System, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    Article 3.

    Section 1
    The judicial Power of the United States of the Solar System, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    Section 2
    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States of the Solar System, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty, maritime, and space Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States of the Solar System shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

    Section 3
    Treason against the United States of the Solar System, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

    Article 4.

    Section 1
    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

    Section 2
    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which they fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

    No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

    Section 3
    New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

    The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States of the Solar System; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States of the Solar System, or of any particular State.

    Section 4
    The United States of the Solar System shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

    Article 5.

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

    Article 6.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States of the Solar System and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States of the Solar System.

    Article 7.

    Amendment 1
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Amendment 2
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Amendment 3
    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    Amendment 4
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the people or things to be seized.

    Amendment 5
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Amendment 6
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    Amendment 7
    In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States of the Solar System, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Amendment 8
    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Amendment 9
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment 10
    The powers not delegated to the United States of the Solar System by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Amendment 11
    The Judicial power of the United States of the Solar System shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

    Amendment 12
    The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the persons voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States of the Solar System, directed to the President of the Senate;

    The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

    The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

    The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no persons have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States of the Solar System.

    Amendment 13
    1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States of the Solar System, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Amendment 14
    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States of the Solar System, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States of the Solar System and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States of the Solar System; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of people in each State. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States of the Solar System, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any citizen of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States of the Solar System, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such citizens shall bear to the whole number of citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

    3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States of the Solar System, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States of the Solar System, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    4. The validity of the public debt of the United States of the Solar System, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States of the Solar System nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States of the Solar System, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

    5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    Amendment 15
    1. The right of citizens of the United States of the Solar System to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States of the Solar System or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

    2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Amendment 16
    Removed because of passage and ratification issues...and because of unfathomable corruption since 1913.

    Amendment 17
    The Senate of the United States of the Solar System shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

    When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the persons fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

    This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

    Amendment 18 (Repealed by Amendment 21)

    Amendment 19
    The right of citizens of the United States of the Solar System to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States of the Solar System or by any State on account of sex.

    Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Amendment 20
    1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

    2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

    3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

    4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

    5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

    6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

    Amendment 21 (Repeal of Amendment 18)

    Amendment 22
    1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

    2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

    Amendment 23
    1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States of the Solar System shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

    2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Amendment 24
    1. The right of citizens of the United States of the Solar System to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States of the Solar System or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

    2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Amendment 25
    1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of their death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

    2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon
    confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

    3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that they are unable to discharge the powers and duties of their office, and until they transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

    4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

    Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, they shall resume the powers and duties of their office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of their office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of their office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of their office.

    Amendment 26
    1. The right of citizens of the United States of the Solar System, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States of the Solar System or by any State on account of age.

    2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Amendment 27
    No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.



    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    magamud

    Posts : 1280
    Join date : 2012-06-17

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  magamud on Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:43 pm










    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 7483
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:17 pm

    The following scenes were wrong on so many levels...
    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/R_HSYB3EPNk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
    <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/F1xc6MwEjBI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
    What if this sort of thing occurs within our solar system -- each and every day??
    <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Cn3eWz0Cc80" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>I Once Discussed Star Wars and Exploding Motherships with the AED...


    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:45 pm; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    magamud

    Posts : 1280
    Join date : 2012-06-17

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  magamud on Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:28 pm





    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 7483
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:11 pm

    magamud wrote:








    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 7483
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    University of Solar System Studies and Governance at Ida

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:12 pm

    My other 'school-thread' seems to have been disabled. I might've tried to post a line which was forbidden. I don't know. In any case, I will attempt to duplicate that thread on this thread -- but in the context of the asteroid 'Ida'. I'll start out in Berkeley, California -- and end up within Ida -- and maybe even Dactyl. I just rewatched 'Legion' and now my computer is 'possessed'. There really does seem to be a connection. Isn't it interesting that Michael was depicted as being the 'rebel-angel' rather than Lucifer??!! Somewhat relatedly, watch the 'Dark Frontier' episodes (parts 1&2) of 'Star Trek Voyager' (seaon 5). This is one of the most chilling shows I have ever watched. Might that hellish Borg-Ship be representative of an 'intermediate stage' or 'half-way house' wherein Humans from Earth (Demons from Hell?) are assimilated back into a hive-minded Reptilian Universe as Angels in Heaven??!! I have no idea -- but I continue to wonder about such things. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKoJxGHCvyI As I mentioned, this quest is becoming too dark for me to continue to speculate in public. I'd still like to hang-out with the Jesuits on Mt. Graham -- and perhaps participate in the University of Arizona astronomy program (with an emphasis on Lunar and Planetary Studies). http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/ Perhaps such a formal study might be integrated with a deeper academic study of this thread -- at both undergraduate and graduate levels. I'm not sure I could deal with campus life, at this point, so some sort of 'independent-study' might be necessary (which might include Reptilian Theocracies and Space Law). Is anyone (human or otherwise) presently living within Ida and/or Dactyl?? What if there were a Reptilian Theological Seminary within Ida??? Or what about the University of Arizona at Ida (with an Asteroid, Lunar, and Planetary Studies Center)??? What if the Jesuits had one of those big binocular telescopes on Ida?? Just a thought.

    Imagine a Solar System Studies and Governance PhD Program at the University of California at Berkeley in conjuction with a United States of the Solar System based at the deconsecrated St. Mary's Cathedral in San Francisco! This might be an interdisciplinary study based upon select classes from most of the 350 available major programs. http://berkeley.edu/academics/dept/a.shtml It might even include the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, complete with maglev-train fieldtrips to Area 51!!! This might be sort of a kinder and gentler Rand Corporation, with Soldiers of Common-Sense! Think long and hard about this video by Dr. Francis Schaeffer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5WOuYA5Esw Just remember that the 'best and the brightest' can be incredibly stupid and shortsighted, especially regarding simple common-sense! You guys and gals really don't like me much, do you?? Don't forget that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, compartmentalization, treaties, concordats, executive orders, and national security. Your weekend homework is to watch all of the linked classes on the U.C. Berkeley You Tube Channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/UCBerkeley Test on Monday! I would love to spend a couple of months on the moon, listening to 100 leading authorities (human and non-human, corrupt and non-corrupt) discussing Solar System Studies and Governance, with no notes, recordings, or minutes kept. Can you imagine what one might learn?! I think we should keep trying to figure things out, but such a gathering would probably be very different than anything we have been exposed to, or even imagined. Consider this thread as being a prerequisite to a University Solar System Studies and Governance Program, which might eventually lead to a post-graduate program which might involve being exposed to the aforementioned group. Just think about this for a while. We are merely scratching the surface. But try going through this thread, at least a couple of times. It is designed to make you think, and to arrive at your own answers. This is just the beginning of the Dawning of a New Day of a New Solar System! What would Jordan Maxwell say? What would Amen Ra say?

    Aerospace Studies (ROTC)
    African American Studies
    Agricultural and Resource Economics
    Air Force (ROTC)
    American Cultures
    American Studies
    Ancient History and Mediterranean Archaeology
    Anthropology
    Applied Science and Technology Graduate Group
    Architecture
    Army (ROTC)
    Art History
    Art Practice
    Arts & Humanities, College of Letters & Science Division
    Asian American Studies
    Asian Studies
    Astronomy
    Biochemistry, Comparative
    Bioengineering
    Biological Sciences, College of Letters and Science Division of
    Biology, Integrative
    Biology, Molecular and Cell
    Biology, Plant and Microbial
    Biophysics
    Biostatistics
    Buddhist Studies
    Business
    Celtic Studies
    Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering
    Chemistry, College of
    Chemistry, Department of
    Chemistry, Agricultural and Environmental
    Chicano Studies
    City and Regional Planning
    Civil and Environmental Engineering
    Classics
    Cognitive Science
    College Writing Programs
    Communications, Mass
    Comparative Biochemistry
    Comparative Literature
    Computer Science
    Computational and Genomic Biology Graduate Program
    Conservation Resource Studies
    Continuing Education (UC Berkeley Extension)
    Creative Writing
    Dance
    Demography
    Development Studies
    Disability Studies
    Dramatic Art
    Dutch Studies
    Earth and Planetary Science
    East Asian Languages & Cultures
    East Asian Studies
    Economics
    Economics, Agricultural and Resource
    Economics, Law &
    Education, Graduate School of
    Endocrinology
    Energy and Resources Group
    Engineering, College of
    Includes the following engineering departments & programs: bioengineering; civil & environmental engineering; electrical engineering and computer science; industrial engineering & operations research; materials science & engineering; mechanical engineering; nuclear engineering; and ocean engineering.
    Engineering, Chemical
    Engineering Science
    English
    Environmental Design, College of
    Environmental Economics and Policy
    Environmental Health Sciences
    Environmental Planning, Landscape Architecture and
    Environmental Science, Policy, and Management
    Environmental Sciences
    Environmental Sciences, College of Natural Resources
    Epidemiology
    Ethnic Studies
    Extension, UC Berkeley
    Film Studies
    Folklore
    Forestry and Natural Resources
    Forestry, Center for
    French
    Gender and Women's Studies
    Genetics and Plant Biology
    Geography
    Geology & Geophysics
    German
    Haas School of Business
    Health and Medical Sciences
    Health Sciences, Environmental
    Health Services and Policy Analysis
    History
    History of Art
    Humanities, College of Letters & Sciences Division
    Industrial Engineering and Operations Research
    Infectious Diseases and Immunity
    Information, School of (iSchool)
    Integrative Biology
    Interdisciplinary Studies
    International and Area Studies
    Italian Studies
    Jewish Studies Program
    Journalism, Graduate School of
    Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program
    Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning
    Latin American Studies
    Law
    Law & Economics Program
    Legal Studies
    Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies
    Letters & Science
    Liberal Arts
    Linguistics
    Logic and the Methodology of Science
    Materials Science and Engineering
    Mathematical and Physical Sciences, College of Letters & Science Division
    Mathematics
    Mechanical Engineering
    Media Studies
    Medical Program (Joint UCB-UCSF)
    Mediterranean Archaeology, Ancient History and
    Medieval Studies
    Microbiology, Graduate Group in
    Microbial Biology, Plant and
    Middle Eastern Studies
    Military Affairs Program
    Military Science (ROTC)
    Molecular & Biochemical Nutrition
    Molecular and Cell Biology
    Molecular Environmental Biology
    Molecular Toxicology (Graduate)
    Molecular Toxicology (Undergraduate)
    Music, Department of
    Native American Studies
    Natural Resources, College of
    Naval Science (Navy ROTC)
    Near Eastern Studies
    New Media, Berkeley Center for
    Neurobiology
    Neuroscience
    Nuclear Engineering
    Nutrition/Nutritional Sciences
    Ocean Engineering
    Operations Research, Industrial Engineering and
    Optometry, School of
    Peace and Conflict Studies
    Philosophy
    Physical Education
    Physics
    Plant and Microbial Biology
    Policy Analysis, Health Services and
    Political Economy
    Political Science
    Portuguese, Spanish and
    Psychology
    Public Health
    Public Policy, The Richard & Rhoda Goldman School of
    Range Management
    Religious Studies
    Rhetoric
    ROTC (Air Force)
    ROTC (Army)
    ROTC (Navy)
    Scandinavian
    School of Information
    Science and Technology, Applied
    Science and Mathematics Education, Graduate Group (SESAME)
    Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies, Institute of
    Slavic Languages and Literatures
    Social Sciences, College of Letters & Science Division
    Social Welfare, School of
    Society and Environment
    Sociology
    Sociology and Demography, Graduate Group in
    South and Southeast Asian Studies
    Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies
    Spanish and Portuguese
    Statistics
    Theater, Dance & Performance Studies
    Toxicology, Nutritional Science and
    Undergraduate and Interdisciplinary Studies
    Undergraduate Division, College of Letters & Science
    Urban Design
    Vision Science
    Women's Studies, Gender and


    Here are some cool space videos to enlighten Solar System Studies and Governance. http://www.youtube.com/user/SpaceRip I'm going to pretend that I'm the last person alive in the solar system - and that I'm making this thread just in case intelligent life from another solar system happens across this cyber-record of madness. The next step in my evolution is to learn to not give a $hi+ if no one gives a $hi+! I don't mean to be shrill. Wait a minute. Yes I do! Boy! Will the space-travellers be in for a disappointment when they see this! "Mork!!! Damn!!! All that way through space for this bs??? FOR THIS???!!! NOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo!!!!!! And those poor bastards thought they were going to be free..." I can do uber-refined extremely well, but remember, this is a test. This is only a test. A word to the wise, and to everyone else...

    1. The Asteroid That Flattened Mars http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlXuUxFTcLs&feature=fvsr

    2. Attack of the Sun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrIx6BKO6IE&feature=relmfu (This one has been removed. Is this significant, in light of recent reported developments associated with the Sun?)

    3. When Will Time End? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OFThORmR-s&feature=relmfu

    4. The Incredible Journey of Apollo 12 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlijkP0ogUU&feature=related

    5. Super Massive Black Hole in the Milky Way Galaxy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCADH3x56eE&feature=related

    6. The Search for Earth-Like Planets http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Kcw0UrIFI&feature=relmfu

    7. Voyage to Pandora: The First Intersteller Space Flight http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPjXxKpM4DM&feature=related

    8. Venus: Death of a Planet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehgs3qazcvw&feature=relmfu

    9. Crashing into the Moon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8OLcbxZ0cA&feature=relmfu

    10. The Pulse of Alien Life http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieKdvNJ20HE&feature=relmfu

    11. Exploding Stars http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfRiqwQBegQ&feature=relmfu

    12. To the Edge of Time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_IiiEF4rGw&feature=relmfu

    13. UC Berkley Lecture in Astronomy: Dr. Steven Beckwith http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x22o8TUdOuw&feature=related

    14. UC Berkley Lecture in Astronomy: Angels and Demons http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sqYh8puZ-I&feature=relmfu

    15. UC Berkley Lecture in Astronomy: How Did the Universe Begin? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_4bMIqmV9U&feature=relmfu

    16. Disclosure: The Truth About 2012 and Extraterrestrials http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u810PTA5Tc&feature=relmfu

    17. Is the Universe Infinite? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG1JpC5jels&feature=related

    18. Black Holes: The Other Side of the Universe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3AfNXdg2Tk&feature=relmfu

    19. Cold Sparks and Black Holes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lTbQ4nPFjg&feature=related

    20. Hubble Space-Shattering Discoveries http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--X9zfgZtS0&feature=related

    21. Carl Sagan: The Universe Was Not Made for Us http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxlPVSAnWOo&feature=related

    22. Carl Sagan: Consider Again That Pale Blue Dot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_naQhynOg0

    23. Carl Sagan: Wanderers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPM-vKpiKR0&feature=related

    24. Carl Sagan: The Gift of Apollo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xUAR6vbxxU&feature=related

    25. Carl Sagan: The Backbone of the Night http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zb6gAPG3yM&feature=related

    26. Carl Sagan: Pale Blue Dot - Extended Version (MUST SEE) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C8lG9L4XDk&feature=related

    Should the Academics Inherit the Earth? What if the PhD's ruled the solar system? Should most of the big libraries, state-houses, churches and cathedrals be turned into universities? Should there be a vast Solar System University System at the Center of Solar System Studies and Governance? Should spirituality and ethics be infused into every subject and activity imaginable? Should everyone in the solar system get paid the same, and have the same net-worth? Is money-making inherently corrupt? Should there be an income and net-worth ceiling? How much is too much? Is the love of money really the root of all evil? Is evil a prerequisite for success? Is there anyone who is truly good? How good is too good? Are any righteous? Even one? What is truth? What color is your parachute? Who's your daddy?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSxVO3EoCRM&feature=related Conservative and Progressive Modernity are Knocking on the Doors of Church and State! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfbA7_vjWLg&feature=related What if church services were like mini congressional or senatorial sessions - complete with elected officials and unelected observers? What if the elected officials wore robes (along with the choir) - and processed and recessed with sacred classical music? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ-pZp1FQPE&feature=related Political and Theological Issues would be discussed and voted upon. The choir/organist/orchestra would perform before and after the sessions. The utmost dignity and courtesy would be expected. Each comment or question would be a short and polished oration, which would be both informative and inspirational. These services would mirror the daily sessions of the United States of the Solar System - and would inform and assist the 10,000 representatives in arriving at their important and binding decisions. Might this be a safe and proper union of church and state? Imagine this sort of thing occurring at Notre Dame de Paris! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhBrYCq-cFU&feature=related Might this be a Latin Mass - Without the Mass? Do you see my point? Holy Deliberation Instead of Holy Sacrifice? Heresy? I think not! The Secular Must Become Sacred - and the Sacred Must Become Secular! BTW - how are things going in San Francisco??? Let Freedom Ring!!! 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xkx4inkewhM&feature=related 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq8i69-L-Fs&feature=related 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qhEgE7-K34&NR=1 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCsnSXRpXug&feature=related 5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxBjqrPAUg8 6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8tHPzmarvY&feature=related


    I'm liking the idea of a PhD program in Solar System Studies and Governance at Ivy League Universities throughout the solar system. A PhD in Solar System Studies and Governance might be a prerequisite to becoming a United States of the Solar System Representative. Then, perhaps one would serve a five-year 'apprenticeship' in connection with the United States of the Solar System, followed by five years of teaching and research, at one of the Ivy League Universities, in the area of Solar System Studies and Governance. Then one might seek to become a United States of the Solar System Representative. This is just something to think about. This would be a pretty select group, but it would be based upon merit, rather than fame, fortune, power, and bloodlines. Upon retirement from the United States of the Solar System, one might reenter academia. Who knows?

    I'm feeling incredibly drained, regarding what I have been dealing with over the past 18 months, or so. I feel as though I have failed in connection with all of this. Believe it or not, I feel as though I might've been able to prevent Fukushima, if I had done more, or if I had handled things differently. I continue to think that Fukushima was deliberately inflicted, and that this might've been the beginning of the end of the world. I have tried to be somewhat neutral regarding the Powers That Be - Terrestrial and Extraterrestrial - Human and Otherwise. But I still wished to press forward in a somewhat irreverent manner, regarding getting to the bottom of what was really going on in this solar system. Perhaps that was a mistake. I have chosen to seek the truth in a very passive and non-scholarly manner on this very small forum, and I have promised not to make a great big deal out of this. I have promised to not yell 'FIRE!!' in a crowded website or bookstore. This is a test. This is only a test. I really do think that the Old World Order and the New World Order should be replaced by a New Solar System, based upon a Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom United States of the Solar System. I really do wish for things to work out well for all concerned, but I obviously don't know what has really been going on for thousands, or even millions, of years. I truly see through a glass darkly. I hope to meet some of the Galactic Powers That Be face to face, and know even as also I am known. But for now, I know in part, and I prophecy in part. Namaste to the Beings of the Universe.



    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:28 pm; edited 8 times in total
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 7483
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:32 pm

    Think of a Solar System University system consisting of maybe 100 campuses throughout the solar system, which would have well developed departments of Solar System Studies and Governance. There might be 80 campuses on Earth, and 20 at other solar system locations, such as the Moon, Venus, Mars, (Nibiru!), various moons, asteroids, and even spaceships (such as the USSS Namaste aka Phobos). These campuses would be staffed by many United States of the Solar System Representatives, who would communicate with each other via an ubersecure interplanet computer system featuring the latest Cray supercomputers. Imagine attending the University of the Solar System at Nibiru!!! Imagine taking classes from Jesuits, Alphabet Agents, Nazis, Masons, Magicians, Dracs, Greys, Annunaki, Gods, Goddesses, visiting professors from Sirius, et al!!! Is this playing with the hellfire of a very hot Trojan Horse? Is this the way of the future? Damned if I know. Those bastards never tell me anything. They keep me guessing. I'm not necessarily saying that there should not be an oversight committee or a theocratic aspect to all of this, but I am saying that there should be appropriate checks and balances in place to keep this pipe-dream of responsible-freedom from spiralling out of control, getting hijacked, or blowing-up in our faces. The universe might be a VERY hostile and nasty place. I suspect that we are shielded from one helluva lot of upsetting information. Some of this is probably designed to deceive us, but some of the blackout is probably designed to prevent society from going to hell. Just more speculation. Once again, I am not shaking my fist at God in all of this. I am simply trying to proceed in a responsible manner. If the Creator God of the Universe imposes Divine Intervention, then So Be It. But I'm not very trusting toward the local gods and goddesses. I'm trying to figure out what has been going wrong on this planet for thousands of years. It isn't a pretty picture, despite the beautiful pictures of Earth from geosynchronous obit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C8lG9L4XDk&feature=related I feel an overwhelming sense of dread. I just want to repeat that I envision a perfected humanity living in a perfected solar system - WITHOUT ANY ARMAGEDDON OR EXTERMINATION OF ANY KIND. I think there may be malevolent forces in this universe who want us dead - or at least suffering - and wishing we were dead. I want to repeat also that if any of you (human or otherwise) are not here to help the human race achieve SUSTAINABLE RESPONSIBLE FREEDOM - then please leave this solar system now - without harming anyone or anything. I'm serious about a SOLAR SYSTEM EXORCISM. I'm serious about establishing a NAMASTE CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBLE FREEDOM SOLAR SYSTEM AKA THE UNITED STATES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM - BASED UPON RESPONSIBILITY AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. If any of you are waiting for me to change my mind - it isn't going to happen. I doubt that I have much clout - but I will continue to pretend that I do. What's funny about all of this - is that I'll probably be long-gone by the time this becomes a reality. This concept will probably rise from the ashes (phoenix-like) of a failed New World Order - so please prepare to rebuild this world - the right way.What Would Anu Do? (WWAD?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpl6ncyxLGw

    What do you think about 10,000 PhD's in Solar System Studies and Governance being Representatives of the United States of the Solar System? Would this be a first step toward the last, great renaissance of an enlightened democracy? I sure wish I could get even just a bit of a discussion going. Here is 'Doctor of Philosophy' From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy

    Doctor of Philosophy, abbreviated as PhD, Ph.D., DPhil or D.Phil. (for the Latin philosophiae doctor or doctor philosophiae), in English-speaking countries, abbreviated as Dr. Phil. or similar in several other countries,[1] is a postgraduate academic degree awarded by universities. The academic level of degrees known as doctorates of philosophy varies considerably according to the country, institution and time period, from entry-level research degrees to higher doctorates.

    The term "philosophy" does not refer solely to the modern field of philosophy, but is used in a broader sense in accordance with its original Greek meaning, which is "love of wisdom." In most of Europe, all fields other than theology, law and medicine were traditionally known as philosophy.

    The doctorate of philosophy as it exists today originated as a doctorate in the liberal arts at the Humboldt University, and was eventually adopted by American universities, becoming common in large parts of the world in the 20th century.[2] In many countries, the doctorate of philosophy is still awarded only in the liberal arts (known as "philosophy" in continental Europe, hence the name of the degree).

    The doctorate was extended to philosophy in the European universities in the Middle Ages. At that time all academic disciplines, the first Doctor of Philosophy degree was awarded in Paris in 1150, but the degree did not acquire its modern status as an advanced research degree until the early nineteenth century, following the practice in Germany. Prior to the nineteenth century, professional doctoral degrees could only be awarded in theology, law, or medicine. In 1861, Yale University adopted the German practice (first introduced in the 19th century at the Humboldt University of Berlin) of granting the degree, abbreviated as Dr. phil., to younger students who had completed a prescribed course of graduate study and successfully defended a thesis/dissertation containing original research in science or in the humanities.[3]

    From the United States, the degree spread to Canada in 1900, and then to the United Kingdom in 1917.[4][5] This displaced the existing Doctor of Philosophy degree in some universities; for instance, the DPhil (higher doctorate in the faculty of philosophy) at the University of St Andrews was discontinued and replaced with the Ph.D., (research doctorate). Oxford retained the DPhil abbreviation for their research degrees. Some newer UK universities, for example Buckingham (est. 1976), Sussex (est. 1961), and, until a few years ago, York (est. 1963), chose to adopt the DPhil, as did some universities in New Zealand.

