Just Another Stupid Love Story Great ending. Really appreciated your description of the taunting of Ahmedis and the way all of us have ended up in the West with our memories, and at least in your case, some old friends. Well done.

The Young Philosopher Dionysis: You have no taste. Stop embarrassing yourself and criticize something you know a little about.

This writing is superb. I would love to see Rehan write a longer piece or to string all the great writing on Lahore together.

You have a very evocative way of making those of us outside Pakistan feel like they`re really missing some special things.

Keep the writing coming.

An Accent in Kashmir Yo, whats with all this stuff about this car ``the accent``? Was this an article about Kashmir with a clever little promo thrown in? Get rid of the rubbish about your car.

The Chronicle of the Air-Conditioned Class In Response to ``Hamidm``

I am from Bahawalpur. There were never any rickshaw `pullers` here or anywhere else in Pakistan. Rather, the rickshaws were powered by men on a cycle with a passenger carriage attached to the back. Also, these cycle rickshaws were only phased out in the early 80s, not the sixties as you said.

Thanx Abid only a complete moron would need this kind of special experience to realize the truism that undergirds this whole tale: there are good and bad people everywhere.

The Life and Times of Saddam Hussein Why is this paper, which reads like a high school or college assignment, being shown on Chowk? Did the author just decide to have something extremely irrelevant and unoriginal put up on the net for ego`s sake? There is not a single sentence in here with any analysis or creative thought--all the author does is rehash well known history very easily accessible in a multitude of other sources--just check any encyclopedia.

Pakistani undergrads in the US Sac #49

Distinguishing fellow Pakistanis by class background is more than just an innocuous little habit we have and more than a simple variation on the way Americans and French describe themselves, it is a very powerful tool of exclusion that is at the center of our neurosis as a people. Cultures can be changed and modified so long as their is some determination to do so. Rather than just throwing up one`s hands and continuing old harmful patterns, I suggest you try changing your frames of reference in order to become a part of the solution.

Pakistani undergrads in the US This article was well written and funny, but it points to a basic problem with all Pakistanis. In categorizing Pakistani students by `social class,` the author, who otherwise seems enlightened, simply mimics the overiding and extremely destructive obsession of all Pakistanis, even those overseas, with can really be no more than a tool for our collective alienation: class obsession. Terms such as `upper, middle, and lower class` may have been useful ways of describing people when only a few chosen could attend college, travel abroad, or learn a modicum of cosmopolitan sophistication, but those days are long gone and good riddance! We now live in a world where Pakistanis travel everywhere, they often attend the best colleges, and are often worldly, sophisticated, and polished; many may have had poor forebears, but does any pejorative description of their ancestry really do justice to who they are today--usually not. What it does, instead, is keep people in their place and in doing so, ossified categories like class discourage our natural initiative, destroy our sense of community, and preclude any possibily of solidarity. We have enough people from other communities trying to putus down, do we really want our own kind doing the same--I highly doubt so. We should stop using terms like `good family` because it only implies (ridiculously) that the rest are somehow from `bad families.` We must stop referring to ourselves primarily in terms of what our grandparents did and seek to include more of all backgrounds--that is the only way we as a people will lift ourselves from the dumps our prejuduices have placed us in.

Pak-Millennium Conference 1999 Dear Interactors,

With due respect.

Many of you have thoroughly expounded on the worthlessness of the conference. I will choose to take a more useful role ... the conference is this Saturday and we should be submitting questions and issues over here rather than wasting this precious time.

Dear Conference management,

I am submitting some questions and suggestions for the different panels on the conference, since I will not be able to make it to Boston:

1) This is for the Information Technology panel: The comment is that Pakistan should seriously consider wireless radio/microwave links as an alternative/complement to land based fiber links. Although there is a lot of investment in the US in land based fiber networks, they may not be ideal for every situation. Wireless links can reach the difficult terrains of various areas of Pakistan with low investment and in addition may be safe from ground hazards. Already high speed wireless links are in existence with transfer speeds that are very good. In the future we are looking forward to a network of satellites that will form the backbone of a high speed wireless network.

2) My second comment is for the Infra-structure development panel: I suggest that we inaugurate a new program that will be available as an alternative to NCC in intermediate class. The program will give credits to students for teaching at elementary schools in their areas. The students only need to teach a few hours a week, but given the number of intermediate students, this can fulfill the educational needs of many children. Plus the teaching hours need not follow the usual school hours and as a result same buildings can be utilized more efficiently.

3) My third comment is for the role of Expatriates panel: I suggest that the expatriates who invest in Pakistan have the option of funding training colleges (which may also be supported by the government) which teach good technical skills to the candidates at discounted rates with the condition that the candidates will be employed for a given amount of time by one of the expatriate companies funding their education. This way the local Pakistani students get training at a level that the expatriate companies desire and the companies benefit from having high quality employees in Pakistan.

4) My fourth question and comment is for the Social Development panel: My question is what is the government of Pakistan doing to protect the genetic heritage of Pakistan in the biotechnological age? The issue here is that with the advent of biotechnology, international firms are crazily patenting seeds that are very minor variations of seeds used by local farmers all over the world. With WTO agreements, such patents may be binding with the absurd result that a farmer in Pakistan may not be able to use the seeds for his own crop because that will be violating the patent held by some international firm. This is a great systematic theft of the biological heritage of the Third World and the government of Pakistan has to take concrete steps to stop it from wreaking havoc. In addition, the new genetically modified crops are coming with the so called ``Terminator`` gene which makes the next generation of the crop sterile. Thus the poor farmer has to buy seeds from the firm for every season. We have all seen the dependence of farmers in Pakistan on pesticides produced by international firms. Imagine if the same kind of dependence existed for seeds to plant the crops with.

regards,
Wasiq Bokhari

Why The War On Ghosts Was Lost Dear Parvez,

I marvel you courage and honesty in dealing with these issues, and every time I read something new by you, my respect of you grows.

At the risk of sounding fatalistic, I may add that people deserve their governments.

I personally see myself as part of this system which is rotten to the core. Unlike you, I only have the courage to talk about the various problems in the safety of my home and friends. But I am not willing to try to put my neck out in order to make a difference.

Maybe people like me are worse: we understand what is wrong, and yet do not speak out. No wonder we get the rulers and a system that we have.

In order to redeem myself a bit, I would ask you the following:

Can we form a forum where all the facts about corruption in Pakistan are collected, and then forwarded to the people who give alms to our corrupt rulers? Strike them where it hurts, expose the inside stories and reduce the amount of aid that (theoretically) goes into the country, unless there is real reform? Or start diverting the flow of funds to private NGO`s that are open to audit and scrutiny by the external agencies.

People within the country know everything, but feel helpless to fight it. And those who are outside see everything but are not able to make a difference.

Maybe this way both groups will start to matter.

regards,
Wasiq

An Evolving Conversation Very well written Saad, not only have you conveyed the important issues on either side of this debate, but have done so beautifully. You are a very good writer and I liked the way you cast this debate into a play. With your permission, I might steal this concept in order to present some concepts of physics and math to students.

As a spice to this discussion, I want to talk a bit about the ``origin of life`` issue that you mentioned. My references here are a paper by L. Gabora (adap-org/9901002 from which I quote) and the proceedings of the Santa Fe Institute.

Despite different problems encountered in attempting to get ribozymes to self-replicate, the idea behind it—that life originated in a simplee self-replicating system that over time evolved into the familiar DNA-RNA-protein complex— is a a good one. Once you have some sort of self-replicating structure in place, anything whatsoever that accomplishes this basic feat, natural selection can enter the picture and help things along. Kauffman suggested that knowing as much as we do about what life is like now may actually get in the way of determining how it began. Accordingly, he decided to focus on how to get from no life at all to any kind of primitive self-replicating system, and hand the problem of getting from there to DNA-based life, over to natural selection (as well as self-organizing processes). Given the conditions present on earth at the time life began, how might some sort of self-replicating system have arisen? His answer is that life may have begun not with a single molecule capable of replicating itself, but with a set of collectively self-replicating molecules. That is, none of the molecules could replicate itself, but each molecule could induce the replication of some other molecule in the set, and likewise, its own replication was induced by some other member of the set. This kind of dual role as both ingredient (or stimulant) and product of different chemical reactions is not uncommon for polymers such as protein and RNA molecules.

Polymers induce each other`s replication by acting as catalysts. Catalysts speed up chemical reactions that would otherwise occur very slowly. An autocatalytic system is a set of molecules which, as a group, catalyze their own replication. Thus if A catalyzes the conversion of X to B, and B catalyzes the conversion of Y to A, then A + B comprise an autocatalytic set. In an environment rich in X and Y, A + B can self-replicate. A set of polymers wherein each molecule’s formation is catalyzed by some other molecule is said to exhibit catalytic closure.

