When somebody reacts with an intelligent antithesis to your thesis the trick is not to go back to and insist on the thesis but to go on to the synthesis.
In this case: What you decide to measure is in itself also a matter of taste. So instead of thinking that taste is superificial you should move on to the position that "taste is the deepest thing of all", "taste has more substance than anything else" or actually to move all the way to Zarathushtra's position "taste is what we are".
So those who agree with the stoners are "stoning agreers" and you who aggressively oppose the stoning are "the stoning opposer" or "the anti-stoning militant".
Then you can measure the affects of the positions taken verbally and the actions taken physically: Who is the hero and who is the coward in the eyes of the victim of the stoning?
As you can see, Zarathushtra was a radical pragmatist, hos world was one all about taste. Which is precisely why he defended civilization where the Abrahamic leaders and prophets destroyed it.
Ushta
Alexander
2011/5/30 Parviz Varjavand
Dear Dino and Alex,
I am not in disagreement with you guys. But sometimes stating the obvious is used as a tool to shut the other person who is trying to make a point up. Dino often does that, throws something your way that kills the point you are trying to make and then has nothing to replace it with . There are those who wish to change things and then they are those who just go around measuring things and results. When some people are stoning a woman to death for some small offense, I do not wish to stand there and take pictures and say "it is a matter of taste" for those who are doing it. I want to shout, I want to scream, and I want to throw stones at the leaders of that group. This is why at times I can not stand those who just stand around taking notes and very arrogantly say "Oh, well, it is a matter of taste". As far as I am concerned %90 of humanity are caught in very bad tastes that their religions have entrapped them in. I want my brand of Mazdaism to have an impact and change some of that. I don't want to just stand around taking notes.
Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz
From: Special Kain
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, May 29, 2011 5:13:15 PM
Subject: AW: [Ushta] Spinozist monism - and The Depth of Taste (how there is nothing beyond aesthetics)
Dear Parviz,
What matters here are the effects.
Charles S. Peirce, William James and John Dewey went one step further. They were concerned with how these descriptive vocabularies affects the actions of the persons holding them to be true and how this relates to the bigger pictures in science, religion and society. Materialists may act differently and their behaviours may have other outcomes than the behaviours of spiritualists. Given that vocabularies may have different consequences, it is the total sum of these real consequences plus the total sum of all conceivable effects that define such vocabularies. Things mean what they cause.
The only thing we can measure are the effects. There is no "beyond". Given that the outcomes are the same, we can't find out which vocabulary is "better". This is where our tastes and interests decide.
Ushta,
Dino
--- Alexander Bard
Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Spinozist monism - and The Depth of Taste (how there is nothing beyond aesthetics)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
CC: "Ardeshir Farahmand"
Datum: Sonntag, 29. Mai, 2011 09:42 Uhr
To be honest, Parviz, what else would there be?
Dino never claimed there was no good taste or bad taste, but what do you claim there is beyond taste?
And in what way does this contradict Zarathushtra? Whenever did he claim there was anything beyond taste? Was it not Zarathushtra who taught us that WE BECOME THE ACTS WE CONDUCT?
You are the way you act, you act the way you speak, you speak the way you think, so therefore be careful what you think. Be careful WHAT TASTE you put into your mind. Beyond that very decision, there is nothing but superstitions. Jinns.
Ushta
Alexander
2011/5/29 Parviz Varjavand
Dear Dino,
You are absolutely correct, everything we do is a matter of taste. Why then do we post anything on the net or even talk, there is nothing to talk about. Cannibalism is a matter of taste, roasted babies may actually taste very good! Is this not a matter of taste then!?
Ushta,
Parviz
From: Special Kain
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, May 28, 2011 3:01:44 PM
Subject: [Ushta] Spinozist monism
There was a time when theologicans and philosophers were having metaphysical arguments about the question whether the world was made of ideas and thoughts (spiritualism) or bodies and atoms (materialism). And there were defenders and supporters from both camps on both sides.
Then pragmatism entered the stage: it was Baruch Spinoza who draw the conclusion that both descriptive vocabularies were equally valid and appropriate - because the effects were the same.
Which side you choose is a matter of taste.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar