I heard this sentence in the movie 'Batman Begins': It is not what we are from inside, but what we do that defines us.

We like people for their qualities, but we love them for their flaws... have you ever met someone who appeared faultless, almost too perfect to be loved?

"In heaven all the interesting people are missing." [Nietzsche]
I don't know if other people have had this feeling while reading about heavens and utopias- they are all utterly boring, without exception. They life they present is dull, boring, monotonous and without excitement. It may be eternal, or it may be economically ideal, but what the purpose if it seems to lack the very vigour and beat of life?

Once a friend of mine [Ahmad Arsalan] described an apparently very contradictory opinion: He said that Pantheism [A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena.] is in fact a form of Atheism. If you believe that God is everything, then that means God is nothing! Cause if God is the world, there is nothing in existence apart from the world, and we add nothing to nature by calling it God. An amusing concept, but very logical if you think of it.

I heard a dialogue once in a drama, "He who loves everyone, loves no one." And this always reminds me of the above written view.
And once a certain friend of mine mentioned a class fellow who was very popular and i, influenced by this pattern of thinking, replied, "He who is loved by everyone is loved by no one!"

Who is a good writer? Someone who better conceals his own identity when he writes, or someone whose words are teeming with his own life and spirit? A better actor is the one who has the ability to adopt a different personality and attitude than his own... to appear something different, to hide behind a mask. This requires talent. But does this criteria of talent apply to the art of writing as well? Is a writer who constantly expresses himself in his works, like an unskilled Puppeteer whose hands are being exposed as he manipulates the puppets?

There is a difference of only one step between love and hate... just a multiplication by -1.

Often i feel as if a good song is a like a beautiful girl. You hear it suddenly somewhere out of the blue, on the radio or TV, and you instantly love it, and then you want to hear it again and again, feeling you can't have enough of it, but soon, the excess of that song renders it ineffective and it barely raises an emotion, and then you start looking for a new song... but after a long time you hear that song again somewhere, and it strikes your senses the same way it did the first time, and you cherish it again, relishing the melody.
Is this not similar to love in certain aspects? Think about it. :)

Some days back i wrote a post on 'Hell'. Today i was reading 'Lessons of History' by Will Durant, and i found a passage with something similar in it. And i'd like to add it in my blog.

"The idea of hell disappeared from educated thought, even from pulpit homilies.... Educated Christians visiting the Sistine Chapel were shocked by Michelangelo's picture of Christ hurling offenders pell-mell into an inferno whose fires were never to be extinguished; this was the "gentle Jesus, meek and mild," who had inspired our youth? [Page 47-48.]

"That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built."

[Extracted from 'A Free Man's Worship' by Bertrand Russell.]

I was reading an article by Stephen Hawkings, 'Is Everything Determined' and it was certainly an excellent piece of writings, revealing the author's brilliant insight. One of the ideas that really struck me was his concept of an 'effective theory of free will'. As a Physicist he believes that there exists a 'Theory of Everything', a set of fundamental mathematical equations that would describe everything in this universe, theoretcally. The questions arises, will such a fundamental theory be able to predict human behaviour, because theoretically human behaviour would also be determined by this theory of everything?

The answer is No. Even though human behaviour would be determined by these equations, the human brain is too large a structure for the equations to be applied. Even the very simple Newton's theory of Gravitation can be solved exactly for 2 particles, but when the number of particles increases more than 2, the equations become too complex to the solved, and one has to resort to approximations. And consider human brain with 10^ [raise to power] 26 particles. This is such an enormous number than the fundamental equations would become too complex to the solved.
Secondly, even if such a prediction is made, the very fact of making this prediction would alter the system and therefore lead to a different result. [For example, it is predicted that you'd have a Big Mac for lunch, you might just change your mind on hearing this, and instead eat a Pizza.]

In physics whenever we are dealing with Macroscopic systems, the number of particles is too large to use fundamental equations. So instead we use 'effective theories', which use approximations. An example is Fluid Dynamics. Although a stream of fluid is made of millions of particles, we ignore this fact, and consider the liquid to be a continuous medium, characterised just by velocity, density and temperature. And this theory works in practice, even though it is not true in reality.
Similarly, Hawkings suggests that the concept of free will is an effective theory. Cause we are unable to predict human behaviour, we adopt the effective theory that humans have free will and are responsible for their actions. Now even though this is not true in reality, but it works in practice, and therefore we use it. And it seems that a society that believes in free will and responsibility has much more 'survival advantage' than a society that doesn't.

Think about it.

Around the hero everything becomes a tragedy; around the demigod everything becomes a satyr-play; and

around God everything becomes--what? perhaps a "world"?
[Nietzsche, Aphorism 150]

There is a certain type of Islamic fundamentalism that is rising within the Muslims living in the West. Many of the Muslims there, especially the youth, greatly feel a psychological disturbance due to lack of identity in the Western society. And Islam then offers them this identity, and they cling to it ferociously as their saviour.

Pervaiz Hoodbhoy writes:
" And finally, there is an international movement [of Militant Islam] based primarily in the Western countries, of immigrants who seek, through participation in Islamic movements, a sense of community and psychological security in an environment which is culturally alienating and economically difficult." [Islam and Science, page 134]

There is an excellent short story 'Your Children' written by Aamer Hussein that describes such a situation. Muneeza Shamsi comments on the story: "In 'Your Children' which is set in Indonesia and England, Aamer Hussein looks at a universal issue facing contemporary Muslim society: the conflict between an older, Westernized generation and a rebellious younger one, searching for a sense of identity and self through religion... fuelled by Western intolerance and racial prejudice, their radical creed assumes a more violent, more angry edge." ['Cactus Town and other short stories' by Aamer Hussein, with an Introduction by Muneeza Shamsie.]

Today i completed the novel "Northanger Abbey" by Jane Austen, after perusing it for several days... i was quite disappointed by the extremely slow speed of the story and i constantly prayed to the author to hasten her pace of narration. And moments that aroused my excitement were very rare indeed. I think it would have been better if i had read some abridged or condensed version instead of the original text. There were, however, moments when the author revealed her insight of human nature, and such scanty passages are all i can claim to have gained from the reading. Two such are being written here for record:

"Where people wish to attach, they should always be ignorant. To come with a well-informed mind, is to come with an inability of administering to the vanity of others, which a sensible person would always wish to avoid. A woman, especially, if she have the misfortune of knowing anything, should conceal it as well as she can... imbecility in females is a great enhancement of their personal charms... a good looking girl with an affectionate heart, and a very ignorant mind, cannot fail of attracting a clever young man."

"No man is offended by another man's admiration of the woman he loves; it is the woman only who can make it a torment."

One of the things that most strike me about life is its intrinsic absurdity, its lack of meaning and purpose. Most people lead a very meaningless existence, and death strikes it out in a single stroke. I was watching 'Gladiator' today, although i have watched it several times before, but this time i was not concentrating on our hero Maximus but the other soldiers fighting in battle along with him. One soldier dies with every swish of the sword. To what purpose did they live? Was there any reason behind death? What did they gain at all?
I'll write more on it later.

"A nation which has no great philosophers will never have any great scientists." [Mohammad Hussein Saffouri]

Bertrand Russell had one very strong reservation against Jesus: he believed in hell. A place where 'sinners' would be condemned to infinite punishment, misery and pain. The concept of such a place educes horror in most people, and certainly the preaching of such a view requires a certain cruelty in character.
And besides, this idea goes against the very concept of justice, let alone mercy, of God. A sinner, no matter how wretched, can only commit a finite no of sins in his finite lifespan. And do a finite no of sins deserve an infinite punishment? Most people are really unable to appreciate such obviously inequality of the situation. Perhaps only God with His Infinite Mercy can sentence people to such a dreadful fate.

It is foolish to think of aquiring a perfect state of love right in the first such experience. Love, too, is an art and as with all arts, it requires practice for precision.

An article appeared today in Dawn newspaper [Pakistan] "Anatomy of blasphemy laws" by Anwar Syed, which is certainly a very open and outspoken analysis, and i agree with nearly every thing the writer has to say. After a detailed discussion, the author concludes that:

"The law is repugnant not only to the universally accepted charter of human rights, to which Pakistan is a signatory, but also to its own constitution, which guarantees all citizens the right and freedom to profess and practice religion of their choosing. It sanctifies horrendous intolerance and reduces Pakistan's professions of moderation and enlightenment to gross hypocrisy."

I myself am in favour of abolitions of all blasphemy laws, for pure and absolute freedom of speech [and that includes, the right to criticise, analyse or satirise a certain person or ideology.] This law represents a continuation of medieval thinkings and entertainment of persecution, such as practised by the Church and Islamic orthodoxy.