The army, traditionally speaking, the army has always been the last resource of losers, when they cant make it through college they join the army, of course the theory does not imply on all, but most… Lol .. most of them in the army and the rest out there imitating others

^^^ Cmon now, dont over do it son! you should know better

'Wax la rabin intii la rabi lahaay' 'wax la rabo in la rabo aa la rabaa' ee idinka waxaan la rabin oo aan aniga rabin inaad rabtaan ma rabi! continue in the same fashion "Dacawo WEENEESO xiro, macaantiis. ookiyaali kugu ma filna. " Qac Qacoow go easy sxb.

"Nin madoow naftaada uga baq, Nin casna naagtaada uga baq" Looooooooooooooooool Waryaa Checkmate .. hehehe thank you for the advice . I should be on my guard. Waa inaan baakoorad banaanka la istaago oo aan raga cas cas ee uu OG-Moti ka mid yahay jilbaha ka naafeeyo Maalin Dhalad Farxoon hadana Juxa

I think the BBC's article has an intention of fascilitating a bit of conceptional re-adjusting. Look at what is happening in this topic alone. We seem to have gone deep into discussing whats ethical and what isn't, and what a woman is worth. Similar to this topic, the comments on the BBC's page seem to been selected purposefully. Some of the comments posted there are generated in a angery, iritated, and to extent contmpted manner, all directed towards Somali culture. The comments do not ask why the BBC correlates the entirety of Womankind to one Somali case, drawing the wrong attention - that equates racial insightment - to Somalis . I don't know why the BBC hasn't started a debate about 'Women's worth' that is independent from cultural streotypes. The story emanating from Somalia not only borders on insanity but also reflects a very primitive mind set. Jacob Agola, U.S.A PS: A woman is worth more.

Why are Somalis a haughty lot? I believe you will not concede that you were blissfully ignorant when you penned these thoughts. LooooL@haughty lot! OK I am 'Blissfully ignorant' then. Ignorance is bliss right? And, with your knowledge of philosophy, you are intelligent Lol.. Isn't that what you wanted me to say? Oh, let me not forget that 'the pink elephant', I do not possess the faculty to comprehend! What more can one say? Satisfied now?

"- Born in Somalia, and amazingly start walking within 3 weeks from the day she was born. - At early age she has shown unusual intelligence, at age 3 and half she could say words like ... hilib, caano, kir, bax "" LoL 508 ... HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU JUXA!!!

^^^ Lol .. sorry if I come across as annoying... cheer up! My sentence: Hillarious (spike lee) movie' Meanings: (a)- 'The Hillarious movie of 'Spike Lee''* (b)- 'The Hillarious movie made famous by Spike Lee' ©- 'Opposites attract' So ..'the Hillarious movie that is opposite to Spike Lee's 'good' movies' For me, my analysis was based on (b) and © and for you (a). I believe the movie has been indirectly made by Spike Lee', but not produced. you enjoyed this witless comedy whereas i didnt...go figure!? Yes I enjoyed it! Maybe it was made for people like me to enjoy it. Whose knows, I might be a fool myself lol. I am sorry you didn't enjoy it. Political correctness can sometimes make us straight as an arrow.

^^^ I think you should go to what was the topic? erm .. Nothingness and Being... To say I was expecting you to substantiate your "Dreams are more real than life" theory would be a great mendacity. I wasn't really expecting anything from you. Because obviously you got on the wrong foot to begin with. So that is that. I was more interested in your critical thinking skills and you have displayed that you have no such faculty. Lol. Why do I get the impression that you were more interested in portraying yourself as a pseudo-intellectual, than being interested in critical thinking. You have made more than 23 logical fallicies in the previous post alone (Pedantic am I?) . When someone is pedantic, he/she pays attention to detail. You were not that person, are you?

Double Post - sorry!

Zaylici, thank you very much. Atlast I managed to browse through the posting you made in this topic. I must say, walaahi they are very informative, valuable and at the same time interesting. My appreciation sxb. Thankx

^^^ Same here.

Loooooooool Mrembo... read my comment again... this time posted in BOLD. "...If these 'usual black movies' aren't what 'particular' movie go'ers require, spike lee wouldn't have bothered at all . Stereo-types do sell alot..it is called 'racial' humour and we're Humans lol...." How do you understand my sentence horta? Lol For any produced movie to be a hit, it has to create a contraversy. The more promenent the critic or influencal individual's involvement of the contraversy, the more attention and publicity, the more publicity, the more weeks in the box-office. Spike Lee, if the movie wasn't interesting, wouldn't have bothered to comment about it. A 'particular' sect of the African-American community - especially the HipHop generation - requires the movie. Spike Lee always produces the opposite of this kind of movie - like 'DO THE RIGHT THING' and so forth. So he is worried....so he brands the movie some names...but the gives the movie a better stance in respect to those whom it was intended for. Its all about marketing. ...So mbrembo .. comprende?

^^^ lol I think I need more time to respond to your poetic questions. Grant me time to ponder them and answer them please. Why do I get the feeling that I need to do alot of explaining. Good questions walaashiis....thanks.

^^^ Alxamdullilaah. I am well and rested but I haven't researched this topic since there is nothing there to spend time on. Below I tried to answer you promptly. ---- Mutakalim, these are the philosophical questions asking of me that I: "...1. must provide proofs for this (and i have read both of your posts completely), or at least use a clear syllogism where you state your premises clearly. 2.you must define dream 3.you say in this sentence that the, on the one hand, life is a dream, on the other that it is true and permanent. this requires clarification; perhaps your definition would help...." To this question of yours, although I am not a big fan of logical mathematics, I shall once again make it clear that my topic has no relations to the famous philosophical ‘Truth-Value’, t or f of premise, proportion and conclusion. I know you asked the question hoping that the validity of my post will rest upon the notion of: “If functions”. It seems when I gave you an answer ‘you found it difficult to comprehend what I was talking about’ and you could only comprehend arguments in the light of employing philosophical explanatory tools that you are used to. In fear that this may be the case I pointed out that this ‘dream’ topic is “just pure thought expressed in the most simplest and understandable fashion. [And] that the topic and the thoughts content in it are but philosophical”. But you didn’t understand and went commenting at a later post that, "....Anyone with a rudimentary and basic understanding of Philosophy will tell you that the question of Reality is purely and exclusively a metaphysical question.." Your above quote may hold true, and I confess that because I haven’t read philosophy broadly (as you did, I suppose), I am not well versed in metaphysics or in that case the ‘Cartesian Dualism’ of Mind and Body, nor do I know much about the notion that some senses may be lacking of “clarity and distinction’ in the context of reasoning. However, talking of premises, on what premise have you chosen to question me if you assumed I am talking philosophically when I am not? I can not remember challenging or refuting your knowledge in the field of philosophy, nor can I claim dreams aren’t metaphysical questions or not – though this may attract objections from other individuals. When I said “no proof can be obtained for dreams; rather, the existences of dreams are like myths and legends. We cannot prove them so we accept them at face value”, I thought you did understand me; because if you did you wouldn’t have waited this long for an answer. The answer is already there, and I hoped by using “Silence as the Answer”; for you to read again, you will reach the realization that you don’t deserve an answer all together. If, say, you put to me that ‘a Deer drinks water in dreams and not in real life’ (this being a classical Somali philosophical argument), but I reply ‘no camels drink water real life and not dreams’, then you must know that I have all-together abandoned the premise of your argument and used a totally different one. My answer is right in its own right but not to your own assertions about ‘a Deer’. This is exactly the mistake you have made. My mistake was to make the assumption that a man of your calibre, who spent ’11 years reading philosophy’ wouldn’t have wasted time, eagerly waiting for another answer when it was already given. Nevertheless, I shall continue further to look at the relevance at some of your questions that I haven’t answered yet. You asked: “What is a cosmic universe?” Cosmic : ‘inconceivably extended in space or time’. Universe: ‘the whole collection of existing things’. That is the definition of the two words that comprise ‘cosmic universe’. "Dreams are not touchable; they exist in their own cosmic universe where souls escape to when they leave the bodies behind.” What is here that you cannot understand? "...A lot of points are made here. Let me number them and simplify them, so that the inconsistency becomes manifest. 1.dreams are not touchable 2.souls exist in their own realm these points lead to 3.dreams are the reality 4.life is one figment of dreams So, from this, life is one figment of reality? and dreams are real, so life is real, by virtue of being a dream. surely you see an inconsistency in this...." To be honest, there was no inconsistency in my initial sentences, however, I can ‘surely’ see the inconsistencies you have created yourself. Firstly, you rightly brought forth by point by writing that: “1 – dreams are not touchable.” To this I say, yes dreams are not touchable; I can prove that by asking you to prove that dreams can be touched. Secondly, you tried to create an inconsistency here, and misleadingly twisted my words from: “Dreams…exist in their own cosmic universe souls escape to when they leave the bodies behind”, to “souls exist in the own realm”. While I talk of the existence of dreams and reality, you introduce the existence of souls to illusively misguide my assertions. Surely, the inconsistency now lies with you, don’t you agree? Or perhaps not! Thirdly, you rightly dissected a true point from my initial posts, and for that I thank you for the clarity manifest in it not the inconsistency. Last but not least, you eventually touched on the premise the whole topic in based and whenever you understand it, to begin with, we can discuss it further. "....I will employ the principle of charity. Perhaps are you saying that the realm of the soul is more real, because it is not material. but then 1.this would not mean that the material world does not exist 2.you would have to prove that point, namely that the realm of the soul is superior, and explaining why 3.you would have to explain your alternative. is it idealism (as it seems when one first reads your posts), or something else?..."... The principle of charity you seem to employ is based on something unmentioned or non-existent in this topic. If you are interested, in a ‘Socratic’ way, to learn by questioning about the realness of the soul or material, then perhaps we shall start another topic. "...I completely disagree with you here. Life was not created to test adam and eve, but us all. Adam, peace be upon him, was not created for paradise, but for earth, as the quranic verses clearly state. The paradise of adam and eve is not the paradise promised to the righteous and virtuous among us after death. The laws governing that paradise are indeed far from those of the one where adam started out. When we say that we will go to heaven, or paradise, it is not the same as the one where adam dwelled a little moment...." If it is not for argument’s sake, we can know more about this matter if we consult with brothers and sisters who are well-read. There are things I cannot comment on because I do not wish to fall in the trap of ignorance. Brothers and Sisters of SOL do give us your take on matter addressed in the above quote.

