In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth # 191 by GT

1. The set of all positive integers (which is contably infinite) is smaller (in cardinality) than the set of reals between 0 and 1.

May be true. But I doubt in the ``real`` existence of real numbers. If you have gone through my previous interacts of some recent articles of Gill Sahib, you might be knowing that I am trying to show that reality is ``discrete`` and not ``continuous``. Continuous numbers can exist only in certain abstract mathematical relations but any such kind of continuity cannot exist in our Physical world. There cannot be infinite discrete numbers between 0 and 1.


2. The set of reals between 0 and 1 is equal (in the sense that there exists a one to one and onto mapping) to the set of reals between 0 and 2.

Actually this one to one an onto mapping of points is considered to be existing even between a finite line and an infinite line. It means that according to mathematics (theory of Jorge Kanour; 1845-1918), the numbers of points on a finite line have its number of points exactly equal to the number of points of an infinite line.

You can see that this theory is older than the emergence of Quantum Physics. I no more consider this theory to be valid. A finite line must be having finite number of discrete points and an infinite line must be having infinite number of discrete points. There cannot be one to one correspondence between finite points and infinite points. Chowk scientists should know that Quantum Physics has even calculated the minimum possible (or absolute minimum) distance. There is no anything like perfect continuity in our physical world.

Geometry still uses old Greek concept of point. It is defined something like an abstract point which occupies no space. The same Geometry defines `line` something like as a ``combination of points``. What I think is that this pure abstract mathematics cannot be applied to the physical world. If a `point` has no space at all then how any `line` (i.e. combination of points) can have any space...??? I think that a combination of `spaceless` points cannot have any length. Abstract Mathematics says that a `line` has length but it does not have any width. Anyways, there is need to have a Quantum or Discrete Geometry as well.

A line can be started from a definite point and can be considered to be extending to infinity on one direction. Such a line can be considered to be `infinite` line. But remember that this `infinite` line has a `definite` origin. This line is infinite only on onward side but this line is not infinite on backward side. I had assumed the same thing in my previous interact.

On the other hand, there also can be a line which can be considered to be extending infinitly towads both sides. This line is also infinite. But this line is infinite towards onward and backward side both. There can be one directional infinity and there also can be two directional infinity. There can be mutiple directional infinity as well and also there can be an all directional infinity.

One type of infinity can be smaller or larger than other one. Meaning of infinity is Never Ending on one or more sides. A thing which can end on all sides(like a finite line), cannot have never ending points in it.

So what puzzles me is: do we really not know anything about 1/0?


If you have to divide Rs.100 between zero people, it only means that you are not going to disburse any sum to anyone at all. You can distribute Rs.100 to as many (i.e. never ending) zero persons you like.1/0 is only Abstract Mathematics. It is good only in abstractions. It cannot be as it is applied to real physical world.

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth Re: # 181

Perhaps ... you might be talking like who was before the first being like God... etc. etc.

I personally think that this universe cannot be like infinite period old. It can happen that time might not had any existence before the start of time. I had explained in another of my interacts that time cannot exist in complete empty space. Time started with the emergence of material objects. And material objects cannot be infinite period old. Its proof is that if material objects are infinite period old, then it means that up to our time, an infinite period of time has been passed. But as a matter of fact, infinite period of time cannot be ``passed``. Only a finite time period can be ``passed``.

In this connection, Aristotle considers ``matter`` and ``form`` to be eternal. Matter without form or form without matter is just meaningless. Such a separate existence of form and matter could be the characteristic of that early universe when time didn`t exist.

According to Aristotle, the unification of matter with form is equivalent to ``movement``. The first ever such movement required a ``Prime Mover``. Aristotle has conceived this ``Prime Mover`` as a Non-Physical and perfectly Abstract entity.

That Abstract Entity, with the context of our modern knowlewdge, could be the ultimate form of ``attraction`` between matter and form. This attraction might had remained in operation but without any significance, in that early universe where time didn`t exist.

Time started when that ultimate attraction first significantly affected separately existing matter and form and so first ever unification of matter and form emerged.

Whatever are the characteristics of existing universe, are the ultimate outcome of that ultimate attraction, which acted as ``Prime Mover`` at the start of Universe,,, and must be functioning right now as well.

Regards!

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth # 170 by Khurram

Sorry, I could not get intended analogy even after reasonable ser khapai. Shall be thankful if you explain.