    The detailed requirements for award of a Ph.D. degree vary throughout the world and even from school to school. In some schools in the US, Canada and Denmark, for example, many universities require coursework in addition to research for Ph.D. degrees. In other countries (such as the UK) there is generally no such condition. It is not uncommon, however, for individual universities or departments to specify additional requirements for students not already in possession of a bachelor's degree or equivalent or higher.

    In schools requiring coursework there is sometimes a prescribed minimum amount of study — typically two to three years full time, or a set number of credit hours — which must take place before submission of a thesis. This requirement is sometimes waived for those submitting a portfolio of peer-reviewed published work. The candidate may also be required to successfully complete a certain number of additional, advanced courses relevant to his or her area of specialization.

    A candidate must submit a project or thesis or dissertation often consisting of a body of original academic research, which is in principle worthy of publication in a peer-refereed context.[6] In many countries a candidate must defend this work before a panel of expert examiners appointed by the university; in other countries, the dissertation is examined by a panel of expert examiners who stipulate whether the dissertation is in principle passable and the issues that need to be addressed before the dissertation can be passed.

    Some universities in the non-English-speaking world have begun adopting similar standards to those of the Anglophone PhD degree for their research doctorates (see the Bologna process).[7]

    A Ph.D. student or candidate (abbreviated to Ph.D.c)[8] is conventionally required to study on campus under close supervision. With the popularity of distance education and e-learning technologies, some universities now accept students enrolled into a distance education part-time mode.

    Neglect, wasted time, few marketable skills, negligible earnings premiums, and vastly out-numbered job offerings are some of the criticisms leveled against PhD programs in many developed countriesThe Economist published an article citing various criticisms against the state of PhDs. Richard B. Freeman explains that, based on pre-2000 data, at most only 20% of life science PhD students end up getting jobs specifically in research.[9] Only in the fastest developing countries (e.g. China or Brazil) is there a shortage of PhDs. Higher education systems often offer little incentive to move students through PhD programs quickly (and may even provide incentive to slow them down). Germany is one of the few nations engaging these issues, and it has been doing so by reconceptualizing PhD programs to be training for careers, outside of academia, but still at high-level positions. Mark C. Taylor opines that total reform of PhD programs in almost every field is necessary in the U.S., and that pressure to make the necessary changes will need to come from many sources (students, administrators, public and private sectors, etc.). These issues and others are discussed in an April 2011 issue of the journal Nature.[10][11][12][13]

    In Canada, where the overflow of PhD degree holders is not as severe, 80% of postdoctoral research fellows end up earning less than or equal to the average construction worker (roughly $38,000 a year).[9] The idea that PhDs are offering little return on investment, monetarily, is bolstered by evidence published in the Journal of Higher Education Management and Policy. Bernard H. Casey suggests that, over all subjects, PhD has an earnings premium of 26%, but notes that masters degrees provide a premium of 23% already. Casey thinks there are significant benefits to society for the extra research training, but points out that this does not change the fact that many individuals could have secured an almost identical salary far earlier (which adds an opportunity cost).[14] Some research suggests that overqualified workers are often less satisfied and less productive at their jobs.[9]

    Not all students, however, are motivated to pursue the PhD by hopes of monetary rewards. Some are driven by the desire for further education beyond the undergraduate level, scientific and humanistic curiosity, the desire to contribute to the academic community, service to others, or personal development.

    The admission to a PhD program at an Argentine University requires the full completion of a Master's degree or a Licentiate's degree. Non-Argentinian Master's titles are generally accepted into a PhD program when the degree comes from a recognized university.

    While a significant portion of postgraduate students finance their tuition and living costs with teaching or research work at private and state-run institutions, international institutions, such as the Fullbright Program and the Organization of American States (OAS), have been known to grant full scholarships for tuition with apportions for housing.[15]

    Upon completion of at least two years' research and course work as a graduate student, a candidate must demonstrate truthful and original contributions to his or her specific field of knowledge within a frame of academic excellence.[16] The doctoral candidate's work should be presented in a dissertation or thesis prepared under the supervision of a tutor or director, and reviewed by a Doctoral Committee. This Committee should be composed of examiners that are external to the program, and at least one of them should also be external to the institution. The academic degree of Doctor, respective to the correspondent field of science that the candidate has contributed with original and rigorous research, is received after a successful defense of the candidate’s dissertation.[17]

    Admission to a PhD program within Australia requires a Masters degree or a Bachelors honours degree (first or second class, upper division), or equivalent, and demonstrated capacity to undertake significant research in the proposed doctoral field.

    Framework for Best Practice in Doctoral Research Education in Australia

    PhD students are sometimes offered a scholarship to study for their PhD degree. The most common of these in Australia is the government-funded Australian Postgraduate Award (APA), which provides a living stipend to students of approximately A$ 22,500 a year (tax free). APAs are paid for a duration of 3 years, while a 6 month extension is usually possible upon citing delays out of the control of the student.[18] Some universities also fund a similar scholarship that matches the APA amount. In recent years, with the tightening of research funding in Australia, these scholarships have become increasingly hard to obtain. However, APAs have become less competitive as the number of scholarships were to be doubled by 2012.[19] Due to a continual increase in living costs, many PhD students are forced to live under the poverty line.[20] In addition to the more common APA and University scholarships, Australian students have other sources of scholarship funding, with options listed on the JASON Postgraduate Scholarship Database.

    Australian citizens and other eligible PhD and Research Masters students in Australia are generally not charged course fees as these are paid for by the Australian Government under the Research Training Scheme[21] International students and Coursework Masters students must pay course fees, unless they receive a scholarship to cover them.

    Completion requirements vary. Most Australian PhD programs do not have a required coursework component. The 72 credit points attached to the degree are all in the product of the research, which has to make a significant new contribution to the field. The PhD research product is sent to external examiners, experts in the field of research, who have not been involved in the work. In Australia a formal oral defense is generally not part of the doctoral examination (largely because of the distances that would need to be traveled by the overseas examiners). Examiners are nominated by the candidate's University (often by the Head of Department or Research Office), and their identities are often not officially revealed to the candidate until the examination is complete. Many New Zealand Universities have retained the oral examination requirement, but often external examiner's report is presented by one of the internal examiners. The Australasian Digital Theses Program provided access to PhDs produced recently, as there are generally automatically digitalised and added to this database available from http://adt.caul.edu.au/. As of March 2011, the site is being decommissioned.[22]

    Admission to a PhD program at a Canadian university usually requires completion of a Master's degree in a related field, with sufficiently high grades and proven research ability. In some cases, a student may progress directly from an Honours Bachelor's degree to a PhD program; other programs allow a student to fast-track to a doctoral program after one year of outstanding work in a Master's program (without having to complete the Master's).

    An application package typically includes a research proposal, letters of reference, transcripts, and in some cases, a writing sample or GRE scores. A common criterion for prospective PhD students is the comprehensive or qualifying examination, a process that often commences in the second year of a graduate program. Generally, successful completion of the qualifying exam permits continuance in the graduate program. Formats for this examination include oral examination by the student's faculty committee (or a separate qualifying committee), or written tests designed to demonstrate the student's knowledge in a specialized area (see below) or both.

    At English-speaking universities, a student may also be required to demonstrate English language abilities, usually by achieving an acceptable score on a standard examination (e.g., Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL)). Depending on the field, the student may also be required to demonstrate ability in one or more additional languages. A prospective student applying to French-speaking universities may also have to demonstrate some English language ability.

    While some students work outside the university (or at student jobs within the university), in some programs students are advised (or must agree) not to devote more than ten hours per week to activities (e.g., employment) outside of their studies, particularly if they have been given funding. For large and prestigious scholarships, such as those from NSERC, this is an absolute requirement.

    At some Canadian universities, most PhD students receive an award equivalent to the tuition amount for the first four years (this is sometimes called a tuition deferral or tuition waiver). Other sources of funding include teaching assistantships and research assistantships; experience as a teaching assistant is encouraged but not requisite in many programs. Some programs may require all PhD candidates to teach, which may be done under the supervision of their supervisor or regular faculty. Besides these sources of funding, there are also various competitive scholarships, bursaries, and awards available, such as those offered by the federal government via NSERC, CIHR, or SSHRC.

    In general, the first two years of study are devoted to completion of coursework and the comprehensive examinations. At this stage, the student is known as a "PhD student" or "doctoral student". It is usually expected that the student will have completed most of his or her required coursework by the end of this stage. Furthermore, it is usually required that by the end of eighteen to thirty-six months after the first registration, the student will have successfully completed the comprehensive exams.

    Upon successful completion of the comprehensive exams, the student becomes known as a "PhD candidate". From this stage on, the bulk of the student's time will be devoted to his or her own research, culminating in the completion of a PhD thesis or dissertation. The final requirement is an oral defense of the thesis, which is open to the public in some, but not all, universities. At most Canadian universities, the time needed to complete a PhD degree typically ranges from four to six years[citation needed]. It is, however, not uncommon for students to be unable to complete all the requirements within six years, particularly given that funding packages often support students for only two to four years; many departments will allow program extensions at the discretion of the thesis supervisor and/or department chair. Alternate arrangements exist whereby a student is allowed to let their registration in the program lapse at the end of six years and re-register once the thesis is completed in draft form. The general rule is that graduate students are obligated to pay tuition until the initial thesis submission has been received by the thesis office. In other words, if a PhD student defers or delays the initial submission of their thesis they remain obligated to pay fees until such time that the thesis has been received in good standing.

    Denmark and Norway were some of the first countries to introduce the Doctor of Philosophy degree, inspired by the German university system, in 1824. The degree was written as Doctor Philosophiae, abbreviated Dr. Phil. or Dr. Philos. The two countries' systems of higher education were more or less identical at that time; following the dissolution of Denmark-Norway in 1814, the only university of Norway (the Royal Frederick University) nonetheless followed the regulations of the only university of Denmark (and for centuries the only university of both countries), the University of Copenhagen, for several years.

    The Dr. Phil. degree was used for all other fields than theology, law and medicine, which had separate degrees: doctor theologiae, doctor juris and doctor medicinae. In the 20th century new degrees were created in the fields of natural sciences, humanities and social sciences, but it was still possible to obtain the Dr. Phil. degree in any field. Most people who started at a doctoral degree had already studied for six or seven years and obtained a Candidate degree (six years) or a Magister degree (seven years), sometimes a Licentiate (a "smaller doctorate"). The former were considered entry-level degrees required before finding permanent employment as a researcher, while the Dr. Phil. degree was often obtained by people who were already well established academics, sometimes even full professors.

    Following reforms in the late 1990s and early 2000s, both countries introduced a new Doctor of Philosophy degree, based upon the American PhD and written as Philosophiae Doctor (PhD). In Norway the PhD replaced all other doctoral degrees except Dr. Philos., while in Denmark, the traditional doctorates are still awarded. In Norway the new PhD and the Dr. Philos. are equivalent. In Denmark, the original Dr. Phil. degree is today considered a higher doctorate, as opposed to the PhD, which is considered a "smaller doctorate" at the same level as the former Licentiate. Unlike the PhD, the Dr. Phil. degree is not a supervised degree, does not include any coursework and requires a much larger degree of independent research in both countries.

    Students pursuing the PhD degree must first complete a Master's degree program, which takes two years after graduation with a Bachelor's degree (five years in total). The candidate must find funding and a formal doctoral advisor (Directeur de thèse) with an habilitation throughout the doctoral program.

    In France, the Masters program is divided into two branches: "master professionnel", which orientates the students towards the working world, and Master of Research (Master-recherche), which is oriented towards research. The PhD admission is granted by a graduate school (in French, "école doctorale"). A PhD Student has to follow some courses offered by the graduate school while continuing his/her research at laboratory. His/her research may be carried out in a laboratory, at a university, or in a company. In the last case, the company hires the student as an engineer and the student is supervised by both the company's tutor and a labs' professor. The validation of the PhD degree requires generally 3 to 4 years after the Master degree. Consequently, the PhD degree is considered in France as a "Bac +8" diploma. "Bac" stands for Baccalauréat which is the French High-school diploma.

    The financing of PhD studies comes mainly from funds for research of the French Ministry of Higher Education and Research. The most common procedure is a short-term employment contract called doctoral contract : the institution of higher education is the employer and the PhD candidate the employee. However, the student can apply for funds from a company who can host him/her at its premise (as in the case where PhD students do their research in a company). Many other resources come from some regional/city projects, some associations, etc.

    In India, a Masters degree is required to gain admission to a doctoral program. In some subjects, doing a Masters in Philosophy (M.Phil) is a prerequisite to start PhD. For some prestigious universities it is required to qualify the all India level examination such as ‘National Eligibility Test for Lectureship (NET)[23] conducted by ‘University Grants Commission' .

    In last few years, there have been many changes in the rules related to PhD in India. According to the new rules, most universities conduct entrance exams in general ability and the selected subject. After clearing these tests, the short-listed candidates need to appear for interview by the available supervisor / guide. The students are required to give presentations of the proposal at the beginning, need to submit progress reports, give pre-submission presentation and finally defend the thesis in an open defence viva voce. Some departments make it mandatory to have one of the examiners to be from US or Europe.

    In Germany an advanced degree (Master, Diploma, Magister or Staatsexamen) and above-average grades are often required to gain admission to a doctoral program. The degree should usually be in a related field. The candidate must also find a tenured professor or Privatdozent to serve as the formal advisor and supervisor (Betreuer) of the dissertation throughout the doctoral program. This supervisor is informally referred to as Doktorvater/Doktormutter (literally 'doctor's father/mother').

    Doctoral programs in Germany generally take one to four years – usually three, up to five in engineering – to complete, strongly depending on the subject. There are usually no formal classes or lectures to attend, and the doctoral candidate (Doktorand/-in) mainly conducts independent research under the tutelage of a single professor or advisory committee.

    Many doctoral candidates work as teaching or research assistants and are thus actually doing most of the research and teaching activities at their home institutions, but are not paid a reasonably competitive salary for that (in most cases, only a half position is granted). However, external funding by research organisations and foundations is also common. Furthermore, many universities have established research-intensive Graduiertenkollegs, which are graduate schools that provide funding for doctoral theses.

    In German-speaking countries, most Eastern European countries, the former Soviet Union, most parts of Africa, Asia, and many Spanish-speaking countries the corresponding degree is simply called "doctor" (Doktor), and is distinguished by subject area with a Latin suffix (e.g. "Dr. med." for doctor medicinae, "Dr. rer. nat." for doctor rerum naturalium — Doctor of Natural Science, "Dr. phil." for doctor philosophiae, "Dr. iur." for doctor iuris, etc.).

    In the former Soviet Union, the Doctor of Sciences is the higher of two sequential post-graduate degrees, with Candidate of Sciences (Russian – кандидат наук) being universally accepted as the equivalent of the PhD, while the Doctorate is a (Full) Professors' or Academicians' separate and subsequent degree, indicating that the holder is a distinguished, honoured, and outstanding member of the scientific community. It is rarely awarded to those younger than late middle age or lacking in achievement and is a symbol of success in an academic career.

    The Dottorato di ricerca (research doctorate), abbreviated to "Dott. Ric." or "Ph.D.", is an academic title awarded at the end of a course of not less than three years, admission to which is based on entrance examinations. In case of MD/PhD the Ph.D. programme may last only two years.

    Doctorate courses are open, without age or citizenship limits, to all those who already hold a "laurea magistrale" (master degree) or similar academic title awarded abroad which has been recognised as equivalent to an Italian degree by the Committee responsible for the entrance examinations.

    The number of places on offer each year and details of the entrance examinations are set out in the examination announcement.

    A doctor's degree (pl. Doktor), abbreviated to Phd (pl. dr) is an advanced academic degree awarded by universities in most fields [24][25][26][27][28] as well as by the Polish Academy of Sciences,[29] regulated by the polish parliament acts[30] and the government orders, in particular by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Poland. Commonly, students with a master's degree or equivalent are accepted to a doctoral entrance exam. The title of Phd is awarded to a scientist who 1) completed a minimum of 3 years of Phd studies (pl. studia doktoranckie), 2) finished his/her theoretical and/or laboratory’s scientific work, 3) passed all Phd examinations, 4) submitted his/her dissertation- a document presenting the author's research and findings,[31] 5) successfully defended his/her doctoral thesis. Typically, upon completion, the candidate undergoes an oral examination, always public, by his/her supervisory committee with expertise in the given discipline.

    The doctorate was introduced in Denmark-Norway in 1479 and awarded in theology, law and medicine, while the Magister's degree was the highest degree at the Faculty of Philosophy, equivalent to the doctorate.

    Scandinavian countries were among the early adopters of a modern style doctorate of philosophy, based upon the German model. Denmark and Norway both introduced the Dr. Phil(os). degree in 1824, replacing the Magister's degree as the highest degree, while Uppsala University of Sweden renamed its Magister's degree Filosofie Doktor (Fil.Dr.) in 1863. These degrees, however, became comparable to the German Habilitation rather than the doctorate, as Scandinavian countries did not have a separate Habilitation.[32] The degrees were uncommon and not a prerequisite for employment as a professor; rather, they were seen as distinctions similar to the British (higher) doctorates (D.Litt., D.Sc.). Denmark introduced an American-style PhD in 1989; it formally replaced the Licentiate degree, and is considered a lower degree than the Dr. Phil. degree; officially, the PhD is not considered a doctorate, but unofficially, it is referred to as "the smaller doctorate", as opposed to the Dr. Phil., "the grand doctorate".[33] Currently Denmark and Norway are both awarding the traditional (higher) Dr. Phil(os). degree, and American-style PhDs. Sweden is only awarding the Fil.Dr. degree.

    Doctor Degrees are regulated by Royal Decree (R.D. 778/1998),[34] Real Decreto (in Spanish). They are granted by the University on behalf of the King, and its Diploma has the force of a public document. The Ministry of Science keeps a National Registry of Theses called TESEO.[35]

    All doctoral programs are of a research nature. A minimum of 4 years of study are required, divided into 2 stages:

    A 2-year-long period of studies, which concludes with a public dissertation presented to a panel of 3 Professors. If the projects receives approval from the university, he/she will receive a "Diploma de Estudios Avanzados" (part qualified doctor).
    A 2-year (or longer) period of research. Extensions may be requested for up to 10 years. The student must write his thesis presenting a new discovery or original contribution to Science. If approved by his "thesis director", the study will be presented to a panel of 5 distinguished scholars. Any Doctor attending the public presentations is allowed to challenge the candidate with questions on his research. If approved, he will receive the doctorate. Four marks can be granted (Unsatisfactory, Pass, "Cum laude", and "Summa cum laude"). Those Doctors granted their degree "Summa Cum Laude" are allowed to apply for an "Extraordinary Award".
    A Doctor Degree is required to apply to a teaching position at the University.

    The social standing of Doctors in Spain is evidenced by the fact that only PhD holders, Grandees and Dukes can take seat and cover their heads in the presence of the King.[36] All Doctor Degree holders are reciprocally recognized as equivalent in Germany and Spain ("Bonn Agreement of November 14, 1994").[37]

    Earning a PhD or DPhil infers the title Dr. There is a common misconception (especially among women who are unmarried at the end of their PhD[citation needed]) that this title is specific to the surname which the person had when the degree was obtained. However, this is incorrect and regardless of whether a person changed their name they will not lose the title. Once the title is earned it cannot be removed unless the person requests it to be by Deed Poll.

    The top ten UK universities ranked by research quality according to the Times Literary Supplement[38] with their designatory letters:

    University Letters University Letters
    Cambridge PhD Manchester PhD
    Oxford DPhil Warwick PhD
    LSE PhD Essex PhD
    Imperial PhD York PhD
    UCL PhD Edinburgh PhD

    Universities admit applicants to PhD programmes on a case-by-case basis; depending on the university, admission is typically conditional on the prospective student having successfully completed an undergraduate degree with at least upper second-class honours, or a postgraduate master's degree, but requirements can vary.

    In the case of the University of Oxford, for example, "The one essential condition of being accepted...is evidence of previous academic excellence, and of future potential."[39] Commonly, students are first accepted on to an MPhil programme and may transfer to PhD regulations upon satisfactory progress and is referred to as APG (Advanced Postgraduate) status. This is typically done after one or two years, and the research work done may count towards the PhD degree. If a student fails to make satisfactory progress, he or she may be offered the opportunity to write up and submit for an MPhil degree.

    In addition, PhD students from countries outside the EU/EFTA area are required to comply with the Academic Technology Approval Scheme (ATAS), which involves undergoing a security clearance process with the Foreign Office for certain courses in medicine, mathematics, engineering and material sciences.[40][41] This requirement was introduced in 2007 due to concerns about terrorism and weapons proliferation.[41]

    In the United Kingdom, funding for PhD students is sometimes provided by government-funded Research Councils or the European Social Fund, usually in the form of a tax-free bursary which consists of tuition fees together with a stipend of around £13,000 per year for three years (higher in London),[42] whether or not the degree continues for longer. Scientific studentships are usually paid at a higher rate, for example, in London, Cancer Research UK, the ICR and the Wellcome Trust stipend rates start at around £19,000 and progress annually to around £23,000 a year; an amount that is tax and national insurance free. Research Council funding is sometimes 'earmarked' for a particular department or research group, who then allocate it to a chosen student, although in doing so they are generally expected to abide by the usual minimum entry requirements (typically a first degree with upper second class honours, although successful completion of a postgraduate master's degree is usually counted as raising the class of the first degree by one division for these purposes). However, the availability of funding in many disciplines (especially humanities, social studies, and pure science[citation needed] subjects) means that in practice only those with the best research proposals, references and backgrounds are likely to be awarded a studentship. The ESRC (Economic and Social Science Research Council) explicitly state that a 2.1 minimum (or 2.2 plus additional masters degree) is required – no additional marks are given for students with a first class honours or a distinction at masters level.

    Since 2002, there has been a move by research councils to fund interdisciplinary doctoral training centres such as MOAC[43] which concentrate on communication between traditional disciplines and an emphasis on transferable skills in addition to research training.

    Many students who are not in receipt of external funding may choose to undertake the degree part time, thus reducing the tuition fees, as well as creating free time in which to earn money for subsistence.

    Students may also take part in tutoring, work as research assistants, or (occasionally) deliver lectures, at a rate of typically £25–30 per hour, either to supplement existing low income or as a sole means of funding.[44]

    There is usually a preliminary assessment to remain in the programme and the thesis is submitted at the end of a 3- to 4-year program. These periods are usually extended pro rata for part-time students. With special dispensation, the final date for the thesis can be extended for up to four additional years, for a total of seven, but this is rare.[citation needed] Since the early 1990s, the UK funding councils have adopted a policy of penalising departments where large proportions of students fail to submit their theses in four years after achieving PhD-student status (or pro rata equivalent) by reducing the number of funded places in subsequent years.[45]

    There has recently been an increase in the number of Integrated PhD programs available, such as at the University of Southampton. These courses include a Masters of Research (MRes) in the first year, which consists of a taught component as well as laboratory rotation projects. The PhD must then be completed within the next 3 years. As this includes the MRes all deadlines and timeframes are brought forward to encourage completion of both MRes and PhD within 4 years from commencement. These programs are designed to provide students with a greater range of skills than a standard PhD.

    In the United Kingdom PhD degrees are distinct from other doctorates, most notably the higher doctorates such as D.Litt. (Doctor of Letters) or D.Sc. (Doctor of Science), which may be granted on the recommendation of a committee of examiners on the basis of a substantial portfolio of submitted (and usually published) research. However, most UK universities still maintain the option of submitting a thesis for the award of a higher doctorate.

    Recent years have seen the introduction of professional doctorates, which are the same level as PhDs but more specific in their field.[46] These tend not to be solely academic, but combine academic research, a taught component and a professional qualification. These are most notably in the fields of engineering (Eng.D.), education (Ed.D.), occupational psychology (D.Occ Psych.) clinical psychology (D.Clin.Psych.), public administration (D.P.A.), business administration (D.B.A.), and music (D.M.A.). These typically have a more formal taught component consisting of smaller research projects, as well as a 40,000–60,000 word thesis component, which collectively is equivalent to that of a PhD degree.

