I'm taking an online: Think Again. It has introductory lectures on various kinds of arguments. Today i listened to lecture on linguistic acts, defining meaningful sentences. It has to be grammatically correct and meaningful. We'll be exploring, i guess, deeply what's meaningful and what's not. Of course, it's advanced.
Nonetheless, there was a very interesting sentence. BUFFALO BUFFALO BUFFALO.
Buffalo is also a verb which means, to trick or fool. So a nice and fat buffalo fooled a buffalo.
Think about this:
BUFFALO BUFFALO BUFFALO BUFFALO BUFFALO.
Buffalo is a town in New York. So a NY Buffalo did it to a NY Buffalo.
Gai Eaton expresses a simple, yet often forgotten principle about debate and argument:
"Argument and discussion pre-supposes some common ground shared by those involved. When no common ground exists, confusion and misunderstanding are unavoidable, if not anger."
Sorrowfully, much of our discussions become victim to this common neglect about knowing what our basic assumptions are, and it happens in universities as well, no surprise...
However, here's a beautiful recitation of some part of Quran, God's direct conversation with man, do open it sometime, especially during breaks from work or study:
Was world an accident? What do we mean by this term? What is its logic and nature? Answers to these questions or alike can alter paradigms of mind, in a positive way. How can we differentiate between two events as intentional and accidental? I learned the logic of accident a time ago from a philosopher, logician, psychiatrist, meta physician and a mystic, all in one. Beware, I have weak memory. I rue.
Accidents have three main characteristics which help us differentiate between an accidental event or intentional:
1. It has no sequence. No series of panned events are linked with an accident. It is utterly random.
2. There is no order in an accidental event. Take for instance the example of train crash. If a train gets hit at a targeted point and as a result of which two of its bogeys fall on one side and other two on the other side, we see an order in this event. And that is for two reasons - one, that train strikes at a predestined point and, secondly, it falls apart in an orderly manner. Therefore such a crash cannot be labeled as an accident. In an accident, no order is necessary.
3. There is no one behind an accident. It is unguided, unplanned. It is completely chaotic, precisely.
Was the creation of this world an accident? I leave that matter for you to decide (for me). But there is another plane on which this logic can be applied, that is, of intelligence and technology.
Intelligence exists in its primordial form. Aristotle's intellect bears no differences from mine, although his intellection may be much higher than mine. But as for technology, as it exists today or in the past, it is accidental to the true nature of human beings. The profound intellectual orientations of mind are to observed in each human being. But a car or a machine that can perform complex mathematical purposes or planes that can fly are not as much important to attain the highest purpose form human being as is his or her ability to discern between what is right or wrong for him or her. And this is where man feels a need of revelation. In the words of S. H. Nasr:
"The most profound reason for the need of revelation is the presence of obstacles before the intelligence which prevents its correct functioning, or more directly the fact that although man is made in the 'image of God' and has a theomorphic being he is always in the process of forgetting it. He has in himself the possibility of being God-like but he is always in the state of neglecting this possibility. That is why the cardinal in Islam is forgetfulness. It is negligence (ghaflah) of what we really are. It is a going to sleep and creating world around us, which makes us forget who we really are and what we should be doing in this world. Revelation is there to awaken man from his dream and remind him what it really means to be man." (Ideals and Realities of Islam.)
Causality (root word 'cause') determines what cause of an effect (or consequence) is. And in order to make a rational decision, the economist must know the independent variable and the dependent variable, parts of a choice leading to a utility, where dependent variable is a consequence of independent variable.
Another way of viewing causality is finding the existence of causality in a given relation or function of two variables, or parameters. It happens, as we are told, that there may be existent an association between two things/events/choices yet no causality is to be found in the ‘relation’. Word ‘relation’ is important here. Because, here we’re not discussing the matter from the view of classical, philosophical cause-effect theory, rather we are strictly concerned with the mathematical relationship between different variables.
In the following paragraph, I’ll show you two different cases where both variables are associated with each other on the graph. You may notice at the end that intuition works better at the basic level. But the importance of rigorous analysis and empirical research shall also be highlighted by the demonstration of idea.
Consider this case: ‘Sugar’ is a dependent variable. ‘Sugarcane’, on the other hand is an independent variable. There is also a natural (that is to assume quite intuitively) association or relation between these two variables. And sugar is dependent to sugarcane (independent), because we cannot think of sugar, without any sugarcane. Therefore, existence of sugar depends on that of sugarcane. Or in other words, sugarcane is the cause of sugar (effect of sugarcane).
Sugar = f(sugarcane, etc) [Sugar is a function of Sugarcane]
Consider the second case where an association between two things is present with the absence of causality given their mode of function
If I draw a graph and show on x-axis 'number of police constables' recruited in a given period, in which the number of crimes taking place in the city had increased. Crimes data shown on y-axis, while police data shown on x-axis. Meaning by, that crime is a cause of increase in the number of police constables. Police and crime have a relation and association no human being can deny. Yet the idea seems absurd. Because police helps diminish the crime, not vice verse. So intuitively we conclude that although there is an association between the idea of police-crime, there is no causality (that police is a cause of increase in crime) established between them.
Here comes the interesting part of the game. Rigorous mathematical and statistical analysis of these two ideas, so that it could be made ascertain where does valid causality lies. Regression models ar built, in-depth research is carried out, many reports are made to establish the truth. Intuition is just the beginning and in the middle, sometimes it is not the end in itself. Sometimes.
(Warning note: This post had no intention towards public benefit. It was a personal matter. And was addressed to my own self. If you have questions to ask please contact the economist-teacher Mr. N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard University, U.S.A. But if you've answers and something to educate and share, can't you just go ahead and do it, please?)
Master Khuram:It is refinement of thinking towadrs its validity and consistency. Having a logical mind, you start feeling inconsistent and self-contradictory things as invalid. Invalid things don't satisfy your mind. Rules of logic however are not rules of thinking. Rules of logic can only analyze product of thinking, i.e., verbally or written expressed thinking in the form of statements. In technical terms, we use word "propositions" instead of statements. A proposition is a statement which asserts or denies something.
Do you agree with his definition? If you do, then to what extent?
(There is no formal, or even informal definition or explanation of either logic or inductive logic, its sub-branch. But a simple discussion.)
Master Agha:
I told you before that saying of Voltaire that even if there was no God, man would have created it.....!
.... Look, J. S. Mill has tried to fooled the whole world with an illogical argument. When we talk about humans, we're forced to acknowledge something is behindhim, of course inductively, whereas deductive language is 'formal' enough not be discussed here. The thing that is behind him (i.e, man) cannot be like him, it thus follows. It is acknowledged by these logicians that there must be some criteria of the Perfect and how 'it' is to distinguished from the 'relative' and 'imperfect'. Man is imperfect. It is a burning human rights issue that why man has no independent will over the choice of his birth? That he should have the liberty to choose to be born or not to be born? But he has, practically, no control over it and like on many other things. So man is imperfecter than 'he' who created him and sustains him. Thus, inductively even J. S. Mill, whose blunder I'll mention later, could not refute the argument that following must be the criteria for the perfecter being who created imperfect man:
He must be infinite, He must be eternal, independent of time, He must not procreate, i.e, all-powerful,
Read Surah -e- Ikhlas from the Koran, you'll find the same logic. It is but natural that the thing which is the 'final cause' of all causes must have no 'cause', as Aristotle said. J. S. Mill refuted this argument by putting forward his counter-argument like this way:
'monday' comes before 'sunday'. Is 'sunday' the cause of 'monday', he questions? That is, did 'sunday' create' monday', or did 'saturday' create 'sunday' and so on and so forth? Obiviously not.
We ask him, k bhai, time is indivisible, you're dividing time into separate things. Moreover, time is a separate thing from something which could be behind man. We have divided time into days and months for our own comfort, time does not become divisible by saying so. This is how his argument, that there can be nothing behind man who is the final cause of all causes, becomes invalid, without going into further dtail.
So, Mr. Umer now you understand that he who knows himself knows his Lord?
Umer: [with a yearning heart] I deeply respect math and see in it, through an eye of admirer of Allah, a promising beauty of order, stability and symmetry. Since its all made of humans, it appears to me somewhat challenging, though, for I find difficulty while seeing things through an eye of scientist- which is of course very different in imaging things like him. My intuitions as a scientist, which acc to Einstein is the only really valuable thing, are crude and unrealiable. These wounds have origins in my past for I had not made a life-long struggle, a consistent effort on realizing things about mathematics. Very poor is my past record. But the problem failed solution more because of the ills and evils prevailing about me thrusted on a child's wonder by our society- people serving as teachers, or should I must say destroying a learner's heaven a school, have no talent for authentic creativity and no reverence for cognitive processes, they dull our minds if we don't struggle against it. Yes, in my intellectual carrer I failed to do that and passed on over years as lame duck cramming beautiful curious theories and formula, of course, without any realization of them. This is to me pathetic. I now find even anelementary book on this subject a sea of trouble yet I am conscious of the fact that for any breakthrough of great magnitude in field of economics, especially when doing Ph.D, one needs to be a deep and rigorous knower of mathematic. But I hope that with patience and deep meditations; with slow pace, I can get to the bottom of all that seemed to me mysterious.. What your experiences and illuminations have been with math?
Master Khuram:
Hello,
Thanks for sharing your ideas...
Well, I see mathematics as a sub-descipline of Logic. To me, mathematics is the logic of quantities, directions, dimensions and numbers [and, to me is beauty, symmetry...]. Mathematics deal with these things either in material or abstract terms [my point-of-view changed here]. By taking mathematics as a branch of Logic, I am against over-emphasis on mathematics in scientific research methodologies [needs debating here, well let's read fully]. I am against it because officially accepted scientific research method doesn't employ "logic",,, even doesn't want to employ logic... Scientific research method only talks about mathematics. I am not so inspired of any superiority of mathematics. While I am happy with mathematics if it is considered as a branch of logic. [Emphasis added by me]
Modern Science community even doesn't like any kind of rational or logical analysis. I have explained this thing in my following article:
``It is by intuition that we discover and by logic that we prove.`` Henri Poincare, Mathematician...
I want to add that more prcise name of ``intuition`` is actually ``analogical inference``. Whereas branch of logic whose function is to ``prove`` is the ``deductive logic``.
All types of logic works only on sensory data.
There are two main types of ``sensory data``.
First type is ``ordinary or routine sensory information``.
Second type is ``planned``, or ``controlled``, or ``experimental``, or ``laboratory`` oriented sensory information or data.
First type generates ``analogical inferences``, or so-called ``intuitions``.
Then we confirm the validity of analogical inferences through ``controlled observations``, or ``experiments``.
Then we SHOULD apply deductive logic with the view to interpret the experimental confirmations. Then we should Prove our interpretation by using deductive logic.
Scientist do not know what is ``knowledge`` because Knowledge, being an abstract entity, is outside the scope of study of science.
Scientists do not study ``logic`` as well. Because they consider it something opposite to that something about which they know nothing i.e. ``knowledge``.
Even scientific theories take their birth iside of human mind. You cannot say that scientific theories come outside of mind. Mind is also an abstract entity. It is not the physical brain. Scioentists only study physical brain and they don`t study ``mind``. Study of physical brain only can tell reasons of some psychological or other neurological disorders etc. Study of physical brain cannot tell just how scientific or other theories take birth inside of ``mind``. Only study of ``mind`` can tell it.
Only Philosophers can know how any theory can take birth inside of mind. Because only they study such abstract things as ``mind``. So Philosophers can legitimately give their opinion on any theory including scientific theories as well.
Scientists are very poor in abstract conceptions. They can see only visible and solid things which they can count or measure. They become very happy if they successfully count or measure some solid or any detectable entity. That is why they study only mathematics. I was also very much inspired by mathematics when I was not mentally so mature. Just measuring and counting is not equivalent to ``knowledge``.
``Actually a functional human mind works logically. I remember I could write logical assertions in those times also when I knew nothing of the theory of logic. I still have premises-conclusion patterned my own writings of that time. Scientists are also sane persons in all respects. They may not formally know the theory of logic but unconsciously, they do keep scientific theories in proper logical order. I do not say that scientists are ``illogical``. If I thought so then why I tried to show in the previous replies that many many theories of science are the product of logic? Scientists are logical. I accept this. But they are logical just unformally and unconsciously. They do not know that they act, behave and think in accordence with the principles of logic. They disregard theory of logic on the basis of certain intellectual mistakes.``
Secondly, you say that scientists are expert of mathematics, which is strict form of logic.
Here I accept that scientists are expert of mathematics. But Mathematics is not the only ``strict`` form of logic. Deductive Logic is also strict form of logic. Inductive logic is lose form of logic but most of our thinking exists in inductive form. Are scientists not interested in the facts regarding the characteristics of their own minds (i.e. thinking)...???
Here I am in need to clarify my ideological background. But before it I also should clarify that even ``Postmodern Philosophy`` is not having any serious conflict with science. Let me admit that Philosophy already has completely surrendered before science in 20th century. I am NOT representing any conventional philosophy like pre-postmodernism or post modernism. Neither of them are having any clash with science. Let me also state that Philosophy is not the name of ``pre-postmodernism`` or ``postmodernism``. Philosophy is the name of logical study of facts and ideas.
