tisdag 17 juli 2012

Zarathushtra and Kant vs the Abrahamic religions

This is NOT A STUPID GAME! Go and get yourself an Immanuel Kant anthology and start reading. If whatever works when I use whatever to do whatever THAN IT WORKS. I don't need to know for sure there is telephone in my hand who somebody else decided is a telephone for the process to FUNCTION. And function is all there is. Period. You're a damn Abrahamist, Parviz. You believe in objective truth. You believe objects really ARE are the very objects you perceive them to be. This requires a God who made those forms before you could think them. A Yahweh, an Allah, or a God. You don't get Zarathushtra and you don't get Kant. That is the problem. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/17 Parviz Varjavand Dear Alex, The argument began when we talked about "not being sure there is REALITY". How can you be sure that the telephone you are holding in your hand and want to call Jesus with is REAL? How can you be sure the person you are talking to is real? You can not stop this game halfway and on your terms and win. The game of "how do we know anything is real?" frankly works much more to the advantage of persons of Faith than persons of Reason. Reason needs some solid ground of Logos to stand on while Faith is completely at ease in groundless Chaos. Mehr, Parviz --- On Tue, 7/17/12, Alexander Bard wrote: From: Alexander Bard Subject: Re: [Ushta] Fantasy as another name for Reality? To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2012, 2:23 AM Dera Parviz You need to make a difference between how real a perception FEELS and how real a perception IS. This is what Abrahamists don't do. "Because I FEEL Jesus is alive he must be alive. Because I FEEL Muhammed was right, the Qoran must be correct etc". This is of course just nonsense. How a perception feels is NOTHING BUT FEELING, it does not prove anything at all whatsoever. Your feelings might as well be pure hallucinations. Proof of external existence can only be achieved when the fantasy of your perception is TESTED against a reality which you bump into all the time, around you. Like I say to Jesus people who claim Jesus is alive: "Well, just give me his phone number and I'll call Jesus for verification." Since Jesus has no phone number, I can just disregard them and tell them I frankly don't care at all about their Jesus story until I can talk to the Jesus body in question myself. Until then, their fantasy i obviously false while my own fantasy seems to work, is in accordance with asha. THIS is what Zarathushtra meant with asha: "Does it work or not?". Ushta Alexander 2012/7/16 Parviz Varjavand Dear Alex, You say that " a perceptive reality, not a real reality. Whether it is valuable or not is decided on whether it works or not - THAT IS WHAT THE TEACHING OF ASHA IS! " I agree with you fully. I am grateful for your teachings. If you want to know what MY problem is, read on, if not, I salute you and Dino and exit the conversation in full friendship. I see that you are reading on, so here it goes. My problem is with the "REAL REALITY" that is being stressed here in your above quote and in so may words used by you and Dino. Obviously there is no REAL REAL REAL REAL REALITY out there. Yet the realities that work for us are VERY REAL and as you put it, ASHA. When I put on my seat-belt in a car, I am dealing with ASHA to protect myself, I am not looking for "The Ultimate Real Reality on par with the absolute perfection of the lord of the universe Mr. Jahova !". When the policeman catches me for not having put on my seat-belt, I can not get out of getting a ticket by arguing that since there is no absolute reality out there; that it is his perception within the fantasies in his head that putting on seat belts works. That in my perception of workable fantasies erroneously called reality, seat-belts do not work and I do not need to put them on! I use examples dear Alex not to torment you, but this is how I reason. Who uses most the argument that science is really helpless to explain it ALL? Every fundamentalist preacher that wants to prove that his brand of Tooth Fairy should not be dismissed because science does not know it ALL uses this argument. Their Tooth Fairy becomes legitimate because since no one can ABSOLUTELY prove that their Tooth Fairy can not exist, it keeps on existing. Forgive me for being long winded. Yours, Parviz

Inga kommentarer: