Yeah, in the second part of Mazinger Z (in my country they changed the name of the anime and only realized a year ago it was the continuation) the pilot (Tommy Z in USA I think) mutates into an UFO researcher. If you’re here in brainturbator you maybe have heard about Jacques Valleé, but do check Trevor James Constable. Very nice stuff. Transformers i think is more Christian-tech propaganda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfDIVJXkfCU ... do check “The Religion of technology”. It is similar militaristic WASP propaganda to GIJOE series: demonizing the snake (COBRA) or Saint George killing the dragon.

Hi-tech Japan is getting hyperdimensional if you take seriuosly the idea of dreams as hyperdiensional portals: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/3705790/Scientists-develop-software-that-can-map-dreams.html --thus this is not necessarily good (or bad). Dunno. Anyway there’s too a lot of anime with christian symbology (take Evagelion series).

OK - so next question on the agenda:

We were talking about that in some sense, a state of “ignorance” seemed to imply that a person was innocent.  That then begs the question of what it means to be in a state of ignorance?  Does ignorance mean a lack of knowledge?  Or does it mean a lack of an ability to do some planning/plotting:

Issue #1: Does ignorance, in the sense that we were using it mean the same as lack of capacity for forethought? [Ref #16: Theme 1-2: Frame of Mind] There was discussion of the role of ignorance and whether it implies innocence.  Discussion lead to the question of whether by ignorance do we mean a capacity for forethought?

It could be that ignorance means that there is a lack of “situational comprehension”: you don’t know what is going on in a particular situation.  This could include a general lack of capacity to understand what is going on, as in the case of children or the mentally infirm.  So to claim there is a lack of ignorance/innocence in a situation, it seems there’s a requirement that a person have capacity to understand a particular situation, and then they actually do understand the situation.

But then on top of that, what seems to be missing is an ability to produce a desired outcome from a situation.  (Perhaps this is starting to bleed into the “power” component).  We might call this one’s “situational efficacy”: one’s ability to produce a desired outcome in a given situation.  As far as ignorance is concerned, we might say that one must lack the situational “know-how” required of efficacy, in order to remain innocent.  Part of that “situational know-how,” then I would think would require some capacity for forethought.

So perhaps you need either (1) a lack of situational comprehension or (2) a lack of situational know-how required of efficacy, in order to claim innocence?

Hey guys—hard to believe it’s now been over three years—and for some of you almost four years—that we had this discussion on “innocence and power over our existence.” Every now and then, at the end of the year, I like to see if I have any fresh new ideas or reflections to share, and this year I did—and so just wanted to share what I jotted down concerning this topic.  Please feel free to comment or critique as you see fit.

Today if I had to answer the question of whether it’s necessary to lose one’s innocence to take power over one’s existence, I would say “probably yes.”

First, to take power over your existence, I would argue requires the ability to make it something fundamentally different than it would be in its natural state.  This ability will require an awareness and know how of how to alter existence generally, and how it applies specifically in our case.  It is difficult to imagine us calling anyone with this type of ability—and more specifically—with this type of knowledge—innocent; thus, if this is what we would require “to take power over our existence,” it seems a loss of innocence would be inevitable.

On the other hand, perhaps it is possible to take power over our existence without this ability.  After all, one can always jump into the meat grinder—and this would surely alter one’s existence.  Another option, perhaps the devout follower of a code that promises to make life much different.  This disciple might not understand the code, but suppose the code if followed, would transform his existence.  In this case, the disciple may have retained his innocence, but has he really taken power over his existence?  He may have put his faith in that code that may or may not be transformative to his life.  But much to the dismay of all you social conservatives out there, I would argue that faith cannot be considered power, because the disciple does not know for sure what the outcome of devotion to the code will be.  Without the certainty of knowledge, control over one’s existence would rely on a “crap shoot,” even if the disciple fervently believes in the outcome.  Thus, for it to be power, knowledge is required, not mere belief—even if it turns out to be true belief, without the additional justification of the belief, which would require a loss of innocence, it would be a tough stretch to call the disciple’s fervor real power.

Therefore, it depends if taking power over our existence is something we mean to require an ability through knowledge and know how of existence generally to change our existence specifically.  I would think that it should, so my vote today would go for ab"probably yes,” as it seems most in the spirit of the question; though, who knows where I’ll stand in another three years ...