I know that Will Durant already stated that physical sciences have taken the problems of Philosophy and have solved them using its own methods. In this way Philosophy itself has lost all its importance because now onward, important things are only physical sciences. Major attacks on Philosophy came from the side of Philosophers themselves. Positivist Philosophy favoured extreme type of ``laboratory experimental method`` and rejected any logical inquiry by calling it mere speculative. Linguistic Philosophy rejected all the metaphysical inquiries and favoured only experimental verifiability of concepts. Science completely won the bettle against philosophy because Philosophers themselves surrenderred before science. Both Positivists and Linguistics rejected Epistemological inquiries also. Will Durant also disregarded Epistemology and even the theory of logic. I was however never convinced by these philosophies like Positivism or Linguistics. My main area of interest is still Epistemology. But my comprehension of even Epistemology is also complete non-conventional. I have tried to understand Epistemology in the light of basic concepts of Cultural Anthropology. I am therefore representing a whole different type of Epistemology which doesn`t exist anywhere else. Cultural Anthropology was developed on to its present tone by Sir James Frazer at the end of 19th century and in early 20th century. Realistically speaking, old big names of Epistemology were not familiar to Cultural Anthropology. On the other side, it should be difficult to deny the importance of any influence of the works of Sir James Frazer. His work (i.e. Golden Bough) could influence theory of Epistemology as well. As a result of this work, it was not very difficult to judge just how do we think and just how new ideas or new theories come to human mind. My main research in Epistemology is that just how do we think, what we can think, what we cannot think, just how new ideas or theories come to human mind etc. Let me also clarify that science is officially unaware of just how any new idea or theory comes to human mind. I shall be thankful to the respected chowk members if anyone could show me any scientific theory which might have explained the issue of just how new ideas or theories come to humam mind. Karl Popper also faced this problem but he could not find any satisfactory solution. His opinion was: ``there is no logical method for the acquisition of new concepts``.
In science, it is the ``scientific research method`` which attempts to discover new theories. I realized, while evaluating ``scientific research method`` that it had no answer to question that from where ``hypothesis`` comes. Science works on hypothesis but does not know where it comes from. I am, having the opinion that ``hypothesis`` comes from ``mind``. But study of ``mind``, being an ``abstract`` entity, is outside the scope of science. So science, in my honest assessment, doesn`t know where ``hypothesis`` comes from.
Secondly, at first I was inspired by ``Idealism`` and ``Pure Rationalism``. But soon after studying ``Cultural Anthropology``, I realized that ``Pure Rationalism`` is actually a misleading ideology. I already have explained just how ``Pure Rationalism`` is a misleading ideology, in some of my previous interacts in another chowk article about ``strings theory``.
Let me also clarify that any other branch of Philosophy still has not rejected ``Pure Rationalism`` on those grounds which I presented in my those previous interacts. ``Pure Rationalism`` is really practically impossible to exist because it really goes against the hard limitation of ``Deductive Logic``, which itself is supposed to be the main piller of ``Pure Rationalism``. The ``discovery`` of that ``hard limitation of deductive logic``, to some extent, is my original discovery. It was officially known that information of ``conclusion`` has to be already contained in ``premises``. Another guiding factor for me was a statement of David Hume which asserted that ``Rational Judgment is just an association of distinct sensations``. So in this way, finally I found that not a single word of ``conclusion`` can come from outside of ``premises``. At first I tried to apply this result on the ``Pure Rational`` Philosophy of Hegel, which led me to the rejection of ``Pure Rationalism``.
What I know out of the study of ``Epistemology`` is that human knowledge consists of three layers which are (i) instinctive, (ii) perceptional and; (iii) reason based. All types of human knowledge belongs to either one or more of these three basic layers. ``Instinctive`` and ``perceptional`` knowledge are inferior to ``reason based knowledge`` because ``reason based knowledge`` can be found only in humans whereas perceptional and instinctive knowledge is shared by humans and animals both. All of the ``organized human knowledge`` actually belongs to the layer of ``reason based knowledge``. ``Reason based knowledge`` itself is not more than logical conclusions (i.e. all types of logic including deductive, inductive and analogical) derived out of basic perceptional knowledge.
