The reason why Zarathushtra PRACTICES process philosophy (he is the first philosopher of a "will" in human history!) rather than DISCUSSES the issue is because process philosophy only become san issue when it is raised AGAINST deterministic philosophy. In other words: Heraclitus had Plato. But Zarathuhtra had no Plato to oppose since contingency was a fundamental truth rather than an issue of discussion to Indo-Europeans 3,700 years ago. This is why it is so creative and improtant to us to read Zarathushtra through the glasses of the later process philosophers. And as for contingency, it is the very condition of Zarathushtra's ethics: Why else would he ask us to control and direct our thoughts, words and actions??? In a deterministic world, such a PROCESS would be absolutely impossible!!!
2009/9/22 Special Kain
Three statements that require further investigation and criticism:
(1) Zarathushtra was a process philosopher.
(2) Any process philosophy presupposes the issue of contingency: things could have turned out differently, future events are indeterminate.
(3) If things could have turned out differently and future events were indeterminate, this would lead to ethics rather than moralism which is concerned with strict rules and obedience, whereas ethics is concerned with who we are to ourselves and future thoughts, words and actions based on this question of identity.
So we should have a look at how different process philosophers (Zarathushtra, Heraclitus, Whitehead, Dewey, Nietzsche) addressed the issue of contingency. What where their questions and answers?