onsdag 25 juli 2012
Truthfulness vs Truth
I haven't met a single scholar in the past 20 years who translated "asha" as "truth" as the concept of "truth" clearly starts with Judeo-Christian thinking rather than in Iran 3,700 years ago, since people in Iran had a far more scientific approach to the world than in the Babylon where Judaism was born. We seem to live in very different social worlds, dear Ron! Very different worlds. And Zarathushra was concerned 100% with THE MIND and how it operates. He was interested in MENTALITY: so the mentality he describes is a mentality STRIVING FOR TRUTHFULNESS AND HONESTY. But truthfulness is NOT truth! Ushta Alexander 2012/7/25 Park East Security
The problem with your statement above is that Non-European scholars, Zarathushtrians most of them, mostly agree that Asha means truth at least that it is one of its meanings. You are indicting 99% of all Gatha scholars who, at the very least, consider Truth to be a secondary meaning of Asha. . I am sorry but, with all due respect, your credentials cannot be compared to theirs.
Giving that fact, forgive me if i totally disagree with you on this issue..
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:
Christian scholars love to translate Zoroastrian texts to suit their fantasy of Zoroastrianism as a primitive prototype for Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth.
2012/7/21 Park East Security
I would say that at least 100 translators of the Gaathas disagree with your statements below Asha by the way is translated as Truth by many if not most scholars. But hey what do they know right?
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Alexander Bard wrote:
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.
2012/7/19 Parviz Varjavand
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.
--- On Thu, 7/19/12, Mats Andrén wrote:
From: Mats Andrén
Subject: Re: [Ushta] "Asha and Droj"
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!
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.
> Parviz Varjavand