The problem with metaphysics - and the Zoroastrian concept of free will

Exactly!!!
This was Heidegger's greatest insight (and his Nietzsche books really are brilliant!). Metaphysics does not exist so much because it represents Truth (Asha) but because it is NECESSARY for us to understand the world. So Asha TAKES BODY only through metaphysics. Our sacred Zoroastrian "freedom of choice" must also be understood within this context. It is a different freedom of choice (both a different freedom and a different choice) than normally thought of in western philosophy.
You will be able to read more about this phenomenology of necessity in our work "The Global Empire" (by Bard & Soderqvist) when it comes out in English in 2010. We differentiate between a world of eternalism (metaphysical) and a world of mobilism (non-metaphysical) rather than Kant's old division between the phenomenological and the noumenal. Our understanding of the world is a constant DIALECTICS between these two worldviews, a paradoxism.
- Dölj citerad text -

Ushta
Alexander

2008/12/8 Special Kain

Dear Alexander,

That's quite a challenge, since there will always be much more metaphysics in what we think than expected. We're built to schematise what we happen to experience, because we just have to make sense of the world. Without metaphysics we would possibly be completely lost - and I most certainly know what that feels like, and it's NOT FUN!
It can be argued whether Nietzsche's will to power and eternal recurrence (eternal Parousia, correctly translated) are metaphysical beliefs. Perhaps Heidegger thought so, but Heidegger's Nietzsche studies aren't very reliable (according to Michael Tanner's studies).
There will always be metaphysical beliefs interfering with what we believe to know and what we perceive to be true or false.
All we can do is taking metaphysics for what it is and use the parts of theories that were empirically tested. And that's exactly where pragmatism comes into play.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Mo, 8.12.2008:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The philanthropic principle
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Montag, 8. Dezember 2008, 15:44

Dear Dino
Let's settle then for a SOFT philanthropic principle.
I'm just afraid we are putting more metaphysics into Mazdayasna then there needs to be.
That's all.
Ushta
Alexander

2008/12/8 Special Kain

Dear Alexander,

It just came to my mind and I spontaneously wanted to see what happens when combining Ahura Mazda with that cosmological principle. My mind is my own personal laboratory.
The philanthropic principle does not necessarily run against your two points. And I didn't see it as attributing meaning to before existence, either. All it does is saying that the universe is more benevolent than hostile to us human beings, because we're one and the same. There's no ontological opposition between the universe and the 6 billion people living on this planet. It's a cosmological promise of improvement, accommodation and pragmatic idealism.

Ushta,
Dino


--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Mo, 8.12.2008:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] The philanthropic principle
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Datum: Montag, 8. Dezember 2008, 10:32

Dear Dino

I frankly don't understand where the "all-caring" part comes from.
Again, we seem to be dealing with an Abrahamic attribute that has sneaked in through the backdoor.
I would however subscribe to the attribute "benevolent". Merely the fact that we and the universe exist (rather than that nothing would exist at all) is according to both Spinoza and Zarathushtra evidence of benevolence.
But the all-caring requires almightyness, something which Ahura Mazda is clearly lacking (as I have repeatedly told Mehran who wants Ahura Mazda to be a copy of Allah).

This for two reasons:
1. Ahura Mazda is tied to asha as much as anything else, The Universe can not operate without its own inbuilt laws (asha). This is radically different from the Abrahamic divinities that are not only separated from The Universe but also are capable of overriding its own laws. There is no such room for supernatural activities in Zoroastrianism. Existence as such is sacred and perfect, precisely as it is.
2. Creation is in FLUX, is in constant re-creation, where we are divine co-creators ourselves. There can be no single almighty function anywhere in such a system. Ahura Mazda is the mind of existence, wherever mind appears. That's fine. It's just not Allah or God-Father at all.

I still see Zoroastrianism as the evolutionary religion par excellence. It always was. I would be very careful to attribute "philanthropic" to that though, let's just say it is Darwinian. Attributing meaning to before existence is dangerous, that's precisely where the Abrahamic religions come in through the backdoor. OK?

Ushta
Alexander

2008/12/8 Special Kain

Dear friends,

As far as I know, the philanthropic principle never made a serious impact on the scientific community for reasons that I don't recall, unfortunately. It means that this universe was created so that we could generally get along with it, that our minds and actions matter. Sounds like perfect harmony - and sounds like sarcasm when considering ecological disasters, pandemia and other tragedies. But the point I'd like to make is the following:
Ahura Mazda (as the whole of existence) is defined as benevolent and all-caring. As previously mentioned, there's no god in Zoroastrianism as in Abrahamic religions. Ahura Mazda is the universe, with and within us, all-encompassing and all-pervasive. And if Ahura Mazda is benevolent and all-caring, then Zarathushtra was the first philosopher to formulate the philanthropic principle!
Perhaps I didn't fully understand the philanthropic principle of cosmology. Perhaps I'm gravely mistaken, and the philanthropic principle means something completely different or has already been scientifically falsified. But it would make sense to couple Ahura Mazda (as the benevolent whole of existence) with the philanthropic principle.

My two cents,
Dino