As the leader of the international Human Genome Project, which had labored mightily over more than a decade to reveal this DNA sequence, I stood beside President Bill Clinton in the East Room of the White House... Clinton's speech began by comparing this human sequence map to the map that Meriwether Lewis had unfolded in front of President Thomas Jefferson in that very room nearly two hundred years earlier. Clinton said, "Without a doubt, this is the most important, most wondrous map ever produced by humankind." But the part of his speech that most attracted public attention jumped from the scientific perspective to the spiritual. "Today," he said, "we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, and the wonder of God's most divine and sacred gift."Was I, a rigorously trained scientist, taken aback at such a blatantly religious reference by the leader of the free world at a moment such as this? Was I tempted to scowl or look at the floor in embarrassment? No, not at all. In fact I had worked closely with the president's speechwriter in the frantic days just prior to this announcement, and had strongly endorsed the inclusion of this paragraph.When it came time for me to add a few words of my own, I echoed this sentiment: "It's a happy day for the world. It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God."What was going on here? Why would a president and a scientist, charged with announcing a milestone in biology and medicine, feel compelled to invoke a connection with God? Aren't the scientific and spiritual worldviews antithetical, or shouldn't they at least avoid appearing in the East Room together? What were the reasons for invoking God in these two speeches? Was this poetry? Hypocrisy? A cynical attempt to curry favor from believers, or to disarm those who might criticize this study of the human genome as reducing humankind to machinery? No. Not for me. Quite the contrary, for me the experience of sequencing the human genome, and uncovering this most remarkable of all texts, was both a stunning scientific achievement and an occasion of worship.

Within sixty-minute limits or one-hundred-yard limits or the limits of a game board, we can look for perfect moments or perfect structures. In my fiction I think this search sometimes turns out to be a cruel delusion.No optimism, no pessimism. No homesickness for lost values or for the way fiction used to be written. Everybody seems to know everything. Subjects surface and are totally exhausted in a matter of days or weeks, totally played out by the publishing industry and the broadcast industry. Nothing is too arcane to escape the treatment, the process. Making things difficult for the reader is less an attack on the reader than it is on the age and its facile knowledge-market. The writer is the person who stands outside society, independent of affiliation and independent of influence. The writer is the man or woman who automatically takes a stance against his or her government. There are so many temptations for American writers to become part of the system and part of the structure that now, more than ever, we have to resist. American writers ought to stand and live in the margins, and be more dangerous. Writers in repressive societies are considered dangerous. That’s why so many of them are in jail.Some people prefer to believe in conspiracy because they are made anxious by random acts. Believing in conspiracy is almost comforting because, in a sense, a conspiracy is a story we tell each other to ward off the dread of chaotic and random acts. Conspiracy offers coherence.I see contemporary violence as a kind of sardonic response to the promise of consumer fulfillment in America... I see this desperation against the backdrop of brightly colored packages and products and consumer happiness and every promise that American life makes day by day and minute by minute everywhere we go. Discarded pages mark the physical dimensions of a writer’s labor. Film allows us to examine ourselves in ways earlier societies could not—examine ourselves, imitate ourselves, extend ourselves, reshape our reality. It permeates our lives, this double vision, and also detaches us, turns some of us into actors doing walk-throughs. Every new novel stretches the term of the contract—let me live long enough to do one more book.You become a serious novelist by living long enough.

So they rolled up their sleeves and sat down to experiment -- by simulation, that is mathematically and all on paper. And the mathematical models of King Krool and the beast did such fierce battle across the equation-covered table, that the constructors' pencils kept snapping. Furious, the beast writhed and wriggled its iterated integrals beneath the King's polynomial blows, collapsed into an infinite series of indeterminate terms, then got back up by raising itself to the nth power, but the King so belabored it with differentials and partial derivatives that its Fourier coefficients all canceled out (see Riemann's Lemma), and in the ensuing confusion the constructors completely lost sight of both King and beast. So they took a break, stretched their legs, had a swig from the Leyden jug to bolster their strength, then went back to work and tried it again from the beginning, this time unleashing their entire arsenal of tensor matrices and grand canonical ensembles, attacking the problem with such fervor that the very paper began to smoke. The King rushed forward with all his cruel coordinates and mean values, stumbled into a dark forest of roots and logarithms, had to backtrack, then encountered the beast on a field of irrational numbers (F_1) and smote it so grievously that it fell two decimal places and lost an epsilon, but the beast slid around an asymptote and hid in an n-dimensional orthogonal phase space, underwent expansion and came out fuming factorially, and fell upon the King and hurt him passing sore. But the King, nothing daunted, put on his Markov chain mail and all his impervious parameters, took his increment Δk to infinity and dealt the beast a truly Boolean blow, sent it reeling through an x-axis and several brackets—but the beast, prepared for this, lowered its horns and—wham!!—the pencils flew like mad through transcendental functions and double eigentransformations, and when at last the beast closed in and the King was down and out for the count, the constructors jumped up, danced a jig, laughed and sang as they tore all their papers to shreds, much to the amazement of the spies perched in the chandelier—perched in vain, for they were uninitiated into the niceties of higher mathematics and consequently had no idea why Trurl and Klapaucius were now shouting, over and over, "Hurrah! Victory!!

ان الانكار آلية سيكولوجية مفيدة في حماية انفسنا من التعامل مع أشياء تهددنا .. ببساطة ندعي انها لا توجد .. ولكن الانكار لا يصلح في خاتمة المطاف .. وعن طريق شجاعة الترحيب بالتلقي يستطيع الفرد ان يرى اشياء جديدة .. اشياء كانت هناك على طول المدى من قبيل التغيرات في السماوات التي انكرها الآخرون بوصفها مستحيلة .. وعلى الرغم من ان العلم بصميم تعريفه يستكشف المجهول .. فإن دلالات ما نكتشفه ربما تكون اكثر مما يرغب الناس في التعامل معه

Electrons, when they were first discovered, behaved exactly like particles or bullets, very simply. Further research showed, from electron diffraction experiments for example, that they behaved like waves. As time went on there was a growing confusion about how these things really behaved ---- waves or particles, particles or waves? Everything looked like both.This growing confusion was resolved in 1925 or 1926 with the advent of the correct equations for quantum mechanics. Now we know how the electrons and light behave. But what can I call it? If I say they behave like particles I give the wrong impression; also if I say they behave like waves. They behave in their own inimitable way, which technically could be called a quantum mechanical way. They behave in a way that is like nothing that you have seen before. Your experience with things that you have seen before is incomplete. The behavior of things on a very tiny scale is simply different. An atom does not behave like a weight hanging on a spring and oscillating. Nor does it behave like a miniature representation of the solar system with little planets going around in orbits. Nor does it appear to be somewhat like a cloud or fog of some sort surrounding the nucleus. It behaves like nothing you have seen before.There is one simplication at least. Electrons behave in this respect in exactly the same way as photons; they are both screwy, but in exactly in the same way….The difficulty really is psychological and exists in the perpetual torment that results from your saying to yourself, "But how can it be like that?" which is a reflection of uncontrolled but utterly vain desire to see it in terms of something familiar. I will not describe it in terms of an analogy with something familiar; I will simply describe it. There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. So do not take the lecture too seriously, feeling that you really have to understand in terms of some model what I am going to describe, but just relax and enjoy it. I am going to tell you what nature behaves like. If you will simply admit that maybe she does behave like this, you will find her a delightful, entrancing thing. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possible avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.

ah yes I know them well who was the first person in the universe before there was anybody that made it all who ah that they dont know neither do I so there you are they might as well try to stop the sun from rising tomorrow the sun shines for you he said the day we were lying among the rhododendrons on Howth head in the grey tweed suit and his straw hat the day I got him to propose to me yes first I gave him the bit of seedcake out of my mouth and it was leapyear like now yes 16 years ago my God after that long kiss I nearlost my breath yes he said I was a flower of the mountain yes so we areflowers all a womans body yes that was one true thing he said in his lifeand the sun shines for you today yes that was why I liked him because Isaw he understood or felt what a woman is and I knew I could always getround him and I gave him all the pleasure I could leading him on till heasked me to say yes and I wouldnt answer first only looked out over thesea and the sky I was thinking of so many things he didnt know of Mulveyand Mr Stanhope and Hester and father and old captain Groves and thesailors playing all birds fly and I say stoop and washing up dishes theycalled it on the pier and the sentry in front of the governors house withthe thing round his white helmet poor devil half roasted and the Spanishgirls laughing in their shawls and their tall combs and the auctions inthe morning the Greeks and the jews and the Arabs and the devil knows whoelse from all the ends of Europe and Duke street and the fowl market allclucking outside Larby Sharons and the poor donkeys slipping half asleepand the vague fellows in the cloaks asleep in the shade on the steps andthe big wheels of the carts of the bulls and the old castle thousands ofyears old yes and those handsome Moors all in white and turbans likekings asking you to sit down in their little bit of a shop and Ronda withthe old windows of the posadas glancing eyes a lattice hid for herlover to kiss the iron and the wineshops half open at night and thecastanets and the night we missed the boat at Algeciras the watchmangoing about serene with his lamp and O that awful deepdown torrent O andthe sea the sea crimson sometimes like fire and the glorious sunsets andthe figtrees in the Alameda gardens yes and all the queer little streetsand the pink and blue and yellow houses and the rosegardens and thejessamine and geraniums and cactuses and Gibraltar as a girl where I wasa Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like theAndalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed meunder the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and thenI asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would Iyes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yesand drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes andhis heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes.

من أوجب الواجبات على الدولة أن تترك العلماء أحراراً في حكمهم على الأمور، أن تشعرهم باستقلالهم، لأنهم قادة الفكر، كما أن على العلماء أن يتمسكوا بهذا الاستقلال. فاستقلال العلم والعلماء شرط لابد منه لحياة العلم والفضيلة على حد سواء. وإذا ضاع استقلال العلم ضاع العلم وضاعت الفضيلة، بل وضاعت الأمة. وقد بقيت أوروبا ألف عام في ظلمات العصور الوسطى، لأن أمورهم كانت في أيدي قوم لا يؤمنون بالحق، ولا يؤمنون باستقلال العلم، فاضطهدوا العلماء، وحاربوا حرية الفكر، واتغمسوا في الجهالة محتمين وراء الجدل اللفظي الأجوف، فعم الظلم والضلال.

Many things in this period have been hard to bear, or hard to take seriously. My own profession went into a protracted swoon during the Reagan-Bush-Thatcher decade, and shows scant sign of recovering a critical faculty—or indeed any faculty whatever, unless it is one of induced enthusiasm for a plausible consensus President. (We shall see whether it counts as progress for the same parrots to learn a new word.) And my own cohort, the left, shared in the general dispiriting move towards apolitical, atonal postmodernism. Regarding something magnificent, like the long-overdue and still endangered South African revolution (a jagged fit in the supposedly smooth pattern of axiomatic progress), one could see that Ariadne’s thread had a robust reddish tinge, and that potential citizens had not all deconstructed themselves into Xhosa, Zulu, Cape Coloured or ‘Eurocentric’; had in other words resisted the sectarian lesson that the masters of apartheid tried to teach them. Elsewhere, though, it seemed all at once as if competitive solipsism was the signifier of the ‘radical’; a stress on the salience not even of the individual, but of the trait, and from that atomization into the lump of the category. Surely one thing to be learned from the lapsed totalitarian system was the unwholesome relationship between the cult of the masses and the adoration of the supreme personality. Yet introspective voyaging seemed to coexist with dull group-think wherever one peered about among the formerly ‘committed’.Traditionally then, or tediously as some will think, I saw no reason to discard the Orwellian standard in considering modern literature. While a sort of etiolation, tricked out as playfulness, had its way among the non-judgemental, much good work was still done by those who weighed words as if they meant what they said. Some authors, indeed, stood by their works as if they had composed them in solitude and out of conviction. Of these, an encouraging number spoke for the ironic against the literal mind; for the generously interpreted interest of all against the renewal of what Orwell termed the ‘smelly little orthodoxies’—tribe and Faith, monotheist and polytheist, being most conspicuous among these new/old disfigurements. In the course of making a film about the decaffeinated hedonism of modern Los Angeles, I visited the house where Thomas Mann, in another time of torment, wrote Dr Faustus. My German friends were filling the streets of Munich and Berlin to combat the recrudescence of the same old shit as I read:This old, folkish layer survives in us all, and to speak as I really think, I do. not consider religion the most adequate means of keeping it under lock and key. For that, literature alone avails, humanistic science, the ideal of the free and beautiful human being. [italics mine]The path to this concept of enlightenment is not to be found in the pursuit of self-pity, or of self-love. Of course to be merely a political animal is to miss Mann’s point; while, as ever, to be an apolitical animal is to leave fellow-citizens at the mercy of Ideolo’. For the sake of argument, then, one must never let a euphemism or a false consolation pass uncontested. The truth seldom lies, but when it does lie it lies somewhere in between.

أكل الدود الدود، وتعفن إحساس الميت براحة التلاشي، لم يعد أي عنصر في سلسلة التوازن قادرا على أداء مهامه الوجودية، تشققت بيضة الأحلام وخرج منها دينصور عاشب جائع إلتهم الشعر من على سيقان كل النساء، أخرجت الأعشاب عروقها تجاه السماء و دفنت أوراقها، تناول النحل العسل إلى أخر قطرة وسقطت كل ثمار التفاح من اشجارها . قهقهت الملائكة في لوحات رفاييل وقطعت أجنحتها بأيديها، لا وجود لجاذبية نيوتن، سقط كل شي إلى السماء و أمتلء سطح القمر بالنجاسة. أخرجت الحيتان زعانفها إلى الهواء وكتبت على سطح البحر رسائل حب غير منطقي، لم ولن يفهمها من ادعى كسب العقل و lلمنطق : الجنس البشري الذي افتك أدنى درجات الحيوانية بافتخار ومعزة.

These are lines from my asteroid-impact novel, Regolith:Just because there are no laws against stupidity doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be punished.I haven’t faced rejection this brutal since I was single.He smelled trouble like a fart in the shower.If this was a kiss of gratitude, then she must have been very grateful. Not since Bush and Cheney have so few spent so much so fast for so long for so little.As a nympho for mind-fucks, Lisa took to politics like a pig to mud. She began paying men compliments as if she expected a receipt. Like the Aerosmith song, his get-up-and-go just got-up-and-went. “You couldn’t beat the crap out of a dirty diaper!”He embraced his only daughter as if she was deploying to Iraq.She was hotter than a Class 4 solar flare! If sex was a weapon, then Monique possessed WMDI haven’t felt this alive since I lost my virginity.He once read that 95% of women fake organism, and the rest are gay. Beauty may be in the eyes of the beholder, but ugly is universal. Why do wives fart, but not girlfriends? Adultery is sex that is wrong, but not necessarily bad. The dinosaurs stayed drugged out, drooling like Jonas Brothers fans. Silence filled the room like tear gas. The told him a fraction of the truth and hoped it would take just a fraction of the time. Happiness is the best cosmetic, He was a whale of a catch, and there were a lot of fish in the sea eager to nibble on his bait. Cheap hookers are less buck for the bang,Men cannot fall in love with women they don’t find attractive, and women cannot fall in love with men they do not respect.During sex, men want feedback while women expect mind-reading. Cooper looked like a cow about to be tipped over.His father warned him to never do anything he couldn’t justify on Oprah. The poor are not free -- they’re just not enslaved. Only those with money are free.Sperm wasn’t something he would choose on a menu, but it still tasted better than asparagus. The crater looked alive, like Godzilla was about to leap out and mess up Tokyo. Bush follows the Bible until it gets to Jesus. When Bush talks to God, it’s prayer; when God talks to Bush, it’s policy. Cheney called the new Miss America a traitor – apparently she wished for world peace. Cheney was so unpopular that Bush almost replaced him when running for re-election, changing his campaign slogan to, ‘Ain’t Got Dick.’ Bush fought a war on poverty – and the poor lost. Bush thinks we should strengthen the dollar by making it two-ply. Hurricane Katrina got rid of so many Democratic voters that Republicans have started calling her Kathleen Harris. America and Iraq fought a war and Iran won. Bush hasn’t choked this much since his last pretzel.Some wars are unpopular; the rest are victorious. So many conservatives hate the GOP that they are thinking of changing their name to the Dixie Chicks. If Saddam had any WMD, he would have used them when we invaded. If Bush had any brains, he would have used them when we invaded. It’s hard for Bush to win hearts and minds since he has neither. In Iraq, you are a coward if you leave and a fool if you stay. Bush believes it’s not a sin to kill Muslims since they are going to Hell anyway. And, with Bush’s help, soon. In Iraq, those who make their constitution subservient to their religion are called Muslims. In America they’re called Republicans. With great power comes great responsibility – unless you’re Republican.

আমাদের মহাবিশ্ব যদি কোয়ান্টাম ফ্লাকচুয়েশনের মধ্য দিয়ে স্থান-কালের শূন্যতার ভিতর দিয়ে আবির্ভূত হয়ে থাকে, তবে এই পুরো প্রক্রিয়াটি কিন্তু একাধিকবার ঘটতে পারে, এবং হয়ত বাস্তবে ঘটেছেও। এই একাধিক মহাবিশ্বের অস্তিত্বের ব্যাপারটি প্রাথমিকভাবে ট্রিয়ন আর পরবর্তীতে মূলতঃ আদ্রে লিন্ডে এবং আলেকজাণ্ডার ভিলেঙ্কিনের গবেষণা থেকে বেরিয়ে এসেছে। সৃষ্টির উষালগ্নে ইনফ্লেশনের মাধ্যমে সম্প্রসারিত বুদ্বুদ (Expanding Bubbles) থেকে আমাদের মহাবিশ্বের মতই অসংখ্য মহাবিশ্ব তৈরী হয়েছে, যেগুলো একটা অপরটা থেকে সংস্পর্শবিহীন অবস্থায় দূরে সরে গেছে। এ ধরনের অসংখ্য মহাবিশ্বের একটিতেই হয়ত আমরা অবস্থান করছি অন্য গুলোর অস্তিত্ব সম্বন্ধে একেবারেই জ্ঞাত না হয়ে।

Let us fool ourselves no longer. At the very moment Western nations, threw off the ancient regime of absolute government, operating under a once-divine king, they were restoring this same system in a far more effective form in their technology, reintroducing coercions of a military character no less strict in the organization of a factory than in that of the new drilled, uniformed, and regimented army. During the transitional stages of the last two centuries, the ultimate tendency of this system might b e in doubt, for in many areas there were strong democratic reactions; but with the knitting together of a scientific ideology, itself liberated from theological restrictions or humanistic purposes, authoritarian technics found an instrument at hand that h as now given it absolute command of physical energies of cosmic dimensions. The inventors of nuclear bombs, space rockets, and computers are the pyramid builders of our own age: psychologically inflated by a similar myth of unqualified power, boasting through their science of their increasing omnipotence, if not omniscience, moved by obsessions and compulsions no less irrational than those of earlier absolute systems: particularly the notion that the system itself must be expanded, at whatever eventual co st to life.Through mechanization, automation, cybernetic direction, this authoritarian technics has at last successfully overcome its most serious weakness: its original dependence upon resistant, sometimes actively disobedient servomechanisms, still human enough to harbor purposes that do not always coincide with those of the system.Like the earliest form of authoritarian technics, this new technology is marvellously dynamic and productive: its power in every form tends to increase without limits, in quantities that defy assimilation and defeat control, whether we are thinking of the output of scientific knowledge or of industrial assembly lines. To maximize energy, speed, or automation, without reference to the complex conditions that sustain organic life, have become ends in themselves. As with the earliest forms of authoritarian technics, the weight of effort, if one is to judge by national budgets, is toward absolute instruments of destruction, designed for absolutely irrational purposes whose chief by-product would be the mutilation or extermination of the human race. Even Ashurbanipal and Genghis Khan performed their gory operations under normal human limits.The center of authority in this new system is no longer a visible personality, an all-powerful king: even in totalitarian dictatorships the center now lies in the system itself, invisible but omnipresent: all its human components, even the technical and managerial elite, even the sacred priesthood of science, who alone have access to the secret knowledge by means of which total control is now swiftly being effected, are themselves trapped by the very perfection of the organization they have invented. Like the Pharoahs of the Pyramid Age, these servants of the system identify its goods with their own kind of well-being: as with the divine king, their praise of the system is an act of self-worship; and again like the king, they are in the grip of an irrational compulsion to extend their means of control and expand the scope of their authority. In this new systems-centered collective, this Pentagon of power, there is no visible presence who issues commands: unlike job's God, the new deities cannot be confronted, still less defied. Under the pretext of saving labor, the ultimate end of this technics is to displace life, or rather, to transfer the attributes of life to the machine and the mechanical collective, allowing only so much of the organism to remain as may be controlled and manipulated.

এই বইটি লেখার প্রাক্কালে একটি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ বইয়ের খোঁজ পেয়েছিলাম; রবার্ট রাইটসের লেখা ‘মরাল অ্যানিম্যাল’ । বইটিতে রাইটস বিবর্তনীয় মনোবিজ্ঞানের দৃষ্টিকোণ থেকে চার্লস ডারউইনের জীবনের নানা ঘটনাপ্রবাহকে ব্যাখ্যা করেছেন। ডারউইনের শৈশব এবং কৈশোর জীবন, এমার সাথে তাঁর প্রণয়, বিয়ে, মধুচন্দ্রিমা, স্ত্রীর প্রতি বিশ্বস্ততা, সন্তানের জন্ম, সন্তানের প্রতি ভালবাসা, তাদের মৃত্যুতে দুঃখ প্রভৃতি বহু কিছু বিবর্তনীয় মনোবিজ্ঞানের কাঠামোতে ফেলে বিশ্লেষণ করেছেন। আমি আশাবাদী হয়তো একদিন কোন সাহসী এবং বিজ্ঞানমনস্ক রবীন্দ্রবিশেষজ্ঞ কেবল ‘প্লেটোনিক প্রেম’ এবং ‘মাতৃস্নেহের খিদে’ দিয়ে বিশ্লেষণ সমাপ্ত করবেন না, বিশ্লেষণকে এগিয়ে নিয়ে যাবেন আধুনিক বিজ্ঞানের বিবর্তনীয় যাত্রাপথে।

Для психолога может показаться очевидным, что эволюция рефлексивного, самоосознающего мозга освободит нас от базового диктата нашего эволюционного прошлого. Для эволюционного биолога, очевидным является совершенно противоположное — что человеческий мозг эволюционировал не для того, чтобы изолировать нас от правил выживания и репродукции, но для того, чтобы следовать им более эффективно, более точно. Мы произошли от видов, самцы которых силой овладевают самками; сейчас самцы нашего вида шепчут самкам разные приятные глупости, и шептания вполне могут подчиняться той же самой логике, что и насилие — логике манипулирования самкой в интересах самца, и эта форма манипулирования служит той же функции.

در بعضی از فرهنگ ها فرهنگ دانستنی هست که از "دانستنی ها"هستند و واژگان و عباراتش هر کدام یک فرهنگستان است.فرهنگ پارسی ما نیز از این قاعده است.مثلا شیر واژه ای ست در سه شکل پرکاربرد.1.شیر(دوغ،تازه)2.شیر(لوله آب)3.شیر(حیوانی در جنگل)اینجا یک جمله ایهامی ابهامی را با این واژه رفع ابهام میکنیم."شیرها بسته اند"با مورد 1 در این جمله این اظهارنظر ظهور است.شیر اینجا تازه های از گاو و گوسفند هستند که ماست شده اند پس وقتی تازه ها ماست شدند بلاصطلاح میگویند شیرهابسته اند.رفع ابهام در بعضی از فرهنگ های بومی بدین گونه است که به تازه نمیگویند شیر به دوغ میگویند شیر.بستن شیرآب بابت اسراف بستن شیرجنگل بابت ترس.اینجا امر و دستور از جنگل به جامعه آورده میشوداینجا اگر جامعه جنگل باشد شیرش قانون است پس اگر شیرآب را باز نگه بدارید بابت اسراف دست قانون که شیر جامعه است باز نگه داشته میشود پس ترس همان است و شیر همین.پس میترشید و میترسید چون دروغید نه شیر و نه ترس بلکه ترسیده اید و ترشیده اید. /m¤