Dinos is saying that change is good in itself.
Dino is right.
Dina is arguing that all change is not good in itself.
But that is not what Dino said.
There is a dramatic difference between saying that "change is good in itself" and saying that "all change is good in itself". Does Dina agree with me here?
Please be assured that I don't disagree with you. All I said was that
change is good in itself, which means that we shouldn't demonize
contingency. Life is unfair, but should this make me feel miserable?
Would it help anybody if I felt miserable? I don't think so.
I didn't say that all outcomes of every change are good or that we
should accept the status quo as it is. If you want to change things
for the better, I don't have a problem with that - quite the opposite!
Because Zoroastrianism is the religion of creative openness: We're
encouraged to actively participate in the creating of this world.
--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, DINAMCI@... wrote:
> Dear Dino,Â
> I doubt that all change is good in itself. Â To give you some
extreme examples: Â Lenin took over control of the Russian revolution
from the Trotskyites and instituted a repressive regime. That was
change. Â Khomeini's intolerant theocracy took over control of the
Iranian revolution from its secular leaders who wanted to institute a
democratic form of government. Â That was change. Â Not all change is
> I also must offer friendly disagreement when you question why we
need a purpose or goal (implicit in the notion of evolving or growing
towards a wholly spenta way of being). Â Acceptance of the status quo
means that we accept all the wrong choices that cause humans misery
and suffering -- injustice, cruelty, fraud, oppression, et cetera. Â I
accept that such things exist, but I cannot accept that I should not
do what I can (in however small a way) to try to change such
destructive conditions, and at least try to alleviate the suffering
they bring about.
> Wishing us the best,Â
> Dina G. McIntyre