Collective vs Individual - Beyond political opinions...

I agree with Dino.
Judy, please keep NORMATIVE statements separate from DESCRIPTIVE statements.
When Dino and I are discussing how society works, we are describing society. This is in itself not normative or prescriptive. It does not reveal or indulge in any ideology. Marxism and Sociology are two very different things!
I don't share your enthusiasm for Ayn Rand but I have no problem with Randians being Zoroastrians. But to assume that people who believe in pragmatist politics rather than Randianism must lack self-confidence is just stupid. We have just arrived at different beliefs on what is best and most noble politically. Keep people and opinions separate, please!
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/16 Special Kain



Dear Judy,

You have quite a narrow view of collectivism. It is not about Marxism here, it is about tribal animals and their nomadic tribes, settled communities, societies, nation states, virtual networks and such. I guess that Zarathushtra was the first to raise awareness for the matter of sociation in a pre-sociological (or possibly proto-sociological) sense, and sociation is always based on double contingency which is held in check by expecting the expectations of others, thus requiring social norms and values. A good read would be the controvery between Jürgen Habermas and Niklas Luhmann in the early 1970's.

Ushta, Dino

--- Judy Weismonger schrieb am Fr, 16.10.2009:


Von: Judy Weismonger
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The Wrong View of the Principle of Freshokereti
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Freitag, 16. Oktober 2009, 3:45



Alexander... ."collectivism" is nothing more than insect utopianism, that demands that the individual stop thinking for himself/herself. ..and allow the "collective" (what ever that is) to determine their life's existence and thoughts. I don't know where you got this idea of collectivism. ..but it is against all known neurological or genetic concepts...

Human beings are not programmed through our DNA....to function as an ant hill. The idea of collectivism, which you will not allude to...is from Marxist theology. Collectivism does not work, and never has worked...and to attempt to force it to work...means that a "police state" has to be created.

People simply do not like living in a police state....and, to think that one would voluntarily live for more than 30 days in a "police state" is simply ludicrous.

The idea of "collectivism" appears to be your primary agenda, and I fear...must come from primary "need" based on your childhood experiences. Those who are secure in their own minds and thoughts.... and have much self confidence.. .do not NEED to be in a "collective. "

The futurists tell me, that in the near future....there will be groups who voluntarily come together, not so much for permanence or security, as the latter will be arranged through technology, but for common reasons of sharing various ideas and activities. Such groups again will not be permanent, but often such members will float in and out of these groups...as their creative ideas wax and wane, and they seek other stimulation and other creative individuals to be around.

The most difficult part of being in a "Collective" is that in order to sustain itself...either as exampled in Israel or Sweden, a socialist police state that simply "steals" individual's money, time, resources, and products must be created. I call this "theft." A collective cannot survive on the level you seek...without "stealing".. .and if you think that everyone in such a collective will give up their earned income or resources... to work for others 100% of the time, then you do not know much about human psychology. Socialism and the idea of the collective has failed and failed and failed.

The only way such a "collective" can ever be successful is through genetic engineering whereby all genetic "differences" are removed and everyone in such a "successful" collective is more or less a clone of everyone else.

I don't know where you got your romantic ideas of the "collective" but I think that before you go any further with it...especially in wrongly identifying Zism with the "collective, " you need to review the literature that criticizes "collectivization. "

Hugs, Judy

--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Parviz Varjavand wrote:


From: Parviz Varjavand
Subject: [Ushta] The Wrong View of the Principle of Freshokereti
To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 10:29 AM



Dear Alexander,

Let me officially take you off my list of persons I had hope in for the development of a new "Mazdayasna" world view. You are all mixed-up man!? So, in your perfect world, Bahman's friend would not die and live for ever! and it is the aim of your brand of Zoroastrianism to achieve this state some day? So, Ahoora Mazda wanted us to never die, but AHRIMAN somehow sneaked in and is making us die? ASHA for you is that we only keep living, and if we get old and die, this is the work of AHRIMAN and is a DRUJ? You need Jesus for this kind of "Ever Lasting Life", so make a short-cut back to Jesus and do not try to be a Zoroastrian leader in thoughts. You will mess all of us up this way.

Still your friend, but not mentally.
Parviz Varjavand