DIOXIN CONTAMINATION

A couple of days ago I received a forwarded email on a cancer update from John Hopkins University. Some people admitted that it was a hoax and that the University had never circulated such an email:

1. No plastic containers in micro.
2. No water bottles in freezer.
3. No plastic wrap in microwave.

A dioxin! Chemical causes cancer, especially breast cancer.

Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don’t freeze your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic. Recently, Dr. Edward Fujimoto (Wellness Program Manager at Castle Hospital) was on a TV program to explain this health hazard.

He talked about dioxins and how bad they are for us. He said that we should not be heating our food in the microwave using plastic containers. This especially applies to foods that contain fat.

He said that the combination of fat, high heat, and plastics releases dioxin into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body.

Instead, he recommends using glass, such as Corningware, Pyrex or ceramic containers for heating food.

You get the same results, only without the dioxin. So things such as TV dinners, instant Ramen and soups, etc., should be removed from the container and heated in something else. Paper isn’t bad but you don’t know what is in the paper. It’s just safer to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, etc. He reminded us that a while ago some of the fast food restaurants moved away from the foam containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of the reasons.

Also he pointed out that plastic wrap, such as Saran, is just as dangerous when placed over foods to be cooked in the microwave. As the food is nuked, the high heat causes poisonous toxins to actually melt out of the plastic wrap and drip into the food. Cover food with a paper towel instead.

This prompted me to find out more about this substance, dioxin, and I shall attempt to record in as simple terms about what we need to know in order to keep our family safe.

Dioxin, is a class of super-toxic chemicals which are bi-products of the manufacture , moulding or burning of organic chemicals and plastics containing chlorine. It is the nastiest and most toxic of man-made contamination, second only to that of radioactive contamination!

In some countries, exposure to it is now at a serious level promising serious health effects. Exposure to it are mostly in the form of use of and contact with chemicals and plastics.

1. Chemicals such as insecticides and herbicides.
2. Plastics, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) such as in bottles, handbags, seat covers, wallpaper, plumbing pipes, coffee filters where most products are chlorine bleached.

How To Avoid Dioxin

1. Some dairy feed may be contaminated through the use of chemical insecticides. As such avoid beef.

2. Avoid bleaching products that have "chloro" as part of their name i.e. sodium hypochloride as in chlorine bleach. It looks like I would have to discontinue my Kao bleach whose active ingredient is sodium hypochloride. Use oxygen bleach instead. They release oxygen for cleaning. There are three (3) types of oxygen bleach:
- hydrogen peroxide (liquid form)
- sodium percarbonate (powder form)
- sodium perbotate (powder form)
It may cost more though and take a little more time to work.

3. Use unbleached paper products such as brown coffee filters.

4. Avoid "cling" plastic wraps unless identified as polyethlene.(So, my Giant cling wraps is alright then. However it still has a warning against use with fatty food and food with high sugar content).

5. Avoid toys made or packed in PVC labeled V or #3 plastic.

6. Wash fruits and vegetables carefully to avoid chlorophenol pesticide residue. Avoid grapes and rasins unless labled as "organic".

7. Avoid products with cottonseed oil as an ingredient e.g. potato chips as cotton is sprayed with chlorophenol insecticide.

8. Avoid soap with tallow (most soap) as it is from animal fat and deodorant with "triclosan" as it is a chlorophenol

FORUM: MONGOL ATTACK ON BAGHDAD

Anyone knows about this event? Please detail the event here and if there is already an earlier thread please merge them.

As far as I know this event caused the downfall of the glorious Islamic Empire whose center was Baghdad. Important academic books were destroyed by the Mongol army. If that had not happened, the world would have been even more advanced as it would be in 100 years to come!

Am I right? Anyone can comment on this?

Me : I would like to contribute on this topic.

Monke who became the Great Khan after Ogedai's son, Guyuk (Great Khan for 2 years after his dad)was an expansionist compared to Ogedai. Although religious war was alien to Mongols who were generally impatial towards religions, they did hold the belief that the heaven had given them the whole world. Their objective in West Asia was the Caliph of Baghdad.

Before that they would have to eliminate all the superpowers around the region especially the Shias, such as the Ismailis who were often known as the Assassins and had settled in North and East Persia. The Mongols had received a SOS from a Muslim judge in Qazwin, a small town near Alamut(a stronghold of the Assassins). He had complained that people had to wear armour all day long for protection from the Assassins' daggers. Certainly this was a way to extract loyalty for the power of the day!

Secondly,The Mongols had news of a plan to send almost 400 Assassins to Qaraqorum, under disguise of course, to kill the Great Khan. Hulegu, Monke's brother, was the war general. Incidentally, many of his men were Buddhist and some were Christians. As such, to some of them this war also appeared as a holy war.

Nah, this news, in a way had managed to stop 40 years of civil war and unrest in Persia. Note that the Shias caused a lot of problems to the Abbasid Dynasty. The Mongols took 2 years to eliminate the Assassins .....almost completely from Persia. It's Grand Master, Rukn ad Din finally surrendered to Hulegu. Only after this he focused on Baghdad.

The origin of the word Assassin

Me : Yes, it originates from the word 'hashashashin'- those who use the drug hashish. According to tales, selected followers would be given the drug. Once they were "high" they would be given the command to commit murder - political assassination.

The expansion of the Muslim Empire is said to have reached it's height during the Umayyad Dynasty. It remained static during the Abbasid era. Only a few caliphs were real practical soldiers. Political power was more centered in Iraq. Governors in Persia were more or less left to manage their land on their own.... few respected Baghdad. In the meantime, Baghdad had become a cultural, spiritual and intellectual centre. Large mosques and libraries were filled with Arab and Persian writings. The Largest university and splendid palaces were all there.

As usual, the Mongols sent an emissary to Baghdad requesting her surrender. The request was refused. However, as other warlords have already surrendered, Hulegu and his army were able to focus 100% on Baghdad. The Christian army from Georgia had also joined forces with the Mongols making it even stronger.

At the time, Mustasim, the 37th caliph, was a young man said to be weak and whose preoccupation was in spiritualism. Court officials had exploited the situation and in fact they were the ones ruling Baghdad. They could have gathered their armies from all over their empire till which extended till Morocco, but unfortunately, Mustasim chosed his vizier, Ibn al -Alkami's advice that Baghdad's defence was adequate. At the same time, Ibn al -Alkami had sent a signal to the Mongol to attack as Baghdad's defence was in poor condition. Reference from Persian sources revealed that the reason for the treachery was that Ibn al -Alkami, a Shia, was not happy with the caliph's treatment of his fellow Shia brothers. I do not know if this story was purposely concocted to shift the blame to the Shia.

When Mustasim finally called his command to defend Baghdad, the Mongol army was already a day's march away. A contingent of 20,000 Persians left Baghdad and encamped at a nearby field. The Mongol surprised them by breaking the dams and dykes and flooding up the field. Many drowned and the rest were beheaded by Mongol cavalry.

