I believe you are - intelligently! - getting closer and closer to the meaning of "freshoketeti".
I would avoid describing freshokereti as an ideal, as it easily invokes misunderstandingsa among westerners, and instead I prefer to regard freshokereti as an ATTITUDE towards life which is the foundation of Zoroastrian ethics. Freshokereti is for example closely related to Spinoza's concept of "joy" as an ethical imperative.
Freshokereti is what your mind is supposedly full of once you have gone through your morning meditations as a bedhin! Oarviz apparently does his meditations while brushing his teeth, his explanation of freshokereti is spot on!
In addition to "making wonderful and excellent" I would add that freshokereti also means "making new, expanding". Newness and expansion, the embracing of change for the sake of change itself, is also Zoroastrian and an integral part of the concept of freshokereti.
Dear Parviz, Alexander, Bahman, everyone,
There seem to be so many greatly varying definitions and explanations for Freshokereti.
Wiki says this: 'Frasho.kereti (fraðô.kərəti) is the Avestan language term for the Zoroastrian doctrine of a final renovation of the universe, when evil will be destroyed, and everything else will be then in perfect unity with Ahura Mazda. The term probably means "making wonderful, excellent".'
Another says this: 'In the final analysis, frasho-kereti is seen as the transformation to an ultimate and ideal future existence both in the material and spiritual existences - the realization of the goal of creation. Goodness will reign supreme over evil. Frasho-kereti is also a time when all human beings will have realized their khvarenah - their full potential in grace. For the living, the culmination of their efforts and the efforts of preceding generations will result in the best possible existence on earth.'
Alexander says 'Freshokereti is the metaphysical horizon against which we value everything and set our priorities in life. As such, it is not some event brought to us by some father figure outsider, but much more the potentiality of our best thoughts, words, actions'.
Parviz says 'I consider Freshokereti more a discipline and an attitude than an ideal'.
Bahmansays:"This eventual triumph of Good over Evil or Ahriman in later Avesta is the Farshogard, of the Gathic Freshokereti. One must mention that some have interpreted the Gathic Freshokereti, a continuous state of rejuvenation and refreshing of the world and not a one time event!"
Wikipedia defines the meaning of "ideal" in ethics as "values that one actively pursues as goals". The POTENTIALITY that Alexander refers to I find can be misunderstood if applied as a goal but I note he describes it as a priority so am not too sure if this is or is close to an ideal or not because it is unclear whether by calling it a priority it is also a goal, I suppose not? It depends on whether with regards these priorities Alexander means we also implement them. On the other hand what I understand Pariviz is referring to is a set of standards and the process of maintaining and implementing them. Bahman's points of the eventual triumph of good over evil also makes sense also possibly as a triumph of order over disorder for example and could be applied in all sorts of ways from evolution to conduction. Can we put a clear definition/description together that we can all agree on? Just so idiots like myself don't get cross-eyed?
I have been reading about the social disorder anomie which you could say arises from a lack of Frashokereti:
Wikipedia says the following:
The nineteenth century French pioneer sociologist Émile Durkheim borrowed the word from French philosopher Jean-Marie Guyau and used it in his influential book Suicide (1897), outlining the social (and not individual) causes of suicide, characterized by an absence or diminution of standards or values (referred to as normlessness), and an associated feeling of alienation and purposelessness. He believed that anomie is common when the surrounding society has undergone significant changes in its economic fortunes, whether for good or for worse and, more generally, when there is a significant discrepancy between the ideological theories and values commonly professed and what was actually achievable in everyday life. This is contrary to previous theories on suicide which generally maintained that suicide was precipitated by negative events in a person's life and their subsequent depression.
In Durkheim's view, traditional religions often provided the basis for the shared values which the anomic individual lacks. Furthermore, he argued that the division of labor that had been prevalent in economic life since the Industrial Revolution led individuals to pursue egoistic ends rather than seeking the good of a larger community. Robert King Merton also adopted the idea of anomie to develop Strain Theory, defining it as the discrepancy between common social goals and the legitimate means to attain those goals. In other words, an individual suffering from anomie would strive to attain the common goals of a specific society yet would not be able to reach these goals legitimately because of the structural limitations in society. As a result the individual would exhibit deviant behavior. Friedrich Hayek notably uses the word anomie with this meaning.
Anomie as a social disorder is not to be confused with anarchy. Anarchy denotes lack of rulers, hierarchy, and command, whereas anomie denotes lack of rules, structure, and organization. Many proponents of anarchism claim that anarchy does not necessarily lead to anomie and that hierarchical command actually increases lawlessness (see e.g. the Law of Eristic Escalation). As an older variant, the Webster 1913 dictionary reports use of the word anomie as meaning "disregard or violation of the law".
--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Parviz Varjavand
> Dear Rory,
> Every morning I Freshokereti my mouth by brushing my teeth.
> I consider Freshokereti more a discipline and an attitude than an ideal.