lördagen den 31:e oktober 2009

Design vs Manifestation

Dear Jehan

You are clearly a monist, but please note that if you separate the intelligence from the design, you have also separated Ahura Mazda from The Universe. If you however mean that design and intelligence are one and the same thing, you are a monist. But in that case, using and supporting the term intelligent design is a bit unfortunate. It would be better in English to speak of "intelligence manifested". Just a recommendation! Even Hoyle may have been a bit sloppy with his words, or he may honestly have been just a good old Christian dualist.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/30 Jehan Bagli



Daer Parviz:

I am sorry Parviz if I gave you a wrong impression. The intelligent design is just a concept of human thought. It does NOT IMPLY someone up there in the sky is sitting with a potters wheel shaping things to send them down.

As i believe, Ahura Mazda is the absolute Truth, the absolute Purity, the absolute Love and Benevolence. I regard Ahura mazda as the Divine energy that pervades through the Universe. That is the Omnipresence of Ahura Mazda, hence it is in each one, as part of us. Zarathushtra may have anthropomorphized it for the sake of understanding but that is only to bring the concept within the realm of comprehension of the mankind. Fortunately or unfortunately mankind has a wide spectrum of intellectual capacity. In order that everyone can fathom, the concept needs to be dressed in some way to reach the entire mankind.

I hope this clarifies the matter.

Mehr Afzoon

Jehan




On 30-Oct-09, at 6:11 PM, Parviz Varjavand wrote:

>
> Dear Jehan,
>
> You are not giving me a clear answer as to YOUR position such as the one Moobed Kamran Jamshidi gave. So he is the only Monist Moobed we have so far that I know of. You and Mr. Jafarey do also imply that Zarathustra was teaching Intelligent Design and an Ahoora Mazda separate from His/Her creation, that he was a Monotheist rather than a Monist. This is what I gather from your complex post, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
>
> I wish Dina would be kind enough to share with us her views on Intelligent Design. Please Dina, if you read this post, give us an answer as to YOUR view on this.
>
> Ushta te,
> Parviz Varjavand
>
> --- On Fri, 10/30/09, Jehan Bagli wrote:
>
>
> From: Jehan Bagli
> Subject: Re: [Ushta] A question for dastoor Bagli
> To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, October 30, 2009, 1:43 PM
>
>
> Dear Parviz:
>
> I believe that Hoyle was proponent of Order in Nature. He said so in his Omni Lecture to the Royal Society that,
>
> "...biomaterial with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome ofINTELLIGENT DESIGN. No other possibility I have been able to think of..."
>
> Hoyle's mention of INTELLIGENT DESIGN is yet another case of a scientist accepting existence of knowledge/intellige nce beyond the realm of the physical. In a sophisticated manner Hoyle is trying to tell us what Mobedyar from Kerman is telling you in his own way.
>
> The above anouncement only confirms the statement of Hoyle, that you have quoted. These confirm that Hoyle was staunch believer in the Order of Nature. His statements only reinforces the concept of Asha that pervades Zarathushtrian theology.
>
> The concept of Asha that clearly embodies the Truth that is vested in the Immutable Order of Nature demonstrates beyond all doubts the strength of the philosophy of life delineated by Zarathushtra.
>
> Peace and Light
>
> Jehan Bagli
>
>
>
> On 30-Oct-09, at 3:58 AM, Parviz Varjavand wrote:
>
>> Dear Moobed Jehan Bagli,
>>
>> The astronomer Fred Hoyle says, "the likelihood of even the simplest biological cell arising via random process is comparable to that of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747".
>>
>> As a learned Zoroastrian Moobed, what do you think the position of Zoroastrianism is with regards to this issue?
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>> Parviz Varjavand

Why Asha is not intelligent design but rather intelligence manifested

Dear Jehan

Please be warned that Hoyle's enthusiasm for intelligent design finds very little support neither in science nor in contemporary philosophy nor in The Gathas. Science certainly does not need it - the theory of parallel universes is much more feasible than intelligent design - and philosophy does not need it either as Hoyle's Cartesian starting point, that his own ego is the constant for the world, is incorrect. The true wonder is not the that world is what it IS (as if it ever were in a stable state) but rather that the current Hoyle developed rather than not the millions and millions of different Hoyles that COULD have existed in this instance had the current one not. In other words: Hoyle has not even understood what FLUX is, the very foundation of his statement is incorrect. We should also add that nowhere in the Gathas is there any idea that Asha has existence before that through which it manifests itself exists. There is no intelligence before the intelligence manifests itself in Mazdayasna. It is through its manifestation that Asha comes into existence. So The Gathas itself does not support intelligent design in any way. It may be your personal belief, fine, but the belief that intelligent design does not exist is at least as valid in Zoroastrianism. Asha is tje manfestation of intelligence, not the design of intelligence, the intelligence is not separate from the design, it is its own attribute!!! THAT is what makes Asha an amazing concept, otherwise we could all just go and become Muslims or Christians.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/30 Jehan Bagli



Dear Parviz:

I believe that Hoyle was proponent of Order in Nature. He said so in his Omni Lecture to the Royal Society that,

"...biomaterial with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of INTELLIGENT DESIGN. No other possibility I have been able to think of..."

Hoyle's mention of INTELLIGENT DESIGN is yet another case of a scientist accepting existence of knowledge/intelligence beyond the realm of the physical. In a sophisticated manner Hoyle is trying to tell us what Mobedyar from Kerman is telling you in his own way.

The above anouncement only confirms the statement of Hoyle, that you have quoted. These confirm that Hoyle was staunch believer in the Order of Nature. His statements only reinforces the concept of Asha that pervades Zarathushtrian theology.

The concept of Asha that clearly embodies the Truth that is vested in the Immutable Order of Nature demonstrates beyond all doubts the strength of the philosophy of life delineated by Zarathushtra.

Peace and Light

Jehan Bagli



On 30-Oct-09, at 3:58 AM, Parviz Varjavand wrote:

> Dear Moobed Jehan Bagli,
>
> The astronomer Fred Hoyle says, "the likelihood of even the simplest biological cell arising via random process is comparable to that of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747".
>
> As a learned Zoroastrian Moobed, what do you think the position of Zoroastrianism is with regards to this issue?
>
> Yours sincerely,
> Parviz Varjavand

Anti-intellectualism as a threat within liberal societies (was: Zoroastrianism in everyday life)

Dear Dino

Yes, this is correct! Intellectualism is the exact word, it is synonymous with Mazdayasna or Mazdaism.
I guess the best way to foster intellectualism is to train people to separate themselves from their thoughts as to be able to judge them for their own merits (only to then identify with the thoughts you keep, pronounce and act according to). In other words: Identifying with your thoughts, words, actions makes you responsible for wighing the merits of your thoughts before you proceed and turn them into words and actions. Only THEN are your thoughts YOUR thoughts.
Whatever you are, you are your intellect. And precisely because of this is what you think or rather the thoughts you dwell on so important.
Anwar Ibrahim's speech at the Cairo conference was very reasonable, I hope he - as an islamic liberal - becomes the next leader of Malaysia.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/30 Special Kain
- Dölj citerad text -



Dear friends,

Anti-intellectualism is a common experience among students from Swiss universities. It's the dark side of modern liberal democracies. Only because everybody can formally voice their concerns and speak their minds, many people automatically believe that everybody's opinions and sensitivities were equally valid, thus promoting subjectivism and politically correct anti-intellectualism. Yes, I've happened to make this frustrating experience a million times already. And it's tiresome.

What intrigued me about Zoroastrianism is its positive and affirmative attitude towards intellectuals and their pursuits and achievements. Rather than promoting blind faith, it is promoting intellectual integrity and growth, and, for example, celebrating Charles Darwin's and Albert Einstein's scientific achievements or Friedrich Nietzsche's and Karl R. Popper's philosophical and epistemological achievements. Zoroastrianism is pro-science and pro-intelligence. For example, there's no praise of intelligence in any Christian gospels!

It's the belief and confidence in intelligence which John Dewey so highly speaks of as the foundation of cultural and scientific progress and achievements. Freedom starts with the praise of intelligence, it starts with the thought being free. Liberation is inextricably linked with education, intelligence and civilization and starts with interactive learning experiences in order to cope with existence increasingly intelligently and create new possibilities of brand new experiences and new identities.

But celebrating and encouraging anybody's increase in intelligence seems to be a rather lonely pastime. Most people don't share this enjoyment of (intelligent) life, but would dismiss it as the opposite of fun, reducing fun to blind consumerism. I don't know if this is also a part of the difference between the netocrats and the consumtariat?

It seems ironic, but let me please add that Wikipedia (yes yes) has a good and solid article on anti-intellectualism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

Ushta, Dino

--- Special Kain schrieb am Fr, 30.10.2009:


Von: Special Kain
Betreff: AW: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism in everyday life
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Freitag, 30. Oktober 2009, 12:55



Dear Alexander,

Thanks!!!
Zoroastrianism is the TOTAL SUM of how Zoroastrians LIVE in their everyday lives as Zoroastrians. So my question is definitely great and interesting, because we are the thoughts we have, the words we speak and the actions we undertake. Accordingly, Zoroastrianism can't be anything else than the thoughts that Zoroastrians have, the words that Zoroastrians speak and the actions they undertake. It is perfectly logical, it is existentialism and pragmatism combined as one!
That's why I'm interested in the different ways that Zoroastrians are living their lives. But my question is also of a personal nature: the frustrating experience of anti-intellectualis m (when idiots say, for example, that all opinions were merely subjective and therefore equally valid and that philosophers and scientists were hiding in laboratories far away and detached from what idiots call "the real world"). It's what you just happen to experience when you're studying in Zurich.

Ushta, Dino // agrees with Alexander that Islamic liberals should take over the Islamic agenda, but hopefully SOON

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Fr, 30.10.2009:


Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism in everyday life
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Datum: Freitag, 30. Oktober 2009, 11:29



Dear Parviz

I have no problem at all being a sect.
I spent last night with some young homosexual men in Cairo, Egypt and I realise the hardships they live under. The only thing that enables them to survive is their sect-like organisation. Without their lifestyle sect they would have nowhere to go (and still their neighbors in nearby Saudi Arabia live under even worse conditions).
Having said this, I believe we can both be a sect and blend in with other Zoroastrians. We are not alone in our thinking at all. We are just unique in that we try to formulate our ideas so we can present them others.
But Dino's question is great: How do we LIVE like Zoroastrians in our every day lives? For myself, being interested in others (like the young homosexuals in Cairo) and their perspective, and giving priority to art and creativity in my life, those are two things that I regard as Zoroastrian values that I practice.

Ushta
Alexander/is meeting with a lot if Islamic Liberals at the Cairo conference and really hope they can take over the Islamic agenda in the next two decades; they already more or less control countries like Malaysia and Indonesia...

fredagen den 30:e oktober 2009

Zoroastrianism in everyday life

Dear Parviz

I have no problem at all being a sect.
I spent last night with some young homosexual men in Cairo, Egypt and I realise the hardships they live under. The only thing that enables them to survive is their sect-like organisation. Without their lifestyle sect they would have nowhere to go (and still their neighbors in nearby Saudi Arabia live under even worse conditions).
Having said this, I believe we can both be a sect and blend in with other Zoroastrians. We are not alone in our thinking at all. We are just unique in that we try to formulate our ideas so we can present them others.
But Dino's question is great: How do we LIVE like Zoroastrians in our every day lives? For myself, being interested in others (like the young homosexuals in Cairo) and their perspective, and giving priority to art and creativity in my life, those are two things that I regard as Zoroastrian values that I practice.

Ushta
Alexander/is meeting with a lot if Islamic Liberals at the Cairo conference and really hope they can take over the Islamic agenda in the next two decades; they already more or less control countries like Malaysia and Indonesia...

2009/10/30 Parviz Varjavand



Dear Dino,

There is a contradiction in what you say in this your post. You talk about discovering Zarathustra's Philosophy, that is "concepts and terms". Then you say that you do not want concepts and terms and you want to talk about what goes on in Zoroastrians everyday life. About your life, I know all about why you like Berlin and not Zurich, but who cares! I want to know if you ARE a Zoroastrian and if so, what is your life's philosophy that you call Mazdayasna or Zoroastrianism so that I or others may learn it and convert to it. Converts do not want to move to Berlin or Zurich. Our Moobedyar Mehran is a fine Zoroastrian in Kerman and can tell you all about his wonderful life there illustrated with photos and all. It is the Philosophy behind what he calls Zoroastrianism that does not work for me, otherwise I love him as a person. When I do not care about a persons philosophy of life, why should I bother about knowing how he/she spends her hours and days.

Please do not post an answer in retort and just to get even with me (you often do that). Think about what I am saying. For a while now, Alex and you keep making declarations about Zoroastrianism this and Zoroastrianism that while it is not clear what the parameters of your sect of Zoroastrianism is. Yes, I said SECT, because if we do not resemble the rest of Zoroastrians, we are a Zoroastrian SECT. Alex talks as if it is a sin to be a SECT within a religion, it is not. If the Quakers where not a Christian SECT, the Catholics would swallow them whole. Alex and you and I have work to do in order to make the platform of our SECT of Zoroastrianism solid. We are not doing this and instead we "Just want to blend in". This is like blending oil and water, it will not work, it will just pollute both.

Ushta te,
Parviz Varjavand


--- On Thu, 10/29/09, Special Kain wrote:


From: Special Kain
Subject: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism in everyday life
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, October 29, 2009, 12:58 AM



Dear friends,

Rather than brooding on concepts and terms, I'd like to start discussing Zoroastrianism as a practice in everyday life: how Zoroastrians employ such concepts in different situations, how problems can be solved, if there was any significant change in one's conduct of life after having discovered Zarathushtra' s philosophy etc.

Ushta, Dino

onsdagen den 28:e oktober 2009

East vs West: A few words about WORDS Part 3

Dear Dino

My point is that Socrates said the same thing: He hated written language and was sure it turned us into sloppy thinkers and de-spiritualized human beings. The irony of course being that Plato then wrote down Socrates' critical words and spread them through written language, turning Socrates into one of the greatest thinkers of all time in the process.

So I'm just not sure THIS is where we find a difference between east and west. More interesting is how they may have influenced each other (the origins of Zen in Zoroastrian Central Asia, for example) and how surrounding material conditions may have influenced them and their potential differences. I'm personally tired both of the idea that Greece is the origin of philosophy (it clearly is not) and that there is a mysterious East full of "wisdom", another myth we need to get rid of. Since when did wisdom have anything to do with mysticism to begin with? Shouldn't wisdom instead be all about clarity???
- Dölj citerad text -


Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/28 Special Kain

Still, the fact that there ARE Daoist scriptures that actually can be READ and STUDIED doesn't say anything about Daoist philosophers' critical (and often ironic) thoughts about language. It seems inconsistent, but makes perfect sense when applying memetics to the situation: in order to spread the message that language can't mirror the supreme reality you have to speak and write. And that message "wants" to be replicated and penerate people's minds.
It's a breathtaking generalization, but most philosophical essays are full of such generalizations and outrageously bold claims - which makes philosophy so interesting and controversial! (Because philosophy should be controversial and challenge one's ingrained ideas.) And I want to see whether it's correct and where this thought will take me.
What you've said about monism and dualism as expressions of different ecological and cultural environments is exactly what I had in mind, too. But I just hoped to find a more fascinating explanation that's different from mine and would teach me something new. ;-)

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Mi, 28.10.2009:


Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] East vs West: A few words about WORDS
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Mittwoch, 28. Oktober 2009, 21:57



And still, how do we know Dao-de-jing's thoughts, if not through his texts, his language?
Zarathushtra doesn't have a langauge theory since he lived in a pre-linguistic environment. He probably had no idea his ideas would one day be discussed from a text called "The Gathas". Which I find rather liberating! Zarathushtra could for one not have been cynical in any way and that is so attractive.
Monism and dualism? I believe that in cosmopolitan cultures, monism becomes the only credible option. But if you build a civilization in a desert oasis, organization is everything and the organization of an upper class of landowners versus an under class of slave-peasants becomes the norm, this is what happened in both Mesopotamia and Egypt. The result: A dualist worldview! Top and bottom becomes the metaphor for soul vs body, God vs Man, heaven vs earth, after-life vs current life etc.
These dichotomies permeating existence find no place in a cosmopolitan culture full of pluralities rather than dichotomies. So there instead monism (God as that which unifies all disparities) becomes the norm. Such as Brahmanism in relation to Hindu culture. I don't see Iranian culture as being any different here.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/28 Special Kain



Dear Alexander,

As far as I know, Indian and Chinese philosophers and religious practitioners are as obsessed with their texts as we westerners tend to be with ours. How about the Bahagadvad Gita for a start?

There it says that the creator can't be expressed in words. Also look at the Dao-de-jing: "He who knows doesn't speak, he who speaks doesn't know." As if language was pushing us even further away from the supreme reality behind the curtain, while pragmatists and existentialists (and also Zarathushtra, as far as I know) would say that language would enable us to enrich our existence and co-create our social identities. Even though I love Daoism, it seems to be a little anti-civilizationis t at times (like Diogenes).


And the idea that texts alone without religious practice does not amount to much is not really eastern.

Where did I say so? I've only made a statement about language in eastern and western philosophies.

Why would westerners otherwise have built monasteries where religion was supposedly practiced in minute detail? St Paul was adamant that texts without practice was useless. I just don't think there is that much difference here between "western" and "eastern" and as the "go-betweens" historically between east and west, perhaps a more radical Zoroastrian view would be that there is very little difference here between east and west, the balances between philosophy, poetry and practice being almost identical.

See, I don't believe in ontological differences, I don't buy into Kant's distinction between the phenomenal and the noumenal. When it comes to such ontological differences I agree with Nietzsche's post-ontology. And I also agree with Rorty that philosophy is nothing but cultural politics without participating in sloppy anti-intellectualis m. Because I see anti-intellectualis m as anti-progress and anti-liberation.

What strikes me as a more radical difference is the roots in desert culture of western thought (with its focus on dualism) and the roots in early cosmopolitan culture of eastern thought (resulting in monism). The divide within Zoroastrianism is here clearly a divide between east and west.

Yes, I've always been fascinated with this difference, since different surroundings apparently shape philosophies and religious beliefs (words and beliefs as a means to control the environment and predict future events). It would be great to learn about the difference between deserts creating dualism and cosmopolitan cities creating monism. It would be even more fascinating to tie this in with what I said about the value and function of language in different parts of the world.

Alexander/don't know if I would agree with Rorty either that Nietzsche failed as a poet, "Also Sprach Zarathustra" is hardly a failure...

I don't know the Swedish translation, but the German original is awful. ;-))

Ushta,
Dino // hearts "The Gay Science" the most

East vs West: A few words about WORDS Part 2

Dear Dino

As far as I know, Indian and Chinese philosophers and religious practitioners are as obsessed with their texts as we westerners tend to be with ours. How about the Bahagadvad Gita for a start? And the idea that texts alone without religious practice does not amount to much is not really eastern. Why would westerners otherwise have built monasteries where religion was supposedly practiced in minute detail? St Paul was adamant that texts without practice was useless. I just don't think there is that much difference here between "western" and "eastern" and as the "go-betweens" historically between east and west, perhaps a more radical Zoroastrian view would be that there is very little difference here between east and west, the balances between philosophy, poetry and practice being almost identical. What strikes me as a more radical difference is the roots in desert culture of western thought (with its focus on dualism) and the roots in early cosmopolitan culture of eastern thought (resulting in monism). The divide within Zoroastrianism is here clearly a divide between east and west.

Ushta
Alexander/don't know if I would agree with Rorty either that Nietzsche failed as a poet, "Also Sprach Zarathustra" is hardly a failure...

2009/10/28 Special Kain



Nietzsche tried to use poetry, but he failed. Heidegger tried to use poetry, but he also failed. So, according to Rorty, only Derrida succeeded. But I'm not that much into Derrida, so I disagree with Rorty.
I guess that philosophy and poetry are kept separately in eastern philosophy or, at least, the same "disinterest" in language was also applied to poetry. Whether it's a philosophical essay or a beautiful poem doesn't really matter as long as the supreme reality behind the curtain is seen as something that can't be translated into words. It's a mystery that requires silence.
In western philosophy, you have two options: either representationalists or pragmatists (to make things as simple and stupid as possible). Representationalists probably believe that words will depict reality (the philosophical mirror) or create a second reality (poetical self-creation). And pragmatists believe that both philosophy and poetry can't be defined ontologically, but only as social practices with different social effects - and that words can't depict reality, but only create new possibilities of experience. That's why Rorty seemed to be much more interested in novels than philosophical books as our moral guides.
So there's still a difference between western and eastern philosophies when it comes to the value of language. And there's a difference between representationalists and pragmatists when it comes to the functions of language (either a mirror or a new tool).

Ushta, Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Mi, 28.10.2009:


Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] A few words about WORDS
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Mittwoch, 28. Oktober 2009, 17:19



Good questions!
But where do you place Philosophy's great twin in all this, namely Poetry???
I believe it is meaningless to speak of Language as Philosophy only.
Poetry is at least as important.
Especially as most religious texts, like The Gathas, were always intended to be consumed as poetry far more than philosophy. And consequently should be read as such. Please compare with the great ancient texts of India and China if you like.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/28 Special Kain



Dear friends,

The three ideals in Zoroastrian philosophy are good thoughts, good words and good deeds. Now let's have a closer look at the second ideal: speaking good words. It is interesting to note that LANGUAGE has always been of great importance in western philosophy and of less or no important at all in eastern philosophy, such as Chinese philosophy (Daoism and Confucianism) , Buddhism and Hinduism.

While many great western thinkers repeatedly stressed the importance of words as an instrument of socialization and a tool to constitute our socially shared reality, just think of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre (especially his book on Flaubert and the famous French writer's delayed linguistic development) , Wittgenstein, Rorty, postmodernists and what's known as The Linguistic Turn, Daoists and Buddhists don't think of language so highly: words only clouden the supreme reality, words can't touch its essence, they're merely distracting, so SILENCE is required in order to discover the truth of all things.

So Zarathushtra stressing words as equally important as thoughts and deeds, Zoroastrianism definitely shares the same fascination with language as western philosophy. Any comments, feedback, corrections?

Ushta, Dino

East vs West: A few words about WORDS

Dear Dino

As far as I know, Indian and Chinese philosophers and religious practitioners are as obsessed with their texts as we westerners tend to be with ours. How about the Bahagadvad Gita for a start? And the idea that texts alone without religious practice does not amount to much is not really eastern. Why would westerners otherwise have built monasteries where religion was supposedly practiced in minute detail? St Paul was adamant that texts without practice was useless. I just don't think there is that much difference here between "western" and "eastern" and as the "go-betweens" historically between east and west, perhaps a more radical Zoroastrian view would be that there is very little difference here between east and west, the balances between philosophy, poetry and practice being almost identical. What strikes me as a more radical difference is the roots in desert culture of western thought (with its focus on dualism) and the roots in early cosmopolitan culture of eastern thought (resulting in monism). The divide within Zoroastrianism is here clearly a divide between east and west.

Ushta
Alexander/don't know if I would agree with Rorty either that Nietzsche failed as a poet, "Also Sprach Zarathustra" is hardly a failure...

2009/10/28 Special Kain



Nietzsche tried to use poetry, but he failed. Heidegger tried to use poetry, but he also failed. So, according to Rorty, only Derrida succeeded. But I'm not that much into Derrida, so I disagree with Rorty.
I guess that philosophy and poetry are kept separately in eastern philosophy or, at least, the same "disinterest" in language was also applied to poetry. Whether it's a philosophical essay or a beautiful poem doesn't really matter as long as the supreme reality behind the curtain is seen as something that can't be translated into words. It's a mystery that requires silence.
In western philosophy, you have two options: either representationalists or pragmatists (to make things as simple and stupid as possible). Representationalists probably believe that words will depict reality (the philosophical mirror) or create a second reality (poetical self-creation). And pragmatists believe that both philosophy and poetry can't be defined ontologically, but only as social practices with different social effects - and that words can't depict reality, but only create new possibilities of experience. That's why Rorty seemed to be much more interested in novels than philosophical books as our moral guides.
So there's still a difference between western and eastern philosophies when it comes to the value of language. And there's a difference between representationalists and pragmatists when it comes to the functions of language (either a mirror or a new tool).

Ushta, Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Mi, 28.10.2009:


Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] A few words about WORDS
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Mittwoch, 28. Oktober 2009, 17:19



Good questions!
But where do you place Philosophy's great twin in all this, namely Poetry???
I believe it is meaningless to speak of Language as Philosophy only.
Poetry is at least as important.
Especially as most religious texts, like The Gathas, were always intended to be consumed as poetry far more than philosophy. And consequently should be read as such. Please compare with the great ancient texts of India and China if you like.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/28 Special Kain



Dear friends,

The three ideals in Zoroastrian philosophy are good thoughts, good words and good deeds. Now let's have a closer look at the second ideal: speaking good words. It is interesting to note that LANGUAGE has always been of great importance in western philosophy and of less or no important at all in eastern philosophy, such as Chinese philosophy (Daoism and Confucianism) , Buddhism and Hinduism.

While many great western thinkers repeatedly stressed the importance of words as an instrument of socialization and a tool to constitute our socially shared reality, just think of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre (especially his book on Flaubert and the famous French writer's delayed linguistic development) , Wittgenstein, Rorty, postmodernists and what's known as The Linguistic Turn, Daoists and Buddhists don't think of language so highly: words only clouden the supreme reality, words can't touch its essence, they're merely distracting, so SILENCE is required in order to discover the truth of all things.

So Zarathushtra stressing words as equally important as thoughts and deeds, Zoroastrianism definitely shares the same fascination with language as western philosophy. Any comments, feedback, corrections?

Ushta, Dino

A few words about WORDS

Good questions!
But where do you place Philosophy's great twin in all this, namely Poetry???
I believe it is meaningless to speak of Language as Philosophy only.
Poetry is at least as important.
Especially as most religious texts, like The Gathas, were always intended to be consumed as poetry far more than philosophy. And consequently should be read as such. Please compare with the great ancient texts of India and China if you like.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/28 Special Kain



Dear friends,

The three ideals in Zoroastrian philosophy are good thoughts, good words and good deeds. Now let's have a closer look at the second ideal: speaking good words. It is interesting to note that LANGUAGE has always been of great importance in western philosophy and of less or no important at all in eastern philosophy, such as Chinese philosophy (Daoism and Confucianism), Buddhism and Hinduism.

While many great western thinkers repeatedly stressed the importance of words as an instrument of socialization and a tool to constitute our socially shared reality, just think of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre (especially his book on Flaubert and the famous French writer's delayed linguistic development), Wittgenstein, Rorty, postmodernists and what's known as The Linguistic Turn, Daoists and Buddhists don't think of language so highly: words only clouden the supreme reality, words can't touch its essence, they're merely distracting, so SILENCE is required in order to discover the truth of all things.

So Zarathushtra stressing words as equally important as thoughts and deeds, Zoroastrianism definitely shares the same fascination with language as western philosophy. Any comments, feedback, corrections?

Ushta, Dino

tisdagen den 27:e oktober 2009

Parviz's love affair with the Jinns

Dearest Parviz
Isn't the Jinns what we call Second World today?
Try secondworld.com for Jinns!
The internet has given you what you desire.
And since the internet is created by humans, does this not once and for all make us humans the creators of Jinns and thereby also the co-creators of existence?
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/27 Parviz Varjavand

My love affair with the Jinns

I am in love with the Jinns and I need to prove that they exist. It must be that I fell in love with a Jinn girl at an early age, and she also fell in love with me, but living in two different spheres of reality, we could not connect and find each other. Tales of Jinns and humans trying to connect are abound here in Yazd where I am now. As a result, any argument that anybody uses by which the existence of Jinns can also be proved, I will latch on to and not let go. You can not have your "Other Realities" without me having a chance to connect with my Jinn lost love.

Still trying to find my Jinn girlfriend,
Parviz Varjavand

Why bother with Zoroastrianism?

For me, as a westerner who has converted to Zoroastrianism, the answer to this question is easy:
If Zoroastrianism did not exist, we would have to invent it. So if it ceased to exist, we have to reawaken it.
I could easily see a Spinozist religion as an alternative. But since there is already a Zoroastrian religion, there is no need for a separate Spinozist faith. That's my ten cents.
However, an isolated Parsi inbred community is an entirely different matter. This is something we have to prepare for doing without. That community is slowly killing itself. But Zoroastrianism is and always was a lot more than Parsi isolationism.
To begin with, there is now a growing Parsism which is not isolationist. Sooner or later, it will take over in Indian Zoroastrianism.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/27 Parviz Varjavand



Dear Bahman,

Mr. Khojeste Mistry uses this same argument of yours, yet his Zoroastrian reality is not mine anymore. If you try to not use the Doxma for the dead, he feels you are killing all that "HIS" Zoroastrianism is all about. So we need to define WHAT Zoroastrianism are we talking about. Parts of Zoroastrianism is dying every day, yet other parts of it are coming to life too. This is Freshokerti to me, having a religion that is alive and not afraid of being alive and changing. Please define your version of Zoroastrianism so that we may have more of a feel for it before we start shedding tears about its death.

Ushta te,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Mon, 10/26/09, Bahman Noruziaan wrote:


From: Bahman Noruziaan
Subject: [Ushta] Why bother?
To: "Ushta Ushta" , "mainstream main" , "Mazdayasna Mazdayasna"
Date: Monday, October 26, 2009, 7:44 PM




Is Zoroastrianism worth surviving, I have asked myself times and again?



This I believe is the most essential question that any Zoroastrian whose heart and soul is longing for the continuation of this old and ancient tradition, should be asking and answering.



Why, Zoroastrian tradition and religion is worth surviving? What will happen, if and when no more practicing Zoroastrian remains on the face of the Earth?



At times when I hear on the news that a prominent actor, a musician, an artist, a writer, a philosopher, a scientist, a singer, a poet, a person with elevated soul has passed away: I wish that had not happened. I think and feel that the world is from now missing a great soul, a creative individual, a man or a woman who could still have contributed through his or her talent and acts and words for the betterment of the world. I guess, not many, if any, would feel and think the same if and when one day I depart from this world.



How about us collectively? How about Zoroastrian heritage and tradition that is still living among the 200,000 or so scattered souls in various corners of the globe? Will the world lose a worthy and distinguished part of its existence, like losing a great soul, when there is no more Zoroastrian remaining; or there world will not see a big loss like when an ordinary individual is gone?



Have you thought about this? Have you pondered on this question? Do you have your answers for this question? Are we, as Zoroastrian community worth surviving? What is our most significant contribution to the world that makes us worthy of being around? What is the biggest loss for the world and humanity, if and when no more Zoroastrian prayers are recited and no more flames of our fire do their dance of life in our Atash Bahrams?



What is it that we bring to the table as they say; that others are not having? After all, if other living religions and beliefs are leading humanity to the same path, then why bother keeping this tradition alive? Why not join the bandwagon of a much larger community of hundreds of millions and do contribute to the progress of the world with much larger pool of resources, material and human?


Why bother?



Regards

Bahman

John Dewey, Education and the Internet

As long as we connect to Zoroastrianism, there is no issue we can't discuss. And Education would certainly be a very Zoroastrian theme. I was shocked at hot well educated Zoroastrians were the first time I met them as a group. This is an achievement we should be very proud of, also that girls are as well eduacted as boys among Zoroastrian children.
As for John Dewey's ideas on education, he was popular in Scandinavia in academics already in the 1970s and while he was right about many things, when practiced, his pedagogics seems to have been too "sloppy" to really work on a larger scale. Schools became chaotic and less efficient and parents and politicians eventually preferred a return to a more traditional academic model with grades to the kids every semester etc.
But I guess there is now a swing back to Dewey's ideas, not necessarily though as pragmatist as the rest of his philosophy, but rather more specualtive (and interesting precisely because of that, may I add).
Ushta
Alexander/giving a keynote speech on education and technology at the Liberal World Conference in Cairo this Friday...

2009/10/26 Special Kain



Since John Dewey wrote extensively on education, wouldn't it be interesting to see where and how his thoughts could be applied to the current shift to online mass-interactivity, knowledge-sharing platforms and the new role of academics, teachers, lecturers and the intellectual elite in the netocratic global society? Or would this be too far away from the focus of Ushta and not "Zoroastrian enough"? At least, his views on education were close to Zarathushtra's approach to freedom through proto-democratic civilization as the context of interactive learning experiences.

Ushta, Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Mo, 26.10.2009:


Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] It's fun again!
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Montag, 26. Oktober 2009, 18:54



I'm not a Randian myself but many Zoroastrians are or at least take inspiration from Ayn Rand's writings. Fine with us all!!!
But as Zoroastrians we all have to respect that when we join a 3,700-year-old tradition and culture, agreeing to disagree on many matters is key. Instead we cherish and hold our variety of ideas as sacred. So do all decent Randian Zoroastrians too.
It is the disrespect of that fundamental insight which is unacceptable. For tolerance to thrive we have to be intolerant towards intolerance. And Judy's constant attacks and labeling of "communism" anything or anybody who disagreed with her the slighest was of course totally unacceptable. Especially as she frankly did not understand what people were talking about. At the end of the day, Ushta is a Zoroastrian forum and at least a minimal interest in Zoroastrianism is of course a requirement. To be honest, we are certainly not the first internet forum to tell Judy Weismonger she had overstayed her initial welcome.
Ushta
Alexander

söndagen den 25:e oktober 2009

Freshokereti, Haurvatat, Death

Individual existence as a temporary exception from the bigger whole of complete existence is fundamental to all Indo-European thought, whether it be Mazdayasna, Brahmanism and most forms of Paganism. This is why I refer to death in Zoroastrianism as the "return to the world-as-one". Jehan has a similar or even identical understanding. Spinoza (and Deleuze) would happily have agreed. Even Slavoj Zizek does. ;-)
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/24 Rory



Dear Dino,

I beg to differ. It is not the end but rather the end of us as individual conscious beings. Our constituent parts, our dna, our compressed energy if you like become a part of the whole again and "return to the mother".


Ushta,
Rory

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Special Kain wrote:
>
> Dear Rory,
>
> Oh, sure, death is THE end, there's no doubt about it! I've never said that one's life would continue after one's death. We'll be remembered and referred to, our ideas will probably live on in the minds and actions of others, but there's no afterlife as New Age esotericism or Christianity would have it.
> But what's a positive end as opposed to a negative end?
>
> Ushta, Dino

Freshokereti and Haurvatat

Dear Rory, Jehan, Dino

Haurvatat is indeed a STATE OF BEING and one that we can, if only briefly, reach in our everyday lives. Haurvatat is when our thinking, our speaking and our acting is in harmony with who we think we should be to ourselves. It can occur during an everyday activity, for example during gardening. Therefore the translation of Haurvatat as "perfection" is unfortunate as it points us in the wrong direction in English. You are all three consequently right!
So we should stop think "Haurvatat " as an Abrahamic concept (as an eschatological concept), which it obviously is not. Haurvatat is instead the Zoroastrian ethical ideal, closely related to "freshokereti". I have often proposed (and will do so again) that we refuse to translate haurvatat (like I would prefer people not to try to translate asha and amordad) as to instead force westerners to think fresh and new (the way they do with the Chinese concepts of dao, yao and ying and the Indian concept of kharma).
This does not mean that "death" can not be "haurvatat", I think it very much is (in a Deleuzian way, exactly like Dino has described it) but it's a description on which I would be happy to disagree with other Zoroastrians for now. The poetic description of death as "the return to the world-as-one" or "the part of the whole" as Jehan says, points us in this direction, according to me. Death is after all the horizon against which we enjoy life to its fullest and that which provides us with (the proper and not subordinated) humility towards Ahura in everything we do. So haurvatat would be better translated as "completeness in our humanity" than as "perfection".

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/24 Jehan Bagli



Dear Rory:

Please let me clarify the situation.

When I wrote last about this aspects of Mazda, I explained Haurvatat as follows:

Haurvatat is the fulfillment of the spiritual manifestation that leads to the harmony, to the Oneness of the physical personality, with the innate spiritual, to bring forth wholeness/completeness of Haurvatat. It is indeed as you said ….. actually our return to a part of the whole.

I do NOT see the association of Haurvatat or completeness with the concept of death. My understanding of Haurvatat is a state of being that mankind must tend to achieve in this corporeal life. To work and tend towards, the realization in thought, words and actions, the Good rule (Vohu Khshthra) that is achievable through Truth (Asha) and Good thinking (Vohu Manah) in the corporeal existence. Mankind must tend to completeness or wholeness, to attain the Oneness of the innate Divine energy with the physical.

Zarathshtra in his hymns barely speak about death. The term death is only used just once (Ys 53.8) in the Gthas and that too in context of his hope to conquer the phenomena. I understand death as a transition and not a completion of life. Yes, it is the end of material existence, but to me, it is the end of the terrestrial and the beginning of the celestial journey of life. The organic return to water and carbon dioxide, the inorganic returns to earth and then there is the Mental/Spiritual that as I see continues the life. Here Perhaps I may find disagreement with views of others on Ushta. However that is a part of Zarathushtra's teaching. It is the concept of winning death over (Ys 53.8) that Zrathushtra expresses in the aspect of A-meretat (non-death-ness) when time may stand still. This can happen in microcosm for an individual and in the macrocosmic fashion for the entire humanity. That is when the corporeal existence will evolve to a level where it will be one with Mazda.

Peace and Light

Jehan

On 24-Oct-09, at 11:29 AM, Rory wrote:

> Dear Jehan (and friends),
>
> Many thanks, you're clear explanations are very enlightening. They are themselves even more thought provoking I'm afraid!
>
> I agree with Dino's comment that one enters the realm of eschatoloy when discussing Haurvatat as meaning the end of time and the idea of a resurrection. The question is whether our own end of time at our death is a microcosm of the end of time in all existence and whether the completeness/perfection/wholeness applies to all and of course, most importantly, what this "completeness" could actually be?
>
> It may sound like lunacy to some, especially modern minds, but it is quite easy to see how the ancients could logically (in their minds) have arrived at a doctrine of resurrection if one believes in a doctrine of "completeness". If death was seen as a "lack of" or some form of "incompleteness" then it would be reasonable if one believes in a doctrine of final completeness that a final completeness of the universe would logically have meant the individual also being made whole/complete/perfect again. One's own time would stand still at death whilst the time of all existence would continue till reaching an entirety of Haurvatat which would, in order to be complete have to include completeness also of man's mind and body and thus to achieve this resurrection would be "necessary". And if resurrection becomes "necessary" one can then see the need for a "resurrector" and so on...
>
> What if the completeness is actually our return to a part of the whole? In other words, not resurrection but death itself is Haurvatat? I hope I am making sense! Was the idea of resurrection possibly a later misunderstanding? Is/was this idea of death as Haurvatat via a return to the whole via death itself believed by any Zoroastrians?
>
> Also, could the instant of death be the actual "eternity" some believe in whereby time stops at that instant? Do they see eternity as never ending time or time itself being stopped/frozen? If at the instant of death our own time stops then that instant in some minds could actually be an instant of eternity? I don't necessarily believe this myself but am trying to understand how these ideas came in to being and why they persist unless there is a deeper meaning I don't myself understand.
>
> Ushta and thanks again,
>
> Rory
>
> --- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Jehan Bagli wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Rory:
> > You have some very thought provoking questions let me attempt to
> > handle them one at a time.
> >
> > Here I am taking your first and last question together.
> >
> > what is the key message of Farshokereti and is it in conflict with
> > the Gathas?
> > The key message of the concept in my view is consistent with the core
> > of the Gathas, since the objective of the Gathic teachings is to
> > refresh, renovate and render righteous the corporeal existence.
> > Farshokereti just exemplify in a legendary fashion how it will happen
> > at the end of Time.
> >
> > Were the Gathas so far ahead of their time that men were incapable
> > and probably still are incapable of fully understanding the deeper
> > meanings. That they were conceived 3700 years ago beggars belief!
> > One thing we must remember at the outset that here we are dealing
> > with a language -Avesta - that is extinct centuries if not millennia
> > ago. It has no grammar of its own and was orally transmitted for some
> > 2000 years. The reason we are able decipher anything of the Gathas at
> > all, is because the language was very closely cognate with Sanskrit.
> > It is the Sanskrit grammar that has helped us understand Gathas as
> > much as we do today. As if that was not enough of a hurdle, these
> > hymns are full of allegories and metaphors, and with layers of
> > meanings. This is why we have so much difficulties in understanding
> > these poems. To answer your query 'Were the Gathas so far ahead of
> > their time" I would absolutely YES. The fact that prophet himself
> > expresses his frustrations in Ys 46.1 when he asks/prays to the Lord
> > Wise
> > " To what land shall i flee? where should i turn to? They exclude
> > me from my family and my clan
> > ....How then shall i satisfy thee Wise Lord".
> > This to me clear expression that what he had to say was far from the
> > comprehension of the society of his time. He did not have meny
> > followers until he moved eastward to Bactria where his teachings found
> > roots in the court of King Vistaspa.
> >
> > If it was developed after the Gathas, then was it a step forward,
> > building on the wisdom of the Gathas, or a step in the wrong direction
> > for whatever reason?
> > Individual Salvation is mentioned in the Gathas (Ys 46.10,11).
> > However based on the Gathic teaching (Ys 43.5) of rewards for good
> > and retribution for the evil, not all individuals attain their Oneness
> > with Mazda at the end of terrestrial life. The later evolved concept
> > of Farshokereti is believed to purify all individuals (souls)
> > irrespective of their actions in cororeal existence to render the
> > entire human race to immortality/Godliness or One with Mazda.
> >
> > I think it is very important that such doctrines be understood
> > clearly before anyone hastily dismisses them...
> > I believe one must be prudent to evaluate any concept of a
> > tradition, as old Zorastrianism is, before reaching conclusions to be
> > eclectic with any aspect of tradition.
> >
> > is the universe in the process of gaining completelness in some way?
> > In his hymns Zarathushtra repeatedly uses the spenta, spentem and
> > their derivatives. I am no philologist but based on my reading the
> > word is derived from Avestan/Sanskrit root spi/shvi meaning "to
> > expand ,swell or increase". However another reputed sanskrit/ Avestan
> > scholar Stanley Insler interprets it as 'Virtuous or Benevolent'.
> > There are other reputable scholars who interpret