After it, I came to know that Will Durant had severly criticized and disregarded the theory of logic on the basis of those points which could not convince me. I also came to know that ``Science`` also emphasizes on so-called ``Empirical Knowledge`` and erroneously degrades all forms of ``Rational Knowledge``. In this way, science is actually going against superior form of knowledge which is ``reason based knowledge``. So, this clash between science and philosophy has been started on chowk. Therefore it shall be useless to try to find roots of this clash in the philosophy of ``Postmodernism``.
On chowk, I am struggling against science with the view to restore the importance of Philosophy. I am having interactions with many Philosophers of world as well and I am also struggling against them because they are the people who have completely surrendered before science. In fact, Philosophy has died in our contemporary world. Philosophy is having no real task before it. For example, what Linguistic Philosophy has assigned task to Philosophy is just to do ``linguistic analysis of words of language`` with the view to refine or clarify already available concepts. I was also inspired by the works of Pakistani writer Syed Ali Abbas Jalapuri. He also assigns very limited task to philosophy which is to just determine the social values in the light of scientific discoveries. I am having the opinion that to discover new ideas and theories is actually the task of philosophy and not the task of science. Science only experimentally verifies the philosophical discoveries. Galileo only had experimentally verified already established Greek Philosophical views. Johannas Kapler also just experimentally verified philosophical type views of Copernicus. Michealsons and Morley just had experimentally verified already established philosophical type view about the existence of ``Eather``. The same experiment later on served as the foundation stone of Einstien`s ``Special Theory of Relativity``.
Currently, Philosophers all over the world are preaching the false idea that we should stop thinking and should do only experiments without any prior thinking. I am having the view that we should not stop thinking because we can think. Our thinking still can produce many new ideas. To be able to `think` is an important faculty of human mind. Humans should pay proper respect to their own unique faculty. Now science openly makes fun of act of thinking by calling it ``arm-chair philosopher`s activity``. Science forgets that Einstien was also an arm-chair thinker. And surely, I had learnt the idea of ``Theoretical Scientist`` out of the writings of Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy. We also should try to know what is thinking? how do we think? what is the process of our thinking? etc. etc. These are the tasks of Philosophy and are not the tasks of Science. Theories come from thinking process and not come from physical laboratories. Human thinking process is different from the process of ``scientific research method``. Thats why, I am against currently established ``scientific research method``.
And recently I have found some solid points against ``Idealism`` as well.
Contemporary science disregards logic and do not treat logic as integral part of science. Proof is that theory of logic is not the part of syllabus of science at any level.
You say there is no conflict between science and philosophy on this issue. I say there is conflict. Why science disregards theory of logic and why discriminate logic by not making it the part of its syllabus?
[...] -- mathematical considerations alone should determine the wisdom of any hypothesis, and that the hypotheses and deductions from these must stand the test of empirical confirmation. (Morris Kline in "Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, p.245) -- [...]
Science is very much confused. If only mathematical considerations should determine the wisdom of any hypothesis then how scientific investigation can be independent of all the philosophies and theologies...??? See that the proposed function of mathematics is only to determine the wisdom of any hypothesis. Also note that ``hypothesis`` itself has not come from mathematics because function of mathematics is only to determine the wisdom of an already available hypothesis. If ``hypothesis`` has not come from ``mathematics``, then it might have come from sources other than mathematics. So what can be the sources other than mathematics...??? Obviously, other sources can be philosophies or even theologies. But if hypothesis itself can come from philosophies and theologies, then how scientific investigation can be independent of all the philosophies and theologies...??? Is the generation of hypothesis not the part of scientific investigation process...???
Secondly, the quoted statement is saying that ``hypothesis`` and ``deductions`` therefrom must stand the empirical test. Now I ask to please try to find where the ``mathematics`` has gone from all the scientific investigation process. See that ``hypothesis`` itself had not come from mathematics. Secondly ``deductions out of hypothesis`` may not involve any mathematics because meaning of ``deduction`` is the result of ``deductive logic`` and not the result of ``mathematics``.
True logical meanings of this quoted statement itself are that hypothesis must come from sources other than mathematics i.e. may be philosophies or even theologies. Then this hypothesis should go through the process of ``deduction`` (i.e. logic and not mathematics). Then that original hypothesis and results of ``deduction`` should go through the process of empirical test. Now my question is that where mathematics has gone from all this process...???.
