Asha vs Druj (as mental phenomena)

No, Parviz what you talk about is NOT truths but INTENTIONS. There are no truths in social contracts, there are only INTENTIONS. As in "Give me your most functional fantasy of how the world works" equals "Give me what is best for me according to your very best intentions". Social contracts are broken when people ON PURPOSE gove you something inferior to what they could have intended. Which is PRECISELY why asha and druj operate as INTENYIONS, as MENTAL conflicts. But Zarathushtra did not use the term truth even once in The Gathas. Nor did he ever speak of lies. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/19 Parviz Varjavand Mats, Go back and read my previous posts, I am a consistent and logical writer. The truth behind "Natural Facts" is not that different from "Social Facts". When before a trip you go to a tire shop and ask the tire man "what is a safe air pressure I can put in my tire", you are after a relative truth that you feel he may know better than you. If you smell booze on his breath and feel that he may be intoxicated, you will not ask your question and go somewhere else. In effect, you are after the "truth of a contract" established by the police, the tire manufacturer, those who have monitored the highways for years, and so on. You are not after Science giving you "The Ultimate and Infallible Truth of what a TIRE IS". What Alex and Dino accuse me of trying to say is what is perverted, not what I am saying. Ushta, Parviz Varjavand --- On Thu, 7/19/12, Mats Andrén wrote: From: Mats Andrén Subject: Re: [Ushta] "Asha and Droj" To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, July 19, 2012, 6:44 AM Sorry. I fail to follow how this argument connects to your previous arguments. You are now suddenly talking about intersubjective agreements, which is certainly not what you seemed to be talking about before when using the word "truth". You seem to blend the quite different ideas of natural facts and social facts. ...or in fact, I am unsure whether you blend them or not (at different times you give different impressions). In short, I can't follow! Best, Mats On 2012-07-19 15.25, Parviz Varjavand wrote: > Hi Mats, > > First of all, I am not in a dialog with Alex or Dino any more, because they insult me as a spice of their conversation; they can get lost in whatever dimension of fantasy that turns them on these days. Alex acts like he owns Ushta and all ideas expressed in it, another Ronald Delavega. > > We live in a world that Mithra still rules and contracts are very important in it. What is any truth expressed in any contract? It is a relative truth, but a truth that both sides of a contract choose to agree upon (like tying your seat belts). When there is a problem in a contract and you take it to a judge, the judge asks you to raise your right hand and "Tell the truth, only the truth, and nothing but the truth". By that, he or she is not after "The Ultimate Truth in the Universe" that Alex and Dino accuse me of being on the lookout for. Yet the judge asks for the truth of "the contract" that civilized men tend to establish between themselves. He/She does not ask the guy "raise your right hand and depending on whatever hallucinogen you are taking these days, tell me where your fantasies are taking you." > > Zoroastrianism is a pro civilization religion and civilization moves forward by good contracts. Please read what I write more carefully and don't go on the same bandwagon that Alex and Dino tend to go on and accuse and insults me based on things that I have never said but they perceive that I am saying. > > Ushta, > Parviz Varjavand > > --- On Thu, 7/19/12, Mats Andrén wrote: > >> From: Mats Andrén >> Subject: Re: [Ushta] "Asha and Droj" >> To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com >> Date: Thursday, July 19, 2012, 2:28 AM >> Parviz, >> >> There are definitely many things in between complete >> relativism of the >> "anything goes" kind (which I, by the way, doesn't really >> know anyone >> who defends) and realism of the naive kind. No need to >> polarize. Don't >> confuse the idea of "truth" with a world painted in the >> black and white >> colors of formal logic: there are no experiential nor >> scientific >> evidence in favor of such a black/white world. I would also >> be careful >> to put my opponents in such black and white boxes. I have to >> say that I >> agree with Alexander that to argue the way you do is a very >> lazy way of >> tackling the problem: trying to hide it rather than facing >> it. ("I don't >> want the world to be difficult to grasp, so I stipulate that >> it isn't.") >> There is indeed a lot of philosophical literature on this >> topic. >> >> I think the word "fantasy" is misleading you, since part of >> its >> semantics implies that something "unreal" or "false" is >> going on, but >> just because a fantasy isn't "reality" per se, it doesn't >> need to be >> "false" in the simplistic sense of the binary true/false >> distinction of >> logic — the issue is far too complex for that. Perhaps a >> better choice >> of word, instead of "fantasy", would be something like >> "conception". >> ("Perception" is a too narrow term I think.) >> >> A somewhat amusing paper that I tend to think of whenever >> simplistic >> either/or debates between relativist/realist positions >> emerge is a paper >> called "Death and Furniture" by Edwards, Ashmore, and >> Potter. It is >> written in a quite bantering manner, and is perhaps not that >> well >> written in all respects, but it is somewhat funny. Among >> other things, >> you will find the (naive) realist in the guise of a magician >> who pulls >> out rabbits (truths) from nowhere: Look! No hands! It's just >> there! >> >> Best, >> Mats