1. Enjoyment and pleasure are definitely NOT the same thing.
Pleasure is the opposite of pain.
Enjoyment in the world of philosophy is merely the consumption of
life, the enjoyment of the intensity of living itself. Enjoyment can
be derived from pain as much as from pleasure. It is an existential
experience of the intensity of living as such, rather than anything
specifically pleasurable or painful. Uncontrolled, enjoyment can be
destructive as well as constructive.
In French, the term for enjoyment is "puissance" and the term for
pleasure is "plaisir". I say because most texts on psychoanalysis and
existentialism are French and not English.
2. Zarathushtra stipulates that thoughts preceed words and words
preceed actions. We then beocme the actions we undertake, we are bound
to identify with our actions, which then affect the thoughts we have
in the next generation of the feedback-loop. Emotions are the products
of the feedback-loop but not essential to the loop itself (this is
also the case in contemporary psychology), this is why Zarathushtra
does NOT have emotions involved in this ethics. His ethics are
rational and inherent to the feedback process itself. This is in
accordance with Spinozist and Nietzschean ethics too and opposed to
for example Christian and Muslim morality where the emotional
attachment to "God" or "Allah" is fundamental to the faiths.
3. No, the FUNDAMENTAL positive view on life is not built into every
religion, Quite to the contrary, both Christianity and Islam are
focused on the after-life and see the current life as vulgar and
inferior compared to the after-life. This is why the current world and
life are not sacred to these religions, which it is to Mazdayasna.
Christians and Muslims have always plundered te current world without
regard for its survival while Mazdayasni have always had an ecological
take on nature and our surroundings. Because this is the only world we
have. And it is our world and not the world of a foreign divinity.
2008/12/12 Helen Gerth
- Dölj citerad text -
> Hello all,
> I find that I agree with Ferri's comment for the most part.
> 1) Specifically how are you defining the place of emotion within Mazdayasnan
> thought and practice? Does it have any place at all? As Ferri pointed out,
> this is a nuanced semantic issue and perhaps we are on the same
> 2) "Yasna is all about enjoyment as mandatory and not about pleasure as
> Would you define Yasna in more detail as it is being used here?
> --- On Thu, 12/11/08, Ferri
> From: Ferri
> Subject: [Ushta] Re: Yasna as the imperative to enjoy life!
> To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 9:24 PM
> Well, this is the case with all religions. In which of them did they
> say that you should make it an emotional way of life? It also sounds
> like we are dealing with semantics here. Doesn't pleasure and
> enjoyment go hand in hand?