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.

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.

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.

Stucked and Surprised

There are two people stuck in a room. One talks of love, fairies, luxuries; the other doesn't. One talks, and talks all the day and talks all the night; the other cares all the day and loves all the night. One daydreams because talks all the night, the other lives the dream because loves all the night. One wants to go out of the room and enjoy the birds and fairies; the other wants to enjoy the chirping of the first one and warmth of the first one. One screams to go out because alone and desperate inside; the other cries to stay in and love each other all day and all night. 

After some time, one neither wants to go outside nor live inside, but lives somewhere in between something; the other neither loves the inside nor cares the outside. There erects an evil wall between the two that keeps their hearts far away - one wants to live that way, the other that way. One feels depressed because the other is avoiding and keeps oneself far far away in that room, the other is just surprised by all that is happening in that room.

I know this feeling, friends.

Depression is a seal to relation, Surprise is the key. Be surprised, explore, discover, and adopt every bit of the relation, and mature it. Be depressed, dis-engage and destroy every bit of the relation and blow it into the air. Be surprised, and be sure that this shall pass too. Be depressed, and be sure that you shall remain stuck forever.

Reality of the Seen and Unseen

It's a pity that the concrete realities - the massive existence of the entire universe has been caged in the impotent human languages. Even the most dominating reality (the Existence of Being) that human history has ever known is also subject to abstraction. The only merciless machine, the only tool, the only method that can instantly and irreversibly convert any reality into abstraction is the Human Language. Any Reality can be victim to human language. I can feel my existence - and this is the reality. The reality is what one can feel because my feelings are purely under my possession, without the interference of any external physical elements - the possession of my very flesh and skin. My feelings are the possession of my mind, and the only external touch that my feelings can have is my body, and that's the limit. The limit of my feelings is my body. And with this feeling I become conscious of my existence. It is the purest experience, the most genuine experience. Does this make reality a subjective experience, and cannot be tested objectively? Does this mean that we cannot see reality from a third person's eye? Yes, you can - but objectivity is not enough to handle reality. Objectivity is limited and rigid. Subjectivity is an unleashed exploration of the Self. Reality is a subjective experience, not an objective fact. The only reality that I can comfortably talk about is the reality of my being, rest of the realities are difficult to even guess. That was all about the aspects of reality. I will now move on to the question that what reality is in fact. What's the reality of a chair? Frankly, I do not know. I can only guess. The question is not about my reality, the question is about the reality of some other object. So, I guess the reality of chair lies in its existence. A chair exists because it is been manufactured. A chair is manufactured because people want something to sit on. So the reality of a chair is that it is been constructed by the people for the people to sit. But, what if someone uses a chair to pop the door open instead of sitting on it? That's also its reality. We can go on and on describing the reality of other things without getting to a single conclusion. In order to get to a reasonable conclusion one must discuss the reality of oneself, OR at least the reality of the objects that are similar to oneself (i.e. other human beings). Human Beings are different from rest of the universe. Unlike other objects, human beings have undoubtedly more than one realities: one reality is that which I let you see (or you notice by yourself), other reality is that which I do not let you see (or which you could not see), another reality is that which even I cannot see about myself, and there can be many more. But the most obvious realities are these three which I have just stated. If you ponder for a moment, you will notice that in order to determine the reality of the chair I was using my cognitive powers or my mental faculties (or my mind). I was unable to conceive the reality of the chair with my 5 senses. Now, one might say this: "How do you know that the object you are talking about is a "chair" and not a "camel"? You know that because you first used your 5 senses (the sense of sight)!" The reality that is determined by the five senses is called "The Reality of Being". The Reality of Being of a chair is that it has 4 legs, one seat, one back and two arms. The Reality of Being of a Human Being is that it stands straight on two legs, has a well-formed face and tuned voice. The Reality of Being of a marker is that it is long, thick, pointed from one end and straight from the other, and covered with observable ink at its pointed end. The Reality of Being is simply what your eyes see. In most awkward terms, you can say that the Reality of Being is the Form and Structure of the object through which we can determine what we are looking at. English Grammar addresses Reality of Being as "Concrete Nouns": The nouns that can be observed through 5 senses. We have other nouns that are beyond observation of 5 senses (abstract nouns). In terms of Reality, there are three abstract nouns:

