التحضّر والحضارة

 

افتراضياً ، الحضارة تموت ..

التحضر هو ترياق الحضارة لكي تعيش ..

إذا لم نمارس التحضّر فعلياً ..

فليس لدينا حضارة قادرة على البقاء ..!

Civilization dies by default

Urbanization is the Antidote for Civilization to live

If we don't get Urbanized

We don't have a Survival Civilization..!

للبدء ، يجب الاشارة الى أن عصر الفلاسفة قد انتهى بـ راسل ، ونحيا حالياً في ترجمة وتطبيقات الفلسفة ، وهذا يوجز محاور التساؤلات ، فهي لم تعد فلسفية بل تطبيقية ..

أعتقد أن ديدن الفلسفة هو إدراك كنه الخلق والأخلاق والاختلاق أو الانسان ومصدر التشريع والابتكار .. أما الفارق بين المدنية والحضارة فيكمن في تصحيح التساؤل ، بين التحضّر والحضارة .. فلا حضارة بدون تحضّر ، وإن كان من الممكن جدلاً (وتاريخياً) وجود تحضّر بدون حضارة .. وفك اللغز يكمن في تعريف الحضارة .. والتعريف يقود الى تصنيف أحوال الحضارة ما بين البائدة والحية والمحتضرة .. وتعريفات المدنية التي قد سادت قبل عقدين من الزمن كانت مستمدة من أتون العقائد السياسية .. فالمدنية اليوم هي جزء من التحضر ، وليست مقابل للحضارة بأي شكل معرفي

أعتقد جازماً أن المشكلة الرئيسة والمحورية في تطوير الفكر والمعرفة بين ناطقي العربية (والعالم الثالث كذلك) ، تكمن في الحاجز اللغوي الذي يفصل بينها وبين تطور الفكر الانساني .. أضف الى هذا تدهور ومحدودية الترجمة المهنية التي تحافظ على مضمون النصوص بدلاً من تكييفها .. ولعل التطور المعرفي يتلخص في أن اللغة الانجليزية تنمو بمعدل كلمة يومياً ، بينما أقراننا لا يملكون تعريفاً نهائياً لـ "أولياء الله" فضلاً عن ترجمتها الى اللغات الآخري .. وهذه هى أحد المعاني المعرفية المحورية في الاسلام وبالتالي العربية .. ونشكو من أن الآخرون لا يفهموننا ولا يحترموننا ..!

إحدى الخزعبلات التي تعوّدنا على ترديدها ، "أن من ليس له ماضي فليس له حاضر أو مستقبل" .. وتلك مغالطة منطقية وتاريخية فارقة .. لقد اخترعتها اللاقدرة على التطور ، واحتضنتها السلفية الثقافية ، وباركها العجز السياسي .. ولعل غالب الحواضر "الحقيقية والمتكاملة" في عالم اليوم لم تكن موجودة قبل ثلاثة أو أربعة قرون .. وأعني بـ "الحقيقية" المدن وليس القرى الكبيرة المشوهة ، وأعني بـ "المتكاملة" أنها حضرية بما يمكن لأي انسان ، مهما كانت ثقافته

ومرجعياته ، أن يحيا حياة سعيدة وكريمة وآمنة فيها ..

Collective Intelligence

 

Pedro B. Ortiz
Collective Intelligence is the result of a positive dialogue among individual life projects. Vegetative-survivalist attitudes are unable to build it up

Adil Abdalla
Despite the sharp growth of urbanism; illiteracy, poverty and autocracy hinder the intellectual potentials and cripple all epistemic accumulations with bad examples and strong interests.. The forecasted 2050 urbanity will add make no change, but burdens, without effective leadership.. Are you optimistic..?

Pedro B. Ortiz
Let's not mingle Human Resources (population education) with Social Resources (collective intelligence). I am optimistic, because only the ones that act collectively survive, and the ones that will not be able to build up collective intelligence will be subsidient of those that do. As it is right now.

Adil Abdalla
Collective Intelligence is a DNA that had enabled Mankind to survive, evolve and plan.. yet, the strongest interest groups drive the world into clashing points on both resources and opportunities.. It is already happening.. On parallel, enabling social resources without human ones is challenging, unless dramatic surgical changes take charge of the management of the world..

Pedro B. Ortiz
Collective Intelligence is easier to build up in smaller groups (Interest Groups) than in larger ones (Metropolises, Nations and Multilaterals). That is why Collective Idiocy runs wild...

القردة الحكيمة الثلاثة

 

أما الحكمة اليابانية الشهيرة ب:

"لا أرى لا أسمع لا أتكلم"

ومعناها الأساسي:

"لا أرى شرا.. لا أسمع شرا.. لا أتكلم شرا"

وهي تمثل القردة الحكيمة الثلاثة
باليابانية: 三猿 أو 三匹の猿 التي تعني حرفيًا "القردة الثلاثة"
 وتمثل مقولة تصويرية للمثل الشعبي
"لا أرى شرًا لا أسمع شرًا لا أتكلم شرًا".

القردة الثالثة هي ميزارو الذي يغطي عينيه والذي لا يرى الشر
وكيكازارو الذي يُغطي أذنيه والذي لا يسمع الشر
وإيوازارو الذي يُغطي فمه والذي لا يتكلم بالشر.

اليوم العالمي للفلسفة

إبراهيم البليهي

بمناسبة اليوم العالمي للفلسفة ؛ ينبغي أن نتذكَّر بأن الفلسفة ليست علما كسائر العلوم وإنما هي الشجرة الأم التي تفرعت منها كل العلوم الموضوعية

الفلسفة منهج تفكير وليست معلومات تُحفظ. لذلك لا يمكن أن يكتسب الدارس الحس الفلسفي بدراسة الفلسفة كمادة مثل الفيزياء والكيمياء والرياضيات

يستخدم الناس ثلاثة نُظُم للتفكير
التفكير التلقائي. وهذا هو السائد في التفكير البشري بشكل عام
التفكير الفلسفي. وهو تفكير منفصل عن التفكير التلقائي. وعماده العقل النقدي ووضع العالم بين قوسين
نظام التفكير التعليمي. لترسخ الأنساق الثقافية وتأهيل الأجيال لخدمة المجتمع

قد يواصل الشخص دراسة الفلسفة حتى يصبح أستاذًا للفلسفة لكن ذلك لا يعني أنه يملك الحس الفلسفي ؛ فلن يكون غريبا أن تصادف أستاذ فلسفة دقمائي

الدوغمائية هو التعصب الكامل لفكرة بشكل مُطلق ، حتى لو لم يكن هناك أي دليل عليها فقط الإصرار على صحتها ، والتمسك بها ، ورفض أي أفكـار أخرى ، ومعاداتها حتى النخاع

تأسس التفكير الفلسفي بواسطة طاليس وكان يركز عنايته على محاولة فهم الكون فاهتم بالكسوف والخسوف وغيرها من الظواهر الكونية ثم جاء بعده بضعة فلاسفة

أهم الأحداث التي عاشتها أثينا بعد بزوغ الفكر الفلسفي تولي صولون حكم أثينا حيث أجرى إصلاحات نوعية كانت في وقتها تمثل وثبة اجتماعية هائلة

ثم ظهر المعلمون الجوالون فأحدثوا في المجتمع الأثيني؛ انفتاحا ثقافيا واجتماعيا غير مسبوق

التأثير القوي الذي أحدثه المعلمون المتجولون في تفكير شباب أثينا هو الذي جعل سقراط ينبري لهم

كان سقراط مع الانفتاح القوي وكان يستهدف خلخلة الوثوق لكنه ضد نفي الحقيقة التي كان ينشره المعلمون المتجولون

المعلمون المتجولون هم الذين نقلوا اهتمام الفلسفة من الاهتمام بالظواهر الكونية إلى الاهتمام بالظواهر الإنسانية

يقال بأن سقراط أنزل الفلسفة من السماء إلى الأرض
لأنه ركز على قضايا الإنسان لكنه كان يعمل على جبهتين
ضد الوثوقيين المتحجرين ، وضد الذين كانوا ينفون وجود الحقيقة

أطلق المعلمون المتجولون مقولة
الإنسان مقياس الأشياء ؛ فلكل فرد حقائق يرتضيها عقله

لكن سقراط راح يؤكد أن الحقيقة منفصلة عن رغبات البشر وأوهامهم فعمل افلاطون على تدوين ما يَعتبره فلسفة سقراط الذي لم يكتب فلسفته بنفسه

ثم جاء أرسطو فأبدع علم المنطق الصوري الذي كان وضعه تأكيدًا لوجود الحقيقة؛ فوضَع ضوابط ومعايير وقواعد لقيادة  التفكير للتحقُّق من الأوهام الشائعة تمجيد الشعب اليوناني ككل. إن المجد اليوناني قام على بضعة أفراد فالشعب حاكم سقراط وأعدمه وطارد آخرين

محاكمة سقراط وإعدامه تقيم دليلا شديد الوضوح على أن اليونانيين لا يختلفون عن غيرهم من الأمم

المدن اليونانية عديدة وأهلها لا يختلفون عن الشعوب الأخرى؛ أثينا فقط تميزت بصولون ثم بركليس وسقراط وبضعة أفراد شعراء ومسرحيين

#اليوم_العالمي_للفلسفة

فيما بين قوم لوط والمجتمع المعاصر

ديموقراطياً

كان على لوط -عليه السلام- قبول رذيلتهم ، كونهم يشكلون أغلبية المجتمع

ليبرالياً

لا يحق للوط -عليه السلام- أن ينهاهم عن رذيلتهم ، فهم أحرار في قراراتهم ، خاصة أنهم لم يضروا أحداً

علمانياً

ما دخل الدين في ممارساتٍ جنسيةٍ تتم برضى الطرفين؟

تنويرياً

قوم لوط مساكين ، ومعذورون ، كونهم يعانون من خللٍ جينيٍّ أجبرهم ، طبيعياً ، على ممارسة فاحشتهم

الدولة المدنية

الشواذ فئة من الشعب ، يجب على الجميع احترامهم ، وإعطاؤهم حقوقهم للممارسة رذيلتهم ، بل وتمثيل أنفسهم في البرلمان

لكن في دين الفطرة الإسلام

فإن لوطا -عليه السلام- لم يكن قادراً على ردع قومه ، فانتقل لإنكار رذيلتهم ، ونصحهم باللسان ، وكره بقلبه طباعهم ، ثم غادر مكانهم بأمر رباني بعد تكرار دعوتهم بلا جدوى

حتى حلّت العقوبة الربانية في قوله تعالى: فَلَمَّا جَآءَ أَمْرُنَا جَعَلْنَا عَالِيهَا سَافِلَهَا وَأَمْطَرْنَا عَلَيْهَا حِجَارَةً مِّنْ سِجِّيلٍ مَّنْضُودٍ

حقيقةً

إن كلاً من ديموقراطية ، وليبرالية ، وعلمانية ، وحداثية ، ودولة مدنية... مزعومة ، لتنازع الفطرة أصولها وفروعها وأخلاقها ، ولا يجمعهن بها أي رباط ، كالتناقض بين الكفر والإيمان

Open-mindness

زوجة لوط لم تشترك معهم في فاحشتهم بيد أنها كانت تتقبّل اختلافهم وتُقرّهم عليه ، فكان جزاءها قوله تعالى

فأنجيناه وأهله إلا امرأتهُ كانت من الغابرين 

Bertrand Russell

The only thing I learned, which happened to be Russell's 1st Commandments: "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything".. This is the challenge to seek new, novel and marvel innovations.. Discoveries were always about new vision of ordinary things; yet a n amazing mind captured..

Bertrand Russell saw the history of civilization as being shaped by an unfortunate oscillation between two opposing evils: tyranny and anarchy, each of which contain the seed of the other. The best course for steering clear of either one, Russell maintained, is liberalism.

 

The root-cause of current supply deficiency is ignited and ruled by lack of professional and scientific competences to counter-fight both uncontrolled population growth vs. declined habitual resources.. Despite the flood of degree holders worldwide, particularly in underdeveloped countries, hurdles are growing fast, indicating bureaucratic and operational barrenness.. Academia needs to restructure itself, roles and responsibilities.. Excellence is uplifting the people in reality not in those dumb research papers.. Regretfully, this dumbness is the only condition that unites the world.. yet, the maturity of some civil societies enables controls rather than amusement..!!

Politicians are products of their societies.. I don't advocate of visionary as mandate for public service, but of opportunism as practical grounds for the post-hunt.. Therefore, degree-holders are the unspoken change catalyst at each household, community and street; who justify and empower revolt against the norms.. There is no change if we reconcile with our Norms.. Typically, an immigrant fails and returns back, if holds his birthplace as intellectual model.. Scientific Forefathers had paid their lives as prices for change.. Today, we love our lives much more to scarify for both righteous and good.. Therefore, we spiral and circle, endlessly..!

http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/the-arrogance-of-a-well-fed-society

The Arrogance of a Well-Fed Society

JULY 25, 2013, 12:00 AM

by ALEX BEREZOW

Every time I write an article about population growth or poverty, I receive at least one e-mail insisting that there are too many humans on the planet. That erroneous statement is usually followed up with a not-so-subtle suggestion that letting a few people starve to death wouldn’t be a terrible thing, but instead would actually make the planet a safer, richer and more sustainable place.

Not many things shock me anymore. But the arrogance and callousness of a well-fed society toward those who are less fortunate always leaves me stunned.

What is particularly frustrating is that both sides of the political spectrum claim to be the true champions of the poor – while simultaneously endorsing policies that disproportionately harm them.

The Left repeatedly insists that climate change is the world’s #1 problem, and this has distracted us from the world’s actual #1 problem: Poverty. About 1.3 billion people don’t have electricity, meaning they also don’t have adequate access to food, healthcare or the Internet. Essentially, such communities are condemned to a life of indefinite poverty. Providing them with cheap electricity is a compassionate, progressive thing to do.

Or at least it was at one time. In an article posted on New Geography, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus explain how the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) “established the progressive principle that cheap energy for all was a public good, not a private enterprise.”

Why is it necessary to make cheap electricity a public good? Because it helps end the vicious cycle of poverty. The authors describe the stark reality of life in the American South in the 1930s:

Eighty years ago, the Tennessee Valley region was like many poor rural communities in tropical regions today. The best forests had been cut down to use as fuel for wood stoves. Soils were being rapidly depleted of nutrients, resulting in falling yields and a desperate search for new croplands. Poor farmers were plagued by malaria and had inadequate medical care. Few had indoor plumbing and even fewer had electricity.

The TVA helped change this. Cheap hydroelectric power lifted residents out of poverty and even helped restore the environment.

Therefore, providing cheap electricity to the 1.3 billion people without it should be a top global priority. Solar and wind power should be implemented if possible, but not all locations will be amenable to that technology. And that means it will be necessary to burn more fossil fuels in some locations, even though more people will die as a result of air pollution. But given a choice between a life of poverty (and all the hazards that come with it) versus a chance at a more prosperous life (albeit one with an increased risk of lung cancer), most people in the developing world would probably choose the latter, even if that upsets climate-obsessed progressives in the rich world.

On the Right, conservatives need to give up their ideological opposition to birth control. While the world is not overpopulated as a whole, overpopulation does cause issues at the regional level. (That is why I like to say the world is not overpopulated, but rather “maldistributed.”) For instance, only so many people can live in the U.S. Southwest before water shortages become a routine problem.

At the behest of President George W. Bush, the United States implemented a program called PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) that was rightfully praised for saving millions of Africans from HIV. But the program was criticized for doing little (perhaps even undermining efforts) to provide women with birth control. But, cheap birth control – just like cheap electricity – is an important tool to help end the vicious cycle of poverty.

To truly help developing societies, we need to answer their immediate needs. That is far more compassionate than trying to shape them into the societies we would like them to be.

Dr. Alex B. Berezow is the editor of RealClearScience and co-author of Science Left Behind.

Image courtesy of Shutterstock

Human Sexuality and Religious Norms

Regretfully, very few, or none, Muslim writings of the Sex topic.. Muslims, driven not only by Scriptures, but with traditional Arabic moralities as well, had shied away from speaking out in comfortable details about the subject.. Muslim Sufis, in their own confusing terms, had linked the term to divine wisdom or sacred secret..


However, I believe that our Humane Civilization is losing without the Muslim contributions, which would add lots of energetic concepts for the common understanding.. and goodness..

  Sacred Sex? Social progressives may hold out hope that religious conservatives will one day appreciate sex as something good outside the hard and fast rules of their religion.
This article originally appeared on The League of Ordinary Gentlemen / by Kyle Cupp.

Decades after the sexual revolution, many religious conservatives remain fiercely committed to preaching, if not always living, an absolute and absolutist understanding of human sexuality. Mainstream biologists, psychologists and sociologists, building on the science of evolution and other modern advancements of understanding, have helped redefine the meaning of normal when it comes to sex, moving mountains so to speak, and yet these religious conservative retain a rule-heavy belief about who should and shouldn’t be having sex and how sex ought always to be done by those morally permitted to get down to business. In word, if not always in every deed, they morally reject sex before marriage, entertaining lustful thoughts, masturbation, fornication, cohabitation, homosexuality, and pornography. They stand athwart the new normal yelling “Sin!”

Social progressives may hold out hope that these religious conservatives will one day appreciate sex as something good outside the hard and fast rules of their religion. I think this change unlikely because it would take a fundamental paradigm shift. Conservative Christians, for example, view human sexuality principally as a sacred reality. In a number of moral theologies, God designed human sexuality for the purpose of procreation, and commanded all human beings, from Adam and Eve onward, to be fruitful and multiply, engaging in sex strictly in accordance with the order of the divine plan. St. Thomas Aquinas argued this philosophically, concluding that every emission of semen, ordered in such a way that generation cannot follow, is contrary to the good and nature of man, and if done deliberately, a sin. Every sexual act must, in principle, follow a form that is open to life, whether or not the couple’s union is fertile, infertile, or sterile. To engage in sex in any way contrary to the good, human nature, and God’s design makes the person or persons involved arbiters of God’s plan, manipulators of something holy, grave sinners. They are not to take control of their sexuality, but control their appetites and behaviors in keeping with a strict religious meaning of sexuality to which is owed devotion and obedience. The giver of the gift of sex makes the rules, and they must follow these norms.

It should be noted that some religious conservatives will, in addition to approaching the reality of human sexuality from a theological position, also strive to understand its meaning from the standpoints of science, philosophy, and culture. They may accept that human sexuality is the result of millions of years of evolution, but—and this is key—they will interpret this evolutionary meaning in light of their religious doctrine. Where evolution may suggest a fluid meaning to sexuality, this meaning will be understood within the framework of the God-given morally-absolute meaning. All inquiry here will begin and end within the religious sphere, even if detours are taken into the sciences.

So long as these religious conservatives begin their understanding of human sexuality on the premises of revelation, they’ll not change on the basics. To make such change would indicate that the meanings of sex and of revelation are not truly fixed. What we might see in time is some of these religious conservatives changing the starting point of their approach to sex and sexual norms from religious premises to secular ones, beginning, for example, without the assumption that human sexuality has an immutable divinely-given meaning, but rather a fluid evolutionary one. Were this road to be taken, while religion retained, the statements in revelation pertaining to sex would have to be reinterpreted so as to be taken less literally. The theologies of God’s providence over human procreation would need to be rethought. In this context, a sexual revolution would necessitate a religious revolution. We’re unlikely to witness such a sweeping change, especially given the position of religious conservatives, who stand not passively against the waves of secularism, but seek actively to turn the tide and win converts to their cause.

Kyle Cupp is a freelance writer who blogs about culture, philosophy, politics, postmodernism, and religion. He is a contributor to the group Catholic blog Vox Nova. Kyle lives with his wife, son, and daughter in North Texas. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

http://mysticpolitics.com/sacred-sex-human-sexuality-and-religious-norms/

Europe & Islam..

‘Gender issues: Europe’s main challenge to internalizing Islam’
Barçın Yinanç
barcin.yinanc@hurriyet.com.tr
ISTANBUL - Hürriyet Daily News

As European culture becomes more secularized, the biggest point of contention about Islam in Europe is striking a balance between the sacred and the profane, Professor Hakan Yılmaz says. Gender issues are where this contention makes itself felt the most, constituting a challenge for Europe in its efforts to internalize Islam.
Europe is confused on how to cope with Islam, according to Professor Hakan Yılmaz, an editor of the recently published book “Perceptions of Islam in Europe: culture, identity and the Muslim other,” which compiles several articles by prominent experts. The aim of the book is to reveal the real points of contention about Islam in Europe and gender issues constitutes one of the most important contention points, Yılmaz told the Hürriyet Daily News in a recent interview.

What is the common message of the articles complied in the book?
Our main motivation with this book was to scrutinize the perception of Islam that has been shaped following [the] Sept. 11, 2011, [attacks in America]. After the end of the Cold War, Islam and Muslims started to become the new ‘other’ in Europe and this trend became ossified after Sept. 11, 2011. We wanted to question the perception of Islam as ‘the other’ and find out what Islam in Europe is really about while also showing where the real contention points are.

One other motivation we had was the several books that had been published after Sept. 11; books on Islamophobia or the so-called Eurabia books. The real points of contention about Islam in Europe are not the ones pointed out by those Eurabia books. In order to find the answer to the question of ‘How can we live together?’ you have to pinpoint the right points of contention and in the book we have several articles on different cases. One article, for example, talks about Muslims in Poland. Another one talks about how Holland is trying to “Hollandize” Islam.

Is this trend of Europeanizing Islam a general trend throughout the continent?
Europe has understood it cannot get rid of Islam. Islam is within Europe and it is in its neighborhood. The current problem is about the modalities of integrating Islam. Through which modality should Islam become part of Europe? In some cases, there is a will for total assimilation, in certain cases there is an effort to nationalize and localize Islam.

Is Europe trying to cope with it by attempting to Europeanize Islam?
One way is to create a national local Islam. But this is not the only way. In the period between the Cold War’s end and Sept. 11 there was an acceptance of Islam in Europe. It was the golden age of globalization and liberalism and there was more room for Islam. But this perspective changed with Sept. 11 and there came a perspective that saw Islam as a danger, a threat to the European way of life. Of course the perspective present and valid before Sept. 11 did not disappear. That’s why you can find both inclusive and exclusive approaches in Europe and that’s why I believe Europe is confused about Islam. Europe is on a pendulum. You have on the one hand the inclusive approach of the liberal, global trend of the pre-Sept. 11 era. On the other hand is the exclusivist trend of the post-Sept. 11 era that says we need to draw the borders of Europe, and Islam should stay beyond those borders while the Muslims that stay inside these borders should adapt totally to us; an assimilation approach.

But in the meantime you said earlier they have accepted that Islam is part of Europe.
Europe understood that they could not exclude the millions of Muslims living in the continent, but the pendulum moves back and forth on what to do with them. Gerard Delanty, one of the authors of the book, argues that the European capacity for dialogue is not inherently ‘European.’ Europe did not always have an ‘inclusive’ culture. Each time Europe faced a challenge in integrating a new culture and religion within its boundaries, it has increased its degree of freedoms to incorporate these challenges and this is how Europe became ‘Europeanized.’ Delanty calls it a process of cosmopolitanization, which, for instance, involves the process of making Protestantism, secularism and Judaism a part of Europe.

The argument is that each time Europe opted for the inclusive approach, which is what made Europe what it is today. Is that right?
Correct. If Europe would today say: ‘I am tired and exhausted. I will no longer go further in cosmopolitanization,’ then we would be talking about the end of Europe as a concept. The continuation of liberalizing European culture will only be possible to the extent that it will internalize Muslims. This is the challenge today, and it is not limited only to those Muslims living in Europe. This challenge includes Turkey’s membership to the European Union as well as the issue of how to deal with the countries in the Mediterranean.

What are the problems that stem from Islam that make the challenge harder?
The biggest contention point is the issue of striking a balance between the sacred and the profane. In European culture it seems that what is profane is more prominent. In the case of Islam, however what is sacred for the average Muslim has a greater place compared to the understanding of an average European.

Europeans have probably become more secularized.
Looking from the perspective of Muslims, the real challenge with Europe is not about Europe’s welfare state or its level of freedoms. Gender issues are, for instance, an area where the issue of what is sacred and what is not is most reflected.

In a 2009 survey we found that culture predominantly affects Europeans’ perception of Turks. In order to understand what Europe perceives as [Turkish] culture we provided 24 cultural characteristics, such as individualist, rational, strong family values, sexually liberated, respectful of others’ rights and asked which of them were considered European, Turkish or both. The European respondents overwhelmingly, with 70 percent, saw sexually liberated as a European characteristic while only 2 percent thought that was a Turkish characteristic. Ninety percent of the Turkish respondents thought sexually liberated was a European characteristic and said this was not a trait of Turkish culture.

If this is one of the contention points, what is the solution then?
There is a trend in some part of Europe that argues for multiple legal systems, where some problems among Muslims can be solved according to their own law. One of the contributors to the book, Deniz Kandiyoti, says that should not be the solution. She argues that the universal approach to women’s rights and citizenship rights should be maintained, and it should not be left to the domain of religion or sects. There should be an accommodation effort of only what is left after maintaining the universal gains.

What do you think about Europe’s stance on political Islam especially in the context of the Arab Spring?
Europe is the one place best equipped to help the political transformations in its environment. It has soft power. Yet the cultural phobias about Islam in some European governments have weakened Europe’s strategic talents. Europe could not show enough of a reflex in the face of the Arab Spring. This cultural deafness can be a strategic cost to Europe, but the marginalization of Europe as a democratic reference will equally be a loss for [Turkey] and Islamic countries that are trying to become democratic as the alternative does not provide an easier road.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/gender-issues-europes-main-challenge-to-internalizing-islam.aspx?pageID=238&nID=28022&NewsCatID=338

Language & Being Rational

Prior to the invention of Radar, this device helped to focus, magnify and trace the engine sounds of attacking aircrafts..

Study:
Decisions Made in a Foreign Language Are More Rational

David Berreby on June 13, 2012, 7:06 PM Struggling with a foreign language is practically the definition of mental strain: what is the word for "screwdriver" again? did I produce that "ĥ" sound correctly? are they laughing with me or at me? And mental strain, according to post-rational theories of the mind, has consequences for how we think. But what consequences? Maybe (1) the extra work of a foreign tongue makes people more reliant on unconscious, automatic mental processes (since they used up their conscious reasoning power trying to remember the ablative-honorific form for postcard). On the other hand, maybe (2) the conscious and deliberate effort required by the foreign tongue brings the subject of the words into conscious focus, making people less reliant on those unconscious mental mechanisms. So which is it? This paper, in the current Psychological Science, offers a nice, clear decision in favor of option 2: People who evaluated risk in a foreign language, it reports, were more rational and accurate than those who worked in their native tongue.

Boaz Keysar, Sayuri L. Hayakawa, and Sun Gyu An put 368 students through an exercise devised to neatly separate the workings of what Daniel Kahneman calls System 1 (automatic, unconscious, biased) from those of System 2 (the deliberate, conscious attention that you focus when and where you feel the need). System 1 works with a set of rules of thumb that don't align with logic, one of which is a much greater sensitivity to possible losses than to possible gains.

So most people, if they could give an experimental medicine to 600,000 people and be sure to save 200,000, would prefer that option to a different drug that might save everyone but might not work on anyone. (A sure 200,000 saved is better than a potential to save 0.) However, consider that same drug (could save all, could save no one) against a different alternative: A medicine that is sure to leave 400,000 people dead. In that case, people prefer the drug that might save everyone (potential to save 600,000 is better than certain loss of 400,000). That's not logical, because that drug is the same as the one that for sure saves 200,000. But it satisfies System 1's bias against risks that could lead to a loss.

So the two versions of the question (certain life for 200,000 versus certain death for 400,000) can reveal whether a group of people is using System 1 or System 2 to think about the issue. System 2 users, thinking deliberately and consciously, will tend to see that the questions are identical, so answers to either version will tend to be the same. But people leaning on the unconscious System 1 will show a big difference: They'll favor the save-200,000 option much more than the lose-400,000, not noticing that they're the same.

Keysar et al. ran this diagnostic procedure on 368 students in different settings (native English speakers who spoke Japanese as a second language; Koreans who spoke English; and another set of English speakers who had learned French). The results are pretty striking: In all three experiments, people working in their native tongue showed a strong preference for the option that reminded them of lives saved over the one that reminded them of lives lost. But people working in the foreign language didn't distinguish, presumably because they had reasoned it out and saw that they were the same.

All in all, a fine argument for foreign-language learning, and foreign-language use. More immediately, the study seems to help resolve a question where post-rational models seem to clash. At least when it comes to language, it seems the effect of bringing conscious focus to a subject outweighs the effect of adding to the mind's cognitive load.

Keysar, B., Hayakawa, S., & An, S. (2012). The Foreign-Language Effect: Thinking in a Foreign Tongue Reduces Decision Biases Psychological Science, 23 (6), 661-668
DOI: 10.1177/0956797611432178

http://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/study-decisions-made-in-a-foreign-language-are-more-rational?utm_source=Big+Think+Weekly+Newsletter+Subscribers&utm_campaign=c8b246868f-Sat_6_16_Gay_gene6_15_2012&utm_medium=email

Drones Killings..

US Air Drones had paralyzed Taliban, eliminated Qaeda of Arabia, ereased AlShabab of Somaila, and many others who we do not know.. Just track the closed stories in the news, i.e., LRA of Uganda and War Lords of DRC Katanga.. Certainly, huge unknown civil causalities, to establish a manageable world order..!!
Is it Righteous or Wrong Doings..?

Getting to the grounds of realities and inevitable politics..
It happens that most of the chaos are among Muslims; who are mostly illiterate and unfit.. They blindly and faithfully follow their Muftis.. These Glorified Muftis are advising on 10 years a marriage age for girls, rejecting foreign non-Muslim aid, women are not allowed to drive cars, banning education for girls, an adult male should observe a women when she browses the internet, ban on Western knowledge, and thousands of hilarious Fatwas that ashamed any Muslim with brains..
Yet, those Muftis are leading the opposition to exchange or manage any social or urban developments, to survive on ignorance and back-warding stats..

How much the NGOs are frustrated and got their efforts and lives wasted..?
You can't help a person who rejects your offerings..
Among these poor people, values of human rights are not considered by their immature penal codes, fractured judiciary systems and corrupt politicians.. They can't understand or obey not to plant Cannabis in Afghanistan; stop Piracy in Gulf of Eden, provoke the State in Yemen, or support development in Mali..

It is not only the Dark Times has reborn, but irreversible conditions of humane humiliation and downgrading.. Then, what to do to get them worldly integrated.. Eliminate or Negotiate..?
This was the question, which peoples vary in answers..!

It should not be by all morals, but politicians are always in a hurry for results, once their strategists confirm both margins and potentials.. None of those politicians is that operationally genius to plan it himself, nor that morally noble to care for unseen on TVs..!!

Activists in Europe are exercising advanced intellectual mandates that are not cable to fit with the actual social orders of these outdated communities.. Most of these unfortunate people can’t understand the domains that are debated in blogs, media or academia.. Their needs are concentrated in few materialistic issues, that are controlled by who owns moneys, guns and connections.. Traditional dynasties are not functioning any more, and mostly had faded by the repeated political unrests.. There is no brains to negotiate, but helpless citizens, greedy war lords and notorious civic leaders..

There is a great divide between the need to share the pain, and the need to understand it.. This is not an advocacy for murder whatsoever, but the one to establish true consensus..
Maybe it is the time for NGOs and Activists to revisit their visions and strategies for the best ways forward.. The stage now is full of actors, including the NGOs themselves..!

Yes, it is a great problem, which requires that unknown approach and solutions.. It is increasing by the day, as result of hatred, need and death.. Regretfully, all educated or bright Afghani, Somali, and Yeminis had fled their countries and obtained US or European citizenships.. Who are stayed back there, share with their colleagues in Saudi, Mali, Chad, Sudan, Pakistan the daily search for Dollars.. Corruption became the extraordinary monsters; which no one is capable to fight or control.. It is truly frustrating for me and many others that there are no solutions working..!!

After three decades, the hidden and monopolizing hands over AlQaeda and others are not effectively unctioning.. By laws of organizational behavior, those outlaws are working by their own momentums and had created their own visions and missions..

I strongly believe that all current campaigns and understanding has to change.. Maybe if the independent activists would reach something, Officials will listen.. Between politics and covert operations there are lots of unknown and unspoken issues.. The true stories will never be folded.. This is not the concern here..

It is how to keep the people of good intensions intact, and capable to provide better solutions.. To exchange progrressive ideas rather than debatable information.. The 21st century is the era of intellegent minds rather than information..

Study of Aesthetics..

Among Beauty, Nudity, and Pornography great divides..

Our preceptions of Aesthetics and Perfections are contradictives, yet a guage of how we are..

The perceptions of any viewer of such a brilliant photograph are much driven by her/his structured culture, intelligence and moral systems.. Notably, the early study of aesthetics would relief and purify the people from all earthy, materialistic or physical accumulations, while not changing the actual attribution of the subject matter.. This is how the Art had grown and prospered in many places.. This is how the physical desires of some people would ignite by a simple controversial exposure..

Adding to this, the fact that our perception of concepts is very much attached and driven by attributes.. Almost no one would realize how totally nude this female is..!!
Simply, Nudity is sort of perfection, while beauty is unlimited to shape..
Certainly, there is no way to find a pornographic  element as well, unless the viewer is absolutely mental or Psycho..!!

I do thank all intellectual friends who shared the beauty within..

Gandhi is Needed..!

The poster quotes Gandhi:
"Many are after the Power, Fewer after the Nation"

Gandhi was a Philosopher, who had solely preached for change and morals.. Nehru was the Statesman, who had actually brought the change.. Any Nation has many Gandis, whereas each has his own vision.. with no Governance on what's right and wh...at's wrong.. Any Nation needs a Statesman to bring ideas down to earth, practices and implementations..

Very few of our frustrated enthusiastic people who understands the demise between Philosophers and Statesmen.. Unless we do, we shall continue to pay and bear the heavy cost of political maturity..

Mohd Fudzail: all are known now as politicians.....

You mean..
A politician, political leader, or political figure (from Greek "polis") is someone who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making. This includes people who hold decision-making positions in government, and people who seek those positions, whether by means of election, coup d'état, appointment, electoral fraud, conquest, divine right, or other means. Politics is not limited to governance through public office. Political offices may also be held in corporations, and other entities that are governed by self-defined political processes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician

Imad Kayyali: I believe that "WE" need some of "Gandhi"s. There isn't any since a while.

My pooint that "Philosophy" is open for anyone with least qualifications; i.e. Public advocay including Facebook acounts..!!
"Statesmenhood" is ristricted to practical achivers; who are not bored with filling processing templates, reading analysis reports, developing KPI's graphs or conduct Board reporting..!!

Therefore; we have lots of Philosophers, fewer Statesmen..
BTW; it is almost the other way around at the Western Hemisphere.. Many Statesmen, fewer Philosophers.. Therefore, they had landed on the moon 50 years ago..!!
I guess "Talking Guage" is the true demise between East & West..!!
 
Imad Kayyali: I think what we have is quasi philosophers but not real figures that are capable to do real change. they are pretty of more of rhetoric writers than philosophers.
 
Philosophy is by default controversial..!!
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Imad Kayyali: I don't disagree with the definition, I am pointing at who really deserves the title. Who in fact would influence politicians and people, who would put the vision for a change, and who provides the framework for the people and politicians at same time. I still don't see that we have any at all. This is clearly comprehended when reading the Arab Spring.

I agree we don't have any Governance Framework.. We almost don't know what does it mean.. Only by governance, we can filter visions and ideas.. Your question is on the Governence: who would set and draw its framework to accept or reject ideas..?

Yes; it is usually combined between Philosopers and Statesmen; as it needs moral foundations as well as practical procedures.. Therefore, usually legislators invite philosophers to attend hearings by Statesmen.. If not practical to attend, Mass Media will facilitate the philosophy reviews and inputs, with an open eye on been taking seriously.. This is how Media is the 4th Estate.. As usual and as always, the Devil is in the details..!!

It is the typical practical story of Government.. Between Philosophies and Deliveries..
Therefore, many persons talk, or "philosophize" things.. Very few can address the practical implementations..

Skin Umbrella..

Gustave Boulanger's painting The Slave Market

Slaves in Rome, from all colors and ages

Slavery is old as mankind himself.. Its chronicles, derivatives and circumstances will remain mystery; capturing not only the wondering imaginations, but also the sentiments of audiences.. Whether the “Ancestors” had sold some of their kinships or not.. Whether fierce battles had resisted enslavement or not.. Whether greed or necessity drove the slavery or not.. Whether early Romans, Greeks, Persians, Arabs, or Moorish were the principle traders or not.. The issue will continue to be controversial, with lots of “oral and folkloric” histories that has no concrete proofs for what really had happened across the past two millennia..

Historically, not only “Blacks” were enslaved, but lots of “Caucasians” as well.. Certainly; when both “Masters and Slaves” shared the same skin, the memories of the associated atrocities had quickly diminished; while new breed or “unidentified” mixed blood took over the life.. Skin had played a great role among Masters and Slave across the world.. 
Local slavery was known in India, China, Arabia, Eastern Europe, Native Americans, and Africans too.. In today’ world, these countries sound as intact communities; while anthropology and folklore prove the various  kinships and ethnic divide each has.. Yet, their "unified skin" provide an “Umbrella” or a melting pot for all citizens..

I can understand the historical religious influence of Black/White slavery context.. The Curse of Ham” had provided strong advocacy for such slavery at the early practices.. Yet, who would unshakably confirm that there is no further “Anti-Niger-Parasites” within the literate consciousness; which occasionally and uncontrollably would indirectly condemn or fiercely reject any cross racial affairs..?

Just Like His Daddies..!!

