I'm very glad that we agree. You're a clever guy too. Now follow me for a while, let's do the tango...
Zarathushtra says that we should think constructively as to speak constructively as to act constructively. Furthermore, he says that we ARE what we think, we ARE what we speak, we ARE what we act, so we should identify ourselves with our thoughts, words and actions. And that's it. He leaves it exactly at that.
Please note that nowhere does Zarathushtra say WHAT is constructive. Only that our minds etc must be constructive TO US. Consequently, the constructive mentality is dynamic and ever-changing depending on the circumstances. More to the point, it is constructive in a SUBJETIVE sense and a subjective sense only.
Now, values are either absolute (objectively always valid for all times and environments, such as The Ten Commandments) or relativistic (subjectively valid only, and not for all times or for all environments, only for a specific person here and now). The whole point with Zarathushtra's ethics - which does not deal with any values at all, but only with meta-values - is of course that values are subjective precisely so that we can identify with them. We create ourselves!
So what is it about Zoroastrianism being relativistic that you don't understand?
You are indeed a very clever person. Why do you return always to the same point?
1) I agree 100% with you, there is no "good" or "bad" in the Gathas, since these are english words.
2) You made your point and I made mine. When did I claim that there are any commandments in the Gathas? Didn't I agree with you on Zarathushtra being an ethicist and not a moralist?
3) Where did I negate? I just asked a simple QUESTION. It's not a negation! Why do you think it's so bad to ask for help from people that know more than me?
--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Alexander Bard
> Dear George
> 1. The Gathas was written in Avesta, not in English. So there is definitely
> no good or bad in The Gathas. And asha means "constructive mentality" and
> druj means destructive mentality". What is about that that is so hard for
> you to understand?
> 2. Since you so adamantly insist that Zoroastrianism is not relativistic,
> against every Zoroastrian scholar there is, can you please give me an
> example of ANY moralistic commandment anywhere in The Gathas taht would
> prove your point?
> 3. As I have told you before: It would be helpful if you suggest an
> alternative rather than just negating what others propose on this forum.
> Otherwise, our discussions are not getting anywhere. Calling for others to
> oppose me borders on sociopathy and not on intelligence or integrity of
> debate, dear George! Don't call on others, make your own propositions, make
> your own arguments instead, just don't only negate!
> Enough said.
> 2009/12/3 Georgios
> > Dear Alexander,
> > I accept your description of Zarathushtra being an ethicist, but I can't
> > understand WHY ethics must be relativistic. We are different persons, with
> > different ideas and different standards, but does this mean that "good"
> > could be defined differently for all of us? If you accept Mehr's definition
> > about "good" then there is no need for relativity. Something can be dynamic
> > without being relativistic. Evolution of the species is an example of a
> > dynamic state: species evolve and there is nothing relativistic about it.
> > There are no commandments due to the principle of Asha, the eternal law of
> > Mazda. We just warned, but the decision is left to us.
> > I can't read avestan, so I'd like to hear it from the experts: in the
> > Gathas isn't there any mention to good or bad? I've always thought that the
> > motto of the 3Gs belongs to Zarathushtra. I would really like to hear more
> > on this.
> > It's all inside our heads, but we are related to other humans too, so for
> > an action to be good or bad, it's dependent to the effect it has on all of
> > usâ€¦ It's all about actions as well, not just about thoughtsâ€¦
> > George