It is of course highly unlikely that two polymers A and B that just happened to bump into one another would happen to catalyze each other. However, this is more likely than the existence of a single polymer catalyzing its own replication. And in fact, when polymers interact their diversity increases, and so does the probability that some subset of the total reaches a critical point where there is a catalytic pathway to every member.

Still one can ask the question how likely is it the right autocatalytic set would have emerged given the particular concentrations of chemicals and atmospheric conditions present at the time life began? In particular, some subset of the theoretically possible reactions may be physically impossible; how can we be sure that every step in the synthesis of each member of an autocatalytic set actually gets catalyzed? Kauffman`s response is: if we can show that autocatalytic sets emerge for a wide range of hypothetical chemistries—i.e., different collections of catalytic molecules, then the particular details of the chemistry that produced life do not matter so long as it falls within this range. In fact for typical sets of the length of the participating molecules and their probabilities of catalysing a given reaction, it is highly plausible that such a path was followed in the prevalent conditions on Earth when life arose. Experimental evidence for this theory using real chemistries have been unequivocally supportive.

I am off for a couple of days, hopefully there will be more to say then.

regards

Dissection of Evolution Theory Re: Goga (17)

I agree that the details are in flux, as is the case with any frontier of scientific endeavour, but let me ask you a simple question: What is the simplest and verifiable explanation for the complexity and diversity of life?

The basic fact that spontaneous creation of any living organism has never been observed, and is in gross contradiction with our current understanding of the universe, throws all flavors of creationism out of the door. In the hooplah raised by creationists against evolutionary models, they conveniently fail to mention that creationism has not a single shred of evidence that supports it. It is alive today, like a myth, entirely on faith.

If we accept what I have said in the above para, then the only other possibility is that life arose through entirely physical processes and through the demands of survivability has produced the complexity and variety we see around us.

What do you think of this?

Evolutionary models differ on the details, but on the issue of the process of evolution, there is no argument and is accepted by everyone who is associated with it scientifically. The range of evidence present spans all size scales, from the microscopic to the macroscopic. And despite what is popularly said, the concept of evolution has been under the tightest of scrutiny and has survived attacks from all sides for about 150 years now.

regards

Chowk Special Re: Rishi

Regarding your earlier comment about my mention of Brahman:

I personally found the description in the Gita to be supremely beautiful, and interestingly there is a very strong commonality between the description of the supreme Divinity in the Gita and the narratives of Ali bin Abi Talib in his sermons (collected in Nahjul Balagha). If you`re interested, you might check it out.

I don`t know whether you are interested in this, but I find that there are very interesting ethical parallels between the battle of Mahabharta and Karbala. The details are not quite the same, but you might enjoy reading about Karbala.

regards,
Wasiq

Chowk Special Re: Kafir (93)

``My problem arises when human beings, as social and political creatures, try to appropriate meaning to this mystery ...``

That makes two of us! Probably a sad consequence of our mind`s tendency to interpret ...

Actually I would love to talk about the discordance between Quantum theory and General Relativity. Here`s a simple explanation:

In General Relativity, the force of gravity does not exist, instead matter and energy distort space-time much like a heavy object sitting on a stretched piece of fabric. A marble rolling on this fabric will no longer move in a straight line in the vicinity of this heavy object. This is not because of a force, but because of the distortion of the geometry of the underlying sheet it is rolling on. The amount of distortion can be parameterized by the ``curvature`` of the sheet, and in GR the curvature of space-time is directly proportional to the energy density. Since mass is proportional to energy, a more massive object produces a larger curvature and hence a larger deflection of the paths of other objects, hence the appearance of a stronger gravitational field.

Now let us come to Quantum Mechanics. In QM, there is an uncertainty relation due to Heisenberg which states that for a small enough time, the quantum vaccum can produce a state with arbitrarily large energy. In other words, the QM vaccum is not empty but full of activity where particles and their anti-particles emerge spontaneously and then annihilate each other. If the particle antiparticle pair is not very massive, it lives for a longer time compared to the a more massive pair. i.e if the energy of the pair is E, then it lives for a time proportional to 1/E. So in QM, we can produce a state of arbitrarily large energy but only for a short enough time.

Herein lies the heart of the discrepancy. When one tries to formulate a Quantum Mechanical version of GR, one finds that one is faced with an infinite number of states with very large energies or curvature. This is due to those high energy states that are continually produced in QM for very short times. A state of very large curvature is called a black hole, and therefore the theory of Quantum gravity is full of black holes, and it is not possible to do any meaningful calculations. (c.f Infinite in All Directions on Chowk for an introduction).

regards

Chowk Special I want to thank all the participants of this discussion for the sophistication and honesty of their arguments. It has been a mind expanding experience. Special thanks to my dear friend Kamal, known to us as Matha, for his bitter-sweet pill of sincere incisiveness wrapped in Matha-esque humor, there simply is no substitute! And to Anita, for starting all of this, and carrying it through with her usual finesse. Goga, Saima, Noor, Kafir and Godot shone like gems, my thanks to you for your words and more importantly your skepticism.

I also want to apologize to anyone whom I might have offended, advertantly or inadvertantly. These topics border on some of the most personal beliefs of people. By watching my own reactions to things I take for granted, I can not only recognize how silently one can be deceived, but also how differences in opinion on what cannot be firmly established, harden into walls that cannot be scaled. My views on all of this are thankfully in a process of evolution, and I hope that stays.

Finally I must thank SR for providing perspective, at least to me. Yes, I must confess, that I am still silently driven by what I imbibed as a child, and that in cases like this, the mind has a tendency to crystallize insufficient knowledge into ``firm`` conclusions.

So let me go one step further, and bare my soul to you:

My fundamental questions are:

(1) Is there the presence of a spiritual dimension in human history, or are all religions merely a-posteriori concoctions of power-hungry (but imaginative) priests and rulers?

(2) If (1) is true, is there is a genuine spirituality in Islam?

The way I see it is that, regardless of whether people have been thoroughly abused and manipulated by clergy (or related parasites), the willingness of people to be abused points to the presence of a spiritual need. Second, the lives of and work produced by spiritually motivated people speaks for itself about spirituality as a fuel for human ingenuity and imagination. Thus, spirituality, even as merely a functional definition of something much more mundane, appears to me to be a fact.

The next related question that arises is whether one can find an evidence for spirituality in the human history? Do we find instances in history, where the turn of events point us clearly to a new historical phenomenon and processes unlike what we associate with ordinary people like ourselves and their aspirations.

This question, to me, logically links in with the issue of the presence of genuine spirituality in Islam. I went back to history books because I wanted to find the evidence for that break with history. I believe that it is possible to do so, contrary to what my friend Kamal would argue. To me that possibility is also, at a certain level, an imperative. I personally would not qualify as either a Shia or a Sunni, I am sure both sects would find more than enough deficiencies in me, however, as far as I have been able to trace so far, I am inclined to lean one way versus another on certain matters.

That preference does not make the other side perfect, however, within the context of the discussion pursued so far, that is unfortunately how people will construe my standing, and given my limited abilities that is how I have presented it. In this present discussion, I have been hard pressed to stay within a particular context of the discussion, defined by my wish to identify a spiritual history of Islam. If I were to outrightly deny the existence of any spirituality (as impled by Matha and SR in my opinion), then obviously, the whole context changes.

Sticking to the above mentioned context, within Islam what I see is that one side dominated the other and successfully marginalized it. I construe this as a great example of the dialectical process of history, where we see the negation of a negation. Muhammed negated the Makkan elite, which in turn negated Muhammed right after his death.

If one were to not ask about ``good versus evil`` (whatever that means), but merely ask the question of what happened to the movement of Muhammed, then the answer would be that it was negated. That conclusion by itself is startling enough for most people. In my opinion the detailed discussions of who comes out cleaner at the other end are just details. Of course, if there was no spirituality to start with, then Islam today is nothing more than a magnification of a tribal quabble fourteen centuries ago. All the bells and whistles that we see in it are later inventions.

If on the other hand Islam is more than ``full of sound and fury, signifying nothing``, to me this particular historical turning of the tables signifies a very critical event, not only for Islamic history, but also human history.

Even as a die-hard scientist, I must keep my mind open, after all one can only talk probabilities.

regards,
Wasiq

Chowk Special Re: Saima (88)

Actually I think you misread me, I said ``Islamic view of ``justice`` is not separate from its view of ``morality``, the latter derives from the former``, and not the other way around.

On another related point, Plato`s Republic was anything BUT freedom of thought. Who said Plato believed in freedom of thought or speech? In an ideal city, the rulers were philosophers who were to be specially trained for their special job. The works of poets for example were to be carefully regulated, for according to Plato the false moral notions of the traditional poets had a powerful and negative impact on the general public. Philosophical reflection was to replace popular poetry as the force that guided moral education.

regards, and thanks for being a key member of this interesting debate.