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth # 147 by Khurram

What is north of the North Pole?

North Pole is the extreme north place/ position of Globe. We talk about directions only with reference to Global positions. In Geography, Globe has been divided in Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere. The dividing line between two hemispheres is obviously the Equator.

Only North and South are the ``absolute`` directions of Globe because there are only North and South Poles, i.e. there are no East and West Poles.

East and West directions are only ``referential`` directions because these are only referred by right/ left sides of longitudinal lines. If you are going and going towards right side of any longitudinal line, it means you are moving towards east, even if you complete the circle around the glob.

North and South directions are also referred as up/ down of any latitude. But in addition, there are fixed North and South Poles as well. In this scheme, North Pole is located at extreme upper point of Globe. If you are going to upper side of any latitude, it means that you are going towards North. Towards upper side, you can maximum reach to the North Pole because onward from this point, the downward journey will begin. It means that beyond North Pole, there shall start down side movement from Northern zero latitude. And downside movement from any latitude is the movement towards South!

There is no point upper than North Pole, so there is no North towards any side of North Pole. North Pole itself is the absolute North. Any movement away from North Pole shall be a movement towards South if it is along any longitudinal line. If that movement is not exactly along any single longitudinal line, then it is a movement towards South with some angle towards East or West.

Regards!

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth Re: # 150

If I don`t believe in the reports of CNN ... If I want to know about this thing independently, at my own,,, but without going to North Pole -- Then I will have to adopt this method.

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth # 130 by GT:

A question for only scientific types:

I have not been to the North Pole. Should I believe or know that it is colder than Rajasthan?

Yes it can be known without going to North Pole. But dear, it is not possible to be known while staying in only Rajhistan.

Suppose you first travel towards south from Rajhistan on a horse or donkey. What you shoud do on each day of your journey is that you should measure the length of your own shadow everyday on exact 12 O`Clock noon. Suppose you are having precise equipment for measuring exact length of shadow. You will note that every day, the length of shadow shall become smaller and smaller. You will also note that your shadow, at exact 12` O Clock noon shall always be towards your North side.

If you continue your journey, then one day you will reach to a place where your shadow, at 12 O` Clock noon, will be having no direction at all. Because on that day, your shadow at noon will be exactly underneath you. It means that sun will be exactly over your head i.e. at 90 degree angle with surface of earth. If that will be the day of 22nd June, it means that you will be on EQUATOR on that day.

On the next day of your journey, you will notice a strange thing. You will notice that now, at 12 O` Clock noon, your shadow will get somewhat length but now its direction shall be towards south. If you continue your journey, you will find that now your shadow shall increase in length day be day on southern side.

So you come back to Rajhistan. Now you change your horse or donkey and start travelling towards North. You will notice that each day your shadow will be getting more and more length at exact 12 O` Clock noon. You do not reach to North pole and come back to your home in Rajhistan. Now you go to your study room and start realizing that there is a place on your southern side where sun can be overhead at mid-day. But there can be no place on your northern side where sun can be overhead at mid-day.

Dear, you will also think that it is more hot if sun is overhead. It should be cold if sun is away from head. If sun is away from head, it means your shadow must be large. If you keep on going and going towards north side, your shadow shall be becoming lenghthy and lengthy. North Pole is that place on your north side where sun will be at maximum distance (means lowest angle with surface of earth) from being overhead. It should be the coldest point at your north, you will realize.

And obviously, the coldest point on your north shall be colder than Rajhistan also!

It is not possible to know the exact geometry of earth while staying at a single place. But it is also not necessary to travel to extreme locations just to know geometry and physical conditions etc.

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth Re: # 89

Fully agree. Science goes into the material details of particular issues. Philosophy, on the other hands, goes into the abstract insight of general issues.

To see the difference between ``material details`` and ``abstract insight``, please check my following article:

``Objective General Knowledge or Material Objective Information``

Regards!

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth @ FarzanVersey

When has science tested philosophical thoughts in a controlled environment? If it has been audacious enough, then it negates the purpose of philosophy to be able to take leaps of ideas. That is its prerogative, its very essence. Yet, I would like to be enlightened with some examples, if that is possible. Thanks.

