Please note how profound Zarathushtra's chain of causes and effects is:
You talk like you think, you act like you talk, you therefore are what you think in the sense of this being the starting point of a creative process than becomes its own feedback loop.
Therefore, we are MAZDAYASNI, we identify with this process, it is a constant process (non-linear too) of PRODUCING And in this sense CREATING a self, which is never there beforehand to be actualized.
Getting rid of Plato is hard but this is what we must do to get at Zarathushtra's thinking. Which is why so many of us here stress that for westerners to understand this process it often helps to have studied the classic western anti-Platonists first: Spinoza and Nietzsche most of all. They are Zarathushtra's philosophical brethren.
OH OK I Think I get it. It's a subtle difference in thinking. The self isn't being actualized because it is recreated.
--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Alexander Bard
> I think what Dino is trying to say is that "self-actualization" is not a
> Zoroastrian but a modern idea. Zoroastrianism is much more concerned with
> "self-production". There is no self involved here to actualize, there are
> only a series of selfs beung created by ourselves (and our environment) and
> this is what Zoroastrian ethics is concerned with. This is why we can't shop
> our way to an identity as Mazdayasni, we can only think, talk and act our
> way to an ever-changing identity. So while using Rory's terminology, the
> reason why Zoroastrian take to biodiversity so easily is because our ethics
> makes DIVERSITY IN ITSELF a good and desireable thing. Be many, not just
> one. Oh, and by the way, human beings can destroy the planet, we do have a
> responsibility for this. But Nature can potentially destroy nature too.
> Meteorites, volcanoes etc. Could be worth keepibg in mind even if it doesn't
> change our ethical imperative to protect and take care of the planet one