2011/8/8 Special Kain
Things are much more complicated. We have to critically assess the value system into which we were born and see if we can still use any of it and/or if we have to create new values.
Your conclusion is that the status quo is good in itself. But is this really the case? I don't think so. I wouldn't confuse asha/druj with ethics. The fact that something works doesn't make it good. It merely makes it useful. We sometimes have to lie in order to protect our loved ones!
Moralism states that the status quo is good and should be preserved and defended against everything that is different. But ethics is different: it is concerned with one's attitude and mentality such as universal openness vs. "othering", and how this affects the world around us through our words and actions.
My two cents,
--- Behnaz Larsen
Von: Behnaz Larsen
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] A Sientist and a Judge
Datum: Montag, 8. August, 2011 17:48 Uhr
Yes therefore I consider all these definitions of asha and droog ( in Persian, lie) the good and the bad. They are the opposite, so if one is, that which works the other is the opposite etc. Why use words when they are so limiting? We have our morals imprinted in us, let's do what our moral dictates us and if that is the way of Asha then so be it. Am I totally off here? Are we not saying the same? That which works is GOOD. That which is sustainable in it's quality, is good. Good is Good and anything other is its opposite is bad, druj, droog.
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 8, 2011, at 5:28 PM, Special Kain
So what is your definition of asha, dear Parviz?
And what is your definition of ashavahishta?
As far as I know, asha is "the truth" or "that which is true" and ashavahishta is "the best truth", while druj is "illusion", "deception" and "lie".
It is difficult to tell whether the physical world and the mental world are substantially different and deserve different approaches in order to be dealt with appropriately. It is just a matter of taste which ontology or which concept we prefer. And the descriptions we use in order to make sense of what's going on are WITHIN LANGUAGE and NOT "OUT THERE" in the real world. The real world doesn't know any descriptions - it doesn't speak. And vocabularies come with their own resources, opportunities and restraints.
--- Parviz Varjavand
Von: Parviz Varjavand
Betreff: [Ushta] A Sientist and a Judge
Datum: Montag, 8. August, 2011 15:52 Uhr
If you go in a lab that some scientists are experimenting on some physical i.e
Gitik phenomenons, you call them "scientist", what they are doing has to be
endorsed by the scientific method for them to be paid at the end of the months.
Here, they are using the Asha or laws of nature to do their work.
If you go into a court of law, a Judge sits there passing Judgments on others. A
judge is not a scientist, he/she uses a softer kind of Asha, a relative Asha
called Asha-Vahishta. Druj and Asha are mixed in the mental world, so a judge
has to find out not an absolute Asha but who has Asha-Vahishta or more Asha in a
mix of Asha and Druj that is being presented in his court. Those who say that in
a Monist sense a Judge is also a Scientist and a Judge and a Scientist both use
Asha in order to do their work do not convince me that they are right. Jafarey
first came up with calling Asha as "that which fits" and that definition has not
fitted in my mind too well ever. Anything can be called "That Which Fits"
depending on who is writing the review on what it is that has to FIT what.