Inside the Cage: Reflections on Conditioned and Unconditioned Imagination - Stephen Spender

Ideally, the artist should transform the environment into his own world. But since we live in bodies, which are dressed in clothes, which inhabit buildings, which are parts of cities, which are placed in countries, the most we can expect to see art realize in our surroundings is a struggle between utility and an enhancing  uselessness.

The reason why 'poets adore ruins' and why - to almost everyone - its ruin can make a hideous modern building seem beautiful, may be that destruction celebrates the triumph of the useless over the useful. The useful (in a building, for example) belongs to the living - to the inhabitant - but the useless is that aspect of architecture which is like a mirror where the eyes of the dead still see their delight reflected. A city should belong at the same time to the inhabitants, who use it, the dead who have invented forms which give pleasure to the eye, and the unborn in whom the delights enjoyed by the dead will live. In towns where the dead and the unborn are omitted, there are simply buildings and thorough-fares used by the contemporaries. Utility seems inhuman even to the users, perhaps as the result of human defect which makes us ungrateful - incognizant almost - of that which we use. The inhabitants of modern industrial cities have a look of complete expressionlessness, of disregard for the surroundings, when they walk through streets or go on buses and trains. This is the 'utility' look (just like 'utility' clothes or furniture), the look of those who know that they are in a particular place simply for a particular purpose, and not in a sacred relation with its past and future.

Architecture, and most other 'applied' arts, expresses the tension of the aesthetic against the useful. At the other extreme, music is completely utilitarian, starting off at the point where the victory of the spirit over the instruments in the orchestra is complete, and there is an endless reign of imagined peace, But art made with words is inevitably debatable ground. Language enters our ears and eyes like a river flowing out of our surroundings; yet those who have a command of words can shape them in to patterns which, while remaining contemporary, resist the mere flow of things. Every poem, however 'pure', because it resists surrounding life, could be, and in totalitarian societies often is, suspected of being a manifesto. In poems, within one individual mind, the contemporary meets pasts and futures.

Perhaps we can build a statue on the skyline which, pointing to the clouds with a magnificent gesture, draws in our grimy slums through its feet, and, on a finger, uplifts them to the clouds, where they change into light; or perhaps we can only achieve our own transformation, inside ourselves, but with the possibility of communicating the secret to a happy few.

These two poles of outward and inward transform are the Romantic extremes: Shelley's claim that the poets are unacknowledged legislators, Keats cry, 'O for a life of sensations ... ' Keats saw that Shelley's wish to vivify the language of noble reason, so that it would incite men to make a just world, could lead only to the surrender of hidden poetic gardens to public planners; Keats wrote poems like arbours, in which readers were invited to spend a lifetime eating imaginary nectarines from imaginary dishes.

Although Keats attacked Shelley, their positions had this in common: both sought a center of their own poetic creating where the imagination is inconditioned. In making his wild claim about poetic legislators, Shelley is really anticipating Thomas Mann's remark in the early 1930's 'Karl Marx mus read Friedrich Holderlin;. Shelley realized that unless poetry could be at the center of politics it might be reduced to illustrating a politician's thesis. Keats chose the alternative to changing society through poetry: that of separating poetry from public matters altogether. Keats offered an entrancing void filled with imaginings where Shelley offered a transformed everything; but the difference between them was one of strategy. Keats thought that poetry should go into the world as a rich beggar, Shelley as a paupered, democratized king.

Learn Web Development - Adding CSS to HTML (URDU / HINDI) Tutorial

There are three ways to incorporate, embed or attach CSS with HTML web page:

1 - Inline CSS

2 - Internal CSS

3 - External CSS

All of the above methods have their own specific syntax and implementation. 

Inline CSS

Inline CSS is added as an attribute to any HTML element. The name of the attribute is style.

It is added like this:

<div style=" "></div>

In the inverted commas, you have to enter the property-value pairs, like this:

<div style="color: red"></div>

Internal CSS

Internal CSS is added as an HTML element under the HEAD tag of HTML web page. The name of the element is <style>.

It is added like this:

<html>

<head>

<style>

h1 {color: red;}

</style>

</head>

External CSS

External CSS is added as an HTML element under the HEAD tag of HTML web page. The name of the element is <link>.

It is added like this:

<html>

<head>

<link href="css/style.css" rel="stylesheet>

</head>

The location/address of your CSS file is entered in the href of the LINK element.

The Book

The Quran is one of the most silent books I have ever experienced. You stare at it, and it will keep its silence. You will never find a book so quiet and silent than this one. The fact that the book has a whole universe to tell you makes it ever more silent. This silence often piques as in "Why doesn't it speak its wisdom to me?" Well, it would never, until you show some love and respect towards it. The only fee, the only prerequisite, to get the most out of this book is your little effort and love. Then just wait for it, it will speak. The Quran, the holy Quran, its holiness might not appear in its physicality, but it do reverberates in you - in your voice, and then straight into your heart. The Quran, when read (as it should be), its essense starts resonating in your voice, and that is when you will notice its wisdom coming to you, and through you benefiting the others around you. 

Salah and the Quran are quite interconnected. If you want to be consistent in Salah, you better recite the Quran both aloud and silently, and on the other hand if you want to really understand the Quran, you need to be consistent in Salah. So, they are tightly inter-related activities. 

Many people say things like, well I offered Salah and recited the Quran, nothing really changed in my life. I am still as much of an evil as I was before. Or, my friend started praying, he is now even more evil than before.

On the point of adopting a good habit I would first comment on adopting a bad one. Imagine that you are an average well-mannered son of your parents. You have some basic good habits like a planned daily routine, fixed timings for studies and dinner and all that. Now, you are starting to leave the good path and want to smoke cigarettes. What is the first thing that will be affected in your life? It's your routine. You will start developing a strange routine of your own (that nobody in your house taught you) and you will start finding time spots - the best times to smoke secretly. (I am not advocating or helping smoking habits here, I am just telling you what happens when a child secretly adopts a bad habit in the house). For just one wrong habit, you start re-working on your daily routine. The same goes for adopting one good habit. You need to create a sort of mise-en-scene, an environment, an atmosphere, a set of other tiny good habits (like avoiding interaction with opposite genders even at a very basic level), to support your primary good habit (which is in this case, praying and reciting the Quran). In Sha Allah, this will help you. You cannot pray 5 times a day yet continue the corruption, talk evil, bribe, keep doing shameful things with your classmates, neighborhood or Facebook "friends", and at the end of the day say "praying isn't helping me to keep away from evil".

We have heard this cliche "no one can be an angel or prophet, we are bound to sin and fall into the trap of Iblees (satan)". You know what Allah says to the Satan in the Quran, that those people who are His slaves, you (satan) cannot do any harm to them. And to know how to become the Allah's servant, read the Quran; you will know those basics of life. Read Surah Kahf, Surah Baqarah, and whichever Surah you like. Start from somewhere, and start collecting the clues that will lead you to becoming the Allah's servant.

You need to slowly (but strictly) remove the bad habits from your life, one by one, pixel by pixel, and start adding good habits in place. Do a self-assessment everyday, whether you are better than the previous day or not. And In Sha Allah, your prayers will beautify and your recitations will start making meanings to you.

Inside the Dark

friends pull me up inside their dreams

what strange nature of man

they hate the cookie after licking all its cream 

those who know me, alas!

those who don't, my God, savages they are

holding my head abraded my soul against my dreams

destroyed everything in me

scattered I am, oh poor me

trying standing up again

helpless, abashed and unseen

all over in pain for vanishing gains

How to Float Opinions, the better way

That ignoramus faggot? Just stay away from him! He is an out and out fiend – engorged with evilness. Have you ever noticed his eyes? What a criminal look he gives.

This kind of opinion is a normal routine for people. I am not talking about the negativity or positivity of the opinion. 

The example above simply illustrates that what grounds our opinions usually have. So easily we call someone criminal just because of one’s bodily appearance, which only we think is grotesque, and we tag a person. 

This is not called floating an opinion, it is floating the bias. And people of lesser intellect often like to hear the latter. If you are trying to get applause from these sorts of people, then go for it – I will not stop you. 

That’s your choice. But if you want to see regard for you in the eyes of the people that you think are mature in reason and intellect, then you must know these three things that make a retarded opinion into a rad opinion:

Logic is a double-edged sword

Do not think that if you are giving logic or evidence for your opinion then it means people will think it is a valid opinion. 

Your logic or evidence must be like a cookie-for-free that must give them the same taste and smell as you got the first time when you ate it. Otherwise, they will poison you with your own cookie.