    In the United States, the Ph.D. degree is the highest academic degree awarded by universities in most fields of study. American students typically undergo a series of three phases in the course of their work toward the Ph.D. degree. The first phase consists of coursework in the student's field of study and requires one to three years to complete. This often is followed by a preliminary, a comprehensive examination, or a series of cumulative examinations where the emphasis is on breadth rather than depth of knowledge. The student is often later required to pass oral and written examinations in the field of specialization within the discipline, and here, depth is emphasized. Some Ph.D. programs require the candidate to successfully complete requirements in pedagogy (taking courses on higher level teaching and teaching undergraduate courses) or applied science (e.g., clinical practice and predoctoral clinical internship in Ph.D. programs in clinical or counseling psychology).[citation needed]

    Another two to four years are usually required for the composition of a substantial and original contribution to human knowledge in the form of a written dissertation, which in the social sciences and humanities typically ranges from 50 to 450 pages in length. In many cases, depending on the discipline, a dissertation consists of (i) a comprehensive literature review, (ii) an outline of methodology, and (iii) several chapters of scientific, social, historical, philosophical, or literary analysis. Typically, upon completion, the candidate undergoes an oral examination, sometimes public, by his or her supervisory committee with expertise in the given discipline.[citation needed]

    As the Ph.D. degree is often a preliminary step toward a career as a professor, throughout the whole period of study and dissertation research the student, depending on the university and degree, may be required or offered the opportunity to teach undergraduate and occasionally graduate courses in relevant subjects.[citation needed]

    There are 282 universities in the United States that award the PhD degree, and those universities vary widely in their criteria for admission, as well as the rigor of their academic programs.[47] Typically, PhD programs require applicants to have a Bachelor's degree in a relevant field (and, in many cases in the humanities, a master's degree), reasonably high grades, several letters of recommendation, relevant academic coursework, a cogent statement of interest in the field of study, and satisfactory performance on a graduate-level exam specified by the respective program (e.g., GRE, GMAT).[48][49] Specific admissions criteria differ substantially according to university admissions policies and fields of study; some programs in well-regarded research universities may admit less than five percent of applicants and require an exceptional performance on the GRE along with near-perfect grades, strong support in letters of recommendation, substantial research experience, and academically sophisticated samples of their writing.[citation needed]

    As applicants to many Ph.D. programs are not required to have master's degrees, many programs award a Master of Arts or Master of Science degree "en route", "in passing", or "in course" based on the graduate work done in the course of achieving the Ph.D. Students who receive such master's degrees are usually required to complete a certain amount of coursework and a master's thesis or field examination. Not all Ph.D. programs require additional work to obtain a master's en route to the Ph.D. (e.g., a master's thesis). Depending on the specific program, masters-in-passing degrees can be either mandatory or optional. Not all Ph.D. students choose to complete the additional requirements necessary for the MA or MS if such requirements are not mandated by their programs. Those students will simply obtain the Ph.D. degree at the end of their graduate study.[citation needed]

    Depending on the specific field of study, completion of a PhD program usually takes four to eight years of study after the Bachelor's Degree; those students who begin a PhD program with a master's degree may complete their PhD degree a year or two sooner.[50] As PhD programs typically lack the formal structure of undergraduate education, there are significant individual differences in the time taken to complete the degree. Many U.S. universities have set a ten-year limit for students in PhD programs, or refuse to consider graduate credit older than ten years as counting towards a PhD degree. Similarly, students may be required to re-take the comprehensive exam if they do not defend their dissertations within five years after submitting it to their self-chosen dissertation advisors.[citation needed] Overall, 57% of students who begin a PhD program in the US will complete their degree within ten years, approximately 30% will drop out or be dismissed, and the remaining 13% of students will continue on past ten years.[51]

    PhD students are usually discouraged from engaging in external employment during the course of their graduate training. As a result, PhD students at U.S. universities typically receive a tuition waiver and some form of annual stipend.[citation needed] The source and amount of funding varies from field to field and university to university. Many U.S. PhD students work as teaching assistants or research assistants. Graduate schools increasingly[citation needed] encourage their students to seek outside funding; many are supported by fellowships they obtain for themselves or by their advisers' research grants from government agencies such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Many Ivy League and other well-endowed universities provide funding for the entire duration of the degree program (if it is short) or for most of it.[citation needed]

    A PhD program candidate, or PhDc (sometimes called Candidate of Philosophy), is a postgraduate student at the doctoral level who has successfully satisfied the requirements for doctoral studies, except for the final thesis or dissertation. As such, a PhDc is sometimes called an "ABD" (All But Dissertation or All But Defended). Although a minor distinction in postgraduate study, achieving PhD Candidacy is not without benefit. For example, PhDc status may coincide with an increase in the student's monthly stipend and may make the student eligible for additional employment opportunities.[citation needed]

    Some programs also include a Master of Philosophy degree as part of the PhD program.[52] The MPhil, in those universities that offer it, is usually awarded after the appropriate MA or MS (as above) is awarded, and the degree candidate has completed all further requirements for the PhD degree (which may include additional language requirements, course credits, teaching experiences, and comprehensive exams) aside from the writing and defense of the dissertation itself.[citation needed] This formalizes the "all but dissertation" (ABD) status used informally by some students, and represents that the student has achieved a higher level of scholarship than the MA/MS would indicate – as such, the MPhil is sometimes a helpful credential for those applying for teaching or research posts while completing their dissertation work for the PhD degree itself.[53]

    PhDc is not to be confused with Candidate of Sciences, an academic degree that has been used in certain countries in place of PhD.

    A PhD title holder must fulfill a number of strict requirements including:

    - Passing entrance examinations including a professional examination, a foreign language examination, and successfully defending the dissertation proposal
    - Conducting the research work as approved in the entrance examination
    - Publishing research results in respective professional journals
    - Successfully defending the research results twice, first with a scientific panel designated by the university. If passed, the PhD candidate will have to defend in a nation-wide panel including two hidden external reviewers; the panel is formulated by the ministry of education and training.
    Vietnam is trying to improve its PhD training quality as well as simplifying the procedures required to obtain the degree.

    At some universities, there may be training for those wishing to supervise PhD studies. There is now a lot of literature published for academics who wish to do this, such as Delamont, Atkinson and Parry (1997). Indeed, Dinham and Scott (2001) have argued that the worldwide growth in research students has been matched by increase in a number of what they term "how-to" texts for both students and supervisors, citing examples such as Pugh and Phillips (1987). These authors report empirical data on the benefits that a PhDc may gain if he or she publishes work, and note that PhD students are more likely to do this with adequate encouragement from their supervisors.

    Wisker (2005) has noticed how research into this field has distinguished between two models of supervision: The technical-rationality model of supervision, emphasising technique; The negotiated order model, being less mechanistic and emphasising fluid and dynamic change in the PhD process. These two models were first distinguished by Acker, Hill and Black (1994; cited in Wisker, 2005). Considerable literature exists on the expectations that supervisors may have of their students (Phillips & Pugh, 1987) and the expectations that students may have of their supervisors (Phillips & Pugh, 1987; Wilkinson, 2005) in the course of PhD supervision. Similar expectations are implied by the Quality Assurance Agency's Code for Supervision (Quality Assurance Agency, 1999; cited in Wilkinson, 2005).

    Belgium (Dutch-speaking): Doctor
    Belgium (French-speaking): Doctorat
    Brazil: Doutorado
    Bulgaria: Доктор
    China: 博士
    Colombia: Doctorado
    Croatia: Doktor
    Ecuador: Doctorado
    Egypt: Doctorat
    Estonia: Doktor
    Finland: Tohtori
    France: Doctorat
    Germany: Doktor
    Greece: Διδακτορικό
    Hong Kong: 博士Doctor
    Indonesia: Doktor
    Iran: دکترا
    Iraq: دكتوراه (Duktorah)
    Israel: דוקטורט ("doctorat")
    Italy: Dottorato di ricerca
    Japan: 博士
    Korea: 박사
    Latin America: Doctorado/Doctorate
    Latvia: Zinātņu doktors
    Lithuania: Daktaras
    Macau: 博士Doutoramento
    Malaysia: Doktor Falsafah
    Mexico: Doctorado
    Mongolia: Эрдэмтэн
    Netherlands: Doctor
    Norway: no: Doktorgrad
    Peru: Doctorado
    Philippines: Doktor
    Poland: Doktor
    Portugal: Doutoramento
    Romania: Doctorat
    Russia: Кандидат наук (Candidate of Sciences)
    Singapore: Doctor
    Serbia: Доктор
    Spain: Doctorado
    Syria: دكتوراه (doktorah)
    Taiwan: 博士
    Thailand: ดุษฎีบัณฑิต
    Turkey: Doktor
    Ukraine: Кандидат наук
    Vietnam: Tiến sĩ
    [edit] See alsoRelated Terminology:

    Doctor of Education – Preparation for academic, administrative, clinical or research positions in education.
    PhD in Management – A program designed for students interested in becoming professors in Business.
    Doctorate – A general term describing a set of degrees analogous to the PhD.
    Terminal degree – The highest degree awarded in a field, usually a PhD.
    Graduate student – A student pursuing education past the bachelor's degree, such as Masters Degree or a PhD.
    C.Phil. (also ABD) – Term, usually used unofficially, for a graduate student who has completed all PhD coursework but has yet to defend his or her dissertation.
    Доктор наук – Degree awarded by USSR and post-Soviet states (for example Russia, Ukraine).
    Licentiate – Degree awarded in various countries, including Portugal, Belgium, the UK, Argentina, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico and Poland.
    Sandwich PhD Programme
    PhD in popular culture:

    Piled Higher and Deeper – Life (or the lack thereof) in Academia, a comic strip by Jorge Cham
    [edit] Notes^ Such as Germany, the Scandinavian countries and formerly the United States
    ^ "History of the Ph.D.". Phdcourse.net. http://phdcourse.net/history-of-the-ph.d./history-of-the-ph.d./. Retrieved 2011-02-01.
    ^ See, for instance, Rosenberg, R. P. (1962). "Eugene Schuyler's Doctor of Philosophy Degree: A Theory Concerning the Dissertation". The Journal of Higher Education 33 (7): 381–386. doi:10.2307/1979947. JSTOR 1979947. edit
    ^ Simpson, Renate (1984). How the PhD came to Britain : A Century of Struggle for Postgraduate Education. Taylor and Francis. ISBN 0900868953.
    ^ "The Mathematics PhD in the United Kingdom". http://www.economics.soton.ac.uk/staff/aldrich/PhD.htm. Retrieved 2010-11-17.
    ^ Dinham, S.; Scott, C. (2001). "The Experience of Disseminating the Results of Doctoral Research". Journal of Further and Higher Education 25: 45–55. doi:10.1080/03098770020030498. edit
    ^ The term "doctor of philosophy" is not always applied by those countries to graduates in disciplines other than philosophy itself. These doctoral degrees, however, are sometimes identified in English as Ph.D. degrees.
    ^ What does PhDc stand for? Acronyms and abbreviations by the Free Online Dictionary
    ^ a b c http://www.economist.com/node/17723223, The disposable academic, The Economist, December 18, 2010
    ^ "Fix the PhD". Nature 472 (7343): 259–260. 2011. doi:10.1038/472259b. PMID 21512527. edit
    ^ Taylor, M. (2011). "Reform the PhD system or close it down". Nature 472 (7343): 261–261. doi:10.1038/472261a. PMID 21512530. edit
    ^ Cyranoski, D.; Gilbert, N.; Ledford, H.; Nayar, A.; Yahia, M. (2011). "Education: The PhD factory". Nature 472 (7343): 276–279. doi:10.1038/472276a. PMID 21512548. edit
    ^ Fiske, P. (2011). "What is a PhD really worth?". Nature 472 (7343): 381–381. doi:10.1038/nj7343-381a. edit
    ^ Journal of Higher Education Management and Policy, the economic contribution of PhDs, http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a912992314
    ^ "Scholarships in Argentina". Spuweb.siu.edu.ar. http://spuweb.siu.edu.ar/studyinargentina/pages/study1203.php. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    ^ "GFME: Global Foundation for Management Education" (PDF). http://www.gfme.org/global_guide/pdf/13-18%20Argentina.pdf. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    ^ "Comisión Nacional de Evaluación y Acreditación Universitaria (Spanish)}". Coneau.edu.ar. http://www.coneau.edu.ar/index.php?item=29&apps=16&id=428&act=ver&idioma=en. Retrieved 2010-04-28. [dead link]
    ^ http://www.utas.edu.au/graduate-research/scholarships/domestic-scholarships/australian-postgraduate-awards
    ^ http://www.phdseek.com/logbook/funding/postgraduate-scholarships-for-study-in-australia/
    ^ ABC (2008). "PhD students living below poverty line". ABC News 2008 (April): 1–2. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/30/2231306.htm.
    ^ "http://www.heimshelp.deewr.gov.au/2_Glossary/R/RESEARCH_TRAINING_SCHEME_RTS.htm. Research Training Scheme". DEEWR. 2011.
    ^ http://www.caul.edu.au/caul-programs/australasian-digital-theses
    ^ "N E T – Inside H E – University Grants Commission". Ugc.ac.in. 1988-07-22. http://www.ugc.ac.in/inside/net.html. Retrieved 2010-02-07.
    ^ Medical Centre of Postgraduate Education in Warsaw,
    ^ Over 600 years of Jagiellonian University in Cracow,
    ^ University of Warsaw ,
    ^ Cracow University of Technology ,
    ^ Warsaw University of Technology,
    ^ Polish Academy of Science ,
    ^ Sejm of the Republic of Poland,
    ^ Exemplary results of a laboratory studies – publication,
    ^ Dommasnes, Liv Helga; Else Johansen Kleppe, Gro Mandt and Jenny-Rita Næss (1998). "Women archeologists in retrospect – the Norwegian case". In Margarita Díaz-Andreu García and Marie Louise Stig Sørensen. Excavating women: a history of women in European archaeology. London: Routledge. ISBN 0415157609. "[...] a Dr. philos. degree, which is the highest academic degree in Norway, roughly equivalent to the German Doktor Habilitation. Traditionally, this degree, which was considered a prerequisite for obtaining top positions within academia, was earned rather late in life, often after one had passed 50 years of age."
    ^ Elisabeth Vestergaard (2006). Den danske forskeruddannelse. Rapporter, evalueringer og anbefalinger 1992 – 2006. Aarhus: Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse
    ^ Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (Spanish)
    ^ Base de Datos TESEO
    ^ "Raíces de las normas y tradiciones del protocolo y ceremonial universitario actual: las universidades del Antiguo Régimen y los actos de colación. Protocolo y Etiqueta" (in (Spanish)). Protocolo.org. http://www.protocolo.org/gest_web/proto_Seccion.pl?rfID=459&arefid=2871&pag=8. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    ^ "Boletín Oficial del Estado. Texto del Documento". Boe.es. 1995-05-24. http://www.boe.es/g/es/bases_datos/doc.php?coleccion=iberlex&id=1995/12243&codmap=. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    ^ "University Rankings". timesonline.co.uk. http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/stug/universityguide.php?sort=RESEARCH. Retrieved 26 April 2011.
    ^ "University of Oxford". Ox.ac.uk. http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/postgraduate_courses/index.html. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    ^ FCO Counter terrorism & weapons proliferation staff: Advice for PHD/doctoral level students applying for an ATAS certificate. Retrieved 16 September 2008.
    ^ a b Postgrad checks worry scientists BBC News, 12 March 2007
    ^ Arts and Humanities Research Council[dead link]
    ^ "University of Warwick". Warwick.ac.uk. http://www.warwick.ac.uk/go/moac. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    ^ Bray, M.; Kwok, P. (2003). "Demand for private supplementary tutoring: Conceptual considerations, and socio-economic patterns in Hong Kong". Economics of Education Review 22 (6): 611–620. doi:10.1016/S0272-7757(03)00032-3. edit
    ^ "ESRC Society Today". ESRC Society Today. http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/res_grant_linked_studentships_tcm6-12550.pdf. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    ^ "Professional Doctorate". http://www.professionaldoctorates.com/explained.asp. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    ^ Listing of Research I Universities, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching – 282 is the sum of all three categories of doctoral universities.
    ^ "Wharton Doctoral Programs: Application Requirements". Wharton.upenn.edu. 2009-12-15. http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/doctoral/admissions/apply/requirements.cfm#scores. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    ^ Columbia University in the City of New York[dead link]
    ^ "Research Doctorate Programmes". US Department of Education. 2006-06-18. http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-research-doctorate.html.
    ^ In humanities, ten years may not be enough to get a PhD, "The Chronicle of Higher Education" July 27, 2007
    ^ "Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.)". Columbia.edu. 1999-02-22. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsas/rules/chapter-7/pages/deg-req/sec/mphil.html. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    ^ "Policies and Regulations". Yale.edu. http://www.yale.edu/bulletin/html2003/grad/policies.html. Retrieved 2010-04-28.
    [edit] ReferencesDelamont, S., Atkinson, P. & Parry, O. (1997). Supervising the Ph.D.: A guide to success. Buckingham: Open University Press. ISBN 0-335-19516-4
    Dinham, S. & Scott, C. (2001). The experience of the results of disseminating the results of doctoral research. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 25 (1) 45–55. ISSN: 1469-9486
    Drury, V., Francis, K., & Chapman, Y. (2006). Walking the void – being a rural PhD student. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 14, p233.
    MacGillivray, Alex; Potts, Gareth; Raymond, Polly. Secrets of Their Success (London: New Economics Foundation, 2002).
    Phillips, E. & Pugh, D.S. (1987). How to get a PhD : managing the peaks and troughs of research / Estelle M. Phillips and D.S. Pugh. Milton Keynes: Open University Press ISBN 0-335-15537-5
    Simpson, Renate. How the PhD came to Britain: A century of struggle for postgraduate education, Society for Research into Higher Education, Guildford (1983).
    Wellington, J. Bathmaker, A._M., Hunt, C., McCullough, G. & Sikes, P. (2005). Succeeding with your doctorate. London: Sage. ISBN 1-4129-0116-2
    Wilkinson, D. (2005) The essential guide to postgraduate study. London : SAGE ISBN 1-4129-0062-X (hbk.)
    Wisker, G. (2005) The Good Supervisor: Supervising Postgraduate and Undergraduate Research for Doctoral Theses and Dissertations. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1-4039-0395-6.


    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 7483
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:46 pm

    As I try to go underground (in more ways than one!), please continue to study the words "Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom United States of the Solar System" as a group, and as individual words. Think about this from every conceivable angle, and contemplate every possibility, probability, and eventuality. This is more of a monumental task than a casual observer might delude themselves into believing. Consider the psychological, ethical, religious, and political implications and ramifications. This could (and should) be the subject of thousands of doctoral dissertations. Think of these words being at the center of ivy-league university programs in Solar System Studies and Governance. Please review this entire thread, including all of the books mentioned and videos linked. Please do not disregard this thread, or the subject upon which it is based. I don't have a problem with idealistic conceptions of God and Theocracy - but I am profoundly troubled by the history of theology and theocracy - as well as by the idiotic religious expressions in modernity. We should know better by now. We seem to have a lot of minor gods and goddesses flying around the solar system in ufo-asteroids, pretending to be Major Gods and Goddesses. Indeed, using God's Name in Vain. I seek a constructive integration of democracy and theocracy - based upon RESPONSIBILITY. If only I could learn to be responsible.

    Here are the links to my threads on AV1 and MOA. I included them here because they are really an ongoing research project. I'm trying to change myself - and I am trying to encourage others to think in unconventional yet productive ways. This is a unique approach - which may make it of some value to someone somewhere or somewhen. This thread is an experiment (aren't they all?)...which includes mostly threads based on videos...or threads which contain many video links...which I have started. I'm not particularly bright or noteworthy...but the videos which I have viewed...especially when viewed as a group...are earth shattering to me. The threads are a healthy mixture of problems and solutions. If you have the time...which is doubtful...please look at all of these threads...and look for commonalities. There is a bit of a theological slant...but certainly not an orthodox or Bible thumping slant. Prepare to be shocked...to cry...to get mad...to be enlightened...and to experience the Eureka Phenomenon!

    I would love to read a twenty page critique of all of these threads - written by a Jesuit or a CIA analyst - complete with a psychological evaluation, etc. I'm very serious. I don't need to be right. I just don't feel as though anyone has seriously considered these threads. They were designed to make people think - and then to arrive at their own conclusions - but I don't think that happened at all. I honestly feel as though Gabriel, Michael, Lucifer, and a couple of alphabet agents and Jesuits are the only ones who looked at this material with a penetrating gaze. Even if I was very close to the mark - I wasn't a threat (I didn't try to be) - because no one seemed to pay much attention to any of it. I had hoped for some very detailed and passionate debating. The 'Amen Ra' thread seemed to generate the most interest (18,067 views and counting) - but I have no idea what the reactions were and are now that AV1 is closed to posting. I feel very empty and lost in all of this. I feel as though I wasted my time and energy - accomplishing nothing. I am making a renewed call for help - into the vast regions of space and cyberspace - for intelligent life-forms to seriously look at this material as a group - and tell me what you think - positive or negative. Where are the scholars? Is there any intelligent life out there that isn't so high and mighty that they can't take a few hours to make a proper evaluation of all of this? Come down out of your ivory tower - I dare you! The water's warm. Come-on in! I'm waiting - but I'm not holding my breath. You important people with your degrees and badges have more important things to do - don't you? Like getting us into even more trouble than we're already in? Don't take what I just said too seriously. I am impatient and frustrated - and I'm simply taking my dissatisfaction with life out on those who don't deserve it. Life isn't fair - is it? At this point, I seem to know less than when I started this quest.

    Consider Teutonic Zionism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfMwK0kCccI Also, consider reading 'Hitler's Pope'. Supposedly there is an SS/Jesuit connection. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COYHwApueFE I don't take sides in any of this. I just want to defuse a very dangerous situation, but I don't know how. I have no idea how deep and dark all of this really is. How is one to know who the good guys and bad guys really are? Does it take a bad guy to overthrow a bad guy? Can a truly good guy really accomplish much of anything in this sick and stupid world??? Are the Old and New World Orders really two sides of the same coin, or are they really in genuine conflict with each other? I keep sensing that we are dealing with Bad Guys vs Bad Guys - with the Good Guys not having a clue about what's REALLY going on. I think that a deep and fair study of the Vatican and the Nazis is essential to really understanding what has and is going on in our world. Is there both a good and a bad side to the Vatican and the Nazi phenomenon? I am proceeding on the theory that just about everyone and everything are mixtures of good and evil. I try to avoid 'all or nothing' thinking. I also think that Gizeh Intelligence has a lot to do with all of this, but very little seems to be known about them, and I'm sure they'd like it to stay that way. If all of the crap got exposed, and all of the bad guys and gals got kicked out of the solar system - would we be capable of handling the uncovered mess? I really wonder. We might get ourselves into an even worse situation. It's almost as if the present diabolical state of affairs needs to somehow be reformed in an evolutionary manner. But once again, I don't have a clue how to do this. I almost seem to be trying to positively reinforce the best of the Vatican and the Nazi phenomenon - while exposing and attacking the worst aspects. But this approach ends up making everyone angry - right? That's why I pretty much stick to myself, and why I'm trying desperately to stop posting on the internet. I'd like to start extricating myself from some of the lists I'm undoubtedly on. What would the Masonic Teutonic Zionist Nazi Martian Catholic Dracs on Phobos say??? "orthodoxymoron REALLY needs to shut-up"?

    On the political front, internet, PBS, town-hall, and bumper-sticker campaigning should be sufficient to properly inform the general public. I HATE roadside political signs. Perhaps senatorial and congressional voting should be supplemented with internet voting by the public. The elected representatives and the public might have 50% of the votes each. The public overwhelmingly did not want the damn bankster-bailout - but guess what we got??

    I'm still a bit puzzled regarding the definition of 'regressive'. Perhaps a lot of us might be 'regressive' if we were in the 'regressives' situation. I am very frightened that even if my unproven ideas were accepted, that the human race might screw things up even worse than the 'regressives'. I support a representative republic, but are we really ready to pull this off on a global or solar system level - especially if we were dealing with other than human beings who would undoubtedly want a piece of the pie? If Greys and Dracs really exist - they probably want us out - and most of the human race would probably want them out - especially if we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of years of star wars. I keep wondering if the hypothetical Greys and Dracs would prefer to live in subsurface bases and cities throughout the solar system, or if they really want our skyscrapers and waterfront homes? Would a significant percentage of the human population choose to live in subsurface bases and cities throughout the solar system, if given the opportunity to do so? I think it would be really cool, especially if space travel, surface exploration, maglev trains, and coed saunas were part of the deal.

    I have come to the sickening conclusion that just about everyone is capable of reprehensible corruption and horrific brutality. Put a pure and noble soul in a certain context, and they might do just about anything. I guess this is why I like the checks and balances of a United States of the Solar System. But this is just a pipe-dream. It would sure help to know what's REALLY going on. I continue to wish for everything to work out well for all concerned. Hope springs eternal. I will continue to wish the best for everyone as I lurk in the shadows. I might reemerge in a couple of months - a couple of years - or never. I sought answers and happiness - but I have mostly uncovered problems and sadness. I hurt before - but now the pain is nearly unbearable. I might sound self-centered, and I probably am, but all of these threads have, in a sense, been diaries of feeling, reflection, and speculation. If I ever do reemerge, I think I will be a lot more polished and sanitized, which might be a good or a bad thing, depending on your point of view. I sense that I have been a great disappointment. Perhaps this is because I am greatly disappointed. Perhaps my silence and absence will make everyone happy. I'm not going away mad. I'm just going away.

    Take all of these threads with a sea of salt, and get informed without getting mad. Just consider them carefully, and then move on. I try to listen to a wide variety of sources in a rather non-committal manner. Neutrality might be impossible, but I'm trying to be as neutral as possible. I can see myself partnering with virtually all races and members of nearly all organizations - AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT AS CORRUPT AS HELL. There are good individuals EVERYWHERE. Unfortunately, I really am quite naive. I really am a completely ignorant fool when it comes to how the world and solar system really works. I would love to be involved in solar system governance, but it would take me several lifetimes to really get up to speed, and I'm not joking. I am sort of burned-out, and I probably seem to lack backbone, in my efforts to be neutral. I'm not exactly a 'shouting in a megaphone and running in the streets' type of person. I don't really know much of anything for certain. I tend to think that whoever REALLY runs the solar system is into EVERYTHING. So, it might be futile to blame any particular group for most of the world's problems. Perhaps a lot of the individuals and groups we love to hate - really hate carrying out the orders they are given. I think this thing is incredibly complex and messy. We might be dealing with a lot of very ancient baggage, which might include other solar systems, archangels, gods, goddesses, star wars, and who knows who or what? I think Bill Cooper had the right idea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fHmWcRZ72A I listen to Latin Masses as I study the Jesuits. I think I could probably get along quite well with most of them, including the Black Pope aka Jesuit General. I think I could get along very well with top-level Israelis. Please keep an open mind in all of this controversial madness.

    I keep flying blind, and I keep feeling as though I am walking through a minefield as I keep speculating. This all seems to be a most dangerous and deceptive game. I think that my posting has angered both the good and evil guys and gals. I guess I'm sort of a rebel against everyone at this point. I feel as though I might be very comfortable in a very holy heaven, surrounded by the most evolved beings in the universe. OR, I think I could hang-out with Bartleby and Loki (from Dogma) and get along with them. I can do the 'holier than thou' routine, and I can do the 'this is all a bunch of bs' routine as well. I would really like to see a highly refined integration of politics and religion, but I don't have a clue how to make it happen. If I travelled between the Vatican, the City of London, the United Nations, and Washington D.C. on a daily basis, I might be able to work something out over a few decades. But presently, I am completely disillusioned with politics and religion. I think humanity is being taken advantage of, but perhaps to some extent, we deserve it. Everything important continues to be a great, big, deceptive mystery. I've sort of had it. I really think I need to just shut-up and research. I'm enjoying reading 'Hitler's Pope'. Who knows? I might've been Eugenio Pacelli, so I probably shouldn't throw stones. I seem to be strangely interested in Pope Pius XII, the Vatican, the Nazi Party, and Gizeh Intelligence. I keep wondering why things had to get so insane and violent. I mostly want the violence and war to go bye-bye. I think I might be able to live with a litte bit of corruption - but not too much. I need to stop. Thank-you for having this website. It's really shown me how little I really know about a lot of things. I need to keep reading the 'Holy Tablets'. Also, Biblical Egyptology is a VERY interesting area of research. Anyway, I am going to try to not post for a while. It's liberating to just research, and not have to attempt to convince anyone of anything. Who says that no man is an island, and that no man stands alone? Here I stand. I can do no other. You won't have orthodoxymoron to ignore anymore...

    sunny Namaste and Have a Nice Day jocolor

    1. God, Jesus, Satan, Lucifer, et al: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15014&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    2. Secrets of the Vatican: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13767&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    3. Tell Me Who I Am: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14402&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    4. Waco Revisited: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15185&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    5. Al Bielek - Philadelphia Experiment and Montauk Project: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14348&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    6. Xcon Potpurri: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14241&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    7. Kevin Trudeau with Alex Jones - 5-26-09: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14241&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    8. Red Letter Church: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13495&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    9. Reptilians and Mind Control: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13373&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    10. 'V' Movie(Series) Revisited: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13202&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    11. Jesus: The Last Pharaoh?: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13776&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    12. Important Mass Manipulation Video: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12702&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    13. 1990's Prophets: Vindicated or Debunked?: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11000&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    14. Alien Advice: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10158&highlight=orthodoxymoron

    15. Cool Music Videos: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15470&highlight=cool+music+videos

    16. NASA: Triumph and Tragedy: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15618&highlight=tragedy+triumph

    17. United Nations Charter: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15552&highlight=Shadow+moon

    18. In the Shadow of the Moon: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15635&highlight=Shadow+moon

    19. TWA 800 Revisited: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15187

    20. Unique War Video: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14409

    21. Bilderberg Video: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12970

    22. Dogon Sirius Mystery - C2C: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15731&highlight=dogon

    23. The Point: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=158238#post158238

    24. The Washington Mutual Story: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13996&highlight=washington+mutual+story

    25. Oklahoma City Bombing Revisited: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=158668#post158668

    26. The United States of the Solar System: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15878

    27. What is Giza Intelligence? http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11123&highlight=giza+intelligence

    28. Called to Be Free - a Video: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13882&highlight=worldwide+church

    29. Lucifer: Deity of the Elite: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=163179#post163179

    30. Tesla: Master of Lightning: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16193

    31. Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=165729#post165729

    32. The Dulce Book: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=167075#post167075

    33. New World Order: Devil in the Vatican: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=167745#post167745

    34. The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16609&highlight=lucifer+effect

    35. Enron Video: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=175040#post175040

    36. No End In Sight: Iraq War Documentary: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16897

    37. Ted Gunderson Interviews Chip Tatum (CIA, Drugs, Etc.): http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=177127#post177127

    38. Sirius Issues: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=178234#post178234

    39. Superimposed Parallel Universes: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=178255#post178255

    40. Lawyerese Goes Galactic: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17276&highlight=wall+street+journal

    41. Stargate SG-1: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17834

    42. Amen Ra: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18223

    43. The Dark Side of the Moon Mission: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18273&highlight=moon+video+orthodoxymoron

    44. Open Letter to the Beings of the Universe: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19065&highlight=open+letter+beings+universe

    45. Moonraker: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19284

    46. Who Are Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer? http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19376&highlight=gabriel%2C+michael%2C+lucifer%3F

    47. Krlll: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=238849#post238849

    48. Cartoon Aliens: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20141&highlight=cartoon+aliens

    49. Thuban Thoughts: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20379

    50. Thuban Thoughts II: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20963

    51. Very Cool Short Videos: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20400&highlight=cool+short+videos

    52. Violent Movies, Books, Games, Cartoons, and Toys: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20849

    53. Abortion, Euthanasia, Suicide, and Murder: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20852

    54. Prevention is Central to Healthcare: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21143

    55. I Have a Dream! Free at Last! http://www.projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=261981#post261981

    orthodoxymoron threads from the Mists of Avalon: http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t876-orthodoxymoron-threads?highlight=orthodoxymoron+threads

    1. Who is Lucifer? What are they doing? http://www.themistsofavalon.net/universal-lounge-f8/who-is-lucifer-what-are-they-doing-t841.htm?highlight=lucifer

    2. United Nations + City States + Underground Bases + Secret Space Program = Secret Government? http://www.themistsofavalon.net/universal-lounge-f8/united-nations-city-states-underground-bases-secret-space-program-secret-government-t853.htm?highlight=secret+government

    3. Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom Solar System http://www.themistsofavalon.net/universal-lounge-f8/namaste-constitutional-responsible-freedom-solar-system-t918.htm#16374

    4. Tibet, Kali, and the Trinity Goddess http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1019-tibet-kali-and-the-trinity-goddess?highlight=orthodoxymoron+threads

    5. Three Interesting Ladies http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1347-three-interesting-ladies?highlight=orthodoxymoron+threads

    6. Swiss Politicians to March on Bilderberg to Demand Arrest of Kissinger http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2705-swiss-politicians-to-march-on-bilderberg-to-demand-arrest-of-kissinger

    7. How Should We Then Live? http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2717-how-should-we-then-live

    8. The KGB Psychic Files http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2622-the-kgb-psychic-files

    9. Reptilian Queens http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2639-reptilian-queens

    10. Very Interesting Jordan Maxwell Interview http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2531-very-interesting-jordan-maxwell-interview

    11. The Hidden Story of Jesus http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2618-the-hidden-story-of-jesus

    12. Death and Taxes http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1158-death-and-taxes

    13. 'V' Revisited http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1616-v-revisited

    14. Grace Cathedral http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1327-grace-cathedral

    15. Red Letter Church http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1040-red-letter-church

    16. What is Gizeh Intelligence? http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1348-what-is-gizeh-intelligence

    17. The United Nations and the City States http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1538-the-united-nations-and-the-city-states

    18. Lucifer, Pagan Rome, Alexander the Great, Constantine the Great, and Papal Rome http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1572-lucifer-pagan-rome-alexander-the-great-constantine-the-great-and-papal-rome

    19. Amen Ra, et al http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1116-amen-ra-et-al

    20. The Jesuits http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1407-the-jesuits

    21. Bill Cooper, Commander X, and Branton http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1098-bill-cooper-commander-x-and-branton

    22. St. Ouen and St. Sulpice http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1397-saint-ouen-and-saint-sulpice

    23. Project Isis http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1303-project-isis

    24. Complexity, Technology, Competition, Greed, Power-Hunger, Self-Exaltation, and the Quickening http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1033-complexity-technology-competition-greed-power-hunger-self-exaltation-and-the-quickening?highlight=complexity

    25. Eric Jon Phelps http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2779-eric-jon-phelps

    26. Moral Responsibility http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2806-moral-responsibility#49793

    27. The Holy Tablets http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2867-the-holy-tablets

    28. The University of Solar System Studies and Governance http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2881-the-university-of-solar-system-studies-and-governance

    sunny Namaste and Have a Nice Day jocolor


    So - who is the rightful owner of this solar system? Who is the rightful head of the Christian Church? Who is the rightful head of the Monarchy? Who is the rightful and legitimate head of this solar system? Do we need to make some changes? These changes should be made immediately. You know what I'm talking about - and you know that I know what's really going on. There will be consequences and reprecussions - throughout the whole damn solar system. You had all better get right with your maker - and I'm not bluffing or kidding. GAME OVER.

    Is the above bold paragraph really too bold? It reflects how I really feel, but does it reflect reality? I made it elsewhere in this thread, quite some time ago, and nothing seems to have happened. Should I have expected anything to happen? It would help if I knew more about what is really going on throughout the world, solar system, galaxy, and universe. I know a lot more than I did a couple of years ago, but I still don't know nearly enough. Or, do I know too much? Should someone simply call in a strike on this god-forsaken solar system? Should probation close in 2011? Should the wheat be separated from the tares? Should the righteous be separated from the filthy? Should the Bottomless Pit be utilized? Would a changing of the guard from competent-corruption to incompetent-goodness really just make things worse? Are we really too stupid and unstable to rule ourselves? Must we continue to be ruled by very powerful and evil individuals, as seems to have been the case for thousands of years? Have we contributed to the delinquency of the Queen of Heaven and the God of This World - by being Completely Ignorant and Irresponsible Fools?

    Are the best and brightest Roman Catholics working in the Vatican? Are the best and brightest Americans working in Washington DC? Are the best and the brightest of Great Britan and Europe working in the City of London? Are the best and brightest people of the world working at the United Nations? Are the people in the Vatican, Washington DC, the City of London, and the United Nations really running the world - or are they simply employees or minions of a Secret Government and a Queen of Heaven / God of This World? I would really like to know the innermost thoughts of the 10,000 best and brightest Human Beings - regarding Life, the Universe, and Solar System Governance. Would a Vatican-Based Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom United States of the Solar System result in the 10,000 best and brightest Human Beings running the Solar System?

    My idealistic bottom-line is RESPONSIBILITY IN EVERYTHING. My pragmatic bottom-line is GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT. TELL THEM WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR. COMPETE WITHOUT CEASING WITH POSITIVE RESPONSE ABILITY. Perhaps my idealism needs to mate with my pragmatism. Perhaps I need to infiltrate and subvert the Old and New World Orders with Responsibility to produce the New Solar System aka the United States of the Solar System. Perhaps I need to aspire to become a kinder and gentler version of the Queen of Heaven and the God of This World. Think long and hard about the contents of this post (including all linked threads and materials). That's exactly what I will be doing privately. I'm not going to whine, whimper, and beg anymore. Godspeed.

    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 7483
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:59 pm

    Here is a rather scholarly article on Moral Responsibility, taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This is the sort of thing which might be studied in a university program devoted to Solar System Studies and Governance, as a prerequisite to being a Representative of the United States of the Solar System. Enjoy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-responsibility/ I'm also reading a book titled 'Free to be Responsible' by Ben Thomson Cowles, Ph.D. I'm trying to transition from being a whining speculator to being a erudite scholar. Wish me luck, as I stop posting and start studying. I hope that some of you are joining me in this pursuit. Again, the tempest in a teapot, which I have been in the middle of, is just scratching the surface. Really.

    Moral Responsibility

    First published Sat Jan 6, 2001; substantive revision Wed Nov 18, 2009

    When a person performs or fails to perform a morally significant action, we sometimes think that a particular kind of response is warranted. Praise and blame are perhaps the most obvious forms this reaction might take. For example, one who encounters a car accident may be regarded as worthy of praise for having saved a child from inside the burning car, or alternatively, one may be regarded as worthy of blame for not having used one's mobile phone to call for help. To regard such agents as worthy of one of these reactions is to ascribe moral responsibility to them on the basis of what they have done or left undone. (These are examples of other-directed ascriptions of responsibility. The reaction might also be self-directed, e.g., one can recognize oneself to be blameworthy). Thus, to be morally responsible for something, say an action, is to be worthy of a particular kind of reaction—praise, blame, or something akin to these—for having performed it.[1]

    Though further elaboration and qualification of the above characterization of moral responsibility is called for and will be provided below, this is enough to distinguish concern about this form of responsibility from some others commonly referred to through use of the terms ‘responsibility’ or ‘responsible.’ To illustrate, we might say that higher than normal rainfall in the spring is responsible for an increase in the amount of vegetation or that it is the judge's responsibility to give instructions to the jury before they begin deliberating. In the first case, we mean to identify a causal connection between the earlier amount of rain and the later increased vegetation. In the second, we mean to say that when one assumes the role of judge, certain duties, or obligations, follow. Although these concepts are connected with the concept of moral responsibility discussed here, they are not the same, for in neither case are we directly concerned about whether it would be appropriate to react to some candidate (here, the rainfall or a particular judge) with something like praise or blame.[2]

    Philosophical reflection on moral responsibility has a long history. One reason for this persistent interest is the way the topic seems connected with a widely shared conception of ourselves as members of an importantly distinct class of individuals—call them ‘persons.’[3] Persons are thought to be qualitatively different from other known living individuals, despite their numerous similarities. Many have held that one distinct feature of persons is their status as morally responsible agents, a status resting—some have proposed—on a special kind of control that only they can exercise. Many who view persons in this way have wondered whether their special status is threatened if certain other claims about our universe are true. For example, can a person be morally responsible for her behavior if that behavior can be explained solely by reference to physical states of the universe and the laws governing changes in those physical states, or solely by reference to the existence of a sovereign God who guides the world along a divinely ordained path? It is concerns like these that have often motivated individuals to theorize about moral responsibility.

    A comprehensive theory of moral responsibility would elucidate the following: (1) the concept, or idea, of moral responsibility itself; (2) the criteria for being a moral agent, i.e., one who qualifies generally as an agent open to responsibility ascriptions (e.g., only beings possessing the general capacity to evaluate reasons for acting can be moral agents); (3) the conditions under which the concept of moral responsibility is properly applied, i.e., those conditions under which a moral agent is responsible for a particular something (e.g., a moral agent can be responsible for an action she has performed only if she performed it freely, where acting freely entails the ability to have done otherwise at the time of action); and finally 4) possible objects of responsibility ascriptions (e.g., actions, omissions, consequences, character traits, etc.). Although each of these will be touched upon in the discussion below (see, e.g., the brief sketch of Aristotle's account in the next section), the primary focus of this entry is on the first component—i.e., the concept of moral responsibility. The section immediately following this introduction is a discussion of the origin and history of Western reflection on moral responsibility. This is followed by an overview of recent work on the concept of moral responsibility. For further discussion of issues associated with moral responsibility, see the related entries below.

    1. Some Historical Background
    2. Recent Work on the Concept of Responsibility
    2.1 Strawson and the Reactive Attitudes
    2.2 Developments After Strawson
    Bibliography
    Other Internet Resources
    Related Entries

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Some Historical Background

    What follows in this section is a brief outline of the origins and trajectory of reflection on moral responsibility in the Western philosophical tradition. Against this background, a distinction will be drawn between two conceptions of moral responsibility that have exerted considerable influence on subsequent thinkers.

    An understanding of the concept of moral responsibility and its application is present implicitly in some of the earliest surviving Greek texts, i.e., the Homeric epics (circa 8th century BCE but no doubt informed by a much earlier oral tradition).[4] In these texts, both human and superhuman agents are often regarded as fair targets of praise and blame on the basis of how they have behaved, and at other times, an agent's behavior is excused because of the presence of some factor that has undermined his/her control (Irwin 1999: 225). Reflection on these factors gave rise to fatalism—the view that one's future or some aspect of it is predetermined, e.g., by the gods, or the stars, or simply some facts about truth and time—in such a way as to make one's particular deliberations, choices and actions irrelevant to whether that particular future is realized (recall, e.g., the plight of Oedipus). If some particular outcome is fated, then it seems that the agent concerned could not be morally responsible for that outcome. Likewise, if fatalism were true with respect to all human futures, then it would seem that no human agent could be morally responsible for anything. Though this brand of fatalism has sometimes exerted significant historical influence, most philosophers have rejected it on the grounds that there is no good reason to think that our futures are fated in the sense that they will unfold no matter what particular deliberations we engage in, choices we make, or actions we perform.

    Aristotle (384–323 BCE) seems to have been the first to construct explicitly a theory of moral responsibility.[5] In the course of discussing human virtues and their corresponding vices, Aristotle pauses in Nicomachean Ethics III.1–5 to explore their underpinnings. He begins with a brief statement of the concept of moral responsibility—that it is sometimes appropriate to respond to an agent with praise or blame on the basis of her actions and/or dispositional traits of character (1109b30–35). A bit later, he clarifies that only a certain kind of agent qualifies as a moral agent and is thus properly subject to ascriptions of responsibility, namely, one who possess a capacity for decision. For Aristotle, a decision is a particular kind of desire resulting from deliberation, one that expresses the agent's conception of what is good (1111b5-1113b3). The remainder of Aristotle's discussion is devoted to spelling out the conditions under which it is appropriate to hold a moral agent blameworthy or praiseworthy for some particular action or trait. His general proposal is that one is an apt candidate for praise or blame if and only if the action and/or disposition is voluntary. According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has two distinctive features. First, there is a control condition: the action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That is, it must be up to the agent whether to perform that action or possess the trait—it cannot be compelled externally. Second, Aristotle proposes an epistemic condition: the agent must be aware of what it is she is doing or bringing about (1110a-1111b4).[6]

    There is an instructive ambiguity in Aristotle's account of responsibility, an ambiguity that has led to competing interpretations of his view. Aristotle aims to identify the conditions under which it is appropriate to praise or blame an agent, but it is not entirely clear how to understand the pivotal notion of appropriateness in his conception of responsibility. There are at least two possibilities: a) praise or blame is appropriate in the sense that the agent deserves such a response, given his behavior and/or traits of character; or b) praise or blame is appropriate in the sense that such a reaction is likely to bring about a desired consequence, namely an improvement in the agent's behavior and/or character. These two possibilities may be characterized in terms of two competing interpretations of the concept of moral responsibility: 1) the merit-based view, according to which praise or blame would be an appropriate reaction toward the candidate if and only if she merits—in the sense of ‘deserves’—such a reaction; vs. 2) the consequentialist view, according to which praise or blame would be appropriate if and only if a reaction of this sort would likely lead to a desired change in the agent and/or her behavior.[7]

    Scholars disagree about which of the above views Aristotle endorsed, but the importance of distinguishing between them grew as philosophers began to focus on a newly conceived threat to moral responsibility. While Aristotle argued against a version of fatalism (On Interpretation, ch. 9), he may not have recognized the difference between it and the related possible threat of causal determinism (contra Sorabji). Causal determinism is the view that everything that happens or exists is caused by sufficient antecedent conditions, making it impossible for anything to happen or be other than it does or is. One variety of causal determinism, scientific determinism, identifies the relevant antecedent conditions as a combination of prior states of the universe and the laws of nature. Another, theological determinism, identifies those conditions as being the nature and will of God. It seems likely that theological determinism evolved out of the shift, both in Greek religion and in Ancient Mesopotamian religions, from polytheism to belief in one sovereign God, or at least one god who reigned over all others. The doctrine of scientific determinism can be traced back as far as the Presocratic Atomists (5th cent. BCE), but the difference between it and the earlier fatalistic view seems not to be clearly recognized until the development of Stoic philosophy (3rd. cent. BCE). Though fatalism, like causal determinism, might seem to threaten moral responsibility by threatening an agent's control, the two differ on the significance of human deliberation, choice, and action. If fatalism is true, then human deliberation, choice, and action are completely otiose, for what is fated will transpire no matter what one chooses to do. According to causal determinism, however, one's deliberations, choices, and actions will often be necessary links in the causal chain that brings something about. In other words, even though our deliberations, choices, and actions are themselves determined like everything else, it is still the case, according to causal determinism, that the occurrence or existence of yet other things depends upon our deliberating, choosing and acting in a certain way (Irwin 1999: 243–249; Meyer 1998: 225-227; and Pereboom 1997: ch. 2).

