An Eternal Nostalgia of Brave Men

I had to often console newly-married breed of masculine man by a humble dose of a couplet, which goes like this,

Jaan-e-mehfil tha khuda Bakhshay Zameer

Ab tu eik Mud'at say shuhar ho gaya

(God forbid Zammer [the poet], the soul of parties.

From then to now, an age has passed since being a husband)

__________________________________________________

Attention: I seek good English translation to publish in place of mine.

'That there is hope...'

[Some prisoners sitting on a meal. A new prisoner with fresh bruises on his face appears and take his sit among his prison-friends, he has spent a week in the hole as a severe punishment]*

Friend 1: A week in the hole is like a year.

Andy (Tim Robbins): I had Mr. Mozart to keep my company.

Friend 2: So they let you tote that record player down there, huh?

Andy: [Very queitly] It was in here [points at his head].

             In here [points to his heart].

Andy: [Continues] That's the beauty of music. They ... can't get that from you. Haven't you ever fell that way about music?

Red (Morgan Freeman): Well I played a mean harmonica as a younger man. Lost interest in it, though. Didn't make much sense in here.

Andy: Here's where it makes the most sense. You need it so you don't forget.

Red: Forget? [With a sarcastic tone]

Andy: Forget that there are places in the world that are'nt made out of stone. There's a... There's somethin'... inside that they can't get to... that they can't touch. That's yours.

Red: What are you talking about?

Andy: Hope.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

*Dialouge form The Shawshank Redemption (1994).

Discipline & Leadership

"Discipline means organization, chain of command, and logistics."

This was written by Zun Tzu in his Art of War, around 2000 or more years ago. His lessons in strategy, planning and war-management (the subjects which he address throughout the book) do render a great deal of insight into managment and planning in general. Take, for instance, the quote already mentioned: As a student of management studies so far so I know not of any theory or practice in which an organization, no matter how decentralised (when authority and power are shared with lower-level employees) and unstructured in its own sense, where chain of command, logistics and discipline does not exist.

                                                                 

                                      ***              

  There is another inspiring piece of lesson in strategic assessment by Master Tzu on leadership that "Leadership is a matter of intelligence, trustworthiness, humaneness, courage, and sterness."*

_______________

* Both quotes have been made from "The Art of War", Translated by Thomas Cleary.

'Hotay Hain Dhamakay Har Roz, Marry Shehar Mein'

*Though some say it was a fine day...*

And, I beg you not to ridcule such an honorable man, who after all this only simled for being successful avioding the hit....

Who Knows

‘Dil darya samandaroon dunga

Kon dillan diya janay hoo’

An inaccurate translation of this couplet by Sufi Sultan Baho can be:

"Heart is deeper than rivers and seas,

Who can claim to know what lies in there."

Read Summary on Planning Tools

For Forman College Business School readers: You can read a summary by me and my Griffin group [griffin stands for 'who is new' and indeed an object of mockery, as it those new British Indian Civil Servants were] on Chapter # 9 of Managment by S. P. Robbins. At this link.

Like an Open Book

         

   Mohandas Karamchand Ghandi writes in the last 'Farewell' chapter of his Experiments with Truth: An Autobiography.

"My life from this point onward has been so public that there is hardly anything about it that people do not know."

I have always been stressed upon by my father to live a life like of an open book. I don't know whether he wants me to become a public servant or a secluded academian. But I am assured by the way he has lived that to live a life like an open book is to live a life of a true human being - true to his nature. Sometimes, I wonder if everthing is to be revealed? I don't think so. But, I was perplexed by this notion. And, when I came to read this refered to quote of M. K. Ghandi, I came to realise what truly is a life like of an open book. And, now I realise how difficult it is to live such a life on everyday basis and why my father has been telling me this for more than a decade.

Intuition and Intellect: An Expert's View

 Umer:

Hello, I need your elaboration on this topic: "Intellect and intuition:from Islamic Prespective."
 Secondly, I want to ask you, what is the relationship between intellect and intuition? And, how come we achieve sound and reasonable intuition(s) or how come we verify our intuitive knowledge? Thanks.

A Teacher:

Dear Muhammad,

 I know not enough about Islam to be able to give that perspective on intuition, however I can say more about what I understand about intellect and intuition.

Intellect and intuition are both aspects of how our brain and mind works.  We are born with both: what we inherit from our parents and then though our experiences.  Both can be expanded and developed throughout our lives.  Our intellect is developed though our schooling and our interests.  This is a very obvious process - we start atnursery school and eventually might go on to do post graduate work.  I saw a programme about Stephen Hawkins recently and he certainly has an intellect!

 Turning to intuition that is more a silent process and generally not taught in schools.  However, as children we learn by observation how the world works and we develop knowing that is outside our conscious awareness.  Our intuition will communicate with us in non verbal, silent ways for example it will give us a "gut feel" about something and at the time we might not know what that was about.  A little time later it all makes sense so our intuition is fast and often it takes a while for our conscious mind to catch up. 

 What our unconscious mind - intuition - picks up are small signals, makes and judgement about it.  For example, a racing car driver who was approaching a bend suddenly found himself braking hard.  He did not know why but then as he turned into the bend there was a accident ahead and if he had carried on at his normal speed he would have crashed himself.  Was this intuition?  Well yes and no because later he realised he had seen something out of the ordinary which made him brake.  On previous circuits the crowd were looking at him as he approached the bend.  This time they were facing towards the bend and with hindsight he realised they were looking at the crash.  His unconcious processing knew what ahead was not usual and so put the brakes on.  There are lots more examples like this which explains how intuition works.

 Hope this helps!!

 

Logic Went All The Way In The Letter

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: 

Nature of Science - Rational or Empirical…???

Below I m sharing what I wrote on this issue here and there on the Internet:

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

``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``. 

(or can be seen on my following article) 

Nature of Science - Rational or Empirical…???

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.]

Untitled

This is my little cousin Ayan, (or, Allah Dawayah, Allah gave him us, or we're are given him, anyways!) who is graduating in the arts of posing and is currently under the influence of Rowan Atkinson.

                                                   Piece No 1, made in 2008, Dec.

                          Piece No 2 (He fancies he's a gentleman):

                                                                                                            

                                                                                       By the way - Rowan Atkinson...

Things to Remember

"Remember, if you work with good intention + by fair means = your hard work will never obliterate. That means, it will always bear some good fruit(s), in any way," he said to me without any grin or frowns on his face; but it seems to me that those words came from some another world.

Future Orientation in Strategy and Planning

Whether be it Zia-ud-din Sardar's Future of Islam or a Manager's Guide on Strategy and Planning, thinking about future is seen as an essential 'aspect of strategy'. I liked two quotes from a book on strategy and planning, which only shed light on the need of seeing into the future.

                                                      

1. "...a view of strategy quite different from what prevails in many companies. It is a view of strategy that recognizes that a firm must unlearn its past before it can find the future. It is a view of strategy that recognizes it is enough to optimally position a company within existing markets; the challenge is to pierce the fog of uncertainity and develop great foresight into the whereabouts of tomorrow's markets. It is aview of strategy hat recognises the need for more than an incrementalist, annual planning rain dance; what is needed is a strategic architecture that provides a blueprint for building the competencies needed to dominate future markets." 

Hamel and Prahalad, 1994. 

2. "But tomorrow always arrives. It is always different, and then even the mightiest company is introuble if it has not worked on the future. It will have lost distinction and leadership - all that will remain is big company overheads. It will neither control nor understand what is happening; not having dared to take the risk of making of making the new happen. And this is a risk that even the largest and richest company cannot afford and that even the smallest business need not run."

 

 Drucker, 1964.

Steve Jobs Banishing False Rumors That He Had an Heart Attack

Hard Times for Detorits's Carmakers

American carmaker's are in great peril these days as the financial crisis has hit so hard and is affecting thousands of people on the main street as well. I read terrible news for these company's in The Economist. Their asstes are depleting very fast and liabilities booming high that their present condition can be figured out from this quote from this article in Economist:

"There are just two broad options: either the federal government steps in to save Ford and GM (Chrysler is probably unsalvageable) or America’s two biggest car firms must seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection."

A move to file for bankruptcy protection only means more bankruptcy for the carmakers, says the article.

"Consumer surveys that suggest 80-90% of prospective customers would abandon the products of a carmaker (like Ford, Gm etc) that had filed for bankruptcy protection."

And, they've valid reasons to do so:

"A car is the most expensive purchase many consumers make, and by buying a car they also enter into a long-term contract. Buyers expect their 60,000-mile warranties to be honoured, parts to be kept supplied and their dealers not to have disappeared. Used-car values are also a critical part of the deal. If the firm that made the car has gone bust, it becomes virtually unsellable secondhand."

If an airline company had gone for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, mentions the article, they would have been safe, because an airliner customer has business no more than a few weeks with them. Surely, it is for the fittest to survive here. However, the speculation when Congress with give auto industry bailout has come to an end, when on December 10 news came out that both parties have come to an understanding.

Now is the time for carmakers to catch the straw and save their souls, otherwise it will be too late if they miss even a nickel.

Vacant Expressions

                                 Parker from Thunderbirds & Noel Gallagher 

Confessions of a MuddleHead

Har seenay mein ik subh-e qiyamat hai namodar

Afkar jawanoo k huay zeer-o- zabr kia...
                                                                                Iqbal

Just like Bertrand Russell, every morning proves to be ever more misleading for me, leaving night's work stranded in the void space. Tean, Mr. iqbal that's not the case with me. I am in trouble with my own inquiries. Others find themselves divided amongst themselves between passion and cold-blooded logic, I fail to exist in any domain, in any category. Because of no speciality. It happens, when the mould is not filled, it can only sound louder and not stand stable. But, its not without a paradox with me. The paradox is, on the other hand, when I come to focus on one subject, I shall be willing to get that one tree at the cost of whole forest, (my management guru put it that way)! 

But, what I yearn for, (sound like delusions of an idiot): inexorable, unchangeable ideas and theories. I wish to leap behind all thinkers that ever existed on this planet. I believe I can master every field of human thought, no matter how complex the subject be; no matter what level of understanding and limitations I have. I jump from one book to another, and so on until I am completely lost; until I have no idea where I stand.

I never had faith in movies that they can nosh you any healthy and practical idea. I thought they were those worms which feed on the ignorance of immature minds. To me they're all but unnatural, unreal. But I was wrong to some extent. Not every movie is like or was . 

It happened when I came to know that I never gave thought to geology, what Andy Duferene knew in the Shaw Shank Redemption. Andy knew geology: Andy knew that hardest rocks need time and pressure to turn into powder.

When I heard this from the movie, suddenly some past forgotten memory took birht from its own ashes. I remembered that once my mentor had pointed to reasons for my failure in having a clear visions of 'reality'. And, it all just flashed before my eyes for the pain in my stomach; perplexions that haunted me, which I could not settle; intuitions I couldn't crystallise - it was all for one reason. Lack of maturity! ("The term 'mature' denotes completeness in natural growth upto the next phase.") 

Philosophical maturity requires time, but unlike geology not pressure rather tolerance and liberal spirits of free inquiry. And, I can't deprive myself of rejotting here an advice that basic element of pilosophy is sabr (patience).

  Pensive Mood Giclee Print by Charles Lidderdale. Source.

Read Articles on America's Financial Crisis

   Click on the headings to read articles. I have summried in a sentence or two about the article. Have pleasure readings. 

 On Recession and Financial Crisis: 

 1. Auto Industry Bailout Sends U.S. Dollar Lower in Currency Trading Says that US dollar stuggling in the market because of  "the announcement that Congress and Detroit have come to an understanding regarding an auto industry bailout." 

 2. How much dollars have been allocated in US Bailout and its elements Heading suffices. Given information is in the form of tables.

 3. The Worst Is Yet To Come: Anonymous Banker Weighs In On The Coming Credit Card Debacle. 
An executivein the banking industry unleashes his disgust in an e-mail to the author. That e-mail is the article.  

4. Recession prompts some couples to delay having kids

I wish it could have been a joke - but it's not. When 8 out of 10 Americans are worried about FInancial Crisis, history shows us birth rate falls. And, that's dangerous for coming decades for a country's economy. 

5. US downturn set to deepen, & debt to mounts - OECD forecasts
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's forecasts and analysis leading to useful insight into present scenario and future action.

Lessons In Entrepreneurship

You don't want to do things entrepreneurs must not do. Perhaps, more than this you don't want to fail. However, if this 'want' be replaced by 'fear, becoming "I don't fear failure", is an essential traits of entrepreneurs. In the following article-link you'll find why fearing not failure is an 'essential' mark of entrepreneurs, and those who do fear are not your peers. Here is the link. 

 Author* lost his major business, and his father told him:   

"You're fortunate to have failed. You now have the opportunity to learn how to turn bad luck into good luck. If you can do that, you'll have a life of more and more good luck."  

 Roberts teaches in this short article that there are three simple immutable things an entrepreneur must stick to:   1) Not to blame (you know it). 2) Make New partners (says, best when you're doomed and you hate them. He says there are good people in perilous moments). 3) Learn from your mistakes. 

___________________________

Notes:

* Website: richdad.com. Robert, author of the Rich Dad series of books, is an investor, entrepreneur and educator whose perspectives have changed the way people think about money and investing.

What do We Mean by Deflation?

Deflation

A decline in general price levels, often caused by a reduction in the supply of money or credit. Deflation can also be brought about by direct contractions in spending, either in the form of reduction in government spending. Deflation has often has the side effect of increasing unemployment in an economy, since the process often leads to a lower level of demand in the economy. Opposite of inflation.

Coversations with Khuram (III)

Umer: You've done quite a work on rationality. Can you share some thought on the fundamentals of 'rationality', and how it differs from 'empiricism'?

Master K: 'Rationality' is often used in the context of both Rationalism and Empiricism. Rationalism philosophy says that mind is able to discover first principle of reality without the involvement of sensory information. For example, Descartes claims that his first principle "cogito ergo sum" has been discovered without the input of sensory data. After having found first principle in this way, rest of detailed philosophy can be "deduced" out of first principle using deductive logic i.e. Pure reasoning. In this philosophy, construction of detailed philosophy also doesn't need sensory input. So this philosophy of "Rationalism" is considered to be the product of pure "rationality". There is no need of senses in the process of getting knowledge in Ratiönalism. Secondly, it is also supposed that all the reality is knowable using this method.

Master K: [He continues] For example, Parmenides asserts "what is rational is real and what is real is rational." Parmenides didn't believe in material world. According to him, reality was single and static. He denied possibility of motion or movements. Reality could be known using "rationality" and not using "senses". Zeno was puple of Parmenides. Zeno's paradoxes which aim at the denial of movement were because of views of Parmenides. Zeno uses "reason", i.e. "rationality", to prove that sensory world was a deception and only reason could lead to the knowledge of reality, which was static. In modern times, Hegel also adopted same position of "what is rational is real and what is real is rational". According to him all the aspects of reality are knowable using only "rationality" through the "dialective" reasoning process which starts with thesis, then anti-thesis and then synthesis, etc. Again, there is no need of senses in the process of knowing.

Master K: [Now takes on Empiricism] On the other side, Empiricsm is the idea that all knowledge comes only through the channel of senses. John Locke declared newly born human child's mind as a "tabula raza" upon which sense experiences would draw impressions later on. Just like Rationalism denied senses, so Empiricism also started disregarding "rationality" or deductive logic. So importance of deductive logic was openly denied and only inductive methods were favored. This philosophy is still considered the basis of science. Science syllabus even now excludes the study of deductive logic and promotes "statistical" methods which are inductive by nature. In my articles "Nature of Science - Rational or Empirical", "Is laboratory method inductive?", and "Scientific Principles", I have written against this approach!