@ Rafi Aamer

I agree with you on #35. But on other points, I tend to agree with Mr. Gill. I don`t think science is in the business of authenticating philosophy. Science follows the data and it can take it to places where no philosophy had gone before. This, by no means, demeans philosophy but to say that science authenticates philosophy is a leap in my opinion. I mean which philosophy Galileo had in mind when he deviated from geocentric model?

@ Khurram

Re: kulharee & khuram, ``Science authenticates philosophy..``
Who tells science how to authenticate?

@ GT

``Who tells science how to authenticate?``

Nobody. The discipline stresses on `replicable` experiments. If A can send a rocket to a certain location in the moon using method P, then B should be able to do the same using method P. Some degree of `error` is allowed for.

My Comments:

Well, starting point can be following words of rafi aamer:

I mean which philosophy Galileo had in mind when he deviated from geocentric model?

Galileo is famous for his experiments that showed that all objects fall on ground at same rate of pace irrespective of their mass. Secondly for his experiments on projectile motion and inclined plane etc and thirdly for his contention with contemporary church about geocentric model vs solar centric model.

The idea that objects fall on ground with different rate of pace depending on their respective weights, was a Greek PHILOSOPHICAL idea basically. This idea was very popular in the time of Galileo. Actually it was a kind of ``established truth`` in his time.

What was the role of experiments of Galileo...???

Obviously, the role of Galileo`s experiments was to try to conform, or authenticate, or validate that already existing idea.

As a result of his experiments, that Greek Philosophical idea proved to be wrong as it was empirically proved that objects do fall on ground with same rate of pace irrespective of their weights.

Now suppose there were no any philosophical idea about this issue at all ... then...???

Obviously, then Galileo would be having nothing to conform, or authenticate or validate. Primary thing is NOT Empirical proof. Primary thing is an idea. That idea can be true or false. Purpose of science is to only check whether that idea is true or not. By itself, science cannot produce any new idea. Ideas are produced inside human mind. Ideas are produced as a result of ``thinking process`` of human mind. Act of ``thinking`` is a Philosophical activity. Science is confined to only empirical procedures. Empirical procedures work on a given hypothesis. You can study whole of established scientific research method. You will find that scientific research method is just ignorant of this fact that where that ``hypothesis`` originates. Fact is that hypothesis is originated or produced inside of human mind. The product of mind is the product of philosophy because after all it has to be the result of ``thinking process``. Any new idea is the product of mind and therefore the product of philosophy. Science only applies its empirical procedures on already known ideas or hypothesises.

What was the purpose of Galileo`s experiments on projectile motion...??? Again, he was just trying to experimentally check already existing Greek philosophical ideas. Those ancient ideas were something like perfect type of motion was only ``circular``. As a result of experiments, Galileo only had confirmed that motion may not be perfectly circular but it could be projectile as well. Despite the fact that those ancient ideas were wrong, but still they after all had the PRIMARY role towards the advancement in knowledge up to our present stage.

In order to do experiment, you need to have an idea first. You actually try to check the validity or authenticity of that idea through your experiment. ``Idea`` is an abstract and invisible thing. So people can remember only result of experiments and often forget the underlying idea. For general people (i.e. scientists), philosophy remains non-existing just because they cannot see it.

Now come to main issue of why Galileo deviated from famous geo-centric model...???

Here again, Galileo had not come up with any original idea of his own. He made a telescope and then tried to experimentally check an already existing hot issue of his time. Before Galileo, Copernicus already had PHILOSOPHICALLY denied the geo-centric model. Galileo only had ``authenticated`` the already existing point of view of Copernicus. Had Copernicus not already put forwarded philosophical type views, Galileo would be having nothing to authenticate then.

Above are the examples of Galileo. Jabbir Bin Hayan is often considered to be the introducer of experimental method in Muslim scientific history. What was the purpose of his experiments...??? Everyone knows that he was just checking, or just trying to ``authenticate`` the already existing idea that ordinary metals could be made into gold. Issue is not whether that original already existing idea was true or not. Issue is that what if there were no any such idea at all...??? Obviously, then Jabbir Bin Hayan would be having nothing to authenticate. Primary thing is again ``idea``, irrespective of the fact whether it was right or wrong.

Act of mere thinking produces many ideas. Many of those ideas are wrong and many can be right. Philosophy should produce more and more ideas and then science should try to segregate true ideas from false ones.