    Since the Stoics, the thesis of causal determinism and its ramifications, if true, have taken center stage in theorizing about moral responsibility. During the Medieval period, especially in the work of Augustine (354–430) and Aquinas (1225-1274), reflection on freedom and responsibility was often generated by questions concerning versions of theological determinism, including most prominently: a) Does God's sovereignty entail that God is responsible for evil?; and b) Does God's foreknowledge entail that we are not free and morally responsible since it would seem that we cannot do anything other than what God foreknows we will do? During the Modern period, there was renewed interest in scientific determinism—a change attributable to the development of increasingly sophisticated mechanistic models of the universe culminating in the success of Newtonian physics. The possibility of giving a comprehensive explanation of every aspect of the universe—including human action—in terms of physical causes now seemed much more plausible. Many thought that persons could not be free and morally responsible if such an explanation of human action were possible. Others argued that freedom and responsibility would not be threatened should scientific determinism be true. In keeping with this focus on the ramifications of causal determinism for moral responsibility, thinkers may be classified as being one of two types: 1) an incompatibilist about causal determinism and moral responsibility—one who maintains that if causal determinism is true, then there is nothing for which one can be morally responsible; or 2) a compatibilist—one who holds that a person can be morally responsible for some things, even if both who she is and what she does is causally determined.[8] In Ancient Greece, these positions were exemplified in the thought of Epicurus (341–270 BCE) and the Stoics, respectively.

    Above, an ambiguity in Aristotle's conception of moral responsibility was highlighted—that it was not clear whether he endorsed a merit-based vs. a consequentialist conception of moral responsibility. The history of reflection on moral responsibility demonstrates that how one interprets the concept of moral responsibility strongly influences one's overall account of moral responsibility. For example, those who accept the merit-based conception of moral responsibility have tended to be incompatibilists. That is, most have thought that if an agent were to genuinely merit praise or blame for something, then he would need to exercise a special form of control over that thing (e.g., the ability at the time of action to both perform or not perform the action) that is incompatible with one's being causally determined. In addition to Epicurus, we can cite early Augustine, Thomas Reid (1710–1796), and Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) as historical examples here. Those accepting the consequentialist conception of moral responsibility, on the other hand, have traditionally contended that determinism poses no threat to moral responsibility since praising and blaming could still be an effective means of influencing another's behavior, even in a deterministic world. Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), David Hume (1711–1776), and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) are, along with the Stoics, representatives of this view. This general trend of linking the consequentialist conception of moral responsibility with compatibilism about causal determinism and moral responsibility and the merit-based conception with incompatibilism continued to persist through the first half of the twentieth century.

    2. Recent Work on the Concept of Responsibility

    The issue of how best to understand the concept of moral responsibility is important, for it can strongly influence one's view of what, if any, philosophical problems might be associated with the notion, and further, if there are problems, what might count as a solution. As discussed above, philosophical reflection on moral responsibility has historically relied upon one of two broad interpretations of the concept: 1) the merit-based view, according to which praise or blame would be an appropriate reaction toward the candidate if and only if she merits—in the sense of ‘deserves’—such a reaction; or 2) the consequentialist view, according to which praise or blame would be appropriate if and only if a reaction of this sort would likely lead to a desired change in the agent and/or her behavior. Though versions of the consequentialist view have continued to garner support (Smart; Frankena 1963: ch. 4; Schlick 1966; Brandt 1992; Dennett 1984: ch. 7; and Kupperman 1991: ch. 3), work in the last 50 years on the concept of moral responsibility has increasingly focused on: a) offering alternative versions of the merit-based view; and b) questioning the assumption that there is a single unified concept of moral responsibility.

    Increased attention focusing on the stance of regarding and holding persons morally responsible has generated much of the recent work on the concept of moral responsibility. All theorists have recognized features of this practice—inner attitudes and emotions, their outward expression in censure or praise, and the imposition of corresponding sanctions or rewards. However, most understood the inner attitudes and emotions involved to rest on a more fundamental theoretical judgment about the agent's being responsible. In other words, it was typically assumed that blame and praise depended upon a judgment, or belief (pre-reflective in most cases), that the agent in question had satisfied the objective conditions on being responsible. These judgments were presumed to be independent of the inner attitudinal/emotive states involved in holding responsible in the sense that reaching such judgments and evaluating them required no essential reference to the attitudes and emotions of the one making the judgment. For the holder of the consequentialist view, this is a judgment that the agent exercised a form of control that could be influenced through outward expressions of praise and blame in order to curb or promote certain behaviors. For those holding the merit view, it is a judgment that the agent has exercised the requisite form of metaphysical control, e.g., that she could have done otherwise at the time of action (Watson 1987: 258).

    If holding responsible is best understood as resting on an independent judgment about being responsible, then it is legitimate to inquire whether such underlying judgments and their associated outward expressions can be justified, as a whole, in the face of our best current understanding of the world, e.g., in the face of evidence that our world is possibly deterministic. According to incompatibilists, a judgment that someone is morally responsible could never be true if the world were deterministic; thus praising and blaming in the merit-based sense would be beside the point. Compatibilists, on the other hand, contend that the truth of determinism would not undermine the relevant underlying judgments concerning the efficacy of praising and blaming practices, thereby leaving the rationale of such practices intact.

    2.1 Strawson and the Reactive Attitudes

    In his landmark essay, ‘Freedom and Resentment,’ P. F. Strawson (1962) sets out to adjudicate the dispute between those compatibilists who hold a consequentialist view of responsibility and those incompatibilists who hold the merit-based view.[9] Both are wrong, Strawson believes, because they distort the concept of moral responsibility by sharing the prevailing assumption sketched above — the assumption that holding persons responsible rests upon a theoretical judgment of their being responsible. According to Strawson, the attitudes expressed in holding persons morally responsible are varieties of a wide range of attitudes deriving from our participation in personal relationships, e.g., resentment, indignation, hurt feelings, anger, gratitude, reciprocal love, and forgiveness. The function of these attitudes is to express “…how much we actually mind, how much it matters to us, whether the actions of other people—and particularly some other people—reflect attitudes towards us of good will, affection, or esteem on the one hand or contempt, indifference, or malevolence on the other.” (p. 5, author's emphasis) These attitudes are thus participant reactive attitudes, because they are: a) natural attitudinal reactions to the perception of another's good will, ill will, or indifference (pp. 4–6), and b) expressed from the stance of one who is immersed in interpersonal relationships and who regards the candidate held responsible as a participant in such relationships as well (p. 10).[10]

    The reactive attitudes can be suspended or modified in at least two kinds of circumstances, corresponding to the two features just mentioned. In the first, one might conclude that, contrary to first appearances, the candidate did not violate the demand for a reasonable degree of good will. For example, a person's behavior may be excused when one determines that it was an accident, or one may determine that the behavior was justified, say, in the case of an emergency when some greater good is being pursued. In the second kind of circumstance, one may abandon the participant perspective in relation to the candidate. In these cases, one adopts the objective standpoint, one from which one ceases to regard the individual as capable of participating in genuine personal relations (either for some limited time or permanently). Instead, one regards the individual as psychologically/morally abnormal or undeveloped and thereby a candidate, not for the full range of reactive attitudes, but primarily for those objective attitudes associated with treatment or simply instrumental control. Such individuals lie, in some sense or to some varying extent, outside the boundaries of the moral community. For example, we may regard a very young child as initially exempt from the reactive attitudes (but increasingly less so in cases of normal development) or adopt the objective standpoint in relation to an individual we determine to be suffering from severe mental illness (P. F. Strawson 1962: 6–10; Bennett: 40; Watson 1987: 259–260; R. Jay Wallace: chs. 5-6).

    The central criticism Strawson directs at both consequentialist and traditional merit views is that both have over-intellectualized the issue of moral responsibility—a criticism with which many subsequent thinkers have wrestled.[11] The charge of over intellectualization stems from the traditional tendency to presume that the rationality of holding a person responsible depends upon a judgment that the person in question has satisfied some set of objective requirements on being responsible (conditions on efficacy or metaphysical freedom) and that these requirements themselves are justifiable. Strawson, by contrast, maintains that the reactive attitudes are a natural expression of an essential feature of our form of life, in particular, the interpersonal nature of our way of life. The practice, then, of holding responsible—embedded as it is in our way of life—“neither calls for nor permits, an external ‘rational’ justification” (p. 23). Though judgments about the appropriateness of particular responses may arise (i.e., answers to questions like: Was the candidate's behavior really an expression of ill will?; or Is the candidate involved a genuine participant in the moral sphere of human relations?), these judgments are based on principles internal to the practice. That is, their justification refers back to an account of the reactive attitudes and their role in personal relationships, not to some independent theoretical account of the conditions on being responsible.

    Given the above, Strawson contends that it is pointless to ask whether the practice of holding responsible can be rationally justified if determinism is true. This is either because it is not psychologically possible to divest ourselves of these reactions and so continually inhabit the objective standpoint, or even if that were possible, because it is not clear that rationality could ever demand that we give up the reactive attitudes, given the loss in quality of life should we do so. In sum, Strawson attempts to turn the traditional debate on its head, for now judgments about being responsible are understood in relation to the role reactive attitudes play in the practice of holding responsible, rather than the other way around. Whereas judgments are true or false and thereby can generate the need for justification, the desire for good will and those attitudes generated by it possess no truth value themselves, thereby eliminating any need for an external justification (Magill 1887: 21; Double 1996b: 848).

    Strawson's concept of moral responsibility yields a compatibilist account of being responsible but one that departs significantly from earlier such accounts in two respects. First, Strawson's is a compatibilist view by default only. That is, on Strawson's view, the problem of determinism and freedom/responsibility is not so much resolved by showing that the objective conditions on being responsible are consistent with one's being determined but rather dissolved by showing that the practice of holding people responsible relies on no such conditions and therefore needs no external justification in the face of determinism. Second, Strawson's is a merit-based form of compatibilism. That is, unlike most former consequentialist forms of compatibilism, it helps to explain why we feel that some agents deserve our censure or merit our praise. They do so because they have violated, met, or exceeded our demand for a reasonable degree of good will.

    2.2 Developments After Strawson

    Most agree that Strawson's discussion of the reactive attitudes is a valuable contribution to our understanding of the practice of holding responsible, but many have taken issue with his contentions about the insular nature of that practice, namely that a) since propriety judgments about the reactive attitudes are strictly internal to the practice (i.e., being responsible is defined in relation to the practice of holding responsible), their justification cannot be considered from a standpoint outside that practice; and b) since the reactive attitudes are natural responses deriving from our psychological constitution, they cannot be dislodged by theoretical considerations. Responding to the first of these, some have argued that it does seem possible to critique existing practices of holding responsible from standpoints outside them. For example, one might judge that either one's own existing community practice or some other community's practice of holding responsible ought to be modified (Fischer and Ravizza 1993: 18; Ekstrom: 148–149). If such evaluations are legitimate, then, contrary to what Strawson suggested, it seems that an existing practice can be questioned from a standpoint external to it. In other words, being responsible cannot be explicated strictly in terms of an existing practice of holding responsible. This then, would suggest a possible role to be played by independent theoretical conditions on being responsible, conditions which could prove to be compatibilist or incompatibilist in nature.

    Objecting to the second of Strawson's anti-theory contentions, some have argued that incompatibilist intuitions are embedded in the reactive attitudes themselves so that these attitudes cannot persist unless some justification can be given of them, or more weakly, that they cannot but be disturbed if something like determinism is true. Here, cases are often cited where negative reactive attitudes seem to be dispelled or mitigated upon learning that an agent's past includes severe deprivation and/or abuse. There is a strong pull to think that our reactive attitudes are altered in such cases because we perceive such a background to be deterministic. If this is the proper interpretation of the phenomenon, then it is evidence that theoretical considerations, like the truth of determinism, could in fact dislodge the reactive attitudes (Nagel: 125; Kane: 84–89; Galen Strawson 1986: 88; Honderich 1988: vol. 2, ch. 1; and replies by Watson 1987: 279–286 and 1996: 240; and McKenna 1998).

    Versions of Strawson's view continue to be very ably defended, and shortly, more will be said about the significant way in which his work continues to shape contemporary discussion of the concept of responsibility. However, many have taken objections of the above sort to be decisive in undermining the most radical of Strawson's anti-theory claims. Incompatibilists, in particular, seem largely unpersuaded and so have continued to assume a more or less traditional merit-based conception of moral responsibility as the basis for their theorizing. A number of compatibilists also remain unconvinced that Strawson has successfully shown independent theoretical considerations to be irrelevant to ascriptions of responsibility. It is noteworthy that some of these have accorded the reactive attitudes a central role in their discussions of the concept of responsibility. The result has been new merit-based versions of compatibilism (see e.g., Fischer & Ravizza 1998).

    It is likely that Strawson and others writing on moral responsibility have traditionally seen themselves as attempting to articulate an account of responsible agency that would map onto what was presumed to be a unitary and shared concept of moral responsibility. However, more recently a number of authors have suggested that at least some disagreements about the most plausible overall theory of responsibility might be based on a failure to distinguish between different aspects of the concept of responsibility, or perhaps several distinguishable but related concepts of responsibility.

    Broadly speaking, a distinction has been drawn between responsibility understood as attributability and responsibility as accountability.[12] The central idea in judging whether an agent is responsible in the sense of attributability, say for an action, is whether the action discloses something about the nature of the agent's self (Watson 1996: 228). Some hold additionally that a judgment of responsibility in this sense includes an assessment of the agent's self as measured against some standard (though not necessarily a moral standard)-i.e., that our interest is in what the action discloses about the agent's evaluative commitments (Watson 1996: 235; Bok: 123, nt. 1).[13] Perhaps the clearest example of a conception of responsibility emphasizing attributability is the so-called “ledger view” of moral responsibility. According to such views, the practice of ascribing responsibility involves assigning a credit or debit to a metaphorical ledger associated with each agent (Feinberg: 30–1; Glover: 64; Zimmerman: 38–9; and discussion of such views in Watson 1986: 261–2; and Fischer and Ravizza 1998: 8–10, nt. 12). To regard an agent as praiseworthy or blameworthy in the attributability sense of responsibility is simply to believe that the credit or fault identified properly belongs to the agent.

    To be responsible for an action in the sense of being accountable (or “appraisable” according to the terminology of some) presupposes responsibility in the sense of attributability. However, to judge that an agent is responsible in the further sense of being accountable entails that the behavior properly attributed to the agent is governed by an interpersonal normative standard of conduct that creates expectations between members of a shared community (whereas the standard invoked above may or may not be thought to generate interpersonal expectations). In this way, the concept of moral responsibility as accountability is an inherently social notion, and to hold someone responsible is to address a fellow member of the moral community (Stern; Watson 1987; McKenna). By emphasizing the way the reactive attitudes were tied to expectations of good will grounded in our interpersonal relationships, Strawson drew attention to this social aspect of responsibility. Recent attempts to further articulate how best to understand the relevant notion of holding responsible and its relation to being accountable reflect his on-going influence.

    An agent is praiseworthy or blameworthy, in the sense of accountable, if one is warranted, or justified, in holding her responsible. On one popular view, holding someone responsible is interpreted as regarding him or her as an apt candidate for the reactive attitudes and possibly other forms of reward or censure based on what the agent has done (Zimmerman; R. J. Wallace: 75-77; Watson 1996: 235; Fischer & Ravizza 1998: 6–7). On another view, holding someone responsible is fundamentally a matter of making a moral judgment accompanied by an expectation that the agent who performed the act acknowledge the force of the judgment or provide an exonerating explanation of why she performed the action. To hold someone responsible is thus to be one to whom an explanation is owed. On this view, the reactive attitudes and associated practices are grounded in this more fundamental expectation (Oshana: 76–7; Scanlon 1998: 268–271). Since the reactive attitudes and associated practices may have consequences for the well-being of an agent (especially in the case of those blaming attitudes and practices involved in holding someone accountable for wrong-doing), they are justified only if it is fair that the agent be subject to those consequences (R.J. Wallace: 103–117; Watson 1996: 238–9). The fairness of being subject to those consequences has often,in turn, be interpreted as the source of the idea that praise and blame are justified only if they are merited in the sense of deserved (Zimmerman: ch. 5; Wallace: 106–7; Watson 1996: 238–9; Magill 1997: 42–53). [14]

    The recognition and articulation of diversity within the concept (or amongst concepts) of moral responsibility has generated new reflection on the nature of and prospects for theories attempting to spell-out the conditions on being morally responsible. While some continue to believe that a plausible unified theory can be offered that captures the conceptual diversity sketched above, a number of others have concluded that at least some of the conditions for the applicability of our folk concept are in tension with one another (Nagel; G. Strawson 1986, 105-117, 307–317; Honderich 1988: vol. 2, ch. 1; Double 1996a: chs. 6–7; Bok: ch. 1; Smilansky: ch. 6); For example, some have argued that while a compatibilist sense of freedom is necessary for attributability, genuine accountability would require that agents be capable of exercising libertarian freedom. A rapidly expanding body of empirical data on folk intuitions about freedom and responsibility has added fuel to this debate (Nahmias et. al. 2005 and 2007; Vargas 2006; Nichols and Knobe; Nelkin; Roskies and Nichols; and Knobe and Doris).

    If there are irreconcilable tensions within the concept of responsibility, then the conditions of its application cannot be jointly satisfied. Of course, there have always been those—e.g., hard determinists — who have concluded that the conditions on being morally responsible cannot be met and thus that no one is ever morally responsible. However, a noteworthy new trend amongst both contemporary hard determinists and others who conclude that the conditions for the applicability of our folk concept cannot be jointly satisfied has been the move to offer a revisionist conception of moral responsibility and its associated practices rather than to reject talk about being responsible outright (For this general trend, see Vargas 2004 and 2005). Revisionism about moral responsibility is a matter of degree. Some revisionists seek to salvage much if not most of what they take to be linked to the folk concept (Dennett 1984: 19; Honderich 1988: vol. 2, ch. 1; Scanlon 1998: 274–277; and Vargas 2004 and in Fischer et. al. 2007), while others offer more radical reconstructions of the concept and associated practices (Smart; Pereboom: 199–212; Smilansky: chps. 7–8; Kelly).[15]

    The future direction of reflection on moral responsibility is uncertain. On the one hand, there has been a resurgence of interest in metaphysical treatments of freedom and moral responsibility in recent years, a sign that many philosophers in this area have not been persuaded by Strawson's central critique of such treatments. On the other hand, discussion of the place and role of the reactive attitudes in human life continues to be a central theme in accounts of the concept of responsibility. What is clear is that the long-standing interest in understanding the concept of moral responsibility and its application shows no sign of abating.