In the meantime, Hulegu's engineers were digging trenches around the city. On 30th January, 1258, Baghdad was bombarded. All this happened so swiftly. Although the bullock carts carrying ammo from Jebal Hamrin were still 3 days away, the Mongols used whatever were available - tree trunks and foundation stones of buildings there. It took them 7 days to take control of Baghdad's eastern wall. When Baghdad's garrison finally surrendered, they were killed one by one. On 13th February, the sack of Baghdad began. It was said that the Georgian army was most keen at it. The eastern Christian community hiding in the church was saved. However the Muslim population...both Sunni and Shia....were resolved in a terrible manner. Most women, children and the caliph's treasures were sent to Qaraqorum. As for the caliph and his family, after a banquet, they were rolled and sewn up in carpets and trampled upon by horses till death. Thus ended the 500 year old Abbasid Dynasty.

Persian sources stated that between 800,000 and 2 million lives were lost in Baghdad. The smell of death was so strong that the Mongols had to camp outside the city wall. It is believed that Persian sources were exaggerated as soon after 2 years Baghdad rose again as a commercial and economic center.

Ibn al-Alkami continued in the service of the Mongol government.

Note: The Mongols believe blood had a spirit. Spilling it to the ground was a bad sign. That was why usually selected people were wrapped up in carpets before killing them so that their blood would not spill on to the ground. Of course there were other ways too.

What happened thereafter? I heard the Mongols became Muslims. Did they continue to live in Irag? There should be many decendents of Mongol in Iraq.

Me : Thereafter the rule of the Ilkhan began in Persia. It lasted for 60 years only. In the beginning, the Ilkhan were more keen towards Christianity and Buddhism. Generally, they they were oblivious towards religion until Ghazan the Reformer became Ilkhan(1295). For certain reasosn he converted into Islam causing his generals to follow suit.

After Baghdad, Hulegu prepared to attack Syria. Many Princes from the smaller principalities surrendered to him. He was now the new warloard of the realm. The Princes became Hulegu's vassals and their soldiers teamed up with Hulegu's.

I am angry at the destruction of the academic books which were of great value to mankind. Why take it on the books .....what a great loss!

Me : Mongol soldiers were illiterate and hence had little understanding of things academic. In my opinion, they had rather different mindset. Books were not assets. Their expertise were elsewhere............and mind you they were very, very good at what they were good at, considering their humble beginnings! Hulegu sent the emissary several times to Bahgdad...........from one perspective they were rather fair. However if they were insulted, then Mongol's wrath knew no bounds. I think the Caliph's refusal was mostly influenced by his vizier who had wanted to use the opportunity for revenge.

What happened after the Ilkhan Dynasty? It would appear in 1295, Malacca has not yet been established. There was just Srivijaya right?

Me : Actually, the Ilkhanate was the first Mongol nation to fall followed by China. The last Ilkhan, Abu Sa'id, did not leave a son. Mongols who did not convert to Islam left Persia while those who were Muslims got assimilated into the population. For a time Persia did not have an effective government until the emergence of a Turko-Mongol soldier from Samarqand, 30 years later(1365). His name was Timur.

Yes, Malacca was not on the map yet during the time of the Ilkhan.

The Mongols spent a lot of time fighting wars...they did not know what books to save..

Me : Also an interesting thought...

It is unfortunate that books on the Mongol history from the Mongol perspective did not survive. Hence, what we know of their history today are based on the written history of other nations such as China, Persia, Russia etc and from records of travellers of the Silk Road. Some may be bias towards the Mongols.

Many said that Islam in Baghdad and Persia could not be restored to it's original glory as many/all(?) intelectual references have been destroyed. I would like some comments on this.

Possibly the knowledge was only written in books. It would be impossible for it to just disappear if it had been practised by the general public. Not only were books destroyed, people were also killed. But then some did survive..

Me ; That is my view too. Is this a reflection of the level of their belief then?

Yes. An uncle of the Caliph survived and some members of his family did too. He was taken back to Cairo by the Mamluk and was elected Caliph there. Alas he was defeated in an attempt to regain Baghdad.

Like the sermon..??

Me : That was an illustration from Persian source....possibly from the jawi writing above it. It has been said that Genghis had listen intently to the sermons of the ulemas on the virtues of Islam. Only after that did he extol his opinion.

I'd like to emphasize that 30 years before the Baghdad incident, the Muslims had made a wrong calculation of the Mongols. Some people may not like my declaration. Nevertheless, that is a fact.

Since the beginning, the Muslim Empire of Khwarazm-Shah had diplomatic ties with the Mongols. In fact they had people with the Mongols......as spies , maybe. News of the Mongols' abilities were eye-opening. The Utrar insident in 1218 saw a Khwarazm Governor had massacred a Mongol envoy together with the Muslim caravan with him in case there were Mongol spies with them. As I have said before....Mongol's wrath had no equal......Khwarazm-Shah's Governor(also his son), Jalal-ad-Din was chased into India. The Mongols stopped at the Indus River upon hearing news of his death .... at least he was no longer a threat. His father however, was hunted into ignominy.

I Would like to ask about the terms:

A)Monggol;

B)Moghul;

C)Monggol-Tartar;

Do they represent different meaning?

Me : Mongol is a nomadic tribe of Central Asia. There were other nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes too including the Tartar, Merkids, Oirat, Naiman, Khitan, Kereyid,Ongut, Tagut, Turk, Uighur........Central Asia extends between River Onon and River Kerulen, north of the Gobi Dessert.

Moghul is a Persian word for Mongol. Specifically, the Mogul Dynasty in N. India was built by Babur who was of Mongol decent.

Mongol-Tartar is a joint Mongol and Tartar ancestry such as a Turko-Mongol ancestry.

Hope it's clear..

Misunderstanding and ill-intentions towards the Mongols.

Me : A proposal letter for trade between their people was looked upon suspiciously by Khwarazm-Shah. He regarded the Mongols as Genghis' "children". Nevertheless, there was an agreement to allow traders and merchants to pass.

The caravan which was massacred at Utrar consisted of 450 Muslim merchants from the land of the Mongols and was the first to arrive there after the agreement was sealed. After that 3 Mongol envoys ...1 was killed and 2 others has their beard burnt. As the Mongols had always treated foreign envoys well, this act by Khwarazm-Shah was taken as an act of war. In history, he was also known to be proud, self- destructive and succeeded in bringing on the terrible destruction of the Muslim world in the east.

anyone may write a book as long as he has ideas and thoughts. However, it is not within our means to decide whether the thoughts are correct or wrong. In Islam, there are guidelines to distinguish whether something is fact or fiction. For example, the English said that Francis Light was the founder of Penang ....whereas there were already settlers in Penang before Francis Light arrived. The same goes to the writings on the Mongols which you seem to be supporting...for example from Chinese and Arab sources. As for us now, we are only able to study from existing sources but we do not know if they are true. Research on knowledge are always being made in a big way....knowledge may expand in accordance with the philosophy upheld by the researchers. The West spread it's knowledge of science and technology which are based on their own philosophy. That philosophy cannot be accepted by Muslims. So, as Muslims do we have to follow them? The arts to them is infinity....but in Islam there are arts that are allowed and disallowed....

Me : It is true that history may have several versions. That is why researchers would read many sources. With my limitations,I can refer to a few only. With regard to the Mongols, it is possible that I have a soft spot for them as they cannot defend themselves......all their own sources have disappeared.....and they can only borrow information from the history of other nations. Even then, during the time of Genghis, they did not have a written language. They were illiterate. So, what's wrong in looking from different perspectives so as to establish a more balanced discussion?

Regarding Francis Light, "Founder of Penang", what you had explained is not what it really mean...

The issue of philosophy is best dealt with in a philosophy board.

FORUM : HISTORY OF THE MONGOLS

Does anyone have information on the Mongol power from the time of Genghis Khan till Kublai Khan, the land they ruled and influenced?
To me, it must have taken a great people who could expand their empire till the many corners of Asia and Europe at that time. They were also in Indonesia for a brief period. They may be looked upon as vicious, but then weren't other empires such as the Roman and even the Knights Templars in the Near East not vicious?

It is true that many trembled at the mere mention of their name.German legends had them as the lost tribe of Israel....hence giving them the reason to kill Jews at the borders accusing them of smuggling arms. The Hungarians called them dog-faced Tartars. The church thought the Mongols were related to Mogogoli, son of Magog. As for the Chinese, they had built huge walls to keep their realm safe from the barbarians. Such was their aura.

The Mongols had a humble beginning. In comparing  their achievements, one would find how impossible they appeared to be.. As such I feel there must be a lot one can learn from it's development into a nation that ruled 1/3 of the known world of the time.

In time I shall try to relate my perspective of them....

Towards the end of the 12th century, Mongol was one of the nomadic tribes that roamed high plains of Central Asia. The plains were protected by mountain ranges such as the Altai and the Tien Shan in the west, the cold Siberian forest in the north, the Gobi Desert in the south and the Kinghan Mountains in the east from outside attacks for centuries.

However, the geography of the high plains caused the tribes to constantly move in search of better weather and environment. Sometimes the tribes meet up with other tribes. The climate was extreme, life was very difficult. Horses were useful animals. Their horses were fast and strong. With their horses, they have become very skillful hunters. They:

- Invented efficient bows & amp; arrows
- Invented the stirrups. There is a possibility that they might have borrowed it from the Chinese(?)
- Were capable of using the arrows and lasso while riding very fast.

These skills enabled them to rise as a military power in the vast steppes of Asia.

It should be understood that living in the wilderness for centuries and constantly facing up to extreme climate and changes in tribal power, nomads could not build technologies, manufacture goods nor learn to mine. Hence, they became very dependent on the sedentary and civilised communities in China and Middle East. What they need they bought, traded or stole as there were very little they could trade them with except skins and woolen items.

The nomads did not see themselves as less respectable than the sedentary communities. Quite the opposite in fact. For centuries they had not accepted Chinese culture and idealogy except for some things they needed. They looked upon the Chinese as merely kneeling on the ground all their life and for that the Mongols regarded them as less valuable than the horses. The feeling was mutual. Such was the situation.

The first nomad to spread an empire was the Turks who colonised Anatolia. Then the Uighur and Khitan controlled Central Asia. Many incidents developed in Central Asia and China but the Mongols still remained as newly developed people. History of the Mongol nation began with Genghis Khan (original name was Temujin) who had filled up the vacuum when Khitan was defeated by Jurchen. Earlier, the Mongol had been living beside the Tartar, Kereyid, Merkid and the Naimans. Temijin succeeded in becoming the leader of the Mongols and later united the other tribes.

Leadership of the Mongol was passed on to the most capable in battles and other fields. Leaders who failed to show any leadership quality were ousted.

Genghis was related through his father to Qabul Khan, Ambaghai and Qutula Khan who had headed the Mongol confederation under Jin Dynasty patronage until the Jin switched support to the Tatars in 1161 and destroyed Qutula Khan. Genghis' father, Yesugei, khan of the Borjigin, and nephew to Ambaghai and Qutula Khan, emerged as the head of the ruling clan of the Mongols, but this position was contested by the rival Tayichid clan, who descended directly from Ambaghai. When the Tatars, in turn, grew too powerful after 1161, the Jin moved their support from the Tatars to the Kerait.
Here, two things are evidenced :

1. It was a traditional tactic of the Chinese, of whatever dynasty, to develop an alliance with one of the nomadic tribes on its frontier and encourage them to sow unrest amongst the remainder, should another tribe appear to be gaining an upper hand, the Chinese would abandon their ally and take up with the emerging new tribe. The purpose, naturally of course, was to foster internal strife, for as long as the tribes fought amongst themselves they are unlikely to pose a threat to anyone else.

2. Temujin's clan had provided leaders in the past. Though leadership did not pass automatically from father to son, this bred infighting which was to wound the Mongol Empire greatly later on.

As an incentive for absolute obedience and following of his code of laws, the Yassa code, he promised civilians and fighters wealth from future possible war spoils. However the exact words of the Yassa are unknown because it was never found.
Yes, Genghis Khan was a law giver. Although the original recorded early history of the Mongols did not survive, their history remain written in the history books of the Chinese, Persians, Russians, Turks and accounts of other people who have traveled to Central Asia.

The Yasa was Genghis Khan's famous code which was said to have been set down in the quriltai of 1206 and entrusted to his adopted brother Shigi-Qutuqu, a Tartar orphan, as a kind of chief justice.

It enshrine, among others:
- Mongol attitudes towards religious tolerence;
- exemption of priests and religious institutions from taxation;
- prescription of death penalty for espionage, desertion, theft, adultery and in case of merchant, upon declaration of bancruptcy for a 3rd time;
- forbidding of washing and urinating in running water as the rivers and streams were thought to be alive.

His army was also regulated.
- Military service started at the age of 14. Only physicians, undertakers and priests were exempted;
- Wives and children were expected to follow and travel with their herd to where ever he was posted;
- soldiers' tents were layed along standard lines such that they know where to find the physician's tent or the armory to collect their weapons;.
- soldiers were responsible to maintain their weapons in standard order and regular inspections were made by officers. Failure meant his dismissal;
- among other equipment included silk undershirt (arrow proof);
- the army may move in groups of 10(arban), 100(jagun = 10 arbans), 1000(regiment, minghan = 10 jaguns), 10,000(division, tumen = 10 minghans)

Genghis Khan developed a horsemen sport " the hunt" into a military drill. The exercise was usually conducted during the winter months for 3 months and every soldier took part. Another approach was to string an entire division along a line, sometimes 130 km long, and they would ride to a finishing line some hundreds of kilometres away ..............and so on. Whatever animals caught between them were killed........all to train a disciplined and skilled army..............which became a masterpiece and pride of the Mongols unequaled by any other armies in the world!

Never heard of Hulegu Khan. Who was he?
His family tree:

0. Yesugei Bar-atur

1. GENGHIS KHAN (Temuchin) b. 1167 Great Khan 1206-27

2.1. Jochi d. 1227

2.2. Chaghadai d.1242

2.3. OGEDEI, Great Khan 1229-41

2.4. Tolui d. 1233

House of Jochi

3.2.1.1. Orda (White Horde)

3.2.1.2. Batu d. 1255

3.2.1.3. Berke d. 1267

Batu and Berke united to form the Golden Horde.
Last Khan, Berdeck d. 1359.
The Golden Horde continues under other rulers from
Timurid clan.

House of Chaghadai

3.2.2.1. Baidar,

followed by the Khans of the Chaghadai
Khanate until Babur fled to India and
founded the Moghul Dynasty.


House of Ogedei

3.2.3.1. GUYUK, Great Khan 1246-8


House of Tolui

3.2.4.1. MONGKE, Great Khan 1251-9

3.2.4.2. Hulegu d.1265

Followed by Khans of the
Ilkhans in Persia.
Last Ilkhan, Abu Sa'id d. 1335


3.2.4.3. KUBILAI, Great Khan 1260-94

Established the Yuan Dynasty in China..
Last Yuan Emporer, Toghon Temur d. 1370

House of Ariq Boke

He is believed to have died without a successor.

I'd like to post something of the way of the Mongols written by Marco Polo from the Medieval Sourcebook.

"Of the wandering life of the Tartars--of their domestic manners, their food, and the virtue and useful qualities of their women.
Now that I have begun speaking of the Tartars, I will tell you more about them. The Tartars never remain fixed, but as the winter approaches remove to the plains of a warmer region, to find sufficient pasture for their cattle; and in summer they frequent cold areas in the mountains, where there is water and verdure, and their cattle are free from the annoyance of horse- flies and other biting insects. During two or three months they go progressively higher and seek fresh pasture, the grass not being adequate in any one place to feed the multitudes of which their herds and flocks consist. Their huts or tents are formed of rods covered with felt, exactly round, and nicely put together, so they can gather them into one bundle, and make them up as packages, which they carry along with them in their migrations upon a sort of car with four wheels. When they have occasion to set them up again, they always make the entrance front to the south. Besides these cars they have a superior kind of vehicle upon two wheels, also covered with black felt so well that they protect those within it from wet during a whole day of rain. These are drawn by oxen and camels, and convey their wives and children, their utensils, and whatever provisions they require."

"The women attend to their trading concerns, buy and sell, and provide everything necessary for their husbands and their families; the time of the men is devoted entirely to hunting, hawking, and matters that relate to the military life. They have the best falcons in the world, and also the best dogs. They live entirely upon flesh and milk, eating the produce of their sport, and a certain small animal, not unlike a rabbit, called by our people Pharaoh's mice, which during the summer season are found in great abundance in the plains. They eat flesh of every description, horses, camels, and even dogs, provided they are fat. They drink mares' milk, which they prepare in such a manner that it has the qualities and flavor of white wine. They term it in their language kemurs."

"Their women are not excelled in the world for chastity and decency. Of conduct, nor for love and duty to their husbands. Infidelity to the marriage bed is regarded by them as a vice not merely dishonorable, but of the most infamous nature; while on the other hand it is admirable to observe the loyalty of the husbands towards their wives, amongst whom, although there are perhaps ten or twenty, there prevails a highly laudable degree of quiet and union. No offensive language is ever heard, their attention being fully occupied with their traffic (as already mentioned) and their several domestic employments, such as the provision of necessary food for the family, the management of the servants, and the care of the children, a common concern. And the virtues of modesty and chastity in the wives are more praiseworthy because the men are allowed the indulgence of taking as many as they choose. Their expense to the husband is not great, and on the other hand the benefit he derives from their trading, and from the occupations in which they are constantly engaged, is considerable; on which account when he receives a young woman in marriage, he pays a dower to her parent. The wife who is the first espoused has the privilege of superior attention, and is held to be the most legitimate, which extends also to the children borne by her. In consequence of this unlimited number of wives, the offspring is more numerous than amongst any other people. Upon the death of the father, the son may take to himself the wives he leaves behind, with the exception of his own mother. They cannot take their sisters to wife, but upon the death of their brothers they can marry their sisters-in-law. Every marriage is solemnized with great ceremony."


"Of six successive emperors of the Tartars, and of the ceremonies that take place when they are carried for interment to the mountain of Altai........
To Chingis-khan succeeded Cyhn-khan; the third was Bathyn-khan, the fourth Esu-khan, the fifth Mongu-khan, the sixth Kublai-khan, who became greater and more powerful than all the others, inasmuch as he inherited what his predecessors possessed, and afterwards, during a reign of nearly sixty years, acquired, it may be said, the remainder of the world. The title of khan, or kaan, is equivalent to emperor in our language. It has been an invariable custom that all the grand khans and chiefs of the race of Chingis-khan should be carried for interment to a certain lofty mountain named Altai, and in whatever place they may happen to die, even if it should be at the distance of a hundred days' journey, they are nevertheless conveyed there. It is likewise the custom, during the progress of removing the bodies of these princes, for those who form the escort to sacrifice such persons as they chance to meet on the road, saying to them, "Depart for the next world, and there attend upon your deceased master," believing that all they kill do actually become his servants in the next life. They do the same also with respect to horses, killing the best of the stud, in order that he may have the use of them. When the corpse of Mongu was transported to this mountain, the horsemen who accompanied it, having this blind and horrible persuasion, slew upwards of twenty thousand persons who fell in their way."

 I am not sure of the actual Mongol names of the Khans who succeeded Genghis(Chingis) Khan as other sources mention the Great Khans to be :

Genghis (Chingis)
Ogedei
Guyuk
Mongke (Mongu?) and
Kublai

This Hulegu Khan guy, he destroyed Baghdad in 1258. With his barbaric mentality, he had destroyed many valuable books of knowledge. Hundreds of historical artifacts were also were also done with by his hands....what stupidity...
You must remember that whilst the Mongols had an expansionist policy at that time, their attack on Bahgdad was also brought on by the treachery of the Muslim Officials of the city. Had the Caliph paid more attention to what was going on with his PM, history may be different. He himself was a very weak Caliph.

(After this I left the forum. I find it strange when forumners simply cut and paste pages and pages of information without a single comment)

FORUM : LOYALTY

Me : Someone said it is "the holiest virtue in the human heart". It anchors a marriage and binds a friendship and yet people are saying this is a fast disappearing virtue. Is this so? If so, why?

If truly an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness and if " it is better to be faithful than famous" - Theodore Roosevelt, AND if "those who faithfully observe their trust and their covenants will inherit Paradise" - The Quran.....

...are we then becoming less divine, less clever, having problems with our commitment , allegiance and devotion to the people and entity that we say we love such that finding worthy partners and friends may soon become a thing of the past?

Loyalty diminishes because of egotism.....

Me : That may be true...

A person's loyalty says much about that person. If you are loyal to someone, you would always preserve his/her good name no matter what. It is a moral necessity which reflects your understanding and acceptance of the person or institution you are related with.

They say a loyal person has character. Real loyalty endures inconvenience, withstands temptation and does not cringe under assault.

It is also said that only those who are special and exceptional may have the capacity to be truly loyal and true loyalty may be seen only when challenged. It would appear that many had succumbed to the challenges it attract!

Why is it so difficult to be loyal, or is being "normal" men just an excuse? After all, normalcy is supposed to be acceptable.

You say they have become more self-centered. Why have they become so?

Self-centredness is a prerequisite of survival. However, as you grow and mature, survival should also be balanced up with other values in life....

Why? Even the education system of the country recognises the limit of human IQ

which is basically hinging on the ability of the individual.

The nature of loyalty is dependency

Me : Individual achievement is important to feel good about yourself. However, loyalty may still be upheld so long as it does not compromise your honour. Otherwise it is blind loyalty. My thought reflects the Tuah-Jebat "brotherhood".