Science does exactly same. Science takes philosophical ideas as its input. Those ideas that are proven to be right become ``scientific``. Science is ignorant in the sense that it claims 100% proprietary rights over scientific theories. Science is ignorant because it does not know that primary role towards the development of scientific theories was of philosophy.

Below I am copying relevant portion of my another artical:

And it is often said that Philosopher creates knowledge by mere ‘thinking’ whereas Scientist creates knowledge by ‘observing’. My point of view is that ultimate input for any kind of ‘thinking’ has to be found in ‘observations’. The role of philosopher is to systemetically shape the already existing observations into the form of Philosophical assertions regarding the existence of various inter-related variables. Scientist actually would purposefully ‘observe’ those already identified variables with the view to just test the already proposed kind of relationships between them. Galileo’s experiments about speed of falling objects having different weights as well as about the projectile motion were actually his purposeful attempts to just check the validities of the already established Greek Philosophical views regarding these matters.

Similarly, Michealsons & Morley’s experiment which led them to find the notion of ‘relative constancy of the speed of light’, was also basically their purposeful attempt to just check the validity of already existing philosophical type idea about the existence of ‘eather’. I am having the opinion that creation of Knowledge is not the role of Scientist. To create new knowledge is actually the role of Philosopher. The role of Scientist is just to extract the objective truths out of already existing ideas. Through experimentation (i.e. through purposeful observations), the scientist would bring refinements in many already existing vouge philosophical ideas by establishing the exact quantitative relationships between already existing variables.

For the relevant discussion, please check my following article as well:

Nature of Laboratory Method and Components of Science.


@ Khurram

Who tells science how to authenticate?

Historically, experimental method has been a product of trial and error process. If you remember my article ``Animism and Mythology``, published by chowk, you might be knowing that basic form of magic is also a kind of experiment.

Perhaps Jabbir Bir Hayan was also inspired by magical type idea that gold could be made out of ordinary metals. Real achievement of Jabbir Bin Hayan was actually that he drew ``rational`` results out of a wrong experiment. Also see here the role of ``rationality`` even at the post-experiment stage. Anyhow, science is also taking full benefits of the empirical method philosophy that was first developed in Europe by Becon. Galileo happened to be the first person who fully exploited that philosophy of empirical method. Philosophy affects science in invisible way. Only a few people can see the role of philosophy in the current progress of science.

Regards!

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth Re: # 36

Very rightly said: ``Science authenticates Philosophy``....

If there were no philosophy, science would be having NOTHING to authenticate. Purpose of philosophy is to GENERATE right or wrong NEW IDEAS.

Then science segregates right ideas from wrong ones through empirical process.

Science itself doesn`t generate any new ideas. Philosophy has the primary role towards the progress of over-all knowledge of humanity. Role of science is secondary. Because it only validates and applies already existing ideas.

Regards!

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth Your obsession with philosophy is irksome.

ok


Listen, try to understand. Science does not exclude philosophy but it is different from philosophy. If scientific theories could be determined by philosophical conjectures only, the philosophers would be doing science.

I know – science is a minor part of Philosophy. And remember that philosophers had and have been doing science forever, along with other important things as well. Your Einstien was also a philosopher, basically. The modern name “theoretical scientist” has no meaning other than a philosopher who is doing science


You might conjure up all kinds of theories using your philosophical arguments but none of them would be scientific until they are supported and verified by empirical evidence.

I have given you empirical evidence. Wait for next raining. When it will start, go on long drive on your land cruiser. You will find the empirical proof on the windscreen before you.

Secondly you are wrong that theory is “scientific” if it is supported by empirical evidence. Real fact is that theory is “scientific” if it is published by any so-called (stupid) peer reviewed journal. I challenge you on this thing. I can give you many empirical evidences for various things. But believe me, you will never accept my views as scientific. But also believe me. If I get some of my works published by peer-reviewed journal, only than you will consider my work scientific. Actually you have no confidence at all. That’s why you cannot decide matters at your own.

And third thing. I do not need to get my work published by those journals. Philosophies do not need external certifications. But they do affect the minds of readers. I know I am able enough that I can affect other’s minds. I can convince other people. People may not openly accept it however.



Science without empiricism reduces to philosophy. Science is logical although it is distinctly different from logic, in the same way as it is distinctly different from philosphy. Science does not have a quarrel with philosophy (or logic), it is philosophy (as you`re using it) that seems to have a quarrel with science.