    Bibliography

    Adams, Robert Merrihew, 1985. “Involuntary Sins.” Philosophical Review 94: 3–31.
    Aquinas, Thomas. 1997. Basic Writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, ed. A. C. Pegis (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.).
    Aristotle, 1985. The Nicomachean Ethics, trans. by Terence Irwin. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.).
    –––, 1984. The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, ed. Jonathan Barnes, 2 Vols. (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
    Arpaly, Nomy, 2003. Unprincipled Virtue: An Inquiry into Moral Agency (New York: Oxford University Press).
    –––, 2006. Merit, Meaning, and Human Bondage: An Essay on Free Will (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
    Augustine, 1993. On Free Choice of the Will (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.).
    Austin, J.L., 1979. “A Plea for Excuses” in Philosophical Papers, J.O. Urmson and G.J. Warnock, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Ayer, A.J., 1980. “Free Will and Rationality” in van Straatan.
    Bair, Annette, 1991. A Progress of Sentiments: A Reflection on Hume's Treatise. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
    Baier, Kurt, 1991. “Types of Responsibility.” in The Spectrum of Responsibility, Peter French, ed. (New York: St. Martin's Press).
    Benson, Paul, 1990. “The Moral Importance of Free Action.” Southern Journal of Philosophy 28: 1–18.
    Berofsky, Bernard, ed., 1966. Free Will and Determinism. (New York: Harper & Row).
    Bennett, Jonathan, 1980. “Accountability” in Philosophical Subjects, Zak Van Straaten, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
    Bobsien, Susanne, 2001. Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
    Bok, Hilary, 1998. Freedom and Responsibility. (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
    Brandt, Richard, 1969. “A Utilitarian Theory of Excuses” The Philosophical Review 78:337–361. Reprinted in Morality, Utility, and Rights. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
    –––, 1959. Ethical Theory. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.).
    –––, 1958. “Blameworthiness and Obligation” in Meldon.
    Broadie, Sarah, 1991. Ethics with Aristotle. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Burrington, Dale, 1999. “Blameworthiness.” Journal of Philosophical Research 24: 505-527.
    Curren, Randall, 2000. Aristotle on the Necessity of Public Education (New York: Roman & Littlefield).
    –––, 1989. “The Contribution of Nicomachean Ethics iii.5 to Aristotle's Theory of Responsibility.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 6: 261–277.
    Dennett, Daniel, 2003. Freedom Evolves (New York: Viking Press).
    –––, 1984. Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
    Darwall, Stephen, 2006. The Second-Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
    Doris, John M., 2002. Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior (New York: Cambridge University Press).
    Double, Richard, 2000. “Metaethics, Metaphilosophy, and Free Will Subjectivism.” in Kane 2002.
    –––, 1996a. Metaphilosophy and Free Will. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    –––, 1996b. “Honderich on the Consequences of Determinism.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (December): 847–854.
    –––, 1991. The Non-reality of Free Will. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Ekstrom, Laura Waddell 2000. Free Will: A Philosophical Study. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).
    Everson, Stephen, ed., 1998. Companions to Ancient Thought 4: Ethics. (New York: Cambridge University Press).
    –––, 1990. “Aristotle's Compatibilism in the Nicomachean Ethics.” Ancient Philosophy 10:81–103.
    Feinberg, Joel, 1970. Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
    Feldman, Fred, 1995. “Desert: Reconsideration of Some Received Wisdom” Mind 104 (January): 63–77.
    Fingarette, Herbert, 1967. On Responsibility. (New York: Basic Books, Inc.).
    Fischer, John Martin, 1999. “Recent Work on Moral Responsibility” Ethics 110 (October): 93–139.
    –––, 1994. The Metaphysics of Free Will: An Essay on Control. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell).
    –––, ed., 1986. Moral Responsibility (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).
    Fischer, John Martin and Ravizza, Mark, 1998. Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility (New York: Cambridge University Press).
    –––, eds., 1993. Perspectives on Moral Responsibility (Cornell University Press).
    Fischer, J.M., Kane, R., Pereboom, D., and Vargas, M. 2007. Four Views on Free Will (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers).
    Frankfurt, Harry, 1969. “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility.” The Journal of Philosophy 66: 828–839.
    Gibbard, Allan, 1990. Wise Choices, Apt Feelings: A Theory of Normative Judgment (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
    Glover, Jonathan, 1970. Responsibility (New York: Humanities Press).
    Haji, Ishtiyaque, 2002. “Compatibilist Views of Freedom and Responsibility” in Kane 2002.
    –––, 1998. Moral Appraisability: Puzzles, Proposals, and Perplexities. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Hart, H. L.,, 1968. Punishment and Responsibility. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Hieronymi, Pamela, 2004. “The Force and Fairness of Blame.” Philosophical Perspectives 18: 115-148.
    Honderich, Ted, 2002. “Determinism as True, Both Compatibilism and Incompatibilism as False, and the Real Problem.” in Kane 2002.
    –––, 1996. “Compatibilism, Incompatibilism, and the Smart Aleck.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (December): 855-862.
    –––, 1988. A Theory of Determinism: The Mind, Neuroscience, and Life Hopes. 2 Vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press)
    Hume, David, 1978. A Treatise of Human Nature, 2nd ed., ed. by L.A. Selby-Bigge and P.H. Nidditch. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Irwin, Terrance, ed., 1999. Classical Philosophy. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    –––, 1980. “Reason and Responsibility in Aristotle.” in Rorty 1980.
    Kane, Robert, ed., 2002. The Oxford Handbook of Free Will (New York: Oxford University Press).
    –––, 1996. The Significance of Free Will. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Kant, Immanuel, 1993. The Critique of Practical Reason, trans. by Lewis White Beck, 3rd. ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Macmillan Publishing Co.).
    Kelly, Erin, 2002. “Doing Without Desert.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 83: 180–205.
    Knobe, J. and Doris, J. Forthcoming. “Strawsonian Variations: Folk Morality and the Search for a Unified Theory.” In The Handbook of Moral Psychology, ed. John Doris (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Kupperman, Joel, 1991. Character. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Levy, Neil, 2005. “The Good, the Bad, and the Blameworthy.” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 2/1: 2–16.
    Mackie, John L., 1985. “Morality and the Retributive Emotions.” In Persons and Values: Vol. 2. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
    Magill, Kevin, 2000. “Blaming, Understanding, and Justification.” In T. van den Beld 2000.
    –––, 1997/ Freedom and Experience: Self-Determination without Illusions. (New York: St. Martins Press).
    McKenna, Michael, 1998. “The Limits of Evil and the Role of Moral Address: A Defense of Strawsonian Compatibilism.” Journal of Ethics. 2: 123–142.
    McKenna, Michael and Russell, Paul, eds., 2008. Free Will and Reactive Attitudes: Perspectives on P.F. Strawson's “Freedom and Resentment”. (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing).
    Meldon, A.I., ed., 1958. Essays in Moral Philosophy. (Seattle: University of Washington Press).
    Meyer, Susan Suave, 1988. “Moral Responsibility: Aristotle and After.” in Everson 1998.
    –––, 1993. Aristotle on Moral Responsibility. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Pub.).
    Mill, John Stuart, 1884. A System of Logic, 8th ed. (New York: Harper and Brothers).
    Milo, Ronald D., 1984. Immorality (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
    Nagel, Thomas, 1986. The View From Nowhere. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Nahmias, E., Morris, S., Nadelhoffer, T., and Turner, J. 2005. “Surveying Freedom: Folk Intuitions about Free Will and Moral Responsibility.” Philosophical Psychology 18:561–584.
    Nahmias, E., Coates, D. Justin, Kvaran, Trevor, 2007. “Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Mechanism: Experiments on Folk Intuitions.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 31: 214–242.
    Nelkin, Dana, 2007. “Do We Have a Coherent Set of Intuitions About Moral Responsibility?” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 31: 243–259.
    Nichols, Shaun and Knobe, Joshua, 2007. “Moral Responsibility and Determinism: The Cognitive Science of Folk Intuitions.” Nous 41/4: 663–685.
    Nozick, Robert, 1981. Philosophical Explanations. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
    Oshana, Marina, 1997. “Ascriptions of Responsibility.” American Philosophical Quarterly 34: 71–83.
    Pereboom, Derk, 2001, Living Without Free Will (New York: Cambridge University Press).
    –––, 2000. “Living Without Free Will: The Case for Hard Compatibilism” in Kane 2000.
    –––, ed., 1997. Free Will. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.).
    Roberts, Jean, 1984. “Aristotle on Responsibility for Action and Character.” Ancient Philosophy 9: 23–36.
    Rorty, Amelie Oksenberg, ed., 1980. Essays on Aristotle's Ethics. (Los Angeles: University of California Press).
    Roskies, A.L., and Nichols, S. 2008. “Bringing Responsibility Down to Earth” Journal of Philosophy 105/7: 371–388.
    Russell, Paul, 2000.“Pessimists, Pollyannas, and the New Compatibilism.” in Kane 2000.
    –––, 1995. Freedom and Moral Sentiment: Hume's Way of Naturalizing Responsibility. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    –––, 1992. “Strawson's Way of Naturalizing Responsibility.” Ethics 102: 287–302.
    Scanlon, T. M., 1998. What We Owe to Each Other (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
    –––, 1988. “The Significance of Choice.” In The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol. 8 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press).
    Schlick, Moritz, 1966. “When is a Man Responsible,” in Berofsky, 1966.
    Schoeman, Ferdinand, ed., 1987. Responsibility, Character, and the Emotions. (New York: Cambridge University Press)
    Sher, George, 2006. In Praise of Blame. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Slote, Michael, 1990. “Ethics Without Free Will.” Social Theory and Practice 16:369–383.
    Smart, J.J.C., 1961. “Free Will, Praise, and Blame.” Mind 70: 291–306.
    Smilansky, Saul, 2000. Free Will and Illusion. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    –––, 1996. “Responsibility and Desert: Defending the Connection.” Mind 105:157–163.
    Smiley, Marion, 1992. Moral Responsibility and the Boundaries of Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
    Smith, Angela M., 2007. “On Being Responsible and Holding Responsible.” The Journal of Ethics 11:465-484.
    –––, 2008. “Control, Responsibility, and Moral Assessment.” Philosophical Studies 138:367–392.
    Sorabji, Richard, 1980. Necessity, Cause, and Blame (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).
    Stern, Lawrence, 1974. “Freedom, Blame, and the Moral Community.” The Journal of Philosophy 71: 72–84.
    Strawson, Galen, 1994. “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility.” Philosophical Studies 75: 5-24.
    –––, 1986. Freedom and Belief. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Strawson, P. F., 1980. “Reply to Ayer and Bennett.” In van Straaten 1980.
    –––, 1993. “Freedom and Resentment.” Proceedings of the British Academy 48 (1962):1–25. Reprinted in Fischer and Ravizza, 1993.
    Taylor, Gabrielle, 1985. Pride, Shame, and Guilt (New York: Oxford University Press).
    van den Beld, T., 2000. Moral Responsibility and Ontology. (Dordrecht: Kluwer).
    van Inwagen, Peter, 1978. An Essay on Free Will. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    van Stratten, Z., ed., 1980. Philosophical Subjects: Essays Presented to P.F. Strawson (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Vargas, Manuel, 2004. “Responsibility and the Aims of Theory: Strawson and Revisionism.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 85: 218–241.
    –––, 2005. “The Revisionist's Guide to Responsibility.” Philosophical Studies 125:399–429.
    –––, 2006. “Philosophy and the Folk: On Some Implications of Experimental Work for Philosophical Debates on Free Will.” Journal of Cognition and Culture 6/1–2: 239–254.
    Wallace, James, 1974. “Excellences and Merit.” Philosophical Review 83: 182–199.
    Wallace, R. J., 1994. Responsibility and the Moral Sentiments. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
    Watson, Gary, 1996. “Two Faces of Responsibility.” Philosophical Topics 24: 227–248.
    –––, 1987. “Responsibility and the Limits of Evil.” in Schoeman, 1987.
    Williams, Bernard, 1993. Shame and Necessity. (Los Angeles: University of California Press).
    Wolf, Susan, 1990. Freedom Within Reason. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    –––, 1981. “The Importance of Free Will.” Mind 90: 386–405.
    Zimmerman, Michael, 1988. An Essay on Moral Responsibility. (Totowa, NJ: Roman and Littlefield).
    Other Internet Resources
    The Determinism and Freedom Philosophy Website edited by Ted Honderich, University College London.
    The Garden of Forking Paths: A Free Will/Moral Responsibility Blog (multiple contributors, coordinated by Neal Tognazzini and Gustavo Llarull)

    Come on! This isn't that hard to read! I think that to really get this philosophical thing right, we need to be scholars. I'm trying, but the spiritual and emotional pressure I experience is often overwhelming. I really and truly am pretending, at this point, that I am working on a PhD in Solar System Studies and Governance. I know this sounds ridiculous, and in many ways it is, but I think we need to have this sort of a goal clearly in mind. I should really put together some sort of a curriculum, but until I do, consider all of my threads to be your homework. I will be interested to read the first doctoral dissertation based upon the works of orthodoxymoron. This might be somewhat self-aggrandizing, but I really do think that there should be this type of a doctoral study. Once again, I just might create my own doctoral program, and be the first teacher and first student - simultaneously!!


    ORTHODOXYMORON GETS HIS DISSERTATION BACK FROM THE NSA!!

    It might be cool to be an Indiana Jones kind of professor, but I sort of like to just research and reflect. I think that a room filled with bright college students would be too much for me! They'd probably eat me alive! It might be easier to face a room filled with Illuminati, Jesuits, Nazis, Masons, Magicians, Greys, and Dracs! Anyway, I do like the idea of a PhD program in Solar System Studies and Governance as a prerequisite to being a United States of the Solar System Representative. On the other hand, have all of the universities of the world saved us from the absurd situation we find ourselves in presently? There is such a phenomenon as 'Educated Idiots'. So how in the hell do we achieve an Enlightened Democracy? Are human beings too stupid and unstable to rule themselves? I used to think that was a stupid question, but I really wonder if we are capable of such a feat. Do we simply need a less corrupt secret government? Do we really need to be ruled from the shadows? I know what I idealistically want, but what is the reality? A celebration of a newly formed United States of the Solar System might be very short indeed. Again, I wonder if society is past the point of no return on the road to hell? Will there be a core meltdown, no matter what we do? I don't have a problem with 'crowd control' or with the human race being managed, educated, and disciplined in a kind, fair, and orderly manner. What I object to is irresponsible management and cruel exploitation. There are huge problems with the present campaign and election/selection process. The PhD thing would help, but perhaps voters should have to get a two-year degree in voting. To do ANYTHING, one should have to prove that they know what they're doing. Some have even suggested a lottery to 'elect' our leaders! How 'bout a dartboard, like the Wall Street Journal used to 'select' stocks?!

    God does not play dice with the solar system. Or does she? "Hillary or Obama? Snake-Eyes!!"

    In gambling, snake eyes is the outcome of rolling the dice in a game and getting only one pip on each die. The pair of pips resembles a pair of eyes, which is appended to the term 'snake' because of the long-standing association of this word with treachery and betrayal. The dictionary of etymology traces that use of the term back to 1929,[1] although it may be traced all the way back to the ancient Roman dice games, where 'Dogs' represented two ones. They referred to this as "the dog throw". In modern parlance, it refers to such a roll in any game involving dice. Snake eyes also refers to looking one way and passing the ball the other in the game of Taps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_eyes

    WHY DID IT HAVE TO BE SNAKES? I HATE SNAKES! IS ARCHANGEL MICHAEL DR. WHO AND INDIANA JONES? HOW MANY DOCTORS HAVE THERE BEEN?
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 7483
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:09 pm

    This is an amazing interview. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVwKKsvtdag&feature=player_embedded All roads really do lead to Rome, and I continue to think that everything we discuss should be viewed from the Roman context. I continue to imagine myself as being a well-connected Renegade French Jesuit Organist. I continue to love the artistic aspects of Rome, but the history, theology, and politics are horrible, and I'm sure that most upper-level and well-informed Roman Catholics know this, but they have a Dragon by the Tail, and they are probably terrified of what might happen if they let go. As the general public finds out about all of this, things could get very, very nasty. I'm interested in this area of research, but it scares the hell out of me. I'm trying to be open and fair in all of this, and I'm trying to look at both the positive and negatives in all of this. All roads lead to Rome, but where did all of these roads originate?

    My present working assumption is that the solar system probably contains thousands of unconventional craft, including asteroid and moon spacecraft, which might be friendly or unfriendly toward the human race. I get the feeling that this solar system is like the wild, wild west -- and that we might be facing a showdown at the ok corral. I certainly do not desire peace at any price, nor do I desire to end-up as space-dust. What would Anna Hayes say? I'd still like to hang-out on Phobos for a while, regardless of whether it is populated by friend or foe. But I would have to have a solid guarantee that I wouldn't be harmed or kidnapped. I still like the idea of a Theocratically-Implemented, Responsibility-Based, United States of the Solar System -- with the governmental personnel mostly located within the University of Solar System Studies and Governance campuses throughout the solar system. I've spoken of using a deconsecrated cathedral as the headquarters of a New Solar System, so just for the fun of it, today I'm thinking of either the Crystal Cathedral or St. Mary's Cathedral (or both!!) as being the headquarters, with the University of California system serving as the core of the University of Solar System Studies and Governance system. Again, this is just for the conceptual heck of it. This is a test. This is only a test. And yes, I realize that I am insane, but it's more fun that way! The UC system has solid ties to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and to the Los Alamos National Laboratory. I don't wish to reinvent the wheel. I just wish to have 10,000 PhD's with clipboards and safety-goggles, watching it rotate... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California
    The original Project Avalon, combined with The Mists of Avalon, might be excellent places to begin your University of Solar System Studies and Governance academic career. I'm very serious. You won't end up with a Marketable Job Skill, and it might even drive you nuts, but perhaps this is a Missing Link in the Consciousness Evolution of Humanity. I'm overwhelmed by all of this. I'm becoming more confused and bewildered, each and every day. Things are not resolving, yet I press onward, even as I slide further and further downhill. I am a supporter of the progressive release of forbidden knowledge, yet I do not support cramming all of the new and upsetting information down the throats of the general public. If most people wish to watch football and chase skirts -- so be it. Those who wish to spend (waste?) their lives on the internet, digging into this and that, can do so, even though it probably won't make them as happy as watching football and chasing skirts. I'm really not into forcing people to do things -- other than being responsible in everything they do. I even like the idea of the Mafia becoming more ethical and responsible -- and becoming increasingly legitimate and less violent. Come on guys! Do it! I think there are responsible and irresponsible ways of doing just about anything. I like the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights -- but look at some of the Reprehensible Horrors connected with the United States of America over the past couple of hundred years. I like the Teachings of Jesus -- but look at some of the Reprehensible Horrors connected with the Professed Followers of Jesus Christ over the past couple of thousand years. My preference for a Responsibility-Based United States of the Solar System is not an attempt to strong-arm or force people to do anything. It is Intended to Provide a Safe Environment for the Human Race to Pursue Responsible Freedom in a Plurality of Methodologies. There might be such things as Responsible Socialism or Responsible Communism -- even though that would not be my preference. What would the English Model combined with the American Model look like? You know, the Monarchy, the Church of England, and the U.S. Constitution -- living together as one, big, happy family! Might this pave the way for a Modified Roman Model of Church and State? Do you understand what I am hinting at here, without spelling it out?

    What if a completely reformed City of London were the Actual Physical Headquarters of a New United Nations, a Visible and Open 'Secret Government', the United States of the Solar System, a Largely Ceremonial Church of the Solar System, a Non-Corrupt Solar Financial System, and the Nerve Center of a Solar Defense System (Including the Underground Bases, the Secret Space Program, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction)? What if the Vatican and the United States of America were deeply involved in all of this, but neither gave orders or took orders? I haven't thought this through, so don't crucify me just yet. What if St. Paul's Cathedral were the primary meeting place for all of the above -- with lots of pomp and circumstance? What if the other buildings in the City of London were devoted to the administrative and financial aspects of all of the above? What if the Area Beneath the City of London were devoted to the Solar System Defense Activities? What if 2,500 of the 10,000 Representatives of the United States of the Solar System lived in and around the City of London -- with the other 7,500 spread throughout the Solar System -- communicating with each other and the public via Secure and Encrypted InterPlaNet? What if Oxford and Cambridge were the primary campuses of the University of Solar System Studies and Governance? What if everyone had a Seat at the Table - with no one left out in the cold? Can you visualize what I'm saying? Where there is no vision, the people perish.

    I had a brain-storm today (which is a very dangerous thing), and I've tentatively decided to do a post by post review of the 'Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System' thread -- right here on this thread. I'll probably just provide a link to the original thread, at the beginning of each post on this thread. Then I'll probably just provide elaboration and extrapolation. I've been attempting to end the U.S.S.S. thread ("End the Thread!! End the Thread!! End the Thread!!") for years now -- and there have been no new posts on that thread for a couple of months (although I keep adding to the last dozen posts)!! This thread might be a 'Middle-Way' wherein I simply review territory already covered. I have no clue about alot of the stuff I've posted. My questions have mostly been non-rhetorical. No one has fed me secret information in parking-garages at 3:00AM (or any other time or place). I simply make this stuff up as I go (just like Indiana Jones)!! I have never disputed the nasty accusation of me being a completely ignorant fool. If you knew me in 'real-life' you'd know why. But I swear that I could seamlessly fit into the most sensitive and technical discussions imaginable. The hows and whys of this phenomenon allude me. I really am sort of a Latter-Day Beautiful-Mind. What Would John Nash Say?? I just finished watching 'Fail-Safe', the fifth-season of 'Star Trek Voyager', 'Star Wars: The Phantom Menace', 'Star Trek: First Contact', and the 'Saviour of the Universe Edition' of 'Flash Gordon' (I liked it! I liked it alot!!). I might do some minimal editing of the original thread -- but not to cover-up embarrassing comments, images, or links. Expect me to just clean-up dead-links, grammatical-errors, etc. I might do some elaborating and extrapolating within the U.S.S.S. thread -- in a different font and/or color -- and then transfer the entire post to this thread. I'm not really sure just how to proceed, at this point. All I know is that I want to attempt to stay in shape by continuing to post -- but without introducing nasty surprises which might really tick-off all factions. I've sort of made an effort to be everyone's friend -- and everyone's enemy -- simultaneously. Imagine Lilly, Picard, Data, and the Borg-Queen assimilated into the Orthodoxymoron-Collective -- as your teacher(s) -- in the context of the Borg-infested Voyager orbiting Earth in the year 2063!! Class is Now in Session!! "Class. Class! Class!! Shudddup!!! Thank-you"
    magamud wrote:







    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sMt3SzAH_i0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/R_HSYB3EPNk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
    <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/F1xc6MwEjBI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
    <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Cn3eWz0Cc80" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
    What if Reality is Stranger and More Violent Than Fiction??


    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 7483
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:35 pm

    http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t3240-archangelic-queens-of-heaven-and-the-united-states-of-the-solar-system

    **************************************THE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM***************************************


    ****************************************************************************PREAMBLE*************************************************************************

    WE THE PEOPLE OF EARTH are determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from the Constitution of the United States of the Solar System can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. To practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain interplanetary peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ interplanetary machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.

    Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. Disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people. It is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law. It is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between Member States. We the people of Earth have reaffirmed our faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United States of the Solar System the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. A common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance.

    Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom...in the context of The United States of the Solar System...is a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all Member States, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping these principles, concepts, and documents constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, interstate and interplanetary, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance among the peoples of Member States.

    All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms inherent in the United States of the Solar System, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, territorial or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political or jurisdictional status of the Member State to which a person belongs.

    Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent Member State tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under state or interplanetary law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each Member State. Everyone has the right to leave any Member State, and to return. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other Member States asylum from persecution. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United States of the Solar System. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

    Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, state or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

    Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

    Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his state, directly or through freely chosen representatives. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his Member State. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

    Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through state effort and interplanetary co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each Member State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

    Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. Everyone has the right to work to achieve a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

    Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all Member States, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United States of the Solar System for the maintenance of peace. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

    Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United States of the Solar System.



    ****************DECLARATION OF HUMAN SOVEREIGNTY REGARDING CONTACT WITH EXTRATERRESTRIAL NATIONS AND FORCES****************

    We, the People of Earth, extend greetings to all races in the Greater Community of the Universe. We acknowledge our common heritage before the Creator of all the Universe, both visible and invisible. We declare the planet Earth as our sacred inheritance. We pledge henceforth to sustain and preserve the Earth for all generations to come. We call upon all humanity to treat all races everywhere with wisdom and justice, here on Earth and throughout the Universe.

    Fundamental Rights

    We, the People of Earth, regard the need for freedom to be universal. Therefore, we hold that all individuals in all worlds are created equal and are endowed by the Creator with sacred and inalienable rights. Fundamental among these are the right to live as a free race; the right of self-determination, self-sufficiency, and creative expression; the right to life without oppression; and the right to pursue in life a higher purpose and a higher calling that the Creator has provided to all.

    Before the Greater Community of the Universe, we, the People of Earth, do now invoke these fundamental rights for ourselves, along with certain rights that naturally derive from them, including:

    -The right of sovereignty. The People of Earth shall be self-governed and independent, neither subject to nor dependent upon any other authority. No extraterrestrial force shall contravene or abrogate the human sovereignty of this planet.

    -The right of planetary sanctity. Earth shall be free from extraterrestrial intervention, intrusion, interference, or exploitation, both mental and physical. No extraterrestrial force shall make close approach, or assume close orbit, or make any landing, or engage in trade, except openly and with the expressed consent of the People of Earth achieved through a democratic means.

    -The right of sanctity of biological and genetic material. No extraterrestrial power shall take, possess, or manipulate human biological or genetic material for any purpose whatsoever.

    -The right of occupation. We the People of Earth claim this Solar System as our sphere of influence. No extraterrestrial bases may be established on bodies or stations orbiting the Earth, nor on other planets or bodies of this Solar System, except with the expressed consent of the People of Earth.

    -The right of peaceful navigation. We claim the right to travel and explore within our Solar System without interference or restraint from extraterrestrial forces, and maintain the right to deny access to this Solar System by any extraterrestrial forces.

    We, the People of Earth, consider it our rightful responsibility to assert and defend these fundamental rights, and to give and receive aid consistent with these rights.

    The Assessment

    When in the course of their evolution it becomes necessary for the native people of a planet to unite, to transcend the conflicts and differences that have separated them from one another, and to assume among the powers of the Universe a separate and equal sovereignty, a respectful consideration of that sovereignty requires that they declare the causes which impel them to this present course of action.

    Although the Earth has undergone a long history of extraterrestrial visitation, the current situation is that the People of Earth are now suffering the effects of a global extraterrestrial intervention into human affairs. This intervention employs a strategy of deception, manipulation, and exploitation, the goal of which is control over humanity, which will result in the loss of human freedom and self-determination. It is now the sacred right and duty of the People of Earth to oppose, resist, and repel this extraterrestrial intervention, to declare and defend our sovereignty, our freedom, and our independence from all extraterrestrial forces.

    Let these violations be considered by those supporting the cause of freedom throughout the Greater Community:

    -Intervening extraterrestrial forces have refused to openly disclose and reveal the nature and intent of their activities on and around Earth. This extraterrestrial presence is clandestine, covert, uninvited, and unapproved by the People of Earth. These extraterrestrial forces have concealed their own identity, their political or economic alliances and allegiances, as well as the authorities and powers which they serve.

    -As is becoming increasingly apparent from their actions, extraterrestrial forces intend to exploit the Earth, its resources, and its people, and are engaged in a systematic program of colonizing humanity into a subservient client state to be ruled by agents of these extraterrestrial forces. The extraterrestrial intervention and occupation seeks commercial gain, economic power, and the strategic advantage offered by this world in relation to other worlds.

    -Extraterrestrial forces have repeatedly and with impunity violated national and international laws of the Earth’s people. These offenses, which still continue today, have included violation of restricted airspace; abduction and transportation of humans without their consent; murder, rape, torture, sexual abuse, interbreeding with humans, and cruel experimentation; theft and trade of human biological and genetic materials; theft and trade of Earth’s natural resources; covert mental and psychological influence; mutilation of humans and animals; tampering with and disabling of military defense systems; and clandestine infiltration into human society.

    -Extraterrestrial forces have secretly negotiated treaties and agreements with human individuals and groups, without the informed consent of the People of Earth.

    -Extraterrestrial forces have systematically attempted to persuade and mislead humans through extending false hopes and promises of wealth, power, and protection; rescue from planetary catastrophe; membership in a “galactic federation”; and spiritual salvation and enlightenment.

    -Extraterrestrial forces have exploited and exacerbated human conflicts to serve their own ends.

    -Extraterrestrial forces have been disempowering humanity by leading us to believe that we can only survive with their help and their advanced technology, thus fostering our complete dependence upon them and denying our ability to ensure our own survival.

    Demands and Declarations

    Accordingly, we, the People of Earth, do hereby declare all previously existing agreements or treaties between any human government, group, or individual and any extraterrestrials to be forthwith null, void, and permanently suspended. We demand that any such previously existing treaties or agreements be fully and publicly disclosed. Any future agreements or treaties between human governments, groups, or individuals and extraterrestrials must be negotiated only with the full consent of the People of Earth, publicly and openly expressed by an international democratic body representing the nations and peoples of Earth.

    We demand that all extraterrestrials now cease all operations and activities and immediately vacate and depart from the Earth and its surroundings including the Sun, Earth’s Moon, and all planets of this Solar System. This includes vacating any natural or artificial satellites, as well as all space within the Solar System.

    We demand that all extraterrestrial organizations who have established or operated bases on the Earth, its Moon, or anywhere else within this Solar System, to vacate these bases, and fully disclose their nature. These bases should then be used to defend the Solar System.

    We further demand that all living humans who are now in custody of extraterrestrials be returned immediately in good health; further, we demand a full accounting of all humans who have been taken or held by extraterrestrials, including those who have died in captivity. In addition, we demand that all human biological or genetic materials taken from any individuals be accounted for and destroyed, and their intended use be identified. Any devices implanted in living individuals must be identified so that they may be safely removed.

