There is no proof for math either...

Our educational system fails us when what is taught in school is taken for direct realization of truth and not an abstract formula for modelling an inherently indirect perception of the world.

All words are merely representative of some cognitive actuality that the words themselves cannot fully represent. Take math for example; without 0 it is relatively useless. Before 0 was "discovered" mathematics was impotent. But how could we discover NOTHING? Was it invented? Is nothing a real something, such that it is necessary for our math to be useful?

Suppose nothing is a something; nothing is a real value which can be found in the world. Then why can't I divide something by zero? Why can't I perform the equation 1/0 = ??

Mathmaticians assert that 1/0 is a "meaningless" and "undefined" expression. As far as it's objectivity is concerned it is "senseless" to the human mind. But none of this means it doesn't represent factual reality. Maths like anything else uses imaginary figures, barely defined objects and "senseless" phenomena for it to operate. ALL of mathmatics has dependencies which are not-defined within mathmatics.

Math like anything else is a system of symbol-manipulation. Just another language. All REAL phenomena which aren't just place-holders are vague subjective QUALIA that have no concrete symbolic representation. We know what is meant by "Zero" because we have inferred it by its relationship to other symbols, but we may not understand that the potency of mathmatics somehow depends on it. Thus our understanding of the phenomena of zero is incomplete and what "zero" represents to us is not factually complete either. To say "zero is real" is meaningless unless everyone who hears the sentence has the exact same QUALIA behind the symbolism of language.

The distinction between your particular expression and the real QUALE behind the expression is an important one for rooting out dogmatism in science.

While studying the Biblical texts I run into countless untranslatable words from Hebrew and Greek that were somehow translated into English, but generally lose a portion of their meaning. Not to mention typical transcription errors like, almah and gamalah b'tzelem Elohim
Yacchid

The granddaddy of presidential debt must be Woodrow Wilson? Granddaddy of the Fed anyway.

One of many silly theories to be found in the history of "scientific" inquiry.

So, I just came across this really interesting work by al-Ghazali called "Jewels of the Qur'an" and wanted to share this section:

"Know with certainty that the secrets of the visible world are veiled from the souls which are defiled by love of the world and most of whose energies are fully absorbed in the pursuit of the present world. We only mentioned this much [of these secrets] in order to produce yearning for, and encouragement to, them, and in order to make known one of the secrets of the Qur'an to him who is undmindful of it and to whom the shells of the Qur'an are not opened at all to reveal its jewels. Then if your desire is true, you will endeavour to seek out these secrets and ask the help of men of insight, in these matters, and will receive help from them. I do not think that you will be successful should you apply yourself to it solely by your judgement and reason. How will you be able to understand the language in action? On the contrary, you suppose that in the universe there is only the language of statement. This is why you did not understand the meaning of the words of God (may He be exalted). "They [i.e. the heavens and the earth] said, 'We have submitted [to You] willingly," unless you suppose that the earth has a language and life. Nor do you understand the statement of the speakers, 'The wall asked the peg, 'Why do you pierce me?' It replied, 'Ask him who hammers me and does not leave me. Behind me is the stone which hammers me.""

This sums up why Hamad is not genuinely Muslim. He demonstrates too much attachment/love for the "world" and for his self, and not enough for God. This attachment leads to a distorted understanding of Islam (or of any religion, or of truth generally).

More al-Ghazali and full-text of Jewels of the Qur'an: http://www.ghazali.org/site/oeuvre-t.htm

Ever since I studied Criminology, in particular, ever since I studied Crime; It's Cause and Treatment (1922) by Clarence Darrow, I've felt that the correct approach to crime is loving-kindness. If it is ever necessary to incarcerate a criminal to keep person and property safe; then it should be done under the banner of compassion.

"We would rather not do this to you; but you leave us little choice. We love and respect each other, and therefor we cannot allow ourselves to steal from or murder each other. We will happily release you from confinement upon sufficiently demonstrating equal respect for us as we have shown for you. We all look forward to that fine day."

This gives the criminal nothing to cling to as representing a conflict between the 'criminal' and the 'society'. Even as by definition a criminal is one who is disobedient to the impositions of a society. It should be recognized by all that the Law is no more than our attempt at keeping ourselves in order, and not a net for catching inherently evil-doers. We should not therefor say (or imply) that the "criminal" is a "bad"-person, only that we cannot accept their behaviour for the obvious reasons.

