lördagen den 14:e juli 2012

The Pragmatism of Zarathushtra (was: Materia, Energy, Time, and Nature)

And why not then also make the radical step and ask ourselves who was the first Pragmatist thinker? Zarathushtra of course. He may have shared a belief in some kind of after-life which we today would regard as illogical (and not very useful) but since this was BEYOND Zarathushtra's everyday life, to him this was an area of poetry and gameplaying but not a DOGMATIC TEACHING as in Abrahamism. Which is why we both can and should disregard this part of his speaking. To the contrary, Zarathushtra was interested in the here and now, understanding the human psyche, and focusing on what could be done, on wisdom and not on empty speculation or supramoralism. Which is why Pragmatism dates back all the way to a certain Zarathushtra. Just like Daoism and Zen are also later driven by Pragmatism and not Idealism. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/14 Special Kain I agree with Alexander. Parviz acts like a logical positivist here. I like John Dewey's instrumentalist take on scientific research which states that our fantasies are TOOLS rather than photographs or mirrors that need to be cleaned and polished in order to see the world as it is. Dewey's metaphor accounts for changes in our environment, so we always have to create new tools in order to navigate successfully. Because the tools we use and the reasons for which we use them - and the effects caused by social uses - will affect the environment in which we use them (= feedback loops). And one tool proves successful in one environment, while another tool proves successful in another environment. Simply put, not the truth but the situation decides. Which is trans-rationalism, because we have fantasies which are, logically speaking, mutually exclusive (= which contradict each other) and yet these fantasies work in different environments. As you enter the kitchen and prepare supper, you will "speak a language" that is different from the "language" which you "speak" at your workplace or which scientists "speak" at CERN - which makes perfect sense. And this isn't very far from Nietzsche's perspectivist take on epistemological issues. The world out there (= the nominal chaos) doesn't speak nor it is structured logically or rationalistically. Logic and reason (which both change over time) are tools. Ushta, Dino Von: Alexander Bard An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com Gesendet: 22:29 Freitag, 13.Juli 2012 Betreff: [Ushta] Materia, Energy, Time, and Nature I believe we are discussing very different things, Parviz! You can measure scientifically as much as you like but the things you measure will still be objects of your fantasy. There are no objects in reality. Fantasy is what our perception needs to MAKE SENSE of the chaos that is reality. Immanuel Kant called these fantasies PHENOMENA in opposition to the NOUMENA we can never experience as "they really are". But of course there are differences in QUALITY between fantasies. Some fantasies run well with science (seem trustworthy and even likely), others can be dismissed right away for being proven ouright wrong and impossible by science. Which explains why I for example loathe homeopathy with a vengeance. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/13 Parviz Varjavand Instead of REALITY versus FANTASY, I would say, "Measurable by Science" and " Not measurable by Science". "Giti" and "Minoo", "Physical" and "Mental". Most Giti or Physical things are "Science Measurable" and most things of the Minoo (Mind Realm) are not so perfectly measurable by Science. I like this simple division of Muzdayucna. My two cents worth, I stand to be corrected! Purviz

Inga kommentarer: