lördag 3 oktober 2009

Zoroastrianism, pluralism and diversity

Please note that in Mazdayasna the difference between people is not sen primarily as a problem but as an asset, and not only that but as a SACRED asset too. The pluralism of Zoroastrianism is therefore not some kind of necessary evil we have to live with, but sacred and profound in itself. THIS is why liberal democracy - with its endorsement of difference, with its aestethic ethics - is so Zoroastrian as an idea. Not wonder it was the Zoroastrians through Cyrus The Great who INVENTED human rights. Diversity is sacred! (which is also why Zoroastrianism is the only profoundly ecological religion).

2009/10/3 Special Kain

Our conclusions would be guesswork simply because the political and economic systems that we live within didn't exist at the time. We can only see which political and economic systems fit in with the statements and question given in the Gathas and go through different arguments and interpretations. So far I agree with Arthur that liberal democracy seems to fit in with Zoroastrian philosophy as presented in the Gathas.
Yes, it's great to discover links between different schools of thought and understand "the commerce of ideas" (quote Judy), because it's much more interesting and fascinating to compete with ideas rather than big budgets! It also helps us understand Zoroastrianism a bit more everyday and grow intellectually and spiritually. It's this fascination with memetic struggles and how interpretive communities interact and influence each other which motivated me to read books on scientific, philosophical and even parapsychological issues as a teenager. That's why it's fun to see the links between Zarathushtra and Alfred N. Whitehad or Daoism, Charles S. Peirce and Karl R. Popper, Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Weber.
Given that Mazdayasna literally means "worshipping wisdom", it would also mean that everytime someone learns to cope with existence (themselves, other people, their surroundings) more intelligently is a good excuse for another party. ;-)

Ushta, Dino

--- Rory schrieb am Fr, 2.10.2009:

Von: Rory

Betreff: [Ushta] Re: Zoroastrianism and pragmatism: Other Areas: Politics to Economics
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Freitag, 2. Oktober 2009, 22:07

Dear Dino,

Sorry to keep following on later with all this. I feel like a straggler!
Why would our conclusions be guesswork? Surely the same principles apply to these other subjects? Also, can we not intertwine the different neo-Z (thanks for the term Judy) Western philosphies such as American pragmatism and process philosphy with Z beliefs and gathic guidance to "grow" the knowledge to better progress thinking in other areas. It's like having a crystal ball. I know I am already applying bits and bobs in my little world with wonderful results.


--- In Ushta@yahoogroups. com, Special Kain wrote:
> Dear Rory,
> Several months ago I already mentioned Karl R. Popper who had been influenced by American pragmatism, especially Charles Sanders Peirce who happens to be one of my philosophical heroes (right next to Friedrich Nietzsche, Jacques Lacan, Peter Sloterdijk and, most recently, John Dewey). So there's a link between philosophical pragmatism and Popper's contributions to the art of science!
> Since Zoroastrianism is one of the few pro-science religions, we should observe and discuss (if not contribute to) the scientific community - and Popper still is one of the giant figureheads in the philosophy of science! Scientists are professional ashavands, they are actively, creatively and (more or less) systematically pursuing the truth (and also getting paid for it).
> It would be fairly interesting to discuss politics and economics in the light of the Gathas, but always be aware that our conclusions would be guesswork. Politically speaking, Zoroastrianism is a pro-democracy religion, but there are different types of democracy (my homecountry Switzerland is the closest state to a direct democracy).
> Ushta, Dino

Inga kommentarer: