lördagen den 23:e april 2011

Epistemology, asha and druj

Another word for what Daniel is talking about here is epistemology.
Feel free to dig into the terminology at this Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
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.
Ushta
Alexander

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!

Ushta,

Daniel

Inga kommentarer: