lördagen den 13:e april 2013

The relationship between Syntheism and Zoroastrianism - a clarification!

This is nonsense, Feraydoon! Here is evidence that the Syntheists very much link themselves to Zarathushtra and regard Zarathushtra as the first Syntheist ever: http://syntheism.org/index.php/2013/03/god-as-community-and-process/ Please read this before you make more prejudiced statements, OK? The point with Syntheism and its foundation in Zarathushtra is of course that Zoroastrians do NOT take Zarathushtra and his teachings seriously but have rather made a mess out of their once beautiful religion by importing loads of inferior Islamic, Hindu, and Christian ideas into Zoroastrianism which should never have been there in the first place. And Zoroastrianism as a whole is stuck in endless, meaningsless, tiring debates on whether to allow converts or not, and the causes of Iranian nationalism (as if Iran was a superior nation and the only nation of interest on the planet). A lot of people are tired of this nonsense and have therefore moved on to Syntheism where they can take Zarathushtra and his universal message seriously. With exception of the wonderful Zoroastrian congregations in Northern Europe, I would say this is a general trend. The question you should ask is not why people like me engage in Syntheism but rather why people born into the Zoroastrian faith have so little interest in their own religion and still remain so hostile to converts. That is where the problems have been all along. Syntheism is already growing at a rapid pace. Syntheists apparently have no problem at all spreading their message. It is Zoroastrians who should learn from Syntheists, not the other way round. Ushta Alexander 2013/4/13 Feraydoon Bahrassa Dear Alexander Neither Zarathushtra's Religion,Nor His Philosophy have been linked to Syntheism as far as know . I think many people want to know and might like Syntheism but trying to create another branch( of beliefs) in zoroastrianism might not be a smooth sailing for you. I recommend to you and your co-Authors to keep the Syntheism out of MadaYasny Zarathushty Religion. Zarathushtra has thought us how to ask a question,think and find the best answer for that question as he himself did. As Parviz has mentioned your Package labled as Zoroastrianism but containing the Products of Atheism,Syntheism,Taoism,Jainism,Buddhism,etc. and naming Ushta for your internet correspondence is not appropriate. Feraydoon -----Original Message----- From: Alexander Bard To: Ushta Sent: Fri, Apr 12, 2013 2:02 am Subject: Re: [Ushta] Evolution and God's properties And Parvizism thinks it has replaced Zoroastrianism, or what? Who cares? Stop these bitter personal attacks on me, Parviz, we are all fed up with your bitterness now! Get yourself a happy life instead, regardless of which new religion or new religious spelling you claim to have invented. I hang out with the Zoroastrians and Syntheists in Scandinavia. They get things done, they grow, they are happy, and they love to collaborate. None of which qualities you seem to be able to muster one tiny bit. However, I must admit I frankly could not care less. Ushta Alexander 2013/4/11 Parviz Varjavand Dear Alex, And Bahaism thinks that it has replaced Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Has it? Why do Jews not become Bahais and still observe the Sabbath? I think you are suffering from "True Believerism" and think that you have found the answer to all of humanities problem in your new cult. There is a beauty in Historical Religions that a "Johnny come Lately" can never posses. Ushta Parviz From: Alexander Bard To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, April 10, 2013 8:20:52 PM Subject: Re: [Ushta] Evolution and God's properties Dear Parviz Syntheism is your brand of Zoroastrianism. Or Arthur's amazing old favorite Spinozism. Same child, many names. But Syntheism is a better name, a different name from the Jafareyian and Parsi-isolationist varieties, so that the three of them never have to be confused with each other again. http://syntheism.org/index.php/2013/03/god-as-community-and-process/ Ushta Alexander 2013/4/10 Parviz Varjavand Dear Arthur, It is so nice to hear from you. I like the points you have made, but allow me to add my two cents worth. To be successful in selling any product, you need to take care of three parts: 1- The contents of the package and what you are actually selling. 2- The packaging. 3- Advertisement and marketing of the package. In selling Zoroastrianism, the first step is what we were working on when we started Ushta. We did not want a Z. that was Vandidad based like those of Parsi's of the Dastoor Kotwal brand and we did not want a Z. like that of Ali Jafarey. We had to do work to put the A.B.C. of what we wanted to say together and ANCHOR IT SCHOLASTICALLY WELL with the ancient texts and rituals of Mazdayasna. Only then I would consider the product worth packaging and marketing. Some persons who love to call me lazy or a fake had no patience with this. They just pushed a package having a Z. brand on it and when you opened it, it was all about something else; "go read Spinoza, go study Thomism, go become a Syntheist, etc. etc.". They are right, the packaging is there, the advertisement is there also, and many persons are buying it too. But the product inside the packaging will eventually disappoint the buyers because it is not rich and wholesome, it is a eclectic mix of many ingredients put together in a hurry for a fast sale. They are right, I am too lazy to start pushing for the sale of such a product. The story of Syntheism is something else and I wish nothing but luck for those working on the contents, packaging, and sale of Syntheism. I am sorry however that now Ushta has become a shop for selling Syntheism instead of our brand of Zoroastrianism. Ushta te, Parviz Varjavand

måndagen den 6:e augusti 2012

The Ethics of Zarathushtra: The torture example!

Who said RESULTS are all we are after? I have said all along that EFFECTS is what we are after. Effects is a very different thing from results. Effects also includes WHO YOU BECOME TO YOURSELF by doing what you do. Zarathushtra's ethical triad of constructive thoughts, constructive words, constructive acts is CIRCULAR. The acts also affect the thoughts! Ushta Alexander 2012/8/4 Parviz Varjavand Is Zoroastrianism an ancient form of Machiavellianism? Ahriman is very intelligent and often can teach us tricks with which we can achieve fantastic results. If results is all we are after, then why call Ahriman names? --- On Fri, 8/3/12, Parviz Varjavand wrote: From: Parviz Varjavand Subject: Re: [Ushta] Asha and Ashavands To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, August 3, 2012, 11:20 PM Torturing is a fantastic tool for cutting down crime rates, so torture becomes Asha, and the more devious ways to administer torture becomes Asha-Vahishta? People like me should come out of the woods and smell the roses. Parviz --- On Thu, 8/2/12, Special Kain wrote: From: Special Kain Subject: Re: [Ushta] Asha and Ashavands To: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com" Date: Thursday, August 2, 2012, 8:37 AM Of course! Von: Parviz Varjavand An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com Gesendet: 16:57 Donnerstag, 2.August 2012 Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Asha and Ashavands Hi Dino, Will water boarding at Guantanamo Prison qualify as Asha? It works and gets results! Parviz --- On Thu, 8/2/12, Special Kain wrote: From: Special Kain Subject: [Ushta] Asha and Ashavands To: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com" Date: Thursday, August 2, 2012, 2:41 AM Dear friends, There are scholars who see Asha as righteousness, truthfulness, the cosmic order (= Logos), natural laws (physics, chemistry) and/or the truth. I see Asha simply as that which works best in any given situation. Thus Ashavands (as those who actively promote what is right) choose to do the right thing at the right time in order to contribute constructively and intelligently to civilization: education, gender equality, religious tolerance, ecological sustainability, ... As the enivornment in which we speak and act changes, Asha as "that which works best" will change with it. Asha unites Ahura with Mazda as their common denominator, as both Ahura and Mazda operate according to Asha. Therefore Zarathushtra's doctrine of Asha is monistic: there is only one Asha. Ashavands take Ahura (= existence, the world as it is) as their starting point in order to contribute to Mazda's growth here on Earth. Asha is long-term thinking based on one's constructive mentality, whereas Druj is one's willingness to cause damage, which will of course harm the short-sighted ones who willingly cause damage. But since their will to hurt others is so great, they will gladly hurt themselves if only the others will be hurt, too. Ushta, Dino

tisdagen den 31:e juli 2012

Why I turn my back on Ressentiment

Ronald Delavega is still Ronald Delavega - a man whose heart is so full of hatred it's unbelievable. Your problem is that I and my kind don't have time for bitterness of your kind in my precious life. I too much enjoy a life where you don't even exist to me and my friends. But feel welcome to keep your one-man-show of Pentacostal Zoroastrianism running. You even disagree with Ali Jafarey on the fundamentals of his and my faith these days. If you wanted to have a vulgarized religion of which you are the sole practicioner in the world ever, you have indeed succeeded. May you enjoy whatever remains of your bitter and resentful religious isolationism. Goodbye! Ushta Alexander 2012/8/1 Park East Security Ushta Alex First you have no idea Zero as a natter of fact as tro what I have or have not studied. second to claim that because you have studied Avesta, which by the way is not the correct name for the language of the Gathas , that being Old Avestan or Gathic, you and only you KNOW the meanings of words whose ACTUAL, as opposed to wished for, meaning is debated by professionals who have studied the language, its philology , grammar, syntax etc for decades while you were busy making $ with your rock band. What fits and how things words imply , to any one with an open mind and even a minor understanding of the nuances and intricacy of languages, not only Right, but Truth, What is correct, and What is Ordered.(or arranged) Furthermore, Zarathushtra was not born in an sterilized egg, kept away from the culture and world views of his fellow Aryans, to ignore he cultural context totally as you seem to do is ... well I rather not offend since it solves no problems. But the fact is, according to overwhelming historical evidence, that, CULTURALLY, to contemporary Aryan, Rta and Arta meant several things perhaps the most important being the Cosm9c Law underlying reality or reality itself It is in that context that it could be thought of , and was as right, truth, what fits what is correct May I humbly suggest, a little humility and tolerance before you pass judgment on what others that happen to be in the overwhelming majority of people PROFESSIONALLY QUALIFIED in the field and whose credentials as scholars far outweigh your own? The question of the meaning of Asha, whether you know it or not, or care to admit it or not, is far from being as easily determined as you state. In reality, considering the many varied opinions of scholars and the nuances of Old Avestan, its antiquity and isolation, its far more likely that Asha would need to be expressed by a number of different words in modern languages and its meaning established contextually. In other words, in some cases Asha might, primarily, be meant as Order, or even Law, in others, as Truth, in others as Correct, and yet in others as Right and/or Righteous As to objective truth and whether it existed or not for the Aryans we can argue a till the sun dies out and still not come to a conclusion there is a lot of evidence , which you conveniently either ignore or refuse to discuss, that in the Gathas there is a concept of subjective and objective truth. That Asha Vahista implies the Asha as conceived and perceived in the Mainyava existence and that it is devoid of falsehood, deceit, illusion and wrongfulness, that is, of Druj. And , at the same time, it is hinted at by Zarathushtra that we are to act choosing Asha as we perceive it here in this plane where Druj can exist, because we cannot fully perceive the nature of Asha Vahishta from House of Druj, that is, from the state of mind where Druj is possible. But then these nuances of the Gathas are lost on persons that claim to have sole possession of the truth. So be it Go ignore context, philology and the very Gathas if you wish , that is your choice Mine is different and both choices will have their consequences and its those that would tell which was Asha like and which one was not.. Ushta te Ron On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Alexander Bard wrote: Contrary to you, dear Mr Delavega, I have actually bothered to learn Avesta myself. So I don't have to depend on hundreds of "authorities" to make up my own mind as to what I believe, Asha means "that which fits" or "how things work". The concept of "objective truth" did not exist in neither Iranian or Indian philosophy but is a Babylonian concept built into the Abrahamic faiths. Zarathushtra is interested in how we deduct what is true, what is correct, from what we LEARN about the world we live in. Otherwise his RELATIVIST ethics would be impossible. It is consequently wrong and misleading to translate asha as "truth". If asha was truth, Zarathushtra and not the Judaists would have thrown the weight of The Ten Commandments on the world. But then again, yours was always a Judeo-Christian form of Zoroastrianism. The problem is Zarathushtra predates the Abrahamic faiths with at least 700 years. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/29 Park East Security Ushta Alex If you have not heard of scholars translating Asha as truth in the last 20 years then you have not read enough :) If you have not met a scholar in the last 20 years as truth then you have not met enough scholars :) If you mean to say that, in the past twenty years, scholars with new translations have not translated Asha as truth, you are still wrong, but more in line with what has happened. Unfortunately since Insler has concentrated in Sanskrit, and his expected revision or new version has not come forth as of yet, one of the best translators has been mute on the point since then. And the only translator worth his salt to have made a major translation, in the past 20 years is Humbach, who supports right for Asha. However, if you dig around his notes, you will find that he does concede that Asha could have a secondary meaning of truth I am now about to acquire the lattest Gatha translation (By an European ) 'The Hymns of Zoroaster: A New Translation by Professor ML West, and I am told, (the caveat is that I have not yet read the book) he openly advocates for an understanding of Asha that contains all the following meanings What is correct, that is what is right and true, the Universal Law of Creation and Maintenance of Existence immanent in everything that exists. Christian thinking, in the translation of Asha, has very little to do with translating it as Truth. It is far more present in the frequent translation of Asha as Holyness and or Holy by many early European translators. There is no so much emphasis on a truth as an independent or even immanent part of God in the Bible Yeshua ( The Salvationor Savior of/from Yah or God) presumably states I am (which literally means Yah) the truth the way and the life no ones comes to the father but through me. That is the main and 1 of the few statements as truth being a part of God in the Bible . The God is the Bible is first holy, then supposedly righteous and love. The God of the the Gathas Is a Supremely Wise Creator and Good Lord of Existence. .Asha is Her/His "son' ('Pta' means father in the original) so is Vohumanah Good Loving Thinking ( The Vo I believe with Taraporewalla, comes from a Sanskrit root meaning desire love, an Aarmaity Her/His daughter. This can more clearly be seen by Anglophone in the feminine of vo which is van and is a cognate of want) But the Bible never affirms that Truth is an imamnent part or Aspect of God, nor that there is an opposite deception/illusion chaos that opposes Truth/Right/Order. It merely says that Yah is truth and that the Salvation of Yah (that is Jesus, the Anointed) is the only way to the "Father". The Bible sees the world as 'fallen' the Gathas see the world as Joy Bringing. Early Xian influenced or Xian practicing scholars tended to more direct and crass errors thatn this, like Holy for Spenta and missing the connection between mainyu and mind. However some of them like, Maria Wilkins Smith, saw this connections Insler saw the conection to truth as well, The Greeks which were the most directly influenced my Medan-Achamenian era Zoroastrianism almost universally refered to Asha as truth. If it were a wrong definition of Asha, something that is not quite certain by far, then the blame would go to the Greeks not to Xian scholars. Then, it is important to know that Gathic has other words that mean right. Arta, for example, is a direct cognate of both English right and Sanskrit Rta. So if Zarathushtra wanted to say right, and only right or even right law, why on earth will he not use the word that is most closly related to right in Gathic, which is Arta instead of its derivative, Asha? Furthermore, when the Achaemenians found themselves with an Empire that extended from Ethiopia to China, they need a 'lingua franca', and they chose Aramean as such a language ,because as in English today, it was the most common language of international commerce. Well the word for truth, certainly, verily is amen. it cannot be denied that amen did not enter the Bible untill after the Persian period. Now if an Aramean speaker (and jews at that time were Aramean speakers) were to hear at least 5 times a day (the 5 Gahs) many re[petitions of Ashem Vohu, would it not then Amen which, at least according to the Greeks, meant almost the same as Ashem, become a prayer word for them? Finally, any Parthian-Sassanian era scholar worth his salt would know two things Pahlavi used a great deal of Aramean words and it used Amen ( called it mostly amin) and it used it as truth. So no I don't think we live in different worlds Alex I think that you are ignoring the linguistics because you think they might disagree with your ideas. THat is your choice, ,but if you cared to pay attention to them you will find many cases in which they could (interpretatively speaking) agree with you. What we disagree on is methodology , that leads us to different conclusions. However, neither you nor I can claim to posses the objective Truth; since that can only be known in the other side of the Chinvat. Or as the quasi Zarathushtrian ( in his better more spiritual moments) Paul said : ":...But when the Complete comes (disregard translations that say the Perfect, the Greek word means Complete) then, we will see as we are seen we will kno as we are known ..." The Complete, by the way, is a literal translation of Haurvatat. Hamazor Ron I have not 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 Ushta Alex 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.. Hamazor Ron 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. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/21 Park East Security Ushta Alex 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? Hamazor Ron 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. Ushta Alexander

söndagen den 29:e juli 2012

How to translate "asha"

Contrary to you, dear Mr Delavega, I have actually bothered to learn Avesta myself. So I don't have to depend on hundreds of "authorities" to make up my own mind as to what I believe, Asha means "that which fits" or "how things work". The concept of "objective truth" did not exist in neither Iranian or Indian philosophy but is a Babylonian concept built into the Abrahamic faiths. Zarathushtra is interested in how we deduct what is true, what is correct, from what we LEARN about the world we live in. Otherwise his RELATIVIST ethics would be impossible. It is consequently wrong and misleading to translate asha as "truth". If asha was truth, Zarathushtra and not the Judaists would have thrown the weight of The Ten Commandments on the world. But then again, yours was always a Judeo-Christian form of Zoroastrianism. The problem is Zarathushtra predates the Abrahamic faiths with at least 700 years. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/29 Park East Security Ushta Alex If you have not heard of scholars translating Asha as truth in the last 20 years then you have not read enough :) If you have not met a scholar in the last 20 years as truth then you have not met enough scholars :) If you mean to say that, in the past twenty years, scholars with new translations have not translated Asha as truth, you are still wrong, but more in line with what has happened. Unfortunately since Insler has concentrated in Sanskrit, and his expected revision or new version has not come forth as of yet, one of the best translators has been mute on the point since then. And the only translator worth his salt to have made a major translation, in the past 20 years is Humbach, who supports right for Asha. However, if you dig around his notes, you will find that he does concede that Asha could have a secondary meaning of truth I am now about to acquire the lattest Gatha translation (By an European ) 'The Hymns of Zoroaster: A New Translation by Professor ML West, and I am told, (the caveat is that I have not yet read the book) he openly advocates for an understanding of Asha that contains all the following meanings What is correct, that is what is right and true, the Universal Law of Creation and Maintenance of Existence immanent in everything that exists. Christian thinking, in the translation of Asha, has very little to do with translating it as Truth. It is far more present in the frequent translation of Asha as Holyness and or Holy by many early European translators. There is no so much emphasis on a truth as an independent or even immanent part of God in the Bible Yeshua ( The Salvationor Savior of/from Yah or God) presumably states I am (which literally means Yah) the truth the way and the life no ones comes to the father but through me. That is the main and 1 of the few statements as truth being a part of God in the Bible . The God is the Bible is first holy, then supposedly righteous and love. The God of the the Gathas Is a Supremely Wise Creator and Good Lord of Existence. .Asha is Her/His "son' ('Pta' means father in the original) so is Vohumanah Good Loving Thinking ( The Vo I believe with Taraporewalla, comes from a Sanskrit root meaning desire love, an Aarmaity Her/His daughter. This can more clearly be seen by Anglophone in the feminine of vo which is van and is a cognate of want) But the Bible never affirms that Truth is an imamnent part or Aspect of God, nor that there is an opposite deception/illusion chaos that opposes Truth/Right/Order. It merely says that Yah is truth and that the Salvation of Yah (that is Jesus, the Anointed) is the only way to the "Father". The Bible sees the world as 'fallen' the Gathas see the world as Joy Bringing. Early Xian influenced or Xian practicing scholars tended to more direct and crass errors thatn this, like Holy for Spenta and missing the connection between mainyu and mind. However some of them like, Maria Wilkins Smith, saw this connections Insler saw the conection to truth as well, The Greeks which were the most directly influenced my Medan-Achamenian era Zoroastrianism almost universally refered to Asha as truth. If it were a wrong definition of Asha, something that is not quite certain by far, then the blame would go to the Greeks not to Xian scholars. Then, it is important to know that Gathic has other words that mean right. Arta, for example, is a direct cognate of both English right and Sanskrit Rta. So if Zarathushtra wanted to say right, and only right or even right law, why on earth will he not use the word that is most closly related to right in Gathic, which is Arta instead of its derivative, Asha? Furthermore, when the Achaemenians found themselves with an Empire that extended from Ethiopia to China, they need a 'lingua franca', and they chose Aramean as such a language ,because as in English today, it was the most common language of international commerce. Well the word for truth, certainly, verily is amen. it cannot be denied that amen did not enter the Bible untill after the Persian period. Now if an Aramean speaker (and jews at that time were Aramean speakers) were to hear at least 5 times a day (the 5 Gahs) many re[petitions of Ashem Vohu, would it not then Amen which, at least according to the Greeks, meant almost the same as Ashem, become a prayer word for them? Finally, any Parthian-Sassanian era scholar worth his salt would know two things Pahlavi used a great deal of Aramean words and it used Amen ( called it mostly amin) and it used it as truth. So no I don't think we live in different worlds Alex I think that you are ignoring the linguistics because you think they might disagree with your ideas. THat is your choice, ,but if you cared to pay attention to them you will find many cases in which they could (interpretatively speaking) agree with you. What we disagree on is methodology , that leads us to different conclusions. However, neither you nor I can claim to posses the objective Truth; since that can only be known in the other side of the Chinvat. Or as the quasi Zarathushtrian ( in his better more spiritual moments) Paul said : ":...But when the Complete comes (disregard translations that say the Perfect, the Greek word means Complete) then, we will see as we are seen we will kno as we are known ..." The Complete, by the way, is a literal translation of Haurvatat. Hamazor Ron

onsdagen den 25:e 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 Ushta Alex 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.. Hamazor Ron 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. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/21 Park East Security Ushta Alex 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? Hamazor Ron 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. 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

Asha as "qualitative intersubjective agreement"

Exactly! And this is called INTERSUBJECTIVE AGREEMENTS rather than OBJECTIVE TRUTHS. Intersubjective agreements are consequently "more or less true" but never completely true and rarely completely false either (although sometimes they are, just being popular, Jesus having walked on water being a perfect example of such an obvious lie many consider intersubjectively agreeable anyway, although obviously not non-Christians like myself). Outside of such tautological agreements as 1+1=2 there are no verbal absolute truths. So "truth" in Zarathushtra's sense ("asha") is that which seems to work after having been tried and tested over and over by many and therefore become a functioning intersubjective agreement. Like a "scientific truth-agreement". Zarathushra understood Immanuel Kant thousands of years before Kant even lived. And Schelling is the giant of German philosophers of epistemology. Recommended reading! Ushta Alexander 2012/7/25 Parviz Varjavand Dear friends, When they say someone is "DERANGED", it usualy means that the person is psycotic or even mad. They keep the seriously Deranged persons in mental institutions and even in padded cells and under lock and key at times. A deranged person may act normal in many instencas, but it is a given that a "Deranged" person is not a "Normal" person. "Reality", "Truth", "Asha", "Sanity", "Sience", and many more key words in our culture and civilisation describe a "RANGE of Agreed Upon Norms". Outside that Range, many things do happen also, but When Not Deranged persons talk about them, it implies usualy that they are talking about things that fall whithin that range. In our discussions about "Asha" or "Truth",etc., many forget that we are talking about this "RANGE" of things and not about the absolute of them. Ushta, Parviz

fredagen den 20:e juli 2012

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