Don’t love your evidence

People are so full of love that they start loving even their own evidence. My friend, don't do it - your evidence is a cookie full of tasty poison. 

That’s the nature of the evidence – it’s an unfaithful horse; you can ride on it, but not trust it – loving is still a far off thing. You might not even realize that the evidence that you were using a moment ago to beat others has now knocked you down. Just hate your evidence – thrust it to others, they should handle it now. 

Hate it, kick it! 

Always remain in the rebellion mode with your evidence, always keep trying to disprove it, and that will make it stronger. Try to reject and disprove your own logic, arguments and evidences, this will make your opinion refined and convincing because you have already passed it through tough screening - have already criticized it before others would do.

If you still love to support your conceived logic more than your self-respect, if you still are ready to die for it, then make it worth dying for - prepare it with abrasion, with hatred, and in the hottest fire.

It is, sometimes, better to spank your child for her mistake, before the world spank her for the same.

Keep room for improvement

Always keep room for new opinions and logic. Keeping space for new ideas is a life-saving precaution - without it, you will smother yourself. 

Don't let your "lovely" opinion live alone inside you - accompany it with other opinions so that they all can live and flourish.

Accent

In this article or essay, I will illustrate the meanings of the word Accent by referring to their noun and verb forms. This is because the meanings are somehow dependent on their forms.

The word Accent as a noun means the way of pronouncing words. The difference in pronunciation of a Language gives birth to different accents of that Language. This strictly excludes the syntactical differences (which comes in the purlieus of the word Dialect) and the only thing that can be talked about other than pronunciation is the geographical regions that create a direct impact on the differences in accent. The indigenous people can quickly understand almost all the dialects of their Language; the point when it becomes unintelligible the accent becomes the dialect. 

The word Accent as a verb means to emphasize a part of something by raising the tone, sound or physical appearance. The verb-ial meanings of Accent have strong roots in the previous (noun) meanings, which means the way to pronounce words. Both of the forms of words have the same etymology as well. Notice in both the forms that the word Accent has a sense of "noticeable distinctiveness" in it. Consider this sentence:

These days, very few teenage girls care to accent their bodies with regular exercise and hygienic intake of food.

In the above sentence, the word Accent is used in terms of "beauty" and "noticeable distinctiveness", which makes it a package-word. The words Stress and Emphasize are sometimes mistakenly considered as the equivalent because of the physical appearance of these words. Stress and Emphasize are the lesser degrees of the word Accent because the latter has more semantic space. To compare correctly: if Stress and Emphasize are dry, acute and yet grand, Accent is soft, beautified and sublime. Consider this sentence that I saw in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English:

The dress emphasized the shape of her body.

I say,

The dress accented the shape of her body.

Do you think that the meaning has changed now, even if by the minutest fraction?

I think, yes - there is a change. People who are accustomed to listening and using the word Emphasize might argue that emphasize is the most accurate word to use here. They can keep to their point, but I would prefer to probably use the sentence in the contexts where I am emphasizing the body's shape; whereas, I will use the second sentence in the contexts where I am emphasizing the distinctively enhanced beauty of that shape.The word "beauty" sidles into focus when I read the phrase, "accented the shape of her body".

Ability

The word "Ability" means the fact that somebody is able to do something. It also means the skill that somebody possesses. Notice in both the definitions that the word Ability has a sense of capacity in it. Consider this sentence:

This machine has the ability to demolish walls in just a second.

In the above sentence, the word Ability is used in terms of "capacity" and "feature". Surely, the machines do exhibit their capacity (the extent of bearing load) when they perform a task, but let's take a brief look at the word feature. The feature of the non-living thing is its "built-in functionality", or - in anthropomorphic terms - the feature of the non-living thing is its "natural ability". We can rephrase the sentence in the following manner:

This machine has the built-in functionality to demolish walls in just a second.

Do you think that the meaning has changed now, even if by the minutest fraction?

I think the meaning is same - the focus or context differs. I would prefer to probably use the first sentence in the contexts where I am emphasising the power of the machine; whereas, I will use the second sentence in the contexts where I am emphasising the built-in feature of the machine.The word "built-in" suddenly comes into focus, which to some extent reduces the machine to a mere tool. In the first sentence, the machine stands grand.

So, from these two examples we gather that using a synonym does not always do the job - some words are irreplaceable due to many reasons, like the vastness of semantic space as illustrated above. The word Ability is a package word that contains not only the meanings but also a little power to exalt a non-living to a living (at least, it gives such a feeling to the non-living).

The word Ability also covers the intelligence aspect. If you search a thesaurus, it will also list the word Intelligence as its synonym. This is because Ability is not just limited to the physical capacity of doing physical tasks, rather it also refers to the abstract powers (the spiritual and mental powers), which is also the reason that it can subtly exalt the non-living.

Only Ali has the ability to defeat the Chess master.

Now, here the word Ability contains three meanings - the capacity of bearing the load, the intelligence, and the skill required to defeat the Chess master. And the capacity, intelligence and skill are here discussed in their considerable degree. 

It might seem at first sight that Intelligence and Skill are the same, but it isn't so. The word Skill has a different semantic space than Intelligence. Skill is the grand total of all the powers (intellectual, emotional, physical) to do a certain task; whereas, Intelligence is the intellectual power to use that skill. Skill is the substrate for the Intelligence on which it performs its action, without skill intelligence is reduced to half. An intelligent person with no chess skills has lesser chances to win than an intelligent person with the chess skills. If you are thinking that developing skills extempore is a child's play for an intelligent person, then my friend you are terribly mistaken. Developing a skill set is a matter of smart work and experience, which is a process that might not even require higher intelligence levels.

Winning the game against the Chess Grand Master does not require as much intellect as it requires the skill. And this is where the word Genius takes its own route. A Genius is a person whose intelligence is his greatest. He is supremely adept at maneouvering his intelligence to solve the problems without the need of skills. His intellect, in a soft and calm manner, does all what the highest degree of skill can do for any grand master. Intelligence once has gained the boost no longer requires experience as its only source.

Abandon

The word "Abandon" means to leave a place that is dangerous or unfavourable for living. Notice that the word has a sense of threat in it. Consider this sentence:

Lahore, the ancient city of Pakistan, is finally abandoned due to its poor social conditions.

Abandon is often used for the situations that have negativity in them, so it's a good idea to choose Abandon instead of any other similar word, like "Desert". Desert is a neutral word and it has more semantic space than Abandon. One can desert a place for any reason, but cannot abandon a place without having something obnoxious happening. Consider this sentence:

The ancient city of Pakistan is deserted.

OR

The birds have deserted the nest.

In the above two sentences there are no external factors influencing the decision of the leaver; therefore, the choice of leaving a place could be just - well - anything! Anything subjective.

Let us compare two more sentences to further explore the depth of the words.

Allen deserted the flat a few months later.
Allen abandoned the flat a few months later.

After having a refined word sense we can, now, suggest that deserting a place is not due to an unfavourable force that is external and objective in nature; rather it is more of a subjective force, a reason that could be more emotive than causative. Allen's deserting the flat evokes sympathetic questions in mind - a deep sense of emptiness and loneliness is conceivable. What could be wrong with Allen? While, Allen's abandoning the flat evokes a sense of disturbance in the mind. What could be wrong with the flat? Someone's deserting a place marks a question on the leaver, and someone's deserting leaves a question mark on the place that is left.

This is my analysis about the two words - and after this research I would suggest that we can use Desert when we want the reader to focus on the leaver, and use the Abandon when we want the reader to focus on the place left.

Both of the words also have the meaning of leaving a person. I will post on this topic as well, someday.

Teachers the Merchants

the Fount of knowledge, a point of growledge,
the source of guidance, a spec in darkness; 
the shine twofoldly gleaming the doubled mind
a mentor in this misty fog, now too misty to find!
 
A perfect mind in an
immaculate heart of an
accurate form is a
concept not conforming!

Letters and Words, pages and leafs
smoothly order the apprentices to sniff the seeds; 
but, a relish so brief that wilts all the greens.

Listen to the truth that smarts,
Of the ploys, the pits and their Arts!

Teachers, the Merchants, sell the Smith's goods,
peddle their creations by hook or crook.

Earning the labour for telling a crafty story
to make us believe to buy the story.

All they know is the art of becoming 
the rest they know is called cunning

Costly and comely the deception 
in devastating dress of perception 

every time they wear it, we know it.
Hail to the teacher who comes naked!

Earnestly, I of the cunning dress speak
the dress with no garb, better than a chaotic cloth.

Real Merchants sell the goods and know the story,
unlike empty speakers of the  Smith's myth,
who shape their apprentices to be the Smith,
to create not just the goods, but to create the truth.

Sad it is to find the mystery
that exists in the Smith’s myth.
Like that unaccompanied mentor;
that exists like a mist amidst a mist!

Rational is Subjective

The word Rational is an adjective (a quality of something), like rational thinking, rational behavior or rational disposition, which means such a thinking or behavior that is based on reason and not emotions. You can link the two with an “R” (Rational, Reason). Anything that has its roots in reason is rational. That is what I have learnt about the word Rational by exploring two or three dictionaries.

Since, Rational has its roots in Reason, from which the word Reasoning has derived, so let’s take a look at the word Reason. Reason, simply, means the cause - the birthplace of something.

To understand this tiny little concept of reason, consider this conversation:

Father: You missed your class yesterday.
Son: Yes, I left late for the class.

Father: That’s what I am asking. Why were you late?
Son: I couldn’t wakeup earlier.

Father: Why?
Son: I kept watching a movie all night.

Father: That’s stupid!

In the above conversation, the son missed a class yesterday about which his father is upset and wants to know about the reason. The son tells that he left the class lately. This statement is the reason given by the son for missing the class, but his father knows that this reason is not actually the birthplace of the incident (Why? Because of the father’s experience). So, he asks again for the reason for getting late (the reason of the reason?). The son tells that he was late because he could not wakeup earlier. Another reason with which the father isn’t satisfied (because he knows this is quite a sufficient cause but there is still that he should know), so he asks again for the reason (the reason of the reason of the reason?). The son says that he was watching a movie the whole night, and the father is now satisfied; for him this is the birthplace of the incident.

Are you sure that watching a movie for the entire night is the actual cause of the son’s missing the class? If yes, then this is the birthplace of the incident. If no, there is something more to look around then, right? By the way, I also think that this isn’t the birthplace of the incident. I will get back to this later.

Did you notice that how much this word Rational is stuffed with objectivity? I bet you notice that! Look at the objective nature of the word rational:

 Son missed the class, because
 He left the house late, because
 He got up late, because
 He was watching the movie all night.

How rational was his action, everything he did had a reason.

My question is, if everything was rational, then why his father said “That’s stupid”? Didn’t he know what a rational behavior is?

I think now we should move towards other meanings of the word Rational.

A rational activity is not only based on a reason; but also on strong linkage (between the activity and its reason). And remember, the reason should be socially acceptable and easily recognizable– because, that’s the only way the linkage between the reason and activity could be called strong.

Leaving a class just for the sake of movie is not a socially acceptable activity; therefore, it is an irrational activity in the eyes of the society. But, for the boy it was totally rational because his father never gave him much time and “was a drunkard and a fiend”. So, to amuse himself he watches movies – and that’s totally acceptable for the boy (and, probably, for the society too). For the father, the reason-activity linkage is very week and therefore irrational, for the son the reason-activity linkage is very strong and therefore completely rational.

The objective fact is one – the incident is one – the truth of the incident is one, but for one it is rational and for the other it is irrational. What’s all this irrationality?!

Actually, the confusion rises because, we normally believe that rationality is an objective reality; whereas it is completely subjective and based on one’s beliefs, ideas and experiences.

May be, even after knowing that the child misses him, the father would still consider all this activity irrational, perhaps, because he thinks that his child should have discussed this matter with his father instead of finding his own ways to relieve himself of the distress.

As we know of the truth and objectivity that these two words have single identity. A chair is a chair for every single being on earth, and that’s the chair’s objective nature. All objectivity is like that. If anything stands as an objective truth, it must pass the test of single identity. Unfortunately, Rationality does not pass this test. What is rational for me is not rational for you.

To sum up the word Rational, I would say following words:

Rational is an adjective that is subjective in nature and may vary from individual to individual, based on personal beliefs, ideas and experiences. And if you start probing for the reasons beneath the rational, you might find infinity of them, but you would never find its birthplace. The reason is simple. The truth of a rational thinking, behaviour or anything does not lie inside that thinking or behaviour, but in your head. You hold something to be rational, and that becomes rational. And the last thing, Rational Thinking is the only thinking that totally disregards the bare truth!

Just to give another example, think about the “rational thinking” about our religious beliefs.