I myself am supporter of empiricism. But unlike science, I don’t mistakenly disregard rational inquiry. Philosophy is the name of rational inquiry. If science is disregarding rational inquiry, it means that science is in state of quarrel with philosophy. I only want to restore the true status of philosophy. I think I will have to fight with science for this purpose.


You probably do not sufficiently comprehend what the physicists mean by unification. Relativeity and quantum mechanics are different from each other at the present time but they will be linked together and made one by the unified theory. Even if they are not unified, both of them are good science in their own respective spheres. Unification is needed to go beyond our present state of knowledge. We`ll understand the physics of big bang and the beginning of our universe better when both theories are unified. Unification is thus a step forward; it doesn`t belie relativity or quantum mechanics, per se.

Obviously scientists have made so many sciences which are not consistent with one another. Ok, lets see how will they “unify” different things. By the way, what is the empirical evidence of big bang…???



Progress in science is slow and it`s not just a leap of faith or for that matter a philosophical conjecture; sometime it takes a long time, a very long time, before a difficulty is overcome.

Agree. But I am only telling one important reason for such delays. You should include logical inquiry into the procedures of science. Things shall become more transparent and clear than before.



Let me give you an example. The proof of Fermat`s Last Theorem was found after three hundred years. There was a gap of nearly three hundred years between Newton`s theory of gravitation and Einstein`s theory of relativity. So don`t rush yet to pass judgement on science. People are working day and night to unify physics. Likewise, medical scientists are working hard to find cures for cancer and other incurable diseases. Many of these scientists don`t give two hoots to philosophy.

I have all respect for practical scientists. I do appreciate their achievements and contributions. But philosophy is also important. It is another thing that only a few people can really understand this fact.

Regards!

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth Gill Sahib,,,

Theory of relativity is the theory of the ‘large’ and quantum mechanics is the theory of the ‘small’ and the ‘twain do not seem to meet’ each other seamlessly.

This statement is talking about two versions of science i.e. one for large phenomenon and second for small phenomenon. Actually there are three or four this type of versions of science. I list them below:

(i) Science for large phenomenon = Relativity Theory

(ii) Science for small phenomenon = Quantum Theory

(iii) Science for ordinary size phenomenon = Classical Physics

I shall discuss the fourth version of science later on. Let me first ask you where is that ``logical consistency`` between various theories of science which you often claim to be existing...??? There are three or four versions of science at our disposal. All are different from one another and there may be just little logical connection, if any, between them. Where are your claims...???

Now I tell you about fourth version of science. Science officially accepts that small phenomenon is ``discrete`` in nature whereas ordinary phenomenon is ``continuous`` in nature. The same science also officially accepts that out of ordinary phenomenon, only the spin motion of spherical objects or the rotational motion such as motion of wheel etc. is ``discrete`` in nature whereas all other ordinary phenomenon is ``continuous`` is nature. (Reference: Lectures of Dr. Abdul Salam -- perhaps published by Pakistan Atomic Commission).

Now I again mention the complete list of versions of science below:

(i) Science for large phenomenon = Relativity Theory

(ii) Science for small phenomenon = Quantum Theory

(iii) Science for ordinary size phenomenon = Classical Physics

(iv) Science for ordinary size phenomenon but applicable to only spin or rotational motion = Neo-Classical Physics.

Apparently, science might have reached to the result that only spin or rotational motion could be discrete in nature through the application of Mathematics. In rotational motion like the motion of a wheel, some (inner) parts of wheel are closer to the center of wheel whereas obviously the outer parts of wheel are far away from center. This fact raises a mathematical problem that inner parts of wheel cover far less distence than outer parts in one complete rotation. Motion of let`s say minimum possible distance of inner parts does not corresponds to the motion of outer parts. In other words, minimum possible motion of outer parts of wheel has to be greater than the minimum possible motion of inner parts. This ``quantitative`` issue might have led scientists to believe that spin or rotational motion is ``discrete`` in nature.

Science is unfortunate because it believes only in mathematics and avoids to apply Logic in its procedures. It is due to this reason that various theories of science are really logically inconsistent.

Now I try to show that Logically, ordinary sized straight line motion also should be ``discrete`` in nature. Consider the ``rotational`` motion of wheels of Toyota car. (You can consider Suzuki or Mercedeze etc. i.e. whichever you can afford to consider). What science doesn`t know is that straight motion of body of car is perfectly logically connected with the rotational motion of its wheels. So if wheels are moving in discrete steps, then body of car just cannot move in any continuous fashion. Logically and actually, straight line motion is also discrete in nature.

So third and fourth versions of science can be ``unified`` in this way.

And if ordinary motion is also discrete in nature then there is no essential difference between Classical Physics and Quantum Physics. You can say that Quantum phenomenon still remains ``probabilistic`` which is not the case with Classical Physics. Although I am having doubts in this ``probabilistic`` aspect of Quantum Physics but for the time being, I can confidently say that Quantum Physics and Classical Physics can be unified at least in the aspect of continuous vs discrete nature of motion because actually both are discrete in nature.

Note: You can consider this ``unification`` of 3rd and fourth versions of science, and the partial ``unification`` of Classical Physics and Quantum Physics as a gift to science by philosophy. In one of your previous interacts you had quoted the statement of a so-called scientist that perhaps philosophy could never help science in finding out the so-called ``unification`` theory.

So after having excluded the 4th version of science, and after correcting the third version of science, and after removing a wrong and inaccurate difference of second version with remaining two, I am listing down the current list below:

(i) Science for large phenomenon = Relativity Theory

(ii & iii with minor difference of ``probabilistic`` aspect in ii) Science for small phenomenon (probabilistic) plus Science for ordinary size phenomenon (non-probabilistic)

I think there should be many similar mistakes in Special Reletivity Theory which might have led scientists to believe is some different kind of science for ``large`` phenomenon. Don`t worry. At some time philosophy shall resolve this confusion also.

You may say that actual meaning of ``unification`` is not which I have taken here because ``unification`` theory has to do with weak and strong forces of nature etc. etc. You may say like this. But you did need above nature of ``unification`` as well. Philosophy has given you many gifts in past and shall continue to do so in future as well. Don`t worry! Philosophy shall help you out in future as well.

Regards!

Understanding the Death Fatwa on Taslima Nasreen # 112 by Zeena,,

Anyway, my message for these little chowk Taslimas is keep working hard......spread more hatred on chowk....insult Muslims and Pakistanis...

You are really highly intellectuals of chowk...........the famous.com of intellectuals who are working all up to insult Prophet(PBUH)............

Why?

Just for their own invisible insecurities......I am glad that they have the great time pass in insulting our prophet(pbuh) and Muslims and Pakistanis..............

Very productive...........LOL


I think all the intellectual activies can be classified into three categories:

1- Most basic or the lowest type of intellectual activity is to find more and more reasons for why we or one should hate others. Majority of ``intellectuals`` who are less educated or even more educated but basically ignorants, out of many religions, and from all over the world do undertake to perform this type of intellectual activity. There are many net forums where many ignorant Muslims are busy in promoting secterian based hatred for other Muslims. And Muslims, as a whole, do consider all other religions as inferior to their own religion. But this thing is not unique for Muslims. So called ``enlightened`` but basically ignorant people from all over the globe are also doing same with Muslims. They are finding more and more historical or scriptural proofs in order to show that Islam is a violent religion and so should be hated and not be given respect. This is a basic form of intellectual activity. Majority people shall continue to enjoy it, just because they are unable to do anything better.

2- An advanced form or a balanced type of intellectual activity is to try to find reasons for why we or one should not hate others on useless grounds. This type of intellectuals are real enlightened people. They try to figure out the exact reasons of group and cultural differences of human societies. They do not judge other cultures on the basis of value system of their own culture. Instead, they try to understand the value systems of those other cultures. They accept the reality that there is diversity in different cultures of world. For them, diversity becomes the source of learning rather than becoming issue of contention.

3- The ultimate form of intellectual activity is to try to uncover the hidden or unknown realities about selfe, humanity, life, universe and even about God.

Regards!

Understanding the Death Fatwa on Taslima Nasreen # 112 by Zeena,,

Anyway, my message for these little chowk Taslimas is keep working hard......spread more hatred on chowk....insult Muslims and Pakistanis...

You are really highly intellectuals of chowk...........the famous.com of intellectuals who are working all up to insult Prophet(PBUH)............

Why?

Just for their own invisible insecurities......I am glad that they have the great time pass in insulting our prophet(pbuh) and Muslims and Pakistanis..............