We see the way egos grow dependent on sports teams, and how those egos erupt when their team loses. This is the nature of conflict generally, so this approach avoids the dynamics by focusing on the attitude of the society. The society is one "team" whose aim should be conflict-resolution and not conflict-perpetuation in the form of categorizing and condemning. There should be no "repeat offenders" or "career criminals" if once inside the "justice system" they find no further encouragement to violate the statutes of the society. They should become aware of their place at once and with the utmost certainty. In short: they should become wise.

That's it, I'll /endrant.

We are talking about the United Arab Emirates. Not the least westernized, commercialized region in the Arabian Peninsula.

Assuming this guy meant to praise himself by doing this; and not that "Hamad" is a regional form of "Hamd (Praise)", as in Al Hamdullilah (All praise be to Allah), then this guy does not appear to be any kind of genuine Muslim.

“The best jihad is the one in which your horse is slain and your blood is spilled.” [Al Baqarah 15]

Not the one in which your personal name is 1,000 miles across.

The term ideal, herein is not used in the sense of an abstract, unattainable perfection; but rather it means a worthy goal that has promise of attainment through appropriate efforts. The gap between where you are and where you desire to be creates a mental and emotional conflict, "a holy discontent" - often called stress in today's world. Normally the first response to stress is to mentally and emotionally run over the outward indications of the conflict - anger, fear, disappointment, resentment, embarrassment, or other such negative feelings. In doing this one's mind is trying to fill the gap between his expectation of what he desires and what actually exists.

~ Loyd J. Ericson

Sorry I'm not what you desire (Tod, Mr. Aweful, etc..), but this is a critical point; anger arises at the juncture between your desires/expectations and the reality of the situation. Acceptance; is one of the primary spiritual exercise, learning to accept the reality as it is. You can't change it; as hard as you try, as much as you want. Punching me in the mouth will only bring you regret in the future.

Seems to me the uncanniness comes from the zombie effect. You are looking at something that appears as you do, but you cannot empathize with it. There is no phenomenal (mental) content for you to "mirror". The same uncanniness may be linked to how people regard zombies. Or the creepiness of sleepwalking.

From an idealistic point of view; this is because we are afraid of our true nature, and our true nature is more zombie-like than we are willing to accept. To face up to our own preprogrammed routinized selves would make not only us, but everyone around us possess that same creepiness. Then we'd have to try to get out of it. Like a turtle trying to get out of a fisherman's net.

That's the All-Seeing mushroom; amanita muscaria / fly agaria. Who knew Mario was 'tryp'ing on muscimol?

However, as Bartky points out, objectifier and objectified can be one and the same person. Women in patriarchal societies feel constantly watched by men, much like the prisoners of the Panopticon (model prison proposed by Bentham), and they feel the need to look sensually pleasing to men (Bartky 1990, 65). According to Bartky: ‘In the regime of institutionalised heterosexuality woman must make herself ‘object and prey’ for the man. … Woman lives her body as seen by another, by an anonymous patriarchal Other’ (Bartky 1990, 73). This leads women to objectify their own persons. Bartky argues that the woman ‘[takes] toward her own person the attitude of the man. She will then take erotic satisfaction in her physical self, revelling in her body as a beautiful object to be gazed at and decorated’. Such an attitude is called ‘narcissism’, which is defined by Bartky as the infatuation with one's bodily being (Bartky 1990, 131–2).

Interesting, because Gautama, oh, some 2500 years earlier, said:

"A woman of the world is anxious to exhibit her form and shape,
whether walking, standing, sitting, or sleeping.
Even when represented as a picture,
she desires to captivate with the charms of her beauty,
and thus to rob men of their steadfast heart. "

So maybe, "patriarchical" is giving too much credit to men and not enough to women for their sexual objectification of themselves.

Bartky believes that women in patriarchal societies also undergo a kind of fragmentation ‘by being too closely identified with [their body]… [their] entire being is identified with the body, a thing which… has been regarded as less inherently human than the mind or personality’ (Bartky 1990, 130). All the focus is placed on a woman's body, in a way that her mind or personality are not adequately acknowledged. A woman's person, then, is fragmented. Bartky believes that through this fragmentation a woman is objectified, since her body is separated from her person and is thought as representing the woman (Bartky 1990, 130).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification/#FemAppObj

Perhaps the halo/smeared-pixel effect could be caused by a combination of fog and the principal source of light being behind the object.

err.. unity

I gather the big black void separating the US population from the rest of the world, is the part that represents love?