    We demand full public disclosure of the purpose and details of the extraterrestrial hybridization program, including the location, identity, and activities of all living human-extraterrestrial hybrids, whether on Earth or elsewhere.

    Be it known throughout the Universe that from this time forward, extraterrestrials may only enter our Solar System, approach our Earth, fly in our skies, set foot on our soil, or enter our waters with the explicit consent of the People of Earth.

    We, therefore, do solemnly declare that the People of Earth are and should be a free and independent people; that all humans are hereby absolved from all allegiance to extraterrestrial powers, and that all political and economic connections between them and the People of Earth are totally dissolved; that as a free and sovereign race in the Greater Community of the Universe, we assume full power within this Solar System to conclude peace, levy war, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to undertake all other actions which a sovereign planetary race may rightfully and ethically do.

    Concluding Statement

    Let it be understood that in making this Declaration of Human Sovereignty, we, the People of Earth, affirm our future and destiny as a free race within a Greater Community of intelligent life. We recognize that we are a part of this Greater Community and that we are destined over time to encounter many different races from beyond our world.

    To them and to all others, we hereby declare that our intention is not conquest or domination in space. We declare that the rights and privileges that we affirm here for ourselves, we also affirm for all races of beings whom we might encounter.

    In making our Declaration of Human Sovereignty, we proclaim our rights, responsibilities, and privileges as a free race in order that we may pursue greater unity, peace, and cooperation within the human family without unwanted or unwarranted intrusion and interference by any outside nation or force from the Greater Community. We make this proclamation as an expression of our Divine right and honorable intent for the human family and for all races in the Universe who seek to be free.

    www.humansovereignty.org



    *******************************************THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM*****************************************

    We the People of the United States of the Solar System, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of the Solar System.

    Article 1.

    Section 1
    All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States of the Solar System, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

    Section 2
    The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

    No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States of the Solar System, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which they shall be chosen.

    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers.

    When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

    The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

    Section 3
    The Senate of the United States of the Solar System shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

    Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

    No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States of the Solar System, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which they shall be chosen.

    The Vice President of the United States of the Solar System shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

    The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States of the Solar System.

    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States of the Solar System is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

    Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States of the Solar System: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

    Section 4
    The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Choosing Senators.

    The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

    Section 5
    Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

    Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

    Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

    Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

    Section 6
    The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States of the Solar System. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

    No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States of the Solar System which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States of the Solar System, shall be a Member of either House during their Continuance in Office.

    Section 7
    All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

    Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States of the Solar System; If they approve they shall sign it, but if not they shall return it, with their Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to them, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

    Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States of the Solar System; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by them, or being disapproved by them, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.


    Section 8
    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States of the Solar System; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States of the Solar System;

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States of the Solar System;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States of the Solar System;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States of the Solar System;

    To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high seas and outer space, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land, Water, and in Space;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy and a Space Force;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land, naval, and Space Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States of the Solar System, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States of the Solar System, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
    Constitution in the Government of the United States of the Solar System, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    Section 9
    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

    No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

    No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

    No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

    No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

    No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

    No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States of the Solar System: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

    Section 10
    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States of the Solar System; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.

    No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

    Article 2.

    Section 1
    The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of the Solar System. They shall hold their Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States of the Solar System, shall be appointed an Elector.

    The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States of the Solar System, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall choose from them by Ballot the Vice-President.

    The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States of the Solar System.

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States of the Solar System, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States of the Solar System.

    In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said
    Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

    The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States of the Solar System, or any of them.

    Before they enter on the Execution of their Office, they shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States of the Solar System, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of the Solar System."

    Section 2
    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy, and Space Force of the United States of the Solar System, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States of the Solar System; they may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States of the Solar System, except in Cases of Impeachment.

    They shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States of the Solar System, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

    The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

    Section 3
    They shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as they shall judge necessary and expedient; they may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, they may adjourn them to such Time as they shall think proper; they shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; they shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States of the Solar System.

    Section 4
    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States of the Solar System, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    Article 3.

    Section 1
    The judicial Power of the United States of the Solar System, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    Section 2
    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States of the Solar System, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty, maritime, and space Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States of the Solar System shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

    Section 3
    Treason against the United States of the Solar System, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

    Article 4.

    Section 1
    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

    Section 2
    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which they fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

    No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

    Section 3
    New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

    The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States of the Solar System; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States of the Solar System, or of any particular State.

    Section 4
    The United States of the Solar System shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

    Article 5.

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

    Article 6.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States of the Solar System and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States of the Solar System.

    Article 7.

    Amendment 1
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Amendment 2
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Amendment 3
    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    Amendment 4
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the people or things to be seized.

    Amendment 5
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Amendment 6
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    Amendment 7
    In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States of the Solar System, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Amendment 8
    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Amendment 9
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment 10
    The powers not delegated to the United States of the Solar System by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Amendment 11
    The Judicial power of the United States of the Solar System shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

    Amendment 12
    The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the persons voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States of the Solar System, directed to the President of the Senate;

    The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

    The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

    The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no persons have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States of the Solar System.

    Amendment 13
    1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States of the Solar System, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Amendment 14
    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States of the Solar System, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States of the Solar System and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States of the Solar System; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of people in each State. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States of the Solar System, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any citizen of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States of the Solar System, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such citizens shall bear to the whole number of citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

    3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States of the Solar System, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States of the Solar System, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    4. The validity of the public debt of the United States of the Solar System, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States of the Solar System nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States of the Solar System, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

    5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    Amendment 15
    1. The right of citizens of the United States of the Solar System to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States of the Solar System or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

    2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Amendment 16
    Removed because of passage and ratification issues...and because of unfathomable corruption since 1913.

    Amendment 17
    The Senate of the United States of the Solar System shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

    When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the persons fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

    This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

    Amendment 18 (Repealed by Amendment 21)

    Amendment 19
    The right of citizens of the United States of the Solar System to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States of the Solar System or by any State on account of sex.

    Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Amendment 20
    1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

    2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

    3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

    4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

    5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

    6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

    Amendment 21 (Repeal of Amendment 18)

    Amendment 22
    1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

    2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

    Amendment 23
    1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States of the Solar System shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

    2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Amendment 24
    1. The right of citizens of the United States of the Solar System to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States of the Solar System or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

    2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Amendment 25
    1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of their death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

    2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon
    confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

    3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that they are unable to discharge the powers and duties of their office, and until they transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

    4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

    Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, they shall resume the powers and duties of their office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of their office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of their office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of their office.

    Amendment 26
    1. The right of citizens of the United States of the Solar System, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States of the Solar System or by any State on account of age.

    2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Amendment 27
    No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 7483
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:43 pm

    I'm not going to do a point by point analysis of the 'Founding Documents of the United States of the Solar System' at this point -- but perhaps I should. I simply wish to suggest reading the previous post -- over and over and over and over -- until it hurts. But really, the context of the United States, the United Nations, and the Federalist Papers are really necessary to give the previous post its proper setting. The preamble is obviously mostly taken from the 'Declaration of Universal Rights' penned by Eleanor Roosevelt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights The opening paragraph is taken from the opening lines of the U.N. Charter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charter The 'Declaration of Human Sovereignty' is taken from http://www.humansovereignty.org/index.htm And obviously, the U.S. Constitution needs no introduction. I've made changes in form and content to all of the above -- so read the previous post carefully. This material is not original -- and I claim no credit for it -- other than to craft it into the form shown above -- and to present it within the context of the United States of the Solar System. This is merely a preliminary study. This is to make everyone think -- including myself. But so far, I've received the silent-treatment, which doesn't surprise me -- although it does disappoint me. Perhaps we really are NOT prepared for self-rule. If you think otherwise, please study the 'Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System' thread from beginning to end -- and then tell me what you think -- in detail. I'm waiting with great anticipation -- but I'm NOT holding my breath. http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t3240-archangelic-queens-of-heaven-and-the-united-states-of-the-solar-system

    I have a feeling that Gizeh Intelligence knows what I'm talking about. I'll bet they know more about my posts, principles, and concepts than I'll ever know about them. Unfortunately, I get the sinking-feeling that 'they' have a vested interest in making sure that a United States of the Solar System NEVER becomes a reality. Forgive me if I'm wrong in this conviction -- but that which is hidden continues to mostly remain hidden. If I strolled into the Headquarters of Gizeh Intelligence (if that were even possible) I'm sure 'they' would tear me apart (in more ways than one). Still, I think that a critical-mass of humanity will need to gain a Gizeh-Intelligence Level Understanding of the United States of the Solar System before it can become a functional reality. Oh, it might get dumped on humanity -- just to make everything go to hell -- but for it to properly work, a helluva lot of foundational ground-work would be necessary -- probably constructed over many decades. This thing needs to be done right -- if it's going to be done at all. I just keep thinking that things are so screwed-up that NOTHING will work -- and that things are going to go to hell -- no matter what we do. I SO hope that I'm wrong.

    As of 1997, Dr. A. Graham Maxwell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBjkZ5WzBfc had read the Bible (from cover to cover) 136 times (and counting). May I suggest reading the 'Federalist Papers' and the 1928 'Book of Common Prayer' through at least 136 times -- side by side -- to begin to gain a proper understanding of what I have in mind. I obviously must 'walk the walk' -- and not simply 'talk the talk' -- and I am making some progress in this regard -- but I KNOW that I am just scratching the surface. I have also suggested listening to sacred classical music while engaging in this mental and spiritual exercise. Dr. Maxwell suggested a 'narrative' approach to Bible-Study (rather than the 'Proof-Text' method) wherein whole books of the Bible are read from beginning to end -- rather than just quoting selected texts. On the other hand, the 1928 'Book of Common Prayer' does 'pick and choose' so as to provide prayer-inspiring biblical devotional material. I have covered all of this elsewhere, and I really do not relish 'reinventing the wheel' and 'repeating myself' within this thread.

    When I have spoken of 'hanging-out with the Jesuits on Mt. Graham' I have NOT been sarcastic -- I Mean It. I think they know more about what's REALLY going on in this solar system than 99.3% of the human race -- but this does NOT mean that I like them or believe their public statements. I would NOT wish to be a Jesuit -- but I'd sure love to know what they know -- if you know what I mean. I have repeatedly joked about being a Renegade French Jesuit Organist -- and I have speculated that I might've been just that in a previous incarnation. To get anyone to properly understand me, and talk to me, I'd probably have to be a patient in one of those Secret Military Mental Hospitals (where they treat those who 'know too much' and who 'can't take it anymore'). I'm mostly NOT kidding. Government Psychiatrists (sworn to absolute secrecy) would probably be the only ones who would articulately give me the time of day (and only because they were ordered and paid to do so). I get the sinking feeling that my internet work might only be seriously considered AFTER everything goes to hell -- and AFTER it might be too late.

    What if we are primarily dealing with 1. Ancient Sirius. 2. Ancient Egypt. 3. Ancient Israel. 4. Pagan Rome. 5. Papal Rome. -- with Egyptian Rule mostly ending about 2,300 years ago -- with most of the 'goodies' being 'taken' to Jerusalem and Rome??? What if Jerusalem and Rome are two sides of the same coin -- as strange as that sounds?? As usual, I have no idea. I just freely speculate in a rather unscholarly manner. This doesn't mean that I don't read books and listen to lectures -- but I don't go through a strict academic process to establish my points of view. But come to think of it, I don't really have points of view. I'm always 'at sea'. What if Daniel 8 might be applied as I just suggested -- with the 'sanctuary being cleansed' for 2,300 years -- rather than something changing in heaven in 1844 (or any other date)?? What if this hypothetical 2,300 years of Roman Rule ends around 2020?? What if this solar system is a great-big rat-trap?? It's a rat-race -- but what if the rats merely thought they were winning?? SNAP!!! Just a thought. Will things then revert to some sort of Egyptian Rule?? Status Quo Ante Bellum?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_ante_bellum What if Atlas = Ra = Judeo-Christian Roman Rule?? What if Pleione = Isis = Teachings of Isis Egyptian Rule?? What if we have been enduring a Galactic Marital Spat for thousands of years?? What if Isis returned to Earth (from the Pleiades) in 1947 (to Roswell)?? What if ISIS = KRLLL?? Is this when the 'Bitch Got Back'?? Damned if I Know. But as I previously mentioned, two agent-types spoke to me about the 'Bitches' in connection with our conversation about the latest 'V' series. They thanked me in a very official manner (for something -- I know not what) and then proceeded to speak in a very derogatory manner about the 'Bitches'. (their words -- not mine). Does the back of the U.S. Dollar Bill depict the Egyptian (left) and the Roman (right) aspects of the New World Order?? Was the Egyptian Empire the Old World Order?? Is the Roman Empire the New World Order?? How does all of this relate to the founding documents of the United States of the Solar System?? I'm not quite sure. Will the best aspects of the Egyptian and Roman Empires provide the backbone for a New Solar System?? "It's Possible. It's Possible." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=139mf-lYIFo

    I have spoken of ending war and violence in this solar system -- but how might the population be prepared for war -- if war is not routinely planned and orchestrated?? How might wealth be created without 'blood-money'?? Think of the Native-Americans who were defenseless against the Europeans. They lived in harmony with the land -- yet they were not wise to the brutal ways of conquest, industrialization, and technology. How might this solar system remain smart, wise, healthy, wealthy, tough, disciplined -- and prepared for ANYTHING?? How might we have the highest technology -- yet NOT replace our people with computers, machines, and robots??? How might we have strong leadership -- yet avoid the master-slave mentality?? How might we replace 'Free-Enterprise' with 'Responsible-Enterprise'?? Laissez-Faire Capitalism is SO overrated. What Would Ivan Svitak Say?? I once took a class on 'Socialistic Democracies' from Ivan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Svitak This solar system seems to be a Purgatory -- but should it really be a Heaven?? Should it be half-way between Purgatory and Paradise?? How good is too good?? How should a civilization maintain an immune-system?? Should we conduct International and Interplanetary War-Games in Perpetuity -- to keep everyone in shape?? Getting Ethics, Law, Law-Enforcement, and the Military ABSOLUTELY RIGHT is of the UTMOST IMPORTANCE. Think about it.

    I'm going to attempt to deal with this topic by pretending to be an insider - interacting with all aspects of this hypothetical Secret Government. I don't know where this will lead - but I doubt that it will end well - for me at least. I'm going to pretend to travel throughout the solar system as an ambassador or coordinator of sorts - who is trying to transform the Secret Solar System Government into a Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom Solar System. I don't have a clue how to proceed - and I will step on a lot of very sensitive toes - connected to feet which can kick one where it counts - swiftly and firmly. The horror. I will interact with forum members as though they were colleagues and reporters - even though I know that sounds corny. Try to fit your questions and comments into the story-line, just for the heck of it. This is just an experiment. I honestly don't know where I am going to end up on this adventure. I'm just poking and prodding. Who knows - I might end-up becoming a member of the Illuminati!

    This thread will basically be a continuation of the 'United States of the Solar System' thread from AV1. I have been using the term 'Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom Solar System' more and more because it is so descriptive and concise. The U.S. seems to be in the doghouse - and it's not hard to understand why. But if the Secret Government rules the Visible Government - this may explain 90% of the problems. I just wish to keep conceptualizing Solar System Governance - from a wide variety of perspectives. Take a look at the original thread - and then tell me what you think. This is an ongoing research project. http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15878

    I'm really trying to hijack the Secret Government and the New World Order - rather than fighting it. I'm a United Nations Country Club Constitutionalist - rather than a Shotgun and Constitution in My Truck Constitutionalist. I'm starting to get better acquainted with the Vatican, the United Nations, the City of London, and Washington D.C. I'm also looking at a lot of the fringe material regarding the Underground Bases and the Secret Space Program - but I'm trying to pretend like I'm a non-corrupt member of the Illuminati - or even to pretend (as strange and delusional as it seems) that I am a non-corrupt god or goddess (very small 'g' orthodoxymoron) who is completely onboard with the U.S. Constitution and the Teachings of Jesus. This is a very strange space to be in - and I don't recommend these mind-games to everyone. Don't try this at home kiddies!

    I used to just think that God was in control - and would take care of everything - and that all human efforts to save the world would fail - which would culminate in Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ. I don't think like that anymore. I think the ball is really in our court - and that our planet is how we plan-it.

    Is Solar System Governance too confusing and intimidating for mere mortals to contemplate and comprehend? I made post after post on this topic for months and months on Avalon 1 - with very little response. Of those responses - most were either negative or off-topic. Have we pretty much left things up to the Gods, Goddesses, and Megalomaniacs Anonymous? But then we bitch and blame when things don't go our way. I have made various observations and proposals - but what I would really like to see is vigorous discussion of the general topic of Solar System Governance. To me - this should be the number one topic in our world today. I just stumbled onto it - and I keep kicking myself that I didn't get into this sooner. I think I'll be going 'round and 'round with this subject for the rest of my life. I don't think I'll ever really master the concept - but I'm sure going to try. I think that others who are more emotionally stable and better educated will have to do the heavy lifting - but I will do my best to offer moral-support. I'll just keep posting and hoping. Hope springs eternal.

    I probably shouldn't say this - but I think I may have unknowingly been somewhat close to two people who knew a helluva lot about world government - possibly one on the Zionist side - and possibly one on the Teutonic Zionist side. I don't know for sure - but I think about both of them a lot. They never said anything much - but now in retrospect - and reading between the lines - I'm thinking this might've been the case. I often wish that I hadn't moved away from the area where both of them lived. One is now deceased - and I'm sure the other wouldn't give me the time of day. They probably wouldn't have told me anything years ago anyway. I'm too brash, flighty, idealistic and honest. I'm the put my foot in my mouth and spill the beans type of person. How does one rise into the stratosphere of world government without becoming hard, cynical, corrupt, and out of touch? In general - I get the picture of people who are penetratingly intelligent, cold, and calculating - and perhaps without much conscience, compassion, innocence, or idealism. Come to think of it - if one were to rise to the top - they might not like the view. (I got that one from 'Miami Vice'.) Do the people at Bilderberg ever really look happy and joyful? My impression of world leaders is that they most often look like someone just beat the crap out of them - rather than being triumphantly on top of the world. 'Atlas Dropped the Ball and Shrugged - A Case Study in Global Leadership.' Doesn't that sound like a great article title for the CFR journal 'Foreign Affairs'?!

    Somewhat unrelatedly - what if it were illegal to have a net-worth greater than one billion dollars (USD) or less than zero dollars (USD)? Would this defeat the spirit and letter of free-enterprise? Should we focus upon the Responsible Pursuit of Fame, Fortune, Power, and Pleasure - Where Responsibility is Rewarded and Irresponsibility is Punished? What if Public Assistance were in the form of a Card which provided the recipient with up to 500 dollars (USD) per month in the form of a zero interest LOAN? (rather than a handout) What if everyone were issued a Healthcare Card at no cost - which would provide them with Free Preventive, Basic, and Emergency Services? What if a second Healthcare Card were available to cover 75% of costs for everything else - which everyone would have to pay for on a sliding-scale based upon their income and net-worth? What if medical professional incomes were limited to a quarter of a million dollars (USD) annually? (How would the poor b@stards survive?) I think the medical profession is more corrupt than hell itself - and that's pretty damn corrupt. Why isn't the health and safety of our 'civilization' based upon PREVENTION in all areas of life? Follow the money...

    When I ask questions - especially regarding fringe topics which are especially controversial - I'm really asking 'Am I sane?' It drives me crazy when answers are not forthcoming. I really just want something in place which facilitates unity and freedom for all races - and which is based upon truth rather than lies. I'm only poking and prodding because things are so screwed-up, and because they seem to have been screwed-up for thousands of years. I fear that things will continue to be screwed-up for thousands of years - if we even survive.

    Unrelatedly, I sat down today, and read from my Holy Bible, Book of Common Prayer, and Church Hymnal. Last night, I spoke with some friends who attend a church which I used to attend. They invited me to church. How should I properly deal with this, in light of all the blasphemous postings I've made? Should I continue to speculate regarding the possible Luciferian origins of theology, mythology, architecture, sacred music, and sacred texts? Or should I just shut up? Have I more than made my point? Do I need to learn to know when to stop? Have I worn out my welcome? Even if I'm right - or even partially right - is this subject too hot to handle? Is it a threat to national security? Are more things than we think ultimately from the Pen of Lucifer? Are all of us actors on a stage? Is Lucifer the script-writer? Has this been going on for a long, long time? Could this entire world be one big Colosseum Event - a Galactic Theater of the Universe? Is it time for WE THE PEOPLE OF EARTH to close the curtain - and START WRITING OUR OWN SCRIPT? Just wondering.

    Has anyone taken a very, very close look at the architecture and art of churches, mosques, synagogues, and government buildings throughout the world? Are there commonalities? Look at the domes. Look at the gods and goddesses. What's going on here? I desire a unified and peaceful world which is genuinely responsibly free. A combined church and state wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't run by the same humans and non-humans who brought us the Crusades and the Inquisition. A minimalist humanist namaste constitutional responsible freedom theocracy might actually work. I just worry that highly disfunctional gods and goddesses would screw everything up - resulting in billions of corpses throughout the world. Would the Latin Mass, the Teachings of Jesus, and the U.S. Constitution be a good place to start? I'd like to know what the Pope and Jesuit General really think about in their most private moments regarding psychology, ethics, governance, science, technology, secrecy, history, spirituality, etc. It might be very, very different than what they present in public. I sometimes imagine their thoughts as they stand before the faithful. Might they be thinking 'if you people only knew what's really going on in this world!' Many people seem to be jumping out of the church frying pan, and into the new age fire. Look at the 'Infiltration of the New Age' thread in MOA. The information presented should be considered very carefully. Is there a Spiritual Switzerland somewhere between the Traditional Church and the New Age?

    Things get done based upon economic incentive, upon the ability of people to be deceptive, and upon their ability to throw their weight around. IT IS NOT BASED UPON REASON AND RATIONAL CONVERSATION. WHY IS THIS? Would it help if I became a pompous, supercilious, bombastic, opinionated, divisive, partisan shout-show host??? Is that what everyone wants? It worked out quite well for Rush Limbaugh didn't it???!!! Is there any difference in effectiveness between someone who posts what I post - and someone who doesn't post at all - and just concentrates on $crewing the competition and his secretary? This may be my last post. I just got an idea for a business with only one employee (or independent contractor)!!!
    I might even get a raise!!!

    Seven score and five years ago, a great American signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

    But one hundred forty-five years later, the Human Race still is not free. One hundred forty-five years later, the lives of Human Beings are still sadly crippled by the manacles of greed and the chains of fear. One hundred forty-five years later, Humanity lives on a lonely island of quiet desperation in the midst of a vast ocean of nearly seven billion souls. One hundred forty-five years later, Humanity is still languishing in the corners of global society and finds itself an exile on its own planet. And so today...I have determined to dramatize a shameful condition.

    In a sense...I've come to our religious and political leaders to cash a check. When the architects of the American constitutional republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all people would be guaranteed the "Inalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." America was to be a city on a hill...to illuminate the rest of the world with Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given We the People of Earth a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

    But I refuse to believe that America...and the rest of the world...is morally bankrupt. I refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds. And so, I've determined to cash this check...a check that will give Humanity...upon demand...the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

    I have also determined to remind the world of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of nationalism and protectionism. Now is the time to lift our world from the quicksands of war and hate...to the solid rock of brotherhood and sisterhood. Now is the time to make Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom a reality for all of God's children.

    It would be fatal for We the People of Earth to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of Humanity's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. 2012 will not be the end...but a beginning. And those who hope that the patriots and conspiracy theorists needed to blow off steam and will now be content...will have a rude awakening if the world returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in the world until Humanity is granted it's citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our world until the bright day of justice emerges.

    But there is something that I must say to We the People of Earth...who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place in the universe...we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

    The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed Humanity must not lead us to a distrust of all of the Powers That Be...for many of them have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

    We cannot walk alone.

    And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.

    We cannot turn back.

    There are those who are asking the devotees of Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as any Human Being is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of brutality and starvation. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies and minds are racked with the pain and horror of war. We cannot be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by being taught violence, lies, and immorality. We cannot be satisfied as long as the will of We the people of Earth is not taken seriously...and followed. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."¹

    I am not unmindful that some of you have encountered great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Know that somehow this situation can and will be changed.

    Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

    And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

    I have a dream that one day this world will rise up and live out the true meaning of the creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

    I have a dream that one day...the elites and the general public will sit down together at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood.

    I have a dream that one day...even the Deep Underground Military Bases will be transformed into an oasis of openness and transparency.

    I have a dream that one day...We the People of Earth will not be judged by our fame, fortune, and power...but by the content of our characters.

    I have a dream today!

    I have a dream that one day the little boys and little girls of the world...will be able to join hands...as Citizens of Earth.

    I have a dream today!

    I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."

    This is our hope...and Earth is our home.

    With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood and sisterhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

    And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

    My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

    Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,

    From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

    If America is to be a great nation...this must become true. If Earth is to be a great planet...this must become true.

    And so let freedom ring from Washington D.C.

    Let freedom ring from the United Nations.

    Let freedom ring from the City of London.

    Let freedom ring from the Vatican.

    Let freedom ring thoughout the Secret Government.

    But not only that:

    Let freedom ring from the Georgia Guidestones.

    Let freedom ring from the Secret Space Program throughout the Solar System.

    Let freedom ring from every Deep Underground Military Base.

    Let freedom ring from the Sea of Tranquility.

    From every Planet of the Solar System...let freedom ring.

    And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every planet, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, of all races, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

    Free at last! Free at last!

    Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!


    Is the division of territories into States rather than Worlds (or even Countries) significant? I think it is. Numerous States provide for a systematic and orderly decentalization. There might be a thousand States throughout the Solar System. If each of these States had independent militias/armies/uforces...it would be very difficult to impose Tyranny. If a significant outside threat arose...these independent forces would undoubtedly unite to oppose the outside threat. An outer perimeter uforce would be financed by the United States of the Solar System...and would defend against any external invasion of the Solar System...but would not be used to crack down on member States. I guess I'm trying to be a Minimalist Fundamentalist.

    Here is something from the 1916 Congressional Record http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/verona.htm which is worth considering:

    Senator Owen: I wish to put in the Record the secret treaty of Verona of November 22, 1822, showing what this ancient conflict is between the rule of the few and the rule of the many. I wish to call the attention of the Senate to this treaty because it is the threat of this treaty which was the basis of the Monroe doctrine. It throws a powerful white light upon the conflict between monarchical government and government by the people. The Holy Alliance under the influence of Metternich, the Premier of Austria, in 1822, issued this remarkable secret document:

    SECRET TREATY OF VERONA
    AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC CODE, 1778-1884, vol. 2; Elliott, p. 179.
    The undersigned, specially authorized to make some additions to the treaty of the Holy Alliance, after having exchanged their respective credentials, have agreed as follows:

    ARTICLE 1. The high contracting powers, being convinced that the system of representative government is equally as incompatible with the monarchical principles as the maxim of the sovereignty of the people with the divine right, engage mutually, in the most solemn manner, to use all that their efforts to put an end to the system of representative governments, in whatever county it may exist in Europe, and to prevent it being introduced in those countries where it is not yet known.

    ARTICLE 2. As it can not be doubted that the liberty of the press is the most powerful means used by the pretended supporters of the rights of nations to the detriment of those of princes, the high contracting parties promise reciprocally to adopt all proper measures to suppress it, not only in their own States but also in the rest of Europe.

    ARTICLE 3. Convinced that the principles of religion contribute most powerfully to keep nations in the state of passive obedience which they owe to their princes, the high contracting parties declare it to be their intention to sustain in their respective States those measures which clergy may adopt, with the aim of ameliorating their own interests, intimately connected with the preservation of the authority of the princes and the contracting powers join in offering their thanks to the Pope for what he has already done for them, and solicit his constant cooperation in their views of submitting the nations.

    ARTICLE 4. The situation of Spain and Portugal unite unhappily all the circumstances to which this treaty has particular reference. The contracting parties, in confiding to France the care of putting an end to them, engaged to assist her in the matter which may the least compromit (sic) them with their own people and the people of France by means of a subsidy on the part of the two empires of 20,000,000 of francs every year from the date of the signature of this treaty to the end of the war.

    ARTICLE 5. In order to establish in the Peninsula in the order of things which existed before the revolution of Cadiz, and to insure the entire execution of the articles of the present treaty, the high contracting parties give to each other the reciprocal assurance that as long as their views are not fulfilled, rejecting all other ideas of utility or other measure to be taken, they will address themselves with the shortest possible delay to all the authorities existing in their States and to all their agents in foreign countries, with the view to establish connections tending toward the accomplishment of the objects proposed by this treaty.

    ARTICLE 6. This treaty shall be renewed with such changes as new circumstances may give occasion for, either at a new congress or at the court of one of the contracting parties, as soon as the war with Spain shall be terminated.

    ARTICLE 7. The present treaty shall be ratified and the ratifications exchanged at Paris within the space of six months.

    Made at Verona the 22nd November, 1822.
    for Austria: METTERNICH
    for France: CHATEAUBRIAND
    for Prussia: BERNSTET
    for Russia: NESSELRODE

    I ask to have printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD this secret treaty, because I think it ought to be called now to the attention of the people of the United States and of the world. This evidence of the conflict between the rule of the few verses popular government should be emphasized on the minds of the people of the United States, that the conflict now waging throughout the world may be more clearly understood, for after all said the great pending war springs from the weakness and frailty of government by the few, where human error is far more probable than the error of the many where aggressive war is only permitted upon the authorizing vote of those whose lives are jeopardized in the trenches of modern war.

    Mr. SHAFROTH, Mr. President, I should like to have the senator state whether in that treaty there was not a coalition formed between the powerful countries of Europe to re-establish the sovereignty of Spain in the Republics of South and Central America?

    Senator Owen: "I was just going to comment upon that, and I am going to take but a few moments to do so because I realize the pressure of other matters. This Holy Alliance, having put a Bourdon prince upon the throne of France by force, then used France to suppress the condition of Spain, immediately afterwards, and by this very treaty gave her a subsidy of 20,000,000 francs annually to enable her to wage war upon the people of Spain and prevent their exercise of any measure of the right of self-government.

    The Holy Alliance immediately did not same thing in Italy, by sending Austrian troops to Italy, where the people there attempted to exercise a like measure of liberal constitutional self-government; and it was not until the printing press, which the Holy Alliance so stoutly opposed, taught the people of Europe the value of liberty that finally one country after another seized a greater and greater right of self-government, until now it may be fairly said that nearly all the nations of Europe have a very large measure of self-government. However, I wish to call the attention of the Senate to this important history in the growth of constitutional popular self-government.

    The Holy Alliance made its powers felt by the wholesale drastic suppression of the press in Europe, by universal censorship, by killing free speech and all ideas of popular rights, and by the complete suppression of popular government."

    "The Holy Alliance having destroyed popular government in Spain, and Italy, had well-laid plains also to destroy popular government in the American Colonies which had revolted from Spain and Portugal in Central and South America under the influence of the successful example of the United States."

    "It was because of this conspiracy against the American Republics by the European monarchies that the great English statesman, Canning, called the attention of our government to it, and our statesmen then, including Thomas Jefferson, who was still living at that time, took an active part to bring about the declaration by President Monroe in his next annual message to the Congress of the United States that the United States would regard it as an act of hostility to the government of the United States and an unfriendly act, if this coalition, or if any power of Europe ever undertook to establish upon the American continent any control of any American republic, or to acquire any territorial rights."

    "This is the so-called Monroe Doctrine. The threat under the secret treaty of Verona to suppress popular government in the American republics is the basis of the Monroe Doctrine. This secret treaty sets fourth clearly the conflict between monarchial government and popular government, and the government of the few as against the government on the many. It is a part, in reality, of developing popular sovereignty when we demand for women equal rights to life, to liberty, to the possession of property, to an equal voice in the making of the laws and the administration of the laws. This demand on the part of the women is made by men, and it ought to be made by men as well as by thinking, progressive women, as it will promote human liberty and human happiness. I sympathize with it, and I hope that all parties will in the national conventions give their approval to this larger measure of liberty to the better half of the human race".

    (Senator Owen, Congressional Record 1916)


    I'm not going to keep commenting on my own threads to try to generate interest. The ball is in your court. There are some other threads I wish to follow (some by BROOK and TRANCOSO)- but I think I'm done with my threads for the foreseeable future. This does not imply a lack of interest or a change of heart. I just don't wish to play the part of the crusader. I might try to visit the United Nations, Washington D.C., the City of London, and the Vatican once again (I visited them many years ago). I will continue to fantasize about being a part of a Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom Solar System which includes the U.N., Washington D.C., the City of London, the Vatican, the Underground Bases, and the Secret Space Program - except that in my dreamworld there is no secrecy or corruption. Once again - I don't wish to fight the New World Order - I wish to HI-JACK IT!! 'Take me to Nirvana!!' I'd love to put the dream into practice - but I'm not going to push it right now. If someone wants to pick me up in a UFO, and take me to the Darkside of the Moon to meet with Lucifer - I'll be ready to go at a moments notice. What am I saying?

    Whatever anyone thinks of me - I challenge ANYONE to produce a better six word (or less) model for solar system governance than a NAMASTE CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBLE FREEDOM SOLAR SYSTEM. After the New World Order fails - someone might want to give them a try. Try working outward from this six word combination. Try doing this several times a day. Make numerous connections, applications, and extrapolations. This is more of an intellectual challenge than one might suppose. Also - one does not have to be in 'Who's Who' to know 'What's What'. Degrees, Titles, Incomes, Offices, Uniforms, Clearances, and Badges are merely crutches which small people use to delude themselves into thinking they are big people. Put that in your bong, and smoke it!

    Are Satan, Lucifer, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Royal Family, and the Vatican the biggest seed-money rock stars on the planet - who are doing the most to make the world a better place? Trickle down theory voodoo economics? Where are the Billionaire Ghandi's? Jesus was pretty tough on rich people. Are billionaires the most socially responsible people on the planet? Did they gain their money through socially responsible activities? Can wealth become anticompetitive at some point? Should those with the most money have the greatest political clout? Should those with the gold - RULE? One of the greatest tragedies of history is the non compassionate use of accumulated wealth. I know that a lot of contactees and gurus are opposed to money - but I disagree. Money and private property are expressions of freedom. The problem with money is the irresponsible pursuit and use of money. Perhaps the billionaires should be placed under the scanning electron microscope to look for illegality and irresponsibility. Blood Money, Drug Money, and Destructive Money of All Kinds - should be repaid to society - with interest and penalties. I'm also not a big fan of ET Mentoring. Have the Gods, Goddesses, Angels, Archangels, ET's, and Ascended Masters been promoting Responsibility, Freedom, and Human Sovereignty (other than the Andromedans)? Boy - I sure got a lot out of my system - and I didn't even feel hostile. It must've been something I ate - or maybe the devil made me do it.

    Having said all of the above - I'm getting tired of being an internet warrior. It seems to be a monumental waste of time. Remember what Jesus said about pearls and such? Money Talks and BS Walks. The Bottom Line is the Bottom Line. Winning Isn't Everything. It's the Only Thing. Perhaps the secret is to be a Humanitarian on the Surface - and a Shrewd and Ruthless SOB Below the Radar. Could the Worship of Fame, Fortune, and Power - rather than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - help to explain why the Corrupt Rule the Stupid? Is Greed Good? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7upG01-XWbY

    I need to go for a long walk with my dog - and then perhaps I need to create a ten-year business plan. Who knows - in ten years I might have to change my tune and eat my words...

    OK...I'm back from my walk...and I decided that the Corrupt Will Always Rule the Stupid - because both the Corrupt and the Stupid are happy with the arrangement - despite all outward appearances. Additionally - Both the Corrupt and the Stupid are Threatened by Non-Corrupt Highly Intelligent People - and will Fight Them Vigorously. Think about THAT... Perhaps this is why no one has REALLY followed the Red Letter Teachings of Jesus for 2,000 years - and why they probably never will... Narrow is the way. Read Revelation 20:12. Is December 21, 2012 really Judgement Day?

    I'm on the verge of pusuing a business plan which is neither corrupt or stupid - and which will be executed in a manner which threatens neither the corrupt or the stupid. I may simply live a life of quiet decadence...and leave the corrupt and the stupid to their own devices...

    I'm going to bump this thread (even though it's not the same as bumping on AV1) because I think the general topic of Solar System Governance is extremely important. I got the idea over a couple of decades - but Alex Collier probably was the one who opened my eyes more than anyone else. I doubt that I have this figured out to any significant degree - but I wish for literally millions of people worldwide to think about how this solar system should be properly run. Sometimes I think I'm not doing enough - and sometimes I think I sound like a broken record. I guess I'm trying to use some of the propaganda techniques of Joseph Goebbels (or Lucifer/Kali perhaps?) - like reducing an idea to it's simplist form - and then repeating it over and over again - despite the objections of the intellectuals. Unfortunately - at this point - not many people seem to give a rat's patootie about Solar System Governance (SSG). I guess we'll just keep getting $crewed by Megalomaniacs Anonymous and the New World Order. What fun!



    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 7483
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:15 pm

    Please take a look at these few first posts on this thread. A lot of it is review -- but I have added some new material -- and I will add more. Also, please watch this video -- one more time -- and tell me what you think. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf0qiOESdRQ I don't watch this stuff to scare myself, or to make myself angry. I watch it to attempt to learn what's Really Going On -- so as to help me determine what the next best step might be for this solar system. I'm trying to be an insider -- without being an insider. Things are neater and cleaner that way. I suspect that being a real insider might literally destroy a person -- and it might destroy those around them. This game seems to be very messy and very nasty. I'm not sure how I might participate in how things really work -- and still retain some semblance of innocence and purity. I still think that I'd simply like to have a Room with a Cray, and an Unlimited-Access Badge (which I might use very sparingly). I'd sort of like to be a Solar System Palmer Joss (if you know what I mean). I'd like to know everything -- and say and do very, very little. I'd like to mostly be seen -- and not heard. I'd like to be treated like the 'Invisible Man' in every conceivable context. Do you see my point?? We all have our delusions, don't we. We're probably ALL deluded -- with various conflicting delusions. But really, can't we just all get along???
    avatar
    magamud

    Posts : 1280
    Join date : 2012-06-17

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  magamud on Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:51 pm

    Ortho im still trying to get ready for the test monday with the berkley college study and Dr. Francis Schaeffer.

    I guess the Center for National Policy uses Dr. Francis as their guru.

    Council for national policy
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_for_National_Policy

    Jeff Sharlets The Family?
    The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power
    The Fellowship (Christian organization)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_(Christian_organization)

    National Prayer Breakfast
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Prayer_Breakfast
    Should we have breakfast?

    The Fellowship hosts the National Prayer Breakfast
    The National Prayer Breakfast is a yearly event held in Washington, D.C., on the first Thursday of February each year.
    Every U.S. president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has participated in the breakfast.

    The breakfast, held in the Hilton's International Ballroom, is attended by some 3,500 guests, including international invitees from over 100 countries. The National Prayer Breakfast is hosted by members of the United States Congress and is organized on their behalf by The Fellowship Foundation, a conservative Christian organization more widely known as "The Family". Initially called the Presidential Prayer Breakfast, the name was changed in 1970 to the National Prayer Breakfast.



    President John F. Kennedy addresses the Prayer Breakfast in 1961

    Opus Dei
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Dei



    Last edited by magamud on Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:18 pm; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    magamud

    Posts : 1280
    Join date : 2012-06-17

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  magamud on Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:06 pm

    Bahá'u'lláh
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahá%27u%27lláh
    (English pronunciation: /bɑːhɑːˈʊlə/; Arabic: بهاء الله‎, "Glory of God"; 12 November 1817 – 29 May 1892), born Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí (Persian: میرزا حسینعلی نوری), was the founder of the Bahá'í Faith. He claimed to be the prophetic fulfilment of Bábism, a 19th-century outgrowth of Shí‘ism, but in a broader sense claimed to be a messenger from God referring to the fulfilment of the eschatological expectations of Islam, Christianity, and other major religions.

    One of those Bene Gesserit Bloodlines I assume....Could this be the Crux of WW3? Linked to Iran...

    Bahá'u'lláh was born on 12 November 1817, in Tehran, the capital of Persia, present-day Iran. His ancestry can allegedly be traced back to Abraham through Abraham's wife Keturah, to Zoroaster and to Yazdigird III, the last king of the Sassanid Empire,[2] and also to Jesse.

    Jesse
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse
    Jesse, Eshai or Yishai, (Hebrew: יִשַׁי, Modern Yishay Tiberian Yīšáy, meaning "God exists" or "God's gift"; Arabic: يَسَّى‎ Yassa; Greek: Ἰεσσαί Iessai; Latin: Isai, Jesse) is the father of the David, who became the king of the Israelites. His son David is sometimes called simply "Son of Jesse"


    Bábism
    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bábism[/url]
    The Babi Faith (Persian: بابی ها Bábí há ) is a religious movement that flourished in Persia from 1844 to 1852, then lingered on in exile in the Ottoman Empire (especially Cyprus) as well as underground. Its founder was Siyyid `Alí Muhammad Shirazi, who took the title Báb—meaning "Gate"—from a Shi'a theological term. Unlike other Islamic messianic movements, the Bábí movement signalled a break with Islam and attempted to start a new religious system. While the Bábí movement was violently opposed and crushed by the clerical and government establishments in the country in the mid 1850s, the Bábí movement led to the founding of the Bahá'í Faith which sees the religion brought by the Báb as a predecessor to their own religion, and gives a renewed significance to the Bábí movement









    Bahá'u'lláh


    Last edited by magamud on Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:53 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    devakas

    Posts : 2039
    Join date : 2010-04-10

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  devakas on Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:20 am


    for study



    sunny
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 7483
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:01 pm

    Thank-you magamud and devakas. I once visited 'Focus on the Family' in Pomona, California (before they moved to Colorado Springs). I watched Dr. James Dobson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._James_C._Dobson interview Secretary of the Interior Donald Hodel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_P._Hodel -- and I met them after the taping. They were both very nice -- but I could feel the power permeating the love. 'Top' people have sort of a stiff 'agent' look to them. A relative of mine met Bob Haldeman (shortly after Watergate), and commented on this 'distinguished' look and feel to them. Meeting the head of a major protestant denomination gave me the same feeling -- as did meeting Dr. Robert H. Schuller. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Schuller Secret Service Agents exhibit this same sort of thing (on steroids)! I keep thinking that all of these types of people really work for the Secret Government -- and if so -- perhaps it has to be this way. I'm mostly attempting to understand the way things really are -- so that I might help to make things better. But really, making things better might consist mostly of refining that which presently exists -- despite past iniquities and transgressions. Once, when Richard Nixon visited CBS Television City in 'Hollywood' -- they drove the limo right onto the stage -- and had Secret Service agents located high above the stage. A worker (who happened to be absent that day) said that if he had been there he would've 'taken a crap in the air-conditioning system'!! Talk about the '$HlT (Sam Huston Institute of Technology) Hitting the Fan'!! I'm presently reading 'The Rockefeller File' by Gary Allen (1976) -- and it is quite enlightening. I'm also reading 'Unmasking Europa' by Dr. Richard Greenberg -- just to balance things out. I'd love to take classes from Dr. Greenberg! http://www.amazon.co.uk/Unmasking-Europa-Search-Jupiters-Ocean/dp/0387479368

    Check this out! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJZu1-DZumA I love watching videos by people who no one has ever heard of -- yet are quite profound. BTW -- I'm reading the '9/11 Commission Report' -- just to balance things out. I keep thinking that the 'Top' people have to do a lot of things they don't agree with. I suspect that many of them hate the New World Order a lot more than Alex Jones does. Things are bad. But trying to make things better might actually make things worse. Think about THAT. I suspect that I will always live a life of quiet desperation -- regardless of whether I am an outsider or an insider. If I were an insider, I'd probably spend 99% of my time in that 'Room with a Cray' weeping and weeping and weeping -- and I'm NOT kidding. When I joke -- and even swear -- I'm dealing with a helluva lot of internal pain and suffering. I'm not 'Uber Alles' regarding my internet posting. I'm simply working within my presuppositions and my environment -- to attempt to help make things better. I'm simply trying to resolve a lot of conflict which I have lived with for most of my life -- but it's NOT working. I'm getting worse and worse. If you met me, and visited me at my house, you'd know how bad things are for me. In many ways, I've given up. If you knew what I REALLY think about -- you'd know why. I keep my lip zipped about a lot of things -- and I have for several decades. I am extremely discrete. I continue to promise 'No Surprises'. Now I think I'm going to read from my book of speeches by John F. Kennedy -- 'Let the Word Go Forth'. http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/BqXIEM9F4024ntFl7SVAjA.aspx

    Consider watching all of the 'Stargate' and 'Stargate SG-1' episodes and movies. Some episodes are sort of corny -- but all of them are excellent mental excercises. I sometimes think I'd like to be a composite of the SG-1 team. Do you see what I mean? I'm presently watching the sixth season of 'Stargate SG-1'. I love the mixture of Egyptology and Science-Fiction!! I'd sort of like to live and work in an environment similar to that of the Stargate Command underground base -- but with less of a militaristic flavor. Imagine that sort of an environment within Ida!! I think I've figured-out a way to move this thread from Berkeley to Ida. I'll try to be idealistic -- but don't count on it. I sometimes feel like the 'Norman' (I think that was his name) character from 'Stargate SG-1'!! You know -- the crazy UFO-Conspiracy Nut who claimed to be an alien -- and who actually turned out to be one!! Hell! I've claimed to be 'KRLLL' (tongue in cheek)!!! http://krlll.com/ Also, try imagining nearly all of the science-fiction material as being real -- and occurring within THIS solar system -- and then imagining how YOU would respond to the various challenges!! Some of this stuff might actually be real. Unfortunately, we don't know which 5% reflects reality and reasonable possibility. They keep us guessing!! On a lighter note -- check this out!! 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ-qLUIj_A0 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VQuuWb874s 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3ppbbYXMxE

    I keep thinking about Ra, Isis, and Horus (IHS -- Isis, Horus, Set?) -- reincarnationally. Would one reincarnational manifestion be Cesar, Cleopatra, and Ptolemy Cesarian?? God, Mary, and Jesus?? What if Isis was both wife and daughter of Ra?? What if Isis and Horus were the human children of Amen Ra?? What if Horus and Isis were Adam and Eve?? What if all three could incarnate as males or females -- or even in a hermaphrodite form?? What if Ra were merely an agent of even more powerful Other-Than-Human Gods and/or Goddesses?? Think about Archangel Michael at War with the Dragon in HEAVEN!! What is a Dragon doing in Heaven?? Think about it. A Reptilian in Heaven?? If so -- is this the exception -- or the norm?? What if Ra and Horus sided with a Reptilian-Heaven against a Human-Defending Isis -- for reasons of power and/or survival?? I have NO idea about what I just wrote -- but some of you out there might know the REAL story about all of this. All I know is that I love the Jewish and Catholic people -- but the reality of Judeo-Christian history seems to be very dark and violent -- compared with the Teachings Attributed to Jesus. Something is VERY wrong with this picture -- but I'm not sure exactly what. I've been told that BOTH the human design and programming were fatally flawed -- and that we need to start over. I've been told that I should NOT have tried to save the human race. I could say more -- but I'd rather not. Should I make my peace with Big Brother and/or Big Mother?? In the final analysis, we've made our bed -- haven't we?? We seem to have slept with the Devil for thousands of years -- and we seem to be pleased with the arrangement -- which might be a good thing -- especially if we have to sleep with Satan for at least another thousand years -- if you know what I mean...




    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:57 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Sponsored content

    Re: The University of Solar System Studies and Governance

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:58 am