Very productive...........LOL


I think all the intellectual activies can be classified into three categories:

1- Most basic or the lowest type of intellectual activity is to find more and more reasons for why we or one should hate others. Majority of ``intellectuals`` who are less educated or even more educated but basically ignorants, out of many religions, and from all over the world do undertake to perform this type of intellectual activity. There are many net forums where many ignorant Muslims are busy in promoting secterian based hatred for other Muslims. And Muslims, as a whole, do consider all other religions as inferior to their own religion. But this thing is not unique for Muslims. So called ``enlightened`` but basically ignorant people from all over the globe are also doing same with Muslims. They are finding more and more historical or scriptural proofs in order to show that Islam is a violent religion and so should be hated and not be given respect. This is a basic form of intellectual activity. Majority people shall continue to enjoy it, just because they are unable to do anything better.

2- An advanced form or a balanced type of intellectual activity is to try to find reasons for why we or one should not hate others on useless grounds. This type of intellectuals are real enlightened people. They try to figure out the exact reasons of group and cultural differences of human societies. They do not judge other cultures on the basis of value system of their own culture. Instead, they try to understand the value systems of those other cultures. They accept the reality that there is diversity in different cultures of world. For them, diversity becomes the source of learning rather than becoming issue of contention.

3- The ultimate form of intellectual activity is to try to uncover the hidden or unknown realities about selfe, humanity, life, universe and even about God.

Regards!

Understanding the Death Fatwa on Taslima Nasreen # 112 by Zeena,,

Anyway, my message for these little chowk Taslimas is keep working hard......spread more hatred on chowk....insult Muslims and Pakistanis...

You are really highly intellectuals of chowk...........the famous.com of intellectuals who are working all up to insult Prophet(PBUH)............

Why?

Just for their own invisible insecurities......I am glad that they have the great time pass in insulting our prophet(pbuh) and Muslims and Pakistanis..............

Very productive...........LOL


I think all the intellectual activies can be classified into three categories:

1- Most basic or the lowest type of intellectual activity is to find more and more reasons for why we or one should hate others. Majority of ``intellectuals`` who are less educated or even more educated but basically ignorants, out of many religions, and from all over the world do undertake to perform this type of intellectual activity. There are many net forums where many ignorant Muslims are busy in promoting secterian based hatred for other Muslims. And Muslims, as a whole, do consider all other religions as inferior to their own religion. But this thing is not unique for Muslims. So called ``enlightened`` but basically ignorant people from all over the globe are also doing same with Muslims. They are finding more and more historical or scriptural proofs in order to show that Islam is a violent religion and so should be hated and not be given respect. This is a basic form of intellectual activity. Majority people shall continue to enjoy it, just because they are unable to do anything better.

2- An advanced form or a balanced type of intellectual activity is to try to find reasons for why we or one should not hate others on useless grounds. This type of intellectuals are real enlightened people. They try to figure out the exact reasons of group and cultural differences of human societies. They do not judge other cultures on the basis of value system of their own culture. Instead, they try to understand the value systems of those other cultures. They accept the reality that there is diversity in different cultures of world. For them, diversity becomes the source of learning rather than becoming issue of contention.

3- The ultimate form of intellectual activity is to try to uncover the hidden or unknown realities about selfe, humanity, life, universe and even about God.

Regards!

God, Religion and Spirituality @ Samar

I am quite busy right now, so shall write reply to your questions later on. For the moment, I can share the link of Epicureanism in Wikipedia. I am sorry. Actually I just had misspelled this term in previous post. Check the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

Here I should add that your line of thinking may not tally with the abstinence from ordinary pleasures part of this philosophy.

Regards!

God, Religion and Spirituality @ Samar1982

Thanks for further elaboration of your points. I am thinking that you are over-expanding the scope of `spirituality` by including in it science and mathematics as well. These things do generate internal satisfaction but as a matter of fact, `spirituality` should have primary concern with belief in soul. For example Pathagoras was a spiritualist not because he was a mathematician. He had firm belief in the existence of soul (which you don`t have). For Pathagoras, rational pondering and the number system of mathematics were the tools that could purify individual`s soul and could help it in its unification with Divine soul.

Your line of thinking actually resembles with the philosophy of Epicurienism. In this philosophy, the highest goal of humans is to get internal satisfation through the acquisition of knowledge of every sort.

@ PM,

Thanks for the appreciation.

Regards!