(Note: Please excuse my lack of a symbolic logic font. LaTeX doesn’t suit my preferences.)
(If you haven’t read the first three parts of this series, you’re just asking for a spanking. Go here.)

Firstly, I must point out that we are, at this time, dismissing defining the final term in the generator: U, save to say that it, through a complexity requiring its own chapter , for now will be put as “that which is good, right or true” and specifically not the opposite. If you prefer you may think of U, for now, as being generally positive and ~U as being generally negative. U stands for eudaemonia.

    In the first two parts of the H.D.T. essays, we discussed the constituents of paradigm as explained in the Philosophy Generator and the ability to use the chart as a path to Anti-Social Engineering, which attempts to reveal “the programming” to “the programmed.” It is recommended that you read these two essays first for we are about to go down the rabbit hole and things are going to get a bit complicated.
    Please catch up here.

(If you haven’t read part one, please click here.)
    

    We begin by examining the contents of your mind. Our goal in this four part discussion will be to separate the ideas we have concocted for ourselves from the ones that are engineered for us and determine the value this knowledge provides. To accomplish this we must be able to catagorize that which makes up the contents of our mind and in order to do that, we must begin with definitions. Everything we are about to discuss is based on the following chart, which I have dubbed “The Philosophy Generator.”
    

This essay is continued from "Shame Theory" Part I which is available here.

    “Humans should be ashamed of themselves.” This will be a predominant message of 2010. I know this is an accurate prediction because I'm one of the people who is going to be spreading the message. There seems to be a controlled shift in popular Western culture to move past Guilt and go directly to Shame. I believe these ends are achieved purposefully and professionally by many different sources but all seem to be cashing in on the following idea, which this essay will examine in detail: Due to the much stronger emotional response to shame stimuli than to guilt, either individually or collectively, those wishing to take advantage of this response would be best served by promoting a message of fallibility rather than culpability.