سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ ۗ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَبِّكَ أَنَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ
[سورة فصلت]
[سورة فصلت]
إِنَّهُ فَكَّرَ وَقَدَّرَ • فَقُتِلَ كَيۡفَ قَدَّرَ • ثُمَّ قُتِلَ كَيۡفَ قَدَّرَ • ثُمَّ نَظَرَ • ثُمَّ عَبَسَ وَبَسَرَ • ثُمَّ أَدۡبَرَ وَٱسۡتَكۡبَرَ • فَقَالَ إِنۡ هَٰذَآ إِلَّا سِحۡرٞ يُؤۡثَرُ • إِنۡ هَٰذَآ إِلَّا قَوۡلُ ٱلۡبَشَرِ • سَأُصۡلِيهِ سَقَرَ • وَمَآ أَدۡرَىٰكَ مَا سَقَرُ • لَا تُبۡقِي وَلَا تَذَرُ •
[سورة المدثر]
[سورة المدثر]
Forwarded from 𖤓 المُرَعَّث 𖤓 (Abdullah Ghali)
”قال بعض الأدباء: الفقر سالبٌ للعقل والمروءة، مَذهبةٌ للعلم والأدب، معدنٌ للتهم، جامعٌ للمكاره، لأن صاحبه لا يجد بُداً من اطراح الحياء، ومن ذهب حياؤه ذهبَ سروره، ومن ذهب سروره مُقِت، ومن مُقِت أوذي، ومن أوذي حزن، ومن حزن ذهبَ عقله، واستنكر حفظه وفهمه، وكان الأمر عليه لا له.”
⋆༺ أبو حيان التوحيدي | البصائر والذخائر، 5 ༻⋆
Forwarded from Out of Season
The most important lesson I’ve learned from my time on this planet is that all precious and beautiful things—whether man-made or natural—rest upon a very shaky foundation that requires much effort to uphold, with no guarantee of a lasting outcome. Every contingent order relies on a restless ocean that can destroy it at its foundation at any moment. The very physical body that compels me to ponder this horrific fact is itself subject to decay, destruction, and ultimately death at any time.
We live in a state of constant vulnerability—without it, I believe, we might become nefariously tyrannical.
We live in a state of constant vulnerability—without it, I believe, we might become nefariously tyrannical.
Do you know what leadership means, Lord Snow? It means that the person in charge gets second guessed by every clever little twat with a mouth. But if he starts second guessing himself, that’s the end. For him, for the clever little twats, for everyone. This is not the end. Not for us. Not if you lot do your duty for however long it takes to beat them back. And then you get to go on hating me, and I get to go on wishing your wildling whore had finished the job.
— Ser Alliser Thorne, Game of Thrones
— Ser Alliser Thorne, Game of Thrones
0/0
Do you know what leadership means, Lord Snow? It means that the person in charge gets second guessed by every clever little twat with a mouth. But if he starts second guessing himself, that’s the end. For him, for the clever little twats, for everyone. This…
I fought, I lost, now I rest
— Last words of Ser Alliser Thorne
— Last words of Ser Alliser Thorne
a hook into an eye
Photo
والجُرحُ في زَمَنِي مَا كانَ مُندَمِلًا
حَتَّى أَقُولَ اْستُجِدَّ الجُرحُ أو فُصِدَا
مَالَ النَّخِيلُ عَلَى الزَّيْتُونِ مُسْتَمِعًا
لِيُكْمِلَ السَّرْدَ مِنْهُ كُلَّمَا سَرَدَا
حَتَّى أَقُولَ اْستُجِدَّ الجُرحُ أو فُصِدَا
مَالَ النَّخِيلُ عَلَى الزَّيْتُونِ مُسْتَمِعًا
لِيُكْمِلَ السَّرْدَ مِنْهُ كُلَّمَا سَرَدَا
0/0
Photo
On Mind and Memory
When Freud formulated his theories in the early 20th century, he frequently employed metaphors from physics and hydraulics; the mind as a hydraulic machine filled with libido whose force must be channeled and directed into useful and acceptable behaviors (catharsis) or the machine will malfunction. In the age of computers we frequently describe the brain as a supercomputer of carbon and fat. Today, in the age of artificial intelligence and artificial neural networks, we imagine the computers of the future to be brains made out of silicon... Our analogies, it seems, do not explain nor describe the mind as much as create an interpretation, a framework, a spectacle, through which we construct a theory that tries to explain the mind as we want to understand it in the context of the spirit of our age and describe it within the larger framework we—at the time—use to describe the world. These analogies are not scientific descriptions. They are statements of dogma.
Today, because we liken the brain to a computer, thus we ask questions like "what is the full capacity of our memory?" and scientists try, with a straight face, to estimate an answer that ends in -bytes. (Last I checked, it's 2.5 petabyte, or 2,500 terabytes). Maybe if the Sumerians were asked, they would've given a count in clay tablets, and the Egyptians in papyrus. The answer (and the question), thus, reveal more about the spirit of our age and the way we approach life and knowledge, than it reveals an actual insight about the mind itself.
When Freud formulated his theories in the early 20th century, he frequently employed metaphors from physics and hydraulics; the mind as a hydraulic machine filled with libido whose force must be channeled and directed into useful and acceptable behaviors (catharsis) or the machine will malfunction. In the age of computers we frequently describe the brain as a supercomputer of carbon and fat. Today, in the age of artificial intelligence and artificial neural networks, we imagine the computers of the future to be brains made out of silicon... Our analogies, it seems, do not explain nor describe the mind as much as create an interpretation, a framework, a spectacle, through which we construct a theory that tries to explain the mind as we want to understand it in the context of the spirit of our age and describe it within the larger framework we—at the time—use to describe the world. These analogies are not scientific descriptions. They are statements of dogma.
Today, because we liken the brain to a computer, thus we ask questions like "what is the full capacity of our memory?" and scientists try, with a straight face, to estimate an answer that ends in -bytes. (Last I checked, it's 2.5 petabyte, or 2,500 terabytes). Maybe if the Sumerians were asked, they would've given a count in clay tablets, and the Egyptians in papyrus. The answer (and the question), thus, reveal more about the spirit of our age and the way we approach life and knowledge, than it reveals an actual insight about the mind itself.