The Universe is one big self-organization, part 2

Dear George

1. The difference is not between those who recognize that there is something rather than nothing and those who do not. The difference is between those who think that the fact that there is something rather than nothing is an AMAZING thing and a reason to hold the world as SACRED and those who have just accepted the fact without any emmotional attachment. To BE a Mazdayasni is to belong to the first category.

2. Good!

3. Dino has answered excellently about celebration. It is precisely because we celebrate existence that we are opposed to that which is anti-existence, and fiercly so too. Zoroastrians invented both ecologism and the demand for equality between all human beings (democracy).

4. And here you have them.

5. Zoroastrianism is not a religion, it is a philosophy The word "Mazdayasna" means "those who celebrate the capacity to think", exactly the same word as the Greek term "philio-sophia". In the sense that Zoroastrianism is religious, it is religious just like Spinoza, t is pantheistic.

6. Asha is more than the laws of the universe, it is the laws of the universe operating within the law of themselves. It is a radically ethics concept and this is precisley why we donät translate it since there is no similar concept in western thinking. Open your mind!

7. Zarathushtra! Read The Gathas!!!

Ushta
Alexander

2009/7/22 Georgios Papadopoulos
- Dölj citerad text -



Dear Alexander,
I'm afraid you are not answering to my numbered points. Leaving them like that, we go on:
1. What exactly do you call something (true) or nothing (false)? Is there anyone that denies there is something?
2. I have joined this group because in its description (please change it if it's not valid anymore) it says: "...welcomes friends of the Mazdayasni and other people interested in the world of Mazdayasna. ...the prophet Zarathushtra..."
3. How are we supposed to celebrate existence as it is? I can't celebrate the existence of a planet where wars, fascism, racism, inequality, nuclear power and starvation prevails. If you mean material existence, the universe, I do respect it, and that's why I have chosen to study physics, in order to better understand our world.
4. I am not asking for your respect, I am asking for answers.
5. What are you doing in a religion if you don't believe in any sort of divinity? Why don't you join Buddhism, which is an atheistic religion? What are you doing in a group (Ushta) that accepts Zarathustra as a prophet while you deny that? You don't accept priests and their authority but you have officially converted with a priest! Why would you need to do that? Why do you need a religion at all?
6. How do you understand being "in balance with the laws of The Universe"? As a physicist I can't imagine anyone doing the opposite. The laws of the universe have no ethics in them. What's the moral lesson behind the law of gravity or relativity or quantum mechanics? You don't need any religion to teach you you have to stick on the earth due to the law of gravity...
7. When you refer as "we" (we accept Existence as...), who are "you" and what do you represent? Are "you" the true followers of Zarathustra and everybody else is wrong? Who gave you this authority?

As you see I prefer coherent thought than aphorisms and attacks. Please calm down, think and answer.
Ushta,
George


Dear George

If you don't GRASP the amazement that "there is something" (true) rather than that "there is nothing" (false) then what are you doing here?
Why have you joined a Zoroastrian network to begin with? When Zoroastrianism is all about being amazed at the sanctity of existence?
If you don't want to to celebrate existence as it is, then why on earth have you joined a Mazdayasna network?
Mazdayasna means "the celebration of existence". The name Zarathushura chose for his "religion of choice" says it all.
Humans make plans. There is no reason whatsoever to even consider that there is a "plan for the universe". If you still want to believe there is a plan, fine with me, but don't ever come and ask for my respect in that case. To me, the whole "plan thing" is just silliness. It is the belittleing of the universe as phenomenon.
I don't believe there is a divinity (whatever a divinity is), I ASCRIBE a divine quality to existence. Exactly like Zarathushtra does in The Gathas. Ahura is the title of The Universe as divinity. Mazda is Ahura as mind (manifest through us humans and our minds, our capacity to contemplate existence). To live in accordance with asha (in balance with the laws of The Universe), we accept Existence as our foundation, as our Ahura.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/7/21 Georgios Papadopoulos

Dear Alexander,
1. That's your interpretation (falling in category 1b). 
1a) If we accept the existence of a divinity, we are able accept also the existence of a plan (e.g. the birth of Zarathustra, in order to give guidance to the world). Divinity's plan does not have to be comprehensible by humans.
1b) If we don't accept the existence of a divinity, then there is of course no divine plan.
2. Calling the universe wise does not provide any better description of it. Also calling in Ahura doesn't help either. Why are you so dogmatic ("The world is Ahura whether we like it or not") on this? Is there any evidence in the Gathas that Z. meant the world when he used the word Ahura?
3. Multiple universes is a theory that could be accepted 100% ONLY IF we had a successful theory of quantum gravity, according to Hawking, but this is not the point of our discussion. I still can't understand your phrase about "What is important however to us as Zoroastrians is that there is something rather than nothing". I believe that any reasonable person believer or not, understands that there is a universe and that we are all here. We wouldn't be here without a world, so I can't understand your point here.
4. You wrote all that as a reply to my previous posting, without mentioning anything about the self-organization of our world.


Ushta,
George

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Alexander Bard wrote:
>
> Dear George
>
> 1. There is not a single trace of any planning going on in the universe.
> This is why planning is not an alternative.
> 2. Wisdom is a quality ascribed to something. Science sees no wisdom in
> anything. I CHOOSE to make this ascription, this is what my religion is all
> about, it's about my self-identity, and my choices. As Zarathushtra says our
> RELIGION should be. He was the first existentialist and the first ethicist
> in history. The world is Ahura whether we like it or not, we then ASCRIBE
> Mazda to this Ahura, which is why we celebrate not Ahura but Ahura Mazda.
> 3. The second law of thermodynamics works within a CLOSED universe. But
> hardly any physicists anymore believe there is only one universe. Far more
> likely is that universes come and go, or rather expand out from one another
> into new universes. What is important however to us as Zoroastrians is that
> there is something rather than nothing, so even if this something is in a
> state of entropy, it is still there and it is not a nothing.
>
> Ushta
> Alexander