True process is actually something like this: At first theologies invoke philoisophies. Then philosophies give birth to many hypothesis. Some of the hypothesises (i.e. not all) may involve quantitative relationships between interrelated variables. Mathematics has to deal only with such hypothesis which involve quantitative relationships between variables. For example, Newton`s first law of motion is such a hypothesis which does not involve aqny quantitative relationship between variables. So there is no application of mathematics in first law of motion. But second law of motion involves quantitative and ``measured`` study of interrelated variables. So only here mathematics comes to scene in the form of equation: ``F = ma``.
Stage of empirical verification may come before works of mathematics or can come after it. For example ``rate of acceleration`` is not possible to calculate without any empirical test. So for the case of second law of motion, empirical verification stage might have come before the mathematical works. The next stage should be the ``logical interpretation`` of results of empirical test. This stage is badly missing in contemporary scientific research procedures.
Mathematics is just a portion of logic. It is the logic of numbers and measurements. Science bb is ignoring logic and emphasizing on mathematics. Only a part is like the whole for this science.
[...]Kepler broke radically from authority and tradition by utilizing the ellipse (as opposed to a composition of circular motions) and non-uniform velocities. He hewed firmly to the position that scientific investigations are independent of all philosophical and theological doctrines, that mathematical considerations alone should determine the wisdom of any hypothesis, and that the hypotheses and deductions from these must stand the test of empirical confirmation. (Morris Kline in "Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, p.245)[...]
It is a huge intellectual mistake to think as if scientific investigations are independent of Philosophical or even Theological ideas or doctrines. Kepler himself had given supporting mathematical explanations to some of already existing philosophical views of Copernicus as well. Micheal Farady is good example who had found the principle of Dynmo despite the fact that he was even uneducated of mathematics. He was a poor book binder and he had studied somewhat about Electricity out of those books which he used to bind. Even Einstien was not any expert mathematician at the time when he got popularity. He had learnt detailed mathematics at the time when he was already popular. Contemporary science is very much indebted to ancient as well as modern Philosophy. Both ancient and modern Philosophies are very much indebted to theologies. Science absorbs all the benefits out of theologies and philosophies in such a way that science itself remains unaware of this absorption. Science is very useful because it has invented many useful things. But science is ignorant because it is unaware about its own sources of origin.
``David Hume wrote about divinity and metaphysics as follows:
[...]``If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.``
Blind faith is risky, to say the least.``[...]
Anyways, I always use to smile whenever I happen to see this famous quotation by David Hume. This quotation itself doesn`t contain any such rational reasoning which can have anything to do with quantity or number. It also doesn`t contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact and existence.
Anyhow, there is nothing solid on which to agree with David Hume on this issue.
****** End.
[Satisfied?] [And, please do share if your views conflict with given ones.]
Umer: Well, I will have to fight against my carnal soul to become more proactive and end laziness in me.
Master Agha: But, no war can waged against anyone unless real enemy is identified.
Umer: [Doesn't speak]
Master Agha: [He elaborates] Identifying enemy is equal to identifying the friend. If 'a' is unknown how 'b' can be known? If 'a' is opposite to 'b' and 'a' is enemy then 'b' is necessarily the friend.
Umer: [With a sarcastic tone] That seems to me a paradox!
Master Agha: It is valid argument not parodox. If 'black' is unknown how 'white' can be known? If 'black' is my friend then 'white' must be my enemy. And, if 'white' is good then 'black' must be bad. So choice of one of them requires complete knowledge of the other.
"Conformity with nafs (carnal soul) is sin, opposition to it is worship. This is the basic premise of the religious logic." - Dr. Aijaz Ali Agha, my spiritual guide and master.
5 Jan 1 Read land law ch 2 2 Serve parents 3 Read trusts ch 7 s 1 + identify key areas for 12 Jan assignment 4 Ponder on BIT # 1 5 Wri...
Heart's Testification
Truly, all praise belongs to (God), we praise Him, seek His help and His forgiveness; And we seek refuge with Allâh from the evil of our selves and from our misdeeds. Whomsoever Allâh guides, none can [cause to] deviate; and whomsoever He [causes to] deviate, none can guide. I testify that there is no deity [worthy of worship] except Allâh, He is alone, having no partners, and I [further] testify that is His slave and His [final] Messenger.
Misplacement of Comedy
About this Blog
'Ah hello! its nice to see you (all) here. By now the (more) perceptive of you realised, this is hell. And, I'm the devil. But you can call me Toby, if you like to. We try to keep things informal here as well as infernal. That's just a little joke of mine, I tell it everytime'.