Just like his daddies! Sir Elton John and David Furnish's son Zachary took centre stage at their Oscars party

Once; I had shared the appreciation for all talented people; who form our public culture and life modeling.. Then I discovered that many of them are member of the GLB community (Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual).. Many of them are shamelessly well know to public media.. Many of them have enthusiastic audiences and fans; whom through they contribute in shaping the human civilization.. Despite how controversial the GLBT-Rights matter is; I maintain my simple religious beliefs about it.. Meanwhile, I have my own intellectual vision and verdict on it..

The true talent is a divine gift; which should (at least) compliment to both "normal behavior and code of decency.." Despite the luxurious and meaningless philosophies, within hearts and minds of the peoples’ majority; clear comprehension is commonly agreed on both fundamentals and substances of life.. Controversies on GLBT definitions and rights are intellectual fantasies supported by beneficiary groups; who none of them is a GLBT affiliate..!!

As a Muslim, there is a great contradiction between my righteous beliefs and those celebrities..!!

Understanding the debates on psychology, adoption, and civil rights, the question which no one dares to answer: How many “normal & stable” persons seek spouses from their own gender..?

Oprah Winfrey popularized the tabloid talk show genre which, according to a Yale study, allowed gays to become mainstream

List of famous GLB as of 2012-02-28..
Simon Amstell; John Barrowman; Boy George; Michael; Cashman MEP; Anderson Cooper; Alan Cumming OBE; Ellen Degeneres; The Fab Five; Jodie Foster; Barney Frank; Stephen Fry; Juan Gabriel; Stephen Gately; Andrew Hayden-Smith; Elton John; Amy Lamé; k.d. lang; Matt Lucas; Jane Lynch; Amelie Mauresmo; Joe McElderry; Ian McKellen; George Michael; Graham Norton; Rosie O'Donnell; David Paisley; Neil Patrick Harris; Christopher Rice; Kieron Richardson; David Sedaris; Bryan Singer; Michael Stipe; Peter Tatchell; Tila Tequila; Dale Winton; Will Young
http://www.queerattitude.com/society/famous.php 

On Wikipedia, as usual, there is a comperhensive list of GLB personalities..
This is a partial list of confirmed famous people who were or are gay, lesbian or bisexual. Famous people who are simply rumored to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, are not listed. The historical concept and definition of sexual orientation varies and has changed greatly over time; for example the word "gay" wasn't used to describe sexual orientation until the mid 20th century. A number of different classification schemes have been used to describe sexual orientation since the mid-19th century, and scholars have often defined the term "sexual orientation" in divergent ways. Indeed, several studies have found that much of the research about sexual orientation has failed to define the term at all, making it difficult to reconcile the results of different studies. However, most definitions include a psychological component (such as the direction of an individual's erotic desire) and/or a behavioural component (which focuses on the sex of the individual's sexual partner/s). Some prefer to simply follow an individual's self-definition or identity. See homosexuality and bisexuality for criteria that have traditionally denoted lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people.
The high prevalence of people from the West on this list may be due to societal attitudes toward homosexuality. The Pew Research Center's 2003 Global Attitudes Survey found that "[p]eople in Africa and the Middle East strongly object to societal acceptance of homosexuality. But there is far greater tolerance for homosexuality in major Latin American countries such as Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil. Opinion in Europe is split between West and East. Majorities in every Western European nation surveyed say homosexuality should be accepted by society, while most Russians, Poles and Ukrainians disagree. Americans are divided–a narrow majority (51 percent) believes homosexuality should be accepted, while 42 percent disagree."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people:_A 

Also, an interesting Wiki list on Gay Icons..
A gay icon is a public figure (historical or current) who is embraced by many within lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities. Dykon, a portmanteau of the words "dyke" and "icon", has recently entered common lexicon to describe figures particularly iconic to lesbians.
Qualities of a gay icon often include glamour, flamboyance, strength through adversity, and androgyny in presentation. Such icons can be of any sexual orientation or gender; they can be out or not. Although most gay icons have given their support to LGBT social movements, some have expressed opposition – advocating against a perceived "homosexual agenda".
Historical icons are typically elevated to such status because their sexual orientation remains a topic of great debate among historians. Modern gay icons, who are predominantly female entertainers, commonly garner a large following within LGBT communities over the course of their careers. The majority of gay icons fall into one of two categories: the tragic, sometimes martyred figure or the prominent pop culture idol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_icon 

Seducing Rumi..!

Audio is critical to feel the poem below..!!

A murmuring flow of words

as I sit on the bench.

They whisper,

I know you.

It is a drop of poison in the king's ear,

racking the house of the Danes, bringing all

labors to an end.

What air is this I breathe?

What stones do I walk on?

The world is left behind.

Layers are peeled away.

This is a madness, a Lethe I drink.

Falling from the wings of a sparrow

I am frozen on your page.

Close the book and I shall be crushed.

Certainty lies in promises and

judgment in a caress.

Seducing Rumi

From a post by my dear friend, Adam Aba-Husain

For me; it is the amazing discovery of arguable and contradictable concepts within everything, despite the moral appreciation or denouncement we may practice..!

WaW...!

The expression of letter 'WaW'; which is in reference to Al-Wadoud..

"The Loving"..
The symbol is sufi way of 'balance/harmony'.

Also single "WaW" represents Mevlana's sitting position..

Lot of meanining isnt it?
I heard a story of A wise man mentioned in the Qur'an who place his head down in front of a "WaW"..

Lot to talk about Adil, but the core is "LoVE"..
It is said ' if the "Alif" is key to the universe, the "WaW" is the universe itself..'

By Cenk Rullas

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