Observer... sxb I agree.

I crowned myself after an SOL political coup.. Lol that explains it. No wonder SOL was down for so long. And I wasn't aware of it back-online till one of your close-associate's (sujui) told me of 'googling' to access SOL.. I hope it was an ..Af-gambi uusan dhiig ku daadan.

^^^ I am curious. Horta, when were you crowned? And I wonder what your crown looks like ... lol .. am looking at the above camel's crown for clues ..

D-P

I'm irratated with the usual "black" movies that produce nothing more than a collection of indecent wisecracks and racial stereotypes... Lol.. I guess the movie wasn't made to suit you. If these 'usual black movies' aren't what 'particular' movie go'ers require, spike lee wouldn't have bothered at all . Stereo-types do sell alot..it is called 'racial' humour and we're Humans lol..

What is needed here is a VERY CAREFUL language re-stracturing, cultural re-orientation, and a very well calculated revival of Somali Literature in general, if such is not, then it isn't worth the effort. It serves best if Somalism sleep in peace.

Blimey, those camels surely do look 'chic'. How come our 'geel-jire' club hasn't heard of this competition? Xaraggo iga dheh!

Boqorka, is the trailer available? Moore's site says come back some other time.

My childhood favourite. Luckily, I met Saalax Qaasim in person and requested of me to sing the song for us. He did....and it was such a moment! One Song of Saalax Qaasim is: Ma Ogiye Waa Maxay jacayl! But another is a song oo uu Saalax Qaasim laxanka saaray kuna luuqaynayso none other than Qadro Daahir, waa Afka lagama sheegto, adigoon jacayl arag PS: Some audio links may not work due to a specific being site off-line.

Dareen iyo Damiir .. Qore: Abdi Hassan, Holland Source Somali Literary Forum/ Hadraawi Group Dareen iyo damiir( emotion and conscience) waxay kamid yihiin astaamaha gaarka ee admigu kagana duwan yahay noolaha kale. Qofka admiga wuxuu leeyahay dareen, doonis, qiiro, qab, aragti, damiir iyo astaamo kale oo lamid ah. Qofku wuxuu dareemaa dhacdo oo uu maqlay, akhriyey, ama joob soo ahaa markay dhacaysay taasoo uu ku farxo, ka naxo, ka cabsoodo, ka yaabo, ama yax yaxo . Dareenkuna waa turjumaha dhacdooyinka degaanka iyo qofka admiga ah. Dhacdadii jirtay dareenkaagu wuxuu ku samaynayaa inuu kuu fasiro oo aad macno siiso qaabkay u dhacday. Waxaana jirta in dhacdo kastaa oo leh astaamahaas aan kor kusoo sheegnay ay tahay dhex dhexaad laakiin aadmigu siiyo macno gaara oo uu ku qiimeeyo. Qaabka qofka admiga ahi u turjuntaana waxay ku xidhantahay waayo aragnimada iyo aqoonta qofkaasi u leeyhay dhacdada taagan markaas. Wuxuu faylasuufkii waynaa ee Aristotels yidhi isagoo ka hadlaaya dareenka: "Waa hawlyartahay inaad cadhootaa, laakiin inaad ku cadhooto qofkii ku habboonaa, qiyaas ku habboon, wakthtigii ku habboonaa, sababtay ku habboonayd iyo qaabkay ku habboonayd maaha mid sahlan". Haddaba qofkastoo aadmiyi wuxuu leeyahay dareen, feker, iyo ficil. Saddexdooduna waa isku xidhan yihiin. Sida aad u wax dareento ayaad u fekertaa sidaad u fakaraysaad fashaa ooficil ku muujisaa. Haddii wada shaqayn waayaan saddexdaas aan soo sheegnay masaaloona qofkaasi ee waxbaa kasiya. Siduu sheegay aqoonyahankii Usteeriyaanka ahaa ee Sigmund Freud( 1856-1939kii) oo ahaa caalim ku xeel dheer cilmi nafsiga, ahaana ninkii lahaa aragtida cilmi nafsiga ee loo yaqaan pyscho-analyse. Wuxuu sheegay in maskaxda admigu ka kooban tahay saddex qaybood qaybta hore waxaa la yidhaahdo ID. Qaybtani waxay qaabilsantahay inaad hesho waxaad jeceshahay ama baahida markaas aad dareemayso sida diiraraan, gaajo iyo harraad. Qaybtani waxay kortaa oo fir fircoontahay marka ilmuhu yaryahay gaar ahaana ilaa markuu ilmuhu 5 sano gaadhaayo. Ilmaha yarna waxaa uu muddadaas halgan kula jiraa inuu dhakhso u gaadho baahida haysa wuxuu jecelyahay iyo degaanka uu ku nool yahay oo ku dhega adkaada oo aanu ka helin waxa jamanayso naftiisu. Marka ilmuhu ilaa shan sano gaadho ayaa waxaa kora oo qaybta kale ee maskaxda ee la yidhaado Ego. Waxaa qofka ay bartaa inuu miisaamo codsiyada ka imanaaya naftiisa ee ku dirqiyaaya inuu helo hawadiisa. Waanay u caqli celisaa Ego ilmaha waxaanay tidhaahdaa waxaasi macquul maahe Iday ee bal inoo kaadi, ilmhuna wuxuu noqdaa mid waaqici ah. Waxaana halkaas ka dhasha isku dhac ay isku dhacaan ID iyo Ego. Ego waxaa ay isku daydaa inay dhex dhexaadiso baaqyada iska soo hirjeeda ID iyo degaanka markaas la joogo. Dabadeedna waxaa samaysma wuxuu ugu yeedhay Freud super Ego oo ah damiirka qofka. Waxaana ilmuhu noqdaa mid isu dheelitirma oo leh qaybaha maskaxda oo dhan. Super Ego waxay dhex dhexaadisaa markaas iyana ID iyo Ego waxaanay qofka ka dhigtaa mid miisaaman oo si degan u shaqeeya. Gaadhina kara go'aan oo ka talin karo noloshiisa iyo si deg deg ah mustaqbalka. Farriimaha degaankiisa, iyo baahida naftiisana waxay noqonayaan kuwo aan isku dhacin oo iska soo horjeeda ee is baal socda. Inta aan qofku yeelan Super Ego waxaa saxa oo haga waalidkii ama rabbeeyihiisa qaan gaadhka ah. Markaas haddaan arrinta aynaan u eegin dhinaca falsafada ee u eegno dhinaca cilmiyada kale sida kuwa arrimaha bulshada ee cilmi nafsigu kamid yahay. Dareen iyo Damiir waa wada socdaan. Damiirkuna waa hoggaanka qofka haga ee ku kala garto xumo iyo samo. Damiirku waa caqliga qofka waana qaybta ugu sarraysa maxkaxda. Qofkuna siduu wax u dareemo ayuu u fekeraa, siduu u fekeraayo ayaa u dhaqmaa. Habka uu dhaqmaayana waxaa kalataliya oo la kaashadaa damiirkiisa kaasoo ku booriya qofka inuu ku kaco ficil ama ka joogo. Tusaale si ay inoogu fududaadaan fahanka dareen iyo damiir. Abwaan Mohamed Hadraawi oo kamid ah culimada falsafada ee Somalida baa sannadkii hore markuu guursaday waxaa dawladda Maandeeq ugu deeqday 10,000 US dollers oo kaalo ah. Hadraawi isagoo dawladda ixtiraamaayuu ka gudoomay deeqdii. Waxaana laga yaabaa inuu markaas u baahnaa. Laakiin Hadraawi lacagtaas isagu waxba kagama soo leexan ee waxaa uu uqaybshay ururadii bulsho ee u baahnaa. Waxaanu yidhi Hadraawi damiirkayga ayaa ii diiday inaan qaato lacagtaas. Haddaba waxaa is waydiin leh waxa Hadraawi u odhan waayey dareenkayga ayaa ii diiday. Jawaabtuna waa iska caddahay oo dareenkiisu waxaa laga yaabaa inuu ka duwanaa damiirkiisa. Waayo? Waxaa laga yaabaa in Hadraawi markaas uu dareemayey baahi ba'an waayo? Waa abwaan loo hanwayn yahay oo guursaday, laakiin aan lahayn hanti uu ku fuliyo hawlihii looga baahnaa waxaana Somalidu ku maah maahdaa NIN GUURSADAY XUUNSHANA XOOLO MOOD. Inkastoo Mr. Hadraawi saboolnimada dhibaato u arkin oo uu mararka qaardkoodna kuba faanay waana kii ku yidhi maanso, SOW INA WALANWAL MAAHAN AHI, WAX MAHAYSTE IMA DHALIN, HURRE LAMA WALAAL AHI, waxaana laga yaabaa in 10, 000 US dollers ee dawladdu siisay uu meelo badan ku gufayn kari lahaa laakiin xilligaas oo aan iska garan karo in baahiyi haysay, waxaaseh u saamixi waayey kana xoog batay damiirkiisa. Ugu danbayn haddaad u baahato inaad wax badan ka ogaato mawduucan waxaan kugula talinayaa inaad akhrido buuga uu qoray ninka Saykoolajiiska ah ee Maraykanka ah ee Daniel Goleman ee ciwnaankiisu yahay Emotional intelligence. Mr Goleman inkastoo uu fekerkiisa usoo bandhigay aragti kusalaysan qaabka iyo fekerka Maraykanku u arko mawduucan aan ka hadlayno haddana waxaa uu sameeyey baadhitaan buuxa waxaana uu keenay Intelegence cusub oo ah dareenka qofka( social emotional intelegence) halkii waagii hore laga eegi jiray IQ oo qudha. Waxaana laga yaaba in qof IQ aad u sarreeyaa uu aad u hooseeyo dhinaca emotional intellegence, waxaana dhici karta sidaas lidkeed. Waxaa kaloo jiri kara ruux ilaahay hibo usiiyey uu ku hubeeyey labada intellegence ee jira. N.B. Dhinaca eray bixinta ajanabiga ee maqaalkan ku jira waa luqadda dutch, lagana yaabaa in af Ingiriisada ama luqadaha kale ay eray bixin kale qaadan karto. Macasalaama, Abdi Hassan, Holland