William J. Bennet suggests that loyalty needs the understanding of truth and what is right. As such, children should be educated in values which may improve the ability to think when empowered under any situation. At times young people tend to give up easily.... and they resort to becoming jumping frogs for the sake of RM100-200 more. Employers see this as a loyalty issue.

Loyalty has it's limitation... it should not be to the extent of being being led by the noose.

I do not deny it's positiveness and implications, but then at times it destroys oneself from within. It would be worst if it destroy others too. For example, blind loyalty. I think loyalty is linked to love.... we dare not confront the person whenever he makes a mistake, or worst we defend him ... all in the name of loyalty and love. In true loyalty and love one should be able to discuss such thing.

All things must have limits

Me : Thanks for mentioning this aspect, interestingly, it underlines the dependency of loyalty.

Agreed that loyalty must have it's limitations but nonetheless it does not change the characteristics of loyalty itself. It should be limited by ethics. For example, an abused wife should not allow the abuse to continue in the name of loyalty towards her husband. Loyalty ceases to be a virtue when we need to sacrifice our self respect to preserve it. This may be a little subjective as it depends on what one terms as self respect. How would you know when your self respectability is being compromised?

Only those capable of sacrifice may be loyal

Me : It is true that loyalty does have the element of sacrifice - a responsibility that transcends normal obligation whilst preserving the interest of those we have relationship with such as the husband-wife, employee-employer, citizen-nation, father-son......there will surely exist a certain expectation of loyalty, allegiance, fidelity and devotion .

It is a silent expectation.

I am LOYAL to those who deserved to be LOYAL to.

Interesting, who in your analysis should deserve it?

The thing is I am thinking that we don't necessarily give our loyalty to any Tom, Dick or Harry for no apparent reason. We give it to those whom we have come to be bonded to say, by employment or marriage, family tie or by any means of formal or informal contract.

It is something abstract, actually...can't put a finger to it...we can only follow a hunch...if we misplace it...we can always 

pull it back and give to those most deserving...most sincere...

Me : I am unsure of how to respond to this. You gave the notion that loyalty is something you may chose to give and then pull back and then give it to someone else.....You follow your hunch in this decision. Do correct me if I am wrong.

So my question would be what kind of hunch/feeling would you consider qualified for loyalty giving?

My thoughts are, once you decide on a bond or relationship with someone or entity, it goes with a commitment which, amongst others, would include an understanding/ expectation of some degree of loyalty. By an large, loyalty becomes the right thing to do and is therefore given willingly. If for some reason you find the bond no longer meaningful, then you may decide to break the bond and hence you become no longer bound to be loyal. That is why they say that the test of loyalty is when the bond is under stress. Loyalty therefore goes with the bond. I feel that it is not possible for you to remain bonded to someone and yet not be loyal to that person unless you choose not to be steadfast in your bond or attachment.

Sort of you need to test the loyalty that you give out...like Sayembara

Me : Sayembara"? What is it?

But still interesting........ Usually people would want to test the loyalty received. So what does it mean when you test the loyalty you give to others? Are you really expecting a "return" for the loyalty?

It's a contest a literary term. Nothing is 'free' nowadays, it seems...

Me : Oh thanks .....Cari dictionary says " prize contest" . Gee, it's pretty scary when I come to think of it. If you are not loyal in your friendship, what kind of a friend would that make you?

Due to a lot of bad things happenning to me in the past, my loyalty is given only to those who deserve it.

I think self-preserverence is the answer for this. Be defensive, follow your hunches and justify the badness in people, then you can get loyalty from someone

Me : Would you still remain in the same relationship as before even when you are no longer loyal to him/her/whatever?

There is no use to stay when there is nothing to commit to...I am an all-giver. If I can't be of help, I don't think I should be around at all. It would make me look useless. The same goes to him...whoever he is. my utmost strict policy on relationship is, the guy has to be super loyal and committed because i am. I may sound too firm ..huhu

Me : You make absolute sense. If you cannot commit do not get into a relationship. Any relationship demands self-sacrifice.

Hehehe... so how, while women may fake orgasm, men can fake a whole relationship!

In that case, should I say, mutual understanding? 

You do that, then I'll do this lah. Hihih, but in serious light, I see that both parties have to be clear about things like this. Communication is vital! no normal human being is born with psychic ability, especially men. Women mags have sheded some light on this and also relationship consultants have produced books to tell the public how should we do it in a most subtle way.

What do you think if, in a family situation, the mother is usually constrained to be loyal to the family only for the sake of the children when the daddy has commited adultery/affairs with another (showing he is being unloyal)....vice versa too, if the wife commits an affair with another.

Me : Generally, this calls for shared values. You know in my days the akad nikah(marriage solemnization) was done beyond the earshot of the bride. I always wondered why women were excluded from may things. Was it considered better if they knew less??

Cannot agree with you more. Maybe a proper agrement may be better....terms are clear cut...? I do wonder why the most important contract on earth is really without a proper agreement!

Definitely a problem of commitment which may be caused by various reasons. Something is missing in the bond.............Perhaps it was never real after all.....

OF PRIDE

Some people have beliefs such as no pain, no gain. As much as most people think that it's true, I must say that this is a clear demonstration of pride.
I would usually associate this pain with the level of success. It kind of reminds me of a quote from Genghiz Khan...."There is no glory without pain..." something like that... But then that was the age of romance. These days people are more pragmatic. Why then they say "necessity is the mother of invention". People are finding better ways of doing things. I think there are enough challenges out there for all... not to worry, they would find you too.... but to simply look for the more painful thing, I think that had it's time and place.

Poor self esteem? Yes. Having pride in suffering? Yes. Could both exist at the same time? Yes.
I am a bit confused here, dear Agul. I am of the mind that there really is no pride in being subjugated.( If there is no choice then you take it with your chin up). Why do nations cry for independence then?

"Hidden pride" Well, I only know that we often learn not to express pride too effusively when others may be chellenged or offended by it or especially when you are expected to be humble.


We're talking about the kind of pride that hold you back. That ...
My take is true and authentic pride is that which results in goodness such as genuine self esteem and agreeableness etc in the person. It may and may not be displayed. For example, you may observe a mother's pride by the way she beams..............To me pride is all about self preservation.

However, there are other categories of emotions such as contempt, false modesty, stubborn pride, hubris or self-aggrandizing self-esteem and so on that can really put up bigger challenge to the self.

What you label as true and authenthic pride is nearer to courageousness.

In sedona we have emotions that falls on lower scale such as apathy, grief, fear, lust, anger, pride...
On higher scale we have Courageousness, Acceptance and Peace.

Of course we have other method of classification, but I'm using this.

I know you want to buy that book...
If I may elaborate.........true/authentic pride is pride that is well placed. It builds a bonding attitude......"crown of the virtues ," said Aristotle. It should be of good action on our part, done without any base motive. Am rather aware of the various ways pride is defined but to avoid confusion I favour the above. I see pride as one of a host of human emotions like those you mention. Whilst the human emotions are so very essential for self-preservation, the uncontrolled emotions can also be his nemesis. That's why such emotions are referred to as "negative" emotions. They cause destabilization in the function of the human body. If we cannot cope with it, it can cause mental or physical diseases. e.g. anger raises cholesterol levels and heart attack risk by 300%. Wah, am sounding like mbfcsf now!

I gather "negative" pride is usually referred to as false pride. It is different from true pride. It is usually associated with depression and depressed people are often thought to have low self-esteem. There are also those who think depressed people have a high opinion of themselves. So you just need to understand.

What is the difference between pride and this so called self - fulfilling prophecy? In associating this with self - insecurity , I think would be relevant for us as it will affects the way a manager's /leader's governance of a system. That's why they introducing auditing ....this is a good topic related to PRIDE. Hami ..any take on this??? Do you think it is the experienced ones...kinda of interested to know your views on this.
Somehow, I do not see the link between PRIDE and SELF-FULFILLING PROPHESY (SFP)....
To my understanding, SFP has to do with something that's false(on the day) but giving the perception that it is true and somehow ending up as being true. Oh dear, I hope you can fathom that!

It is a play on people's perception. Once the idea (false) is perceived people react to it and consciously or unconsciously cause the "prophecy" to come true. In Malay I think "mulut masin" ( salty mouth) seems to be pretty close.

Sometimes a person my utter such thing with arrogance (not pride). Perhaps this is where some may link it to pride.

Talking about the leader's method, I reckon SFP may, to an extent, be skillfully used to control people. ...much like using the power of imagery to destroy or heal people in the olden days. Ah, that is worth another thread!

SFP could actually be a hindrance in upgrading or towards reaching an effective governance.
Normally, I believe SFP is referred to something bad. If it is good they call it foresight. I guess in modern days people would prefer leaders with foresight.

False humility.Sometime pride can masquarade as false humility.
You know how some people take pride in being humble.
IMHO, someone who has false humility is even worse than someone who's openly prideful.
I once said that TRUE PRIDE is pride well-placed. However, common ethics and religious laws demand that we remain humble because before God we are all nothing. No one is better than the other. I am giving only a general idea here . So, there is humility. As I understand it humility is humility........spiritually. Otherwise it is not.

So, here is false humility .............like pretending to be humble to impress others, say. How does one do this? Is it by aggrandising one's humble actiions?

It's semantic, Hami. So the false humility is not actually humbleness. It is actually a sense of holier than thou, which is a bad kind of pride.
Hmmm............yeah, I have always thought that "holier than thou" attitude is indeed pride....misplaced that is. Same general idea I guess. Such people would hesitate to befriend theless religious.

How can we draw the line between "PRIDE" - and being humble and honest while at the same time you 'd also want to comply with the society's norms etc etc etc ?
Truely, I look at PRIDE in a positive light.....well placed. For example, a mother's pride when her child did her best. We should allow her to have her moment...we feel happy for her too. You know the saying, even "to a mama monkey , her child is a gazelle." So we must understand this mother-child bond. So if PRIDE is well placed there is nothing to frown upon.

I am also aware that some people think mothers (perhaps fathers too) tend to go overboard with their pride such that their "my son this..." and "my son that..." antics may get to the nerves of others. Well I would usually just offer them the remarks "Gee, I am sure you must be very proud of your son". There is no harm in allowing her her moment. She would usually get the messagelah.............

In being humble sometime this is what people tend to display to others even though they are fill with pride. Being snooty is different.....Sometimes it doesn't work to be too humble. So, you must know when to show it and just how much. When you are uncertain, take the medium............You would soon learn.

Here is a story I'd like to share:

The Reducing Ransom - A Saudi Arabian Folk Tale
A bedouin, who had business in the cattle market of a town, lost his young son in the confusion of the place. He hired a crier to shout through the streets that a reward of 1,000 piastere was offered for the return of the child.

The boy's kidnapper heard the crier but greed had opened his belly and he hoped to earn an even larger sum. So he waited and said nothing.

The following day, the crier was sent through the streets again. This time the sum offered was 500 piasters. The kidnapper still held out. To his surprise, on the third day the crier offered a mere 100 piasters. He hurried to return the boy and collect his reward.

Curious, he asked the father why the reward had dwindled from day to day. The Father said,

"On the first day, my son was angry and refused to eat your food. Is that not so?"

"Yes," agreed the kidnapper.

"On the second day he took a little, and on the last he asked for bread of his own accord," said the father.

It had been so, the kidnapper agreed.

"Well," said the father, "as I judge it, that first day my son was unblemished as refined gold. Like a man of honour, he refused to break bread with his captor. To bring him back with his pride untarnished; I was ready to pay 1,000 piasters.

"On the second day, when hunger made him forget the conduct of a nobleman, he accepted food at your table, and I offered 500 piasters for him."

"But then he had been reduced to begging humbly for food, his return was worth but 100 piasters for me."


ENJOY THE STORY THINKERS!

FORUM : CRIME INVOLVING CHILDREN

Is it justifiable to blame the caretakers of the child when something bad happened to them. It is supposed to be fate.

Me : Aaah! Poor FATE. It is often blamed for the shortcomings of mankind!

I believe it is all about POWER. Kids don't or cannot fight back so that way the pepertrators can get away with it. People who victimise kids are really SICK and WEAK people. They feel the satisfaction and power only with children. I suspect they have also been abused when they were children.

Concur ~ it's said that in most of the crimes involving children that most of the pepetrators did had a bad childhood themselves. But what amazed me is this Hami, aren't they supposed to be more compassionate towards whatever crimes that they are doing right now, bearing in mind the kind of dark childhood that they've been thru? How can they do what they did (sexual act of what not towards a helpless being? )

Aren't they supposed to take out the vengeance on the adults that made them what they are today instead of the other way round? Is there no way for them to break the chain of senseless violence?

Me : Well, we are dealing with weak and sick people. To hide their weaknesses  or low self-esteem, they feel the "power" and satisfaction out of causing hurt to defenceless people especially children who usually cannot fight back.

You see, families are the training ground from which children learn the social and emotional competencies that help them deal with challenges of life later. An abusive childhood can, to those who lack resilience cause the child to accept it as the way to go. They cannot tell the difference. As you know, children also learn from family members good words, deeds as well as abusive words and what have you.

FORUM : WHAT PRICE HONOUR

Me : I have been reading this book about how much family honour is being placed on the shoulders of the women of their community. As such I am tempted to find out what people understand about "honour" and how they go about treating it or defending it.

Priceless

Me : You mean .....like it is everything? Would you then sacrifice ANYTHING and EVERYTHING for the sake of it?

Sometimes you never know when giving back is the best thing you do in life..you feel good about it and never regret and surely very proud of it.

Counting it is simple. Assume that your monthly pay is RM1500. Total working hours per day is 8 for 25 days per month. That gives you RM7.50 per hour.

Me : Oh, a very interesting view...honour is equivalent to self worth in monetary sense?

In my view Hami dear, the honour for me is more on how I try my best to upkeep my family's standing in the eyes of the community.

In trying to achieve this, how we go about presenting ourselves is what matters most. Honour in this day and time is what the Chinese say to be, waterface. Try not to do anything that can bring shame and thereby dragging our family name through the mud.

While it's never easy to satisfy people in the community to accept us for what we are, there is no harm in trying to do good in whatever we do, and to take into account that whatever we do, there is a chain of reactions. How the chain unfolds depends largely on what we do.

Me : The book I read was "In The Name Of Honour" depicting the story of Mukhtar Mai from a very remote village in Benazir Butto's country. Though the scene was around tribal values which put a lot of restrictions on the females, the bastion of family honour, yet when the perpetrator is a male, revenge is taken out on the female relative of the male. An eye for an eye - so the saying goes. So if one's honour is contravened, you do the same towards the others by taking away their's and it goes on and on.

My hubby thinks this is only western journalism trying to mock or spread lies. But then I have also read another book on Poolen Devi The Bandit Queen from Nehru's country............a similar trait exist more because of the caste system which transcends all religious groups.

The discussion is not so much on the truth in those books but rather on our own perceptions of this word "honour".

My own view on "honour" is like what Dutchy said, waterface. But somehow, I cannot agree if one person is beholden to the honour of everyone else in the family. Sure we share the pride when a member of the family does well and hopefully share the remorse when in sadness too. Sure parents are responsible for nurturing their children, but in the final analysis a person ought to be responsible for his/her own actions and  take account of it. If  he/she makes the wrong choice, why should others be taken down as well? Are we still living by the so called tribal mentality or values? Say, If my parents had a fall out with someone, should I carry on the battle and should my children and their children too? My opinion is we fight our OWN battles not other's.

I concur with your views on 'honour', especially family/tribal honour.

These honour constituted by the society they live in and the individuals are expected to follow the way they are told to live. Say, in our culture the women are expected to look after the husband and kids, if they don't do that they defy their ancestors' belief thus brings down the honour of the family, or;

Say, the working sculptor/carpenter dad is famous for his sculptures and handiwok. His offsprings especially the sons are expected to take over the dad's work. If the kids simply decline or not comparable to his father's work quality he has simply 'dishonored' the family.

That is my own analogy for honor. Anymore ideas?

Tribal honours, family honours, office honours...What about defiance? Honourable defiances? Breaking free, blasting through. Is there such a thing?

Me : To me honour is personal integrity, allegiance to moral principles. Some of these principles are already enshrined in the legal codes of the country but where society is far in the hinterland or untouched by development and progress it may still adhere to traditions. While some traditions may have good reasons for them being there some are just an expression of power. Like, lock up your women and do not teach them too much least you cannot keep them under control. Girls are to be seen but not heard. In some societies women are to look ugly so as not to attract men. So they must cover up from head to toe in black. When her hubby dies she must throw herself into the pyre. Another one - the widow must leave camp and freeze herself in the winter night. They would say that that is their way.

I do not believe that traditions cannot change. It should go in hand with acceptance of change in the way people think and do things. Some people are afraid of change 'cause they know not what is at the other end. So I believe it all boils down to knowledge and need. The concept of liberty and equality took a while and by god how it erupted. It wa perhaps driven by need of the poor and suppressed.Yes, it took defiance to blast through. If it is in defence of what you believe is a God given right, then yes I think it is an honourable defiance.

Me : What about Roman honour?

'A good man' was hence a man deemed worthy by others, a man deemed honourable. But so too, in the Roman mindset honourable was only what was actually honoured. Glory or honour were also measured only in the recognition it drew from others.'

Hmmm......would what others say be a criterion. This seems to be no stranger in our society. If it's negative then it would be lack of honour.....even shame perhaps? Honour is about value but that value can't really be valued.

Me : Agree that it is based on people's values ....it's price may be valued as how much you would do to defend it. Would you agree to that  then?

Can't agree more.

Note: Hamizao (Hami for short) is my pseudonymn

FORUM : WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE

What is knowledge?
At this point in my search, I would say that knowledge is TRUTH. The ultimate TRUTH belongs to GOD.

What is rationality?
It is a passage or means to acquiring knowledge. It is related to the function of the mind - thinking - rather than intuition or emotion and is therefore subject to human capacity for inquiry. Knowledge would therefore grow and develop with man's capacity for rational thinking.

Is there such thing as knowledge?
Yes.

Is rationality the ultimate source of knowledge?
Ultimate source of knowledge is GOD. Rationality is only a way to acquire knowledge and a very important one too.

Truly, my very own thoughts...

In my humble attempt at defining "knowledge", I am looking at it from the other direction. Putting it simply....whatever is "true" - then it is "knowledge", otherwise it is just a notion. It is true that the general meaning of knowledge may be defined as any info that you know...but am trying to look at it in a more philosophical way without resorting to bygone great philosophers.

Are you implying that something that is not confirmed true cannot be accepted as knowledge?
That's my drift.

How do you define truth as this is also subjective. even if you define it as something from God as above, there are a lot of things that are not explicitly defined as from God - does it mean that it is not true? is H20 equals to water? Is my dream real?
My perception is, TRUTH may be proven by man.

Let us take fire as an example. Given the right conditions as per it's natural laws or essence , it would burn. However, whether it would actually or ultimately burn.......that eventuality is in God's hands.

I am a believer in God, the Creator and as such, the so-called natural laws or essence of things are the way they are created . They would therefore continue to behave accordingly within the universe, henceforth allowing the rational man the opportunity to make the right choices in life. Unfortunately, man's ability is often hindered by limitations such that the ultimate TRUTH is often obscure.

I hope I have not confused anyone. Thank you both for your interest.

What about legends and folk stories? are they knowledge as well?
To me, legends and folklore are notions or just beliefs that need to be proven.

Let's take a police investigation. On TV we often hear them say "what do we know about the case so far". This suggests the knowledge of facts that have been proven in the course of the investigation.

In the case of Hang Tuah which appears in Sejarah Melayu which has various versions about him and his origin. Then again it needs corroboration by other sources. At best his character still remains a legend perhaps in as much as in the case of Robin Hood. It is the time that made romance grow.

2 + 2 = 4. Real? true? false?
I can prove that 2 = 1.

Let , a=b
Multiply both sides by a:
a^2=ab
Subtract b^2 from both sides:
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
Factoring:
(a + b)(a - b) = b(a-b)
Divide both sides by (a - b):
a + b = b
Substitute b for a:
2a = a
Divide both sides with a:
2 = 1

So, what happens when you substitute 1 for 2 in the equation 2 + 2 = 1 + 1 = 2.

So, 2 + 2 is not always = 4
Is it?

Cor .....just me feeling sleepy ...that's all.

What a wicked trick. We can also conclude that 2 = 1, so 1 = 1/2 so 1 = 2 = 1/2
or trivial, 2a = a works if a = 0
BTW you just prove that numbers can be very deceiving.

Interesting! In philosophy there is no absolute answer. The Number 2 is meaningless if it stand by itself, a mere symbol cold and dumb. 2+2 may not be 4 to me because I might perceive your 4 as 5.
I catch your drift....that is as far as numbers go.....

It is said that maths is not a "reality" but rather a description of reality which the human can only approximate . Some of you may have your own take on this. I would be interested to hear it. For me, I haven't even started to ponder what "reality" means.

Now, there are other ways to show that 2 + 2 not = 4, which I better not elaborate!. Does it mean that the description is false? My take on this is, it requires a further identification. So what does it tells us? That justification requires limits and boundaries????:

Thanks for taking us through the brief history of epistemology, if I may say so. I sense that your conclusion is somewhat parallel if not congruous to my own. At least that is how I perceive "justified true belief".

Truths and Beliefs are two independent entities. When Beliefs(my Notions) have been Justified( my Proven) then they become Knowledge. As human become more developed in the various departments, say, mind, senses and what have you, then more Beliefs/ Notions may be Justified/Proven or eliminated or replaced. There is a whole wide opportunity here for people to expound their ideas. Hence resulting in many Theories. My stand is, there is a lot more Truths out there to be Justified/Proven much of which transcends normal human faculties to comprehend. Some people may be blessed with the ability to comprehend more than others. This "unknown" area had in the past become the "playground" of the more powerful. We fully note that in certain era, no new Ideas were expounded while in another era and place there seemed to be so many new ideas surfacing. These new Ideas are the Beliefs/Notions/Perceptions which may be "Duplicates of the imperfect Truths". Heheheheh...some may be utterly outrageous and need to be eliminated!

Why are Truths imperfect..? Is it because they are always changing.....in the state of Flux? Who or what is controlling it?

I shall sign off here for now to ponder on this.....

i am sorry to butt in your conversation but I'm just curious to know if you consider yourself a logical positivist?
At this stage, I am not really concerned about engenreing (gee, I hope there is such a word) myself least it might limit my thoughts. However, I would say that much of what little thoughts I have on the subject seem to be in tandem with it. Some of it's principles are still beyond me.

I said: Why are Truths imperfect..? Is it because they are always changing.....in the state of Flux? Who or what is controlling it?
I recall Thamrong mentioned about the imperfect truth. If by that he means that truth is always changing, no........I think Truth does not change. You see, what has happened, has happened and that is the Truth. You can never change that. Imagine if ultimate Truth is also changing, then man would never ever comprehend let alone reach it.

I said: For me, I haven't even started to ponder what "reality" means.
I read somewhere that "ultimate reality" is "truth".............Real things are things that exist....some say it includes the essence (what it is) and some say it doesn't as essence exist in the mind. I think for a thing to exist it has to have the essence. Essence alone cannot prove the thing exists....heheh .. as it exist only in the mind! For example , if we describe the sphinx is an animal that has a human head and the body of a lion(the essence)......but does it exist? So it cannot be real.

Aaaah.........I have said too much!

No No .You did well on this topic. No need to hold back. On the contrary to you, I am just questioning other people all time. So, you are absolutely ok.

From your given answer, I assume that you are saying that you cannot completely agree with logical positivism? Is that true? If it's true, then it seems to me that you also believe in something that is left unverifiable, far from proven to be true. Is that what you are saying or is it just me think like that?
Bull's eye buddy. That's my ultimate Truth.

So far man are mostly verifying things through the five senses and the brain they are linked to within the central nervous system.. That is why man are so limited. Do note that we should not rule out the existence of all others just because we have not found a way to justify them yet. I think there has to be another way to approach the ultimate Truth...otherwise the whole purpose of mankind would be futile. That is still my search.

Some suggest replacing it with "faith" . Ah well, who knows what tomorrow's experience would bring! Hehehe....I may have to pitch my goal posts elsewhere!

So you believe in something that is called ultimate truth? and not everybody in this world are capable of accepting/accessing this so called ultimate truth aka "you-definition-of-knowledge" because our senses are limited? and that (limitation) also explains why we keep changing our "generally-accepted-idea-of-knowledge" (what we know about something) since our sense are not perfect?

Is that what are you saying?

When someone said: Only god knows. Does he or she is accepting the idea that God knows everything, including things that are out of our reach/comprehension?

Faith!! I like the connection of this word with your explanation.
(Hmm..what happened to my response?)

As a layman with little brain I attempted to read Nietzsche's works. It does not take very long because I have to return it to the bookshelf before I go crazy.
Heheheh.....I surmise that the guy must have lived his life to the fullest and probably died of it too! You did well to let him be least he dragged you down with him .......insane. Poor soul .....no wonder he thought that life was nothing more than a meaningless business of suffering and striving. Oh, if only he had seen the wisdom of it all!

He said that " God Is Dead" so let's drink to it.

Metaphysics. Most simply, the study of the most basic (or "first') principles. Traditionally, the study of the ultimate reality, or "Being as such" (Ujud maka itu). Popularly, any kind of very abstract or obscure thinking. Most philosophers to day would define metaphysics as the study of the most general concepts of science and human life, for example,reality?,existence?,freedom?,God?,soul?, action?,mind? In general we can divide metaphysics into ontology (theory of being-theori ada), cosmology, and concerning God and immortality of human soul.
Metaphysics.....I read somewhere that the term is somewhat a misnomer and no wonder that word always put a bomb in my brain!!

At this point I am of the view that it 's subject is on a different plain compared to physics.......it is more ethereal rather than physical....more surreal rather than real , the soul not the body................celestial and spiritual. I read somewhere that to attain the true understanding of the matter requires a 6th sense. Someone had told me that to understand this, revelations would have to be processed both by the mind AND the "hati". In this context I am using the same word "hati" as a representative of the seat of the 6th sense. At this point in my search, I reckon that the understanding/justification would manifest in something that you would "feel" e.g. the feeling of inner peace, enlightenment. ..........Could that be faith??
I take that you are assuming 'reality' as something we can be perceived with our senses, a 'substance', worldly and physical.
There is probably a confusion on my part . My apology and thanks for pointing it out. I was in fact thinking in terms of :

Real + Surreal = Total Reality

but got screwed up in the process....

On the ilmu rasa? No comment.
I should add that some people have been reported to also "see" and therefore "experience" it. I'd rather not delve further into it and I shall take my rest on this issue.........

I remembered when my class first introduced to him (Nietzsche)by my professor, almost everybody in my ethics class including myself despised his idea of good and bad until my professor pointed out what he actually thinks. If you look at his writing positively, you will find some good points. Of course I do not buy all his arguments but there are few good things that I've learned from him.
You are one lucky chap .............I am just plodding on my own ....heheheh...

It really means the death of our belief in God.
I think Nietzche's preoccupation could have been more into societal challenges kind of things. He saw a lot of sufferings and striving(strife) and his foremost question was,...................... how best to live in a "godless and meaningless "world. Amongst his thoughts are the need for a value system that should change to meet new challenges and analysis of morality.

He distinguished morality into (1) Master Morality and (2) Slaves Morality. Of course what is good and evil in one is the opposite in the other. He found that the slave morality was predominant in Christianity. Hence his onslaught on the Judeo-Christian religion.

On the value system, in order to meet new challenges new basis should be sought to support new values. In other words values including culture need not be preserved. He promoted supremacy of the man ( not any particular race. Feel free to correct me if you think otherwise) who is the best, healthiest and strongest in character. This brought emphasis on toughness in the face of misery, a character often taken out of context and tyrants have drawn some inspiration from it but understood him only superficially. Well, fortunately for him, he did not live long enough to see the political development in his country.

I found out that he actually became a Swiss citizen and spent many years in Switzerland and Italy until his death(?)

Can a person without religion be moral?
In every person there exist a natural need to self preserve. For that matter even animals do have it too. Therefore, anyone can still have their own ideas about good and bad, right and wrong behavior even at the most simplest level of social organization.

Hehe...just my 2 cents