lördag 23 juli 2011

The Meaning of Druj

Druj merely works in the short run, but the original meaning of druj ("that which does not work") does not refer to short-term causes and effects but to the long-term perspective. So you're both right, just talking about two very different perspectives. Please note druj does not mean "that which does not function" and even less so "that which does not exist" but rather "that which does not work in the sense of returning a pride in onself, an authentic self-identity".

2011/7/23 hampus lindblad


I don't see what that proposes to explain. If druj had been simply "that which doesn't work" then how come we are still surrounded by it in so many ways? In my view druj is just as present as asha, and it can never be "eradicated" but "merely" deselected and de-emphasized. If it simply "didn't work" than it would have been eliminated through Darwinian processes by now, no? And thus leaving no room for our personal and in my mind sacred aspirations towards asha.

Druj and asha both "work" in my mind, but they are opposing sides of the same logic. Or if that sounds too tautological to you then maybe it can be expressed better as "the same logic applied in coherence with opposing intentionalities". Maybe that brings me dangerously close to the dualism that we try to distance ourselves from - but I'd like to think that my form of dualism is of a different type... ;)

Compare the differences and the similarities between a lover and a rapist for a rough analogy of my conception of asha and druj. Technically they might be doing more or less the same thing, but yet the difference couldn't be any greater. But the general, underlining logic follows the same pattern of influence and force application (whether the force is fear and violence as in the case of the rapist or the ability to instill lust and pleasure when it comes to the lover).


On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Daniel Samani wrote:

druj is that which does not work an are therefore by defult irelevant!

2011/7/23, hampus lindblad :

> I have a problem with the term relevant used in this fashion as processes
> can be relevant to druj just as they can be to asha. The relevancy is what
> ascribes them asha or druj "status" is it not? Isn't the point that the
> underlining Universe isn't partial to asha or druj, but that that's where
> our consciousness makes an entry on the stage and get's to partially steer
> whether our particular play - viewed from the end of our personal reality
> tunnel - is to be themed based mainly on asha or druj? With varying degree
> of overlap to the other parallel plays (or processes) taking place in the
> minds of our fellow beings of course.
> Or what am I missing?
> Ushta,
> Hampus

Inga kommentarer: