"Druj" still means "that which does not work", "that which does not fit", no matter how hard you try to turn "druj" into something else which I must admit seems intellectually inferior to Zarathushtra's genial meaning.
Even a term like "druj" should be treated with the attitude of "asha"...
2011/4/23 Parviz Varjavand
Hi Alex and Daniel,
In many places, specially in politics and religion, the lie works just fine. "Give me your money and I will reserve you a place in Heaven", religion says. Is religion telling the truth or is it lying? The statement comes in a time the believer has great need for some security and the religion gives it to him/her and they both get what they need, money for the priesthood and comfort for the believer. So according to you this statement must be the Truth, it comes at the right time, produces the right results and everybody is happy. Viva this kind of Truth!
--- On Sat, 4/23/11, Alexander Bard
From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Epistemology, asha and druj
Date: Saturday, April 23, 2011, 3:15 AM
Another word for what Daniel is talking about here is epistemology.
Feel free to dig into the terminology at this Wikipedia entry:
We can not credibly say that we know (or do not know) something unless we also specify how we came to that conclusion and while we are also aware that the language we use to describe this "knowledge" has a lot of built-in limitations too.
What is interesting is not so much whether a statement is true or false but whether it is constructive and relevant rather than merely destructive and pointless.
Opening a copy of "Little Red Ridinghood" when asked about how the physics of the Universe works is not so much a matter of LYING rather than a matter of reading the wrong or rather irrelevant litterature for the task that is to be solved.
"Asha" literally means "the right thing in the right place to make something work". As its opposite "druj" does not really mean "lie" but rather "the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time to work". Literally: That which does not work.
Zarathushtra was simply the first Pragmatist, that is his stunning historical achievement.
2011/4/23 Daniel Samani
Dear Parviz Varjavand,
Indeed it's a quite radical statement. The kind of reasoning used by you, turns down to a play on words on your part. What is the lie you so fanatically disgust? I am interpreting it as you do the same mistake as all Abramatic religions. IT'S HOW YOU COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SOMETHING IS A TRUTH OR A LIE THAT MATTERS!!!!! Essentially to my mind Christianity also have this concept, it's called holy spirit!! The problem is however that, it's quite random and vage how you gain the ability (probably because the writers have no idea and could care less).
In your reasoning this far you are on the WHAT and WHY level. You call somthing to be false or a lie. But you don't provide HOW you came to that conclusion, it's the same as all other dogma but backwards. An dogmatic anti-dogma if you so will. It's not enough to know what and why something is true or false. The more valuable dimension is HOW something becomes true or false. At least this is my perspective!