Choices, Science, Politics, and the Reality
-
This is nothing too serious. Its just a written account of my random Thought of the day to kill time.....
Kill Time? Wow Salikah!!!, you could make a Professors Head Explode with this!!! -) -)
and you called it "Though of the Day".Webster?s dictionary calls science ?the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena?. And that is exactly what it is observational truth of an absolute Truth. Or, in other words, science is our perception of the Reality?s natural system and is NOT absolute truth for Absolute Truth belongs to the Creator of existence, not the created.
How do you know this?
But, we have learned to validate and manipulate such observational truths with numbers. Why? Well, because numbers are an absolute way to measure our observations of consistency, or changes in consistency, or probabilities, or changes in probabilities. (a weak example Day and Night is measured by a device called an ?hour? which is based off a measurement of 24).
Numbers, Hours etc - these are all man-made constructs?
But social sciences-such as psychology, sociology, and political science- have only begun to see the ?cycles? that occur within human interaction and societies.
What kinds of cycles?
However, we know that the Qur?an detailed ?observational truths? respective to the consequences of our decisions over 1400 years ago.
For example, a political system that is not in agreement with the Reality?s system of balance will be destroyed.
But these things can be found in writings of Marcus Aurleianus and Confucious?
Lying. Brutality. Usury. Exploitation. Disparity of Resources. Oppression, exploitation, and abuse of Women and orphans. These actions and decisions transgress the natural progression and existence of Balance.
But you don't need a book to tell you all these things, do you?
Can you not see this yourself?The social science hypotheses within the Qur?an is a great gift since we are able to see what choices can facilitate what effect on macro and micro levels.
Oh, how?
It makes it easy for those of us who have the scripture at our disposal to figure out what is ?right? and what is ?wrong? in our daily lives and on a theoretical level.
Without scripture you can't tell if murder is wrong, is that what you are saying?
Nothing occurs except by the God?s will.
How do you know this?
We ?choose? to throw something in the air. And because of the ?cycle? and consistent precedence of gravitational pull, we expect that something to fall.
But gravity is not "cyclic", it is as science calls it a CONSTANT.
Or-in light of the given example-if you don?t want an object to fall, why throw it?
But science will not progress without "throwing" the object.
Regards,
-
Webster?s dictionary calls science ?the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena?. And that is exactly what it is observational truth of an absolute Truth. Or, in other words, science is our perception of the Reality?s natural system and is NOT absolute truth for Absolute Truth belongs to the Creator of existence, not the created.
How do you know this?
A simple answer is I do not know. Everything that colors my "knowledge" is my own experience, common sense, and "beliefs"...all of which make up my perception of reality on this earth. So, from my own experience, observations, common sense, and beliefs I came to that conclusion.
But it really isn't a question of "knowing"...which was kind of my point in the first place. Everything we say we "know" is really a perceptual point of view. This perception, of course, makes our "knowledge" biased. That bias makes it almost impossible for us to have universal and objective truths. My "knowledge" is constantly changing . My experiences, surroundings, and reflections all play a role on my current "knowledge". I can sit here and tell you that I strive to be as objective as possible and, thus, am striving to understand universal and objective truths. But the point is that I am STRIVING....at no point can I say that I have "know" something. Right now, I apply this same understanding to everything man thinks he "knows".
Or here is an explanation I don't have the power to say "I know the truth" just like I don't have the power to say "Be, and it Is".
Numbers, Hours etc - these are all man-made constructs?
Yes and no. Abstractly speaking, they are measurements of consistency and change. The measurement (number, "hour") is a man made construct...as is the language that we use to specify the mesurement...not WHAT we are measuring.
But social sciences-such as psychology, sociology, and political science- have only begun to see the ?cycles? that occur within human interaction and societies.
What kinds of cycles?
Probabilities of a cause illiciting an effect within or from human interactions and/or behavior. I study social psychology and the aforementioned is kind of the basis of this science. An example An adult woman in the West is in constant need of male attention (effect) due to the lack of a consistent and stable male entity during her childhood and pubescent years (cause). Another one If you and your partner decide to have sex outside of your relationship (cause), both of you are at a greater risk of contracting STDs (effect). Of course, I'm talking about a very simple concept that can easily be applied to complex situations.
But these things can be found in writings of Marcus Aurleianus and Confucious
?YES! I know little about confucious, and I am a fan, thus far. I'm not understanding your point, though? I never said that these concepts can only be found exclusively in the Qur'an. Like you said, you don't need a book to tell you certain things if you are blessed with sense.
The social science hypotheses within the Qur?an is a great gift since we are able to see what choices can facilitate what effect on macro and micro levels.
oh, how?
I don't have an explanation for you for that one. Specifically, my explanation will not give you an answer. You'll have to explore that answer yourself.
I don't have time to answer the rest of your comments...gotta get back to work...thanks for the breather!
peace.
-
A simple answer is I do not know. Everything that colors my "knowledge" is my own experience, common sense, and "beliefs"...all of which make up my perception of reality on this earth. So, from my own experience, observations, common sense, and beliefs I came to that conclusion.
Good. For a moment I thought you gone bonkers!
Just kiddin -)But social sciences-such as psychology, sociology, and political science- have only begun to see the ?cycles? that occur within human interaction and societies.
What kinds of cycles?
Probabilities of a cause illiciting an effect within or from human interactions and/or behavior. I study social psychology and the aforementioned is kind of the basis of this science. An example An adult woman in the West is in constant need of male attention (effect) due to the lack of a consistent and stable male entity during her childhood and pubescent years (cause).
But adult women in the West have the opportunity make something with their life - don't they? They can rise to the highest echolons of government and achieve professional sucess on their own terms and on their own merit. People like Mary J Bligh, Condelezza Rice and Beyonce knowles are prime examples of these types of female. They didn't need male adulation did they?
The days of women's dependency on men are gone Salika, especially in the west and I say hurrah to that - Lets celebrate this women's emancipation from dependency!
Another one If you and your partner decide to have sex outside of your relationship (cause), both of you are at a greater risk of contracting STDs (effect).
That is if you are not practicing safe sex -)
YES! I know little about confucious, and I am a fan, thus far. I'm not understanding your point, though? I never said that these concepts can only be found exclusively in the Qur'an. Like you said, you don't need a book to tell you certain things if you are blessed with sense.
Good Salika, always have healthy respect for other paths to the reality that many have called "God", "Nirvana", "Brahman-Atman", Tao etc.
Specifically, my explanation will not give you an answer. You'll have to explore that answer yourself.
I want you to be my Guru?
Just kiddin -)Regards,
-
The days of women's dependency on men are gone Salika, especially in the west and I say hurrah to that - Lets celebrate this women's emancipation from dependency!
Lotetree, you have to be kidding me. First of all, the examples you gave me were problematic on so many levels that I won't even begin to deconstruct them.
Secondly, what you call "women's dependency" is not gone in the West. But, I wouldn't celebrate that even if it was. Its not about women?s dependency. Its about men?s responsibility.
In any given society, women are biologically tied to the very core of existence procreation. We carry new life in our wombs. We nurture life with our touch. We feed new life with our breasts. It is common sense, then, that men have the social/environmental responsibility to both the biological sustainers of life (women) and the new life itself (children).
Men and Women are not the same. We are different, but both of us are necessary to maintain a balanced existence. Yes, women are intelligent. Yes, we can accomplish personal goals and pursue happiness. That is one of our rights as human beings. But at no time should women's attainment of basic human rights alleviate men of their responsibility to humanity. Men choosing NOT to respect and be responsible to womanhood in its entirety (meaning our intelligence, our uniqueness, and everything that comes along with our sexuality INCLUDING our role in procreation) is a woman's rights abuse in and of itself.
The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. That is why men in almost every society try to control female sexuality whether the medium of control is oppression, definition, or exploitation.
But it shouldn?t be about control. It should be about respect.
-
The days of women's dependency on men are gone Salika, especially in the west and I say hurrah to that
- Lets celebrate this women's emancipation from dependency!
Secondly, what you call "women's dependency" is not gone in the West. But, I wouldn't celebrate that
even if it was. Its not about women?s dependency. Its about men?s responsibility.
But once you are freed from your dependency on men then you are free individual. Should men still be responsible for you as an free individual? If so why?
In any given society, women are biologically tied to the very core of existence procreation. We carry
new life in our wombs. We nurture life with our touch. We feed new life with our breasts. It is common
sense, then, that men have the social/environmental responsibility to both the biological sustainers
of life (women) and the new life itself (children).
Yes, it is called having a family. And both men and owmen should be
responsible for raising family.Men and Women are not the same.
Off course. We have differences in biology.
We are different, but both of us are necessary to maintain a balanced
existence.Not necessarily, people can be very happy living on their own in their own terms.
Yes, women are intelligent. Yes, we can accomplish personal goals and pursue happiness.
That is one of our rights as human beings.
You did not have this before. Now you have it. Celebrate it, that is what I am saying.
But at no time should women's attainment of basic human
rights alleviate men of their responsibility to humanity.
Just men's responsibility? I thought it is both men and women's responsibility.
Men choosing NOT to respect and be responsible to womanhood in its entirety (meaning our intelligence, our uniqueness, and everything that comes along with our sexuality INCLUDING our role in procreation) is a woman's rights abuse in and of itself.
Hey, I respect women. I will love to marry Beyonce Knowles and give her hundred kids. And Mary J Bligh, she sings like an angel! And I will love to have dinner with Condlezza Rice and grill her on her bad choice of politics! -)
The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. That is why men in almost every society try to control
female sexuality whether the medium of control is oppression, definition, or exploitation.
But this is not the case in the west is it? Women have risen to highest levels of government. And individuals like Beyonce Knowles have achieved phenomenal sucess on their own term. Do men still owe responsibility them? They have made it on their own. They don't have to demand respect. They have earned it and they are given respect proudly. Respect is earned not given. If you feel that you are starved of respect then you have to earn it. Simple as that.
Regards,
-
"But adult women in the West have the opportunity make something with their life - don't they? They can rise to the highest echolons of government and achieve professional sucess on their own terms and on their own merit. People like Mary J Bligh, Condelezza Rice and Beyonce knowles are prime examples of these types of female. They didn't need male adulation did they?
The days of women's dependency on men are gone Salika, especially in the west and I say hurrah to that - Lets celebrate this women's emancipation from dependency! "
- Ummm Mary J Blige and Beyonce are prime examples of women who HAD to make money through the adulation of men. Have you watched a Beyonce music video lately? Have you seen her sell her goods to you on screen, while screaming out sexually explicit lyrics? Women in the West are extremely bothered by men ALL the time. I will show you by giving examples
- The mere fact that women in the west can "attain" certain positions does not eradicate the gender bias/inequality in the system. For example, Sandra Day O'Connor became a Supreme Court Justice, however, her first job was as a low paid glorified secretary b/c the men of her day did not accept her law degree as "on par" since she was female. Secondly, the examples that you give are of extremes. I think the primary point that Salikah was getting at is that even if women are not necessarily dependent on men, nature orders human life in that way. Even if a woman is president, she may still want to have children, in which case, she is the natural primary caretaker. I do recognize that it does not need to be that way, but unfortunately it is.
- In Western society, an independent woman who is free of ties to men is usually viewed as a pathetic hag. Who wants to be that hag, so women compromise at every turn for men's desires. This happens all the time no matter how successful a woman is otherwise. It is true that women can choose not to be tied to men, but in doing so give up motherhood, family, etc. That is still an inequality that men will never have to face.
- Take a visit to America sometime and you'll soon realize how much of an emphasis there is on a woman's beauty, body, etc. In fact, the character traits that would allow a woman to choose independence are unattractive. In this kind of environment, how can young girls grow up to be powerful women? I would probably even venture to say that women are becoming more dependent on men as time goes by.
-All by basic points can be summed up by watching an episode of sex and the city where a bunch of successful women regularly talk about men. In fact, they talk about nothing but men. Even though they are all successful at their work, they still feel hopeless and rejected by men, or they repress their need for intimacy and just settle for casual sex.
-I'd also like to add that I do not intend to be belligerent, I am just stating my opinion for all who care to read.
-
"But adult women in the West have the opportunity make something with their life - don't they? They can rise to the highest echolons of government and achieve professional sucess on their own terms and on their own merit. People like Mary J Bligh, Condelezza Rice and Beyonce knowles are prime examples of these types of female. They didn't need male adulation did they?
The days of women's dependency on men are gone Salika, especially in the west and I say hurrah to that - Lets celebrate this women's emancipation from dependency! "
- Ummm Mary J Blige and Beyonce are prime examples of women who HAD to make money through the adulation of men.
They fused R'N'B beats and Soul Melodies together. This is orginality. This is talent. They did not need men's adulation to do this. They did it themselves. Do you not appreciate Talent and originality?
Regards,
-
Ichephren got a point there. Same as when I disclosed my shallow reasons for liking Vanessa-Mae and Bond. Sure, Beyonce has talent, and she also uses her good looks. That attracts men.
If you picked, say, Missy Eliot, or Alanis Morrissette, you'd have a stronger, unambiguous case. Both aren't as good looking as Beyonce but both become famous due to their music. And they both write their own songs IIRC.
-
Mary j is a product of, primarily LaTonya Blige-DaCosta, Kirk Burrowes and Rich Harrison.
All men, but if we look at the actual album credits for say. no more drama. you will find that nearly everybody involved are men. She has a great voice, but her sound is not her own.
Beyonce? please...
The only one mentioned so far as to being her own independant woman is missy eliot. But even she has a male producer that cooks up most her grooves and then she wriotes lyrics. I mean get real that is just how the industry works. It a really bad example.
Truely progressive females are not ones such as condoleza there is in place only to show that democracy surely isnt male dominated, when in fact it is. This whole world is operated by the male sexual principle. and has been for thousands of years. thats it why you see obelisks all over the worlds financial and political powercenters, belive it or not. We need to create a better balance soon, not to keep insisting that its all good an going the right way, because it arent!
I have been at the top of 2 company's, and allthough we had a very liberal attitude towards woman. i.e i inserted a woman who was better at my job than me in my position, and took hers. All over the place we saw that weman where at best, "accepted" in the top. Not welcome. And all companies bar none, followed the rule to point. the rule about what percentage of leaders and emplyees that should be weman, should be black, should be in wheelchairs, etc
But thats just my personal experience talking.Peace
Noah -
I will give you another example. I am in law school right now and have to decide what I would like to do with my law degree. I have weighed my options betwee joining a large law firm, solo practice or public service work. Do you know that the majority of women who have law degrees do public service? Why you ask...well because they have better hours than any other type of law. Even though these jobs pay less than half what a person would make otherwise, this is the route chosen by most female graduates. I have also been told that there are some cities where you find that female associates at large law firms who are forced to work the 80hr weeks like their male counterparts do not have kids. Can you imagine an entire city of female lawyers like that? This is what I am saying when I state that men inherently do not have to weigh work v. having a family. For women, it is always one or the other since the vast majority of men do not care to stay home and raise kids. Men can still have kids and choose to never be home. At least they'll still have a mother to care for them. So, you see, even in one of the most highly regarded professions in the country, women still get shafted.
The same can be said for Medicine as well, where women have to choose between having kids and going through residency/choosing a specialty. This is also why most women do primary care, where they have shorter residencies and get far less pay.
And as far as Beyonce's talent...ha hahahaha...that is the funniest thing that I've ever read! She doesn't write her own songa, mix her own music, choreograph...she does not do anything in relation to making music, except sing in the most awful tone possible. Her body is what is adulated, not her voice. If she was on stage with Mariah Carey, she would be completely embarrased. Even Mariah with a voice superior to 95% of the music industry uses sex to sell her records. I mean, one must really ask why these women are constantly naked! More examples of female musicians- Lil Kim who has had 100 surgeries to make herself look more european, and in her eyes, more pleasing to men. Why would an independent woman scar herself so much if she really is "the queen bee?"
- Mary J Blige is talentless. Even if I were to concur that she sang herself to greatness, she is still at the beck and call of men. Her current husband is controlling as a man can be. I saw her in an interview where all she had to say about him was, "he just wants to make me better. I am so happy that he loves me." That to me sounds like a desperate woman.
- Jlo, who has 0 talent and a lot of booty, is now a multimillionairess. Even she said that she cannot sing that well.
-The examples could go on...I could also give you examples to nonmusicians whose only claim to fame is sex - Halle Berry...not the best actress, but goshdarnit, she looks too good not to cast her as every "black" female who has ever lived! Is it any coincidence that she won an Oscar for the only movie where she took off all her clothes?
- Melania Knauss, Trump's new wife, is famous only for her beauty and nothing else. She is a trophy wife and she is happy to be one!
- Pamela Anderson...need I say more?
- Insert pretty much every female actress here, except those classically trained in acting.
-I ask you, if women in the west are so free and independent, why did the female cast of "wedding crashers" have to pose in lingerie to popularize the movie? Why would they have to get naked and pose erotically just to advertise a movie? Why did the men not have to pose erotically in briefs as well? On the note, why do women always have to be naked in moveis? I am sure the "art" of movie making would not be lost if people kept their clothes on. Why did Oprah, the most powerful woman in the media, feel the necessity of losing weight? She still felt that all eyes were on her and she was inadequate. In fact, she has said that losing weight was her biggest struggle, not becoming rich! So, you see, women in the west are still dependent...although I would agree that it is far less than the dependece of women in the third world for instance.
-
- Halle Berry...not the best actress, but goshdarnit, she looks too good not to cast her as every "black" female who has ever lived! Is it any coincidence that she won an Oscar for the only movie where she took off all her clothes?
Oh yeah, thats too much. I can only see that clip like. 18 times in a row before i get insulted.
peace
noah -
And as far as Beyonce's talent...ha hahahaha...that is the funniest thing that I've ever read!
They fused R'N'B beats and Soul Melodies together, creating something new. This is orginality. This is talent - According to http//www.bbc.co.uk/music/souldeep/episodes/6/.
If you can dance and sing like Beyonce then I think that is talent because I know I can't do that and she is very beautiful too -)
I mean, one must really ask why these women are constantly naked! More examples of female musicians
May be they are not ashamed of their nakedness? May be they are proud to celebrate the power of their own sexuality?
Regards,
-
They fused R'N'B beats and Soul Melodies together, creating something new. This is orginality. This is talent - According to http//www.bbc.co.uk/music/souldeep/episodes/6/. If you can dance and sing like Beyonce then I think that is talent because I know I can't do that and she is very beautiful too
-Ummm right...I am sure that the most they did was write the idiotic lyrics to their songs. Nobody mixes their own beats unless they are known for it, like the Neptunes...Or if they produce music, neither of which destiny's child do. Secondly, if my job was to learn how to dance a specific number of steps and repeat them like a robot, then I better be able to dance like her, else I would fear that I am mentally challenged. Thirdly, the average woman can be as pretty as beyonce if she had an army of stylists and weave/wig specialists(yes she wears wigs, though they are very good ones). I am not saying that she is not pretty, but not much prettier than the average girl when she's not all dolled up.
May be they are not ashamed of their nakedness? May be they are proud to celebrate the power of their own sexuality?
-It's one thing to celebrate your sexuality and it's another thing for an industry to be unable to function w/o women's nudity. This is not the case with men...maybe men are afraid of their own sexuality and that is why their nudity is not constantly written into their contracts? I am very much into movies and cannot even remember one time that I've seen a completely nude man having sex(with all the relevant parts showing) on screen for own amusement, however this is routinely done with women for the sake of having a more "realistic" scene.
-
-Ummm right...I am sure that the most they did was write the idiotic lyrics to their songs. Nobody mixes their own beats unless they are known for it, like the Neptunes...Or if they produce music, neither of which destiny's child do.
I was not talking about their "Idiotic" lyrics. Intellectually they do nothing for me, just like 99% of all pop music. But it was with Mary J Bligh and Beyonce that fusing of RnB and SOUL melodies occured creating something new. This is the orginality.
Secondly, if my job was to learn how to dance a specific number of steps and repeat them like a robot, then I better be able to dance like her, else I would fear that I am mentally challenged.
Please teach me to dance and sing like them -)
But it is more than that, you need something more, you need Talent for these things.Thirdly, the average woman can be as pretty as beyonce if she had an army of stylists and weave/wig specialists(yes she wears wigs, though they are very good ones).
Do you think army of stylist and wig specialist could make Condelezza Rice look like Beyonce?
I am not saying that she is not pretty, but not much prettier than the average girl when she's not all dolled up.
Beauty without Talent is dull and boring.
Just like a rose without its fragrance.May be they are not ashamed of their nakedness? May be they are proud to celebrate the power of their own sexuality?
-It's one thing to celebrate your sexuality and it's another thing for an industry to be unable to function w/o women's nudity. This is not the case with men...maybe men are afraid of their own sexuality and that is why their nudity is not constantly written into their contracts? I am very much into movies and cannot even remember one time that I've seen a completely nude man having sex(with all the relevant parts showing) on screen for own amusement, however this is routinely done with women for the sake of having a more "realistic" scene.
Have you not noticed that men are becoming SEXUAL OBJECT for women too? Have you forgotten the Coke Advert? Men as sexual object has taken Bollywood cinemas by storm! Not a film now that comes out that does not have a naked man doing "wet-saree" routine with the heroine in the monsoon rain. Men have indeed become the focus of eroticism in films.
Regards,