1. Surface Reality: The reality that people pretend to have. Surface Reality is also that reality which you may or may not pretend to have, but the world misconstrues it to be your inner reality. World often misconstrues it because their cognitive processes are too much based on 5 senses and too little on analysis.
2. Inner Reality: The reality that you think you have. Mostly, the things people try to hide in them are called Inner Realities. However, Inner Realities can also be same as Surface Realities at some instance. Inner Realities are difficult to conceive as it requires higher cognitive skills and 5 senses.
3. Hidden Reality: The reality that you cannot conceive yet. Hidden Realities are those realities that no one knows, not even you. The undiscovered realities - you may call it. The Hidden Realities that are when discovered become Inner Realities. Hidden Realities often spring up from unconscious level of mind and regulate your personality in almost every aspect. You can also call it "Unravelled Reality"

There is a person ABC.

1. Person ABC is a Human
2. Person ABC is a Male
3. Person ABC is a Teacher
4. Person ABC is a Father
5. Person ABC hates himself

Let us see how many realities he can have:

1. Human = Reality of Being
2. Male = Reality of Being
3. Teacher = Inner Reality OR Surface Reality (depends)
4. Father = Inner Reality OR Surface Reality (depends)
5. Self-Hater = Hidden Reality OR Unnoticed Reality

In English Grammar Teacher and Father are categorized as Nouns, as if I can determine that you are a father just by looking at your face. Every male holding a baby in his arm is not a father - that's no proof of his being a father. Whether someone is a teacher or not - that's not a question that can be answered by using only 5 senses - I have to use cognitive processing, I have to analyze the environment, context, situation, circumstances, behaviours, routine patterns, culture and then link them up together to form a conclusion. Then I will test and apply my conclusion to the person ABC and then determine that whether he is a teacher or not. There are millions of abstractions that my mind will go through before determining the profession of the person ABC. Now, here is another twist. When from distance we are analyzing the person ABC who is standing on the bus stop, we are saying that "he is a Teacher I think". When we said that it means we are talking about his Surface Reality. After a moment he sits in the bus and starts reading a course book. We again say that "look look he is preparing his lecture, he is a teacher.". We looked at his posture at the bus stop analyzed what we saw and guessed that he is a teacher. Then in the bus, we saw him reading a course book, we again said that he is a teacher because we saw something and analyzed it. A moment later he goes into the school and starts teaching a class. We again say "That's it. He is a teacher." So, now with our objective analysis we characterized his Inner Reality as a "Teacher". That's good. Now, when we listened to his lecture and  found him unprepared. We thought that today it might not be his good day. So, we revisited the school tomorrow again, and observed him. We found him still unprepared. And not only this, we even found him incapable of handling his class decorum and delivering his lecture. We concluded, "He is by profession a teacher, but he really does not know what is to be teacher!" So, after this we recategorized the information. We now say that he is by profession a teacher (Surface Reality) but does not have the essence of a Teacher (Inner Reality).

Now, in all this we actually couldn't figure out that he is a patient and near to his death, and this ineffective teaching is just a result of this. In the past few months he has won The Best Teacher prize. We didn't know that. So Inner Reality has been misinterpreted. Now shall we ask the person ABC that what does he think about this? From the perspective of person ABC, the fact that he is a teacher, is for him, is his Reality of Being. It is the part of his existence that he is a teacher. Why? Because he can feel the Reality of being a Teacher. We cannot feel someone else's reality of being. We can just observe him that since he is teaching, he is a teacher. We are dependent on his activity. Until we see him teaching, we cannot determine whether he is a teacher or not. An objective observer requires additional actions to be performed by the person ABC in order to determine that he is a teacher; whereas, the person ABC does not require any additional action in order to determine that he is a teacher. Because he feels the Reality of a Teacher. Feelings do not require proofs. Judgements do. It's just a matter of perspective. There is another reality that I would like to refer to the "Reality" - with the capital "R". This is a reality that contains all other forms of realities. A person who pretends to be honest but he is actually not is his Reality. Pretending to be Honest is the part of his Surface Reality. But since, he understands and practices honesty at some degree therefore it is also his Inner Reality. The concept of Reality (with a capital "r") holds that whatever the person is ( inwardly or outwardly) all of this is his Reality. That was a short paragraph about the 5th type of Reality. The main point that I want to make is that the abstract nouns (like "mother", "father", "teacher") are realities that require cognitive processing. You cannot tell about someone just by looking at him that he is a teacher or she is a mother. Because if you do, this will count as Surface Reality. We are least interested in Surface Reality. Inner Realities or Hidden Realities are the realities that attract us more. If you claim that you just need to look at someone in order to determine the Inner Reality of someone, I say that either you are God-gifted or you are that person's sole mate, because only these two people can determine someone's Reality of Being (The Reality that can only be well-explained by the owner of this Reality).

Symbols

We all know what are symbols. They are representations. They are a kind of Placeholders for something else. Symbol is just a reference to some other idea or reality, it is not the reality itself. A symbol borrows the essential reality from its reference and does not contain any essence of its own.

I need not to reiterate the understood fact here, that the Symbols are for specific audience of a specific location. For instance, "donkey" may be a symbol of ignorance for the audience of region A, but a symbol of intellect for audience of region B. The location may be regional or cultural.

You can take the example of a portrait. A portrait is a symbol (in the most general terms) of any person. The portrait of Mona Liza is not the Mona Liza herself in the frame smiling for us. Mona Liza died a long time ago. The portrait just reminds us of her. The portrait just represents her, it is not Mona Liza herself with all her flesh and bones. So, the essence of the portrait lies in Mona Liza. (There goes a debate that the artist made that smile look mysterious, some say the artist just showed what he saw. We are not getting into that)

A symbol is always in a state of representation. It never becomes the reality itself. In order to understand the reality behind a symbol, we must go behind it and see what it has to offer. We must not stop our search just by looking at the symbol, and nothing but the symbol, because the reality resides not in the symbol, but beyond its existence. The essence is somewhere else - not in the symbol.

Here is another example - for which I wrote this article.

The Namaz (Muslim Prayer). It is just a symbol of another reality and idea. The Sajda (the prostration) is a symbol of complete submission of one's existence before Allah. Unless a Muslim does not realize the idea of complete submission his Sajda is futile. A Muslim's existence exalts by submission. The soul rises when the existence annihilates. The essence colors by decoloring the existence. Namaz is a symbol - it holds within it a reality that cannot be acquired without investing your Self in this quest. Without realization of this reality a Namazee is just vomiting out what he crammed - no exaltation required, no purification achieved - nothing. Just vomiting and exercising.

Islam and Philosophies

The one who believes in Allah and prophet Muhammad (pbuh) should not be afraid to confront any doctrine, any philosophy. Those who think that to read Philosophy as a subject one must forget about Islamic philosophy for a time being are sullying their and others believes. This is an extremely dangerous ground to step and begin your journey of Philosophy because you are proving Islam to be incompetent to address modern day issues. Remember, Quran has already answered all the important philosophical questions that were posed to humanity in the past, and those that will be in the future. The entire subject of Philosophy (especially Western Philosophy) is just a perspective of any other human - you are not bound to believe in that. All I need you to do is, that before believing or rejecting the philosophy you are studying, go and check Quran and Hadees that what do they say about the matter you are studying. Try to compare both of these.

The most critical set of questions that is encountered in Philosophy is about the "Origin". That - what is the origin of God? Who created God? Why God is here? If there had been no God, who would have been here? Why Man is here? If there had been no human what would have been here? These are the questions of origin. Various people answered them. The answer that is considered the best is the one that is supported by a logic (no matter how bogus that logic is). So, we have various answers, some are "logical", some are illogical. And do you know what? Quran has answered each and every question already.

Remember, if you have little or no knowledge of your principle doctrine, you will always be scared to encounter questions because you will fear lest my doctrine be proved wrong. Islam can never be proved wrong - YOU are proved wrong. If you think you should not study comparative doctrines just because your doctrine is weak - you are fooling yourself. Because its not your doctrine that's weak and rigid - it's YOU who are weak and not ready to accept the flexible nature of Islam.

Problem Solving

Problem Solving is a broad concept which can be defined as finding the appropriate solution to a problem and ultimately solving it. Just a little comment: when saying Problem Solving, it means fixing the problem by finding and applying the solutions, it is not only finding and applying the solution rather rigorously moving from finding, applying and fixing the problem, a program that accomplishes that is an ideal program, any one of these steps missing may demote the program's efficacy (in my eyes, of course).

Problem Solving involves following important prerequisite questions
What is a Problem?
What is a Solution?
What is Solving?

There can be thousands of answers, but my answers derive from my model of Problem Solving, which I call Pattern Model. According to this model, every single entity, process, action - everything that is observable or un-observable - is stored in the mind as a Pattern. A pattern is a collection of marked recurrent stages of an entity or process where each stage is marked on the bases of time, status, results, modification rate. This is explained in greater detail in Pattern Model.

For Problem Solving Model, we have a huge, complex storage for Patterns. These Patterns are accessed upon every input of a new pattern. The Pattern Recognizer(PR) tries to recognize every Pattern before sending it to storage; and while doing so the PR tags the Pattern as Recognized, Partially Recognized, Unrecognized. Now, there are two most obvious cases when a pattern is considered a problem (i.e. answering the question " What is the Problem with it?"):

A. Incomplete Pattern

B. Unrecognized Pattern

Out of these two the first one is a more obvious situation in which the program will try to detect the Problem and the type of Problem. Before we dwell any further let's see how Problem Solving process occurs.

[Click the above image to enlarge]

This is the whole process in a nut shell.

The above figure is divided into two conspicuous sections: white and pink. The pink section is the real program that tries to solve the problem. The white part is the associated programs. If you notice, the problem solving program requires an accessible storage which is represented as a brown cylinder in the figure. This stores a huge variety of patterns which include incomplete, complete, variation and unique patterns along with the acquired solutions for completing the incomplete patterns. Such a storage is extremely helpful for the Problem Solving program (or Problem Solver) because this program first searches for the solutions for the problems that are already stored for other patterns, the program tries to apply those solutions first. If, after applying those solutions, the incomplete pattern turns into a complete and valid pattern - the solution is stored for that pattern as well. If, after applying those stored solutions, the incomplete pattern does not solve - a new solution is designed by the Problem Solver itself.

Since, all the solutions to patterns are themselves patterns of some sort; therefore, by reading those solution patterns the Problem Solver will generate its own solution pattern.

There are thousands of advantages of a pattern model; since the Pattern Modeler converts both abstract and concrete world into a pattern and therefore allowing the other programs to exploit those patterns in order to comprehend the existing patterns and generate new ones.

This problem solving is just an example of Pattern Model; in fact, Pattern Model is such an expansive technique that it can literally empower the computer to generate thoughts, ideas, creativity, and even enable them to dream! Pattern Model is the back-stage thing in this article, which will be dealt separately in another article.

Nature of Language - Linguistics

Introduction to Nature of Language

---

Language, in the eyes of linguists, is signs and symbols. This means that language, written or spoken, consists not of words but of signs. What? That's strange. I was told by my school teachers that you pronounce words to speak and draw letters to write.

Well, that's true only to the superficial level of language. The question beneath this truth is "What are Words?". 

One answer is - a meaningful combination of morphemes and phonemes. Well, that's again a superficial approach as it does not really define what are words. That's an incomplete definition. A definition is considered complete only if it covers three questions:

1. Why the object (say object A) is needed at the first place? (from which emerges the second question)
2. What are the functions of the object A?
3. How the object A is made?

If a definition covers these three criteria, it means the definition is complete. Now, coming back to our definition of "words". I said, words are combinations of morphemes and phonemes. This definition is incomplete because it answers only the third question. So, let's complete it in three parts.

A. Words are morphemes + phonemes
B. To transfer thoughts from one brain to another (means to communicate)
C. To socialize, to manoeuvre, to hypnotize, to dictate, to control, to symbolize

That's a comprehensive definition, isn't it? That's how many linguists define words (and language of course). But that does not solve our problem, because when we ask ourselves, by what rule morphemes and phonemes combine to become an established word - we are left blank. When we ask, what makes words capable of holding thoughts in them - we are blank. We we will remain blank if rely only on this definition.

Icon & Index

There are explanations for the first part of the definition, and discussing them will be out of the scope of this article. I will discuss in this article the second part (part B): how words hold meanings?

Actually, words do not hold meanings, had they been holding some meaning everyone would have understood this word "jyunkilio". As a matter of fact, no one can understand this word, since it is not a word of any language. This word represents nothing. Compare this word with chair. When you read or hear this word you instantly have an image of a chair in your mind, and those who understand English language know what does the chair mean. The things are not as they seem to be. Words do not mean anything, we give meanings to the word. If I tell you jyunkilio Zulu language means cat, and I make sentences with jyunkilio in my routine conversation like this:

I saw a cute white jyunkilio sitting under a bench. Her voice was a soft "meow". I like white jyunkilios.

So, now you are understanding the word a little bit. Because I told you that the word is used to represent cat. That was just an example, jyunkilio  is not a recognized word of any known language.

Whenever, a word stands to indicate/represent something, it is called an index word. Index means to indicate the presence of something. Words are difficult categorize between Index and its big brother Icon, because they appear to be the same.

Generally, any object that is created to resemble the original one is called Icon. Images/pictures are often categorized as Icons. Icons share physical features or intrinsic features of the original object. For instance, you see your pictures in facebook DP; these pictures are icons of you. They resemble your appearance. 

On the other hand, we have Indeces (plural of Index). Any object that shares no features no physicality to the original object, but still forces you to think of the other object is called Index. Like smoke. Smoke has is black cloud like thing, yet upon seeing smoke you think of fire, which makes smoke an index of fire. It is the smoke that makes you think of the fire, though they do not share any physical resemblance of any kind.

Sometimes, we find objects that force us to think of an abstract idea. Now, Ideas have no shape or appearance, yet the object indicates towards an idea. This indication is either self-constructed or internationally recognized. Or in other words, this indication is either subjective or objective. For instance, in Christianity a Cross is considered to be an Index of Crucifixion. Crucifixion is an activity, an abstract idea, an incident that occurred many years ago - it is nowhere in the present times, yet a cross for Christians all over the world is an Index. Interestingly, a cross is also an Icon; as it represents the physical appearance of the original cross.

What are words then? Index or Icon? Are the words physical representation of something or just an indication of an idea,activity or object? I think the word chair neither has four legs nor a back, so it can definitely not be an Icon; nevertheless, this word is an Index. And so do all the other words of a language. Therefore, all the languages are indexical in nature. Language stands for ideas. Language itself is not an idea; it is a ball with a layer of paint - a ball of morphemes & phonemes painted with a layer of idea. It is not a traditional empty box which keeps the meaning in itself. It cannot hold meaning - meaning is given to the language. It is therefore a common disposition of the foreigners to jeer and laugh at the Chinese language, because they cannot comprehend it and for them it is just "shin shuan". People who cannot understand Chinese is just because they cannot give any meaning to those sounds and letters. For them Chinese is an Index to nothing at all.

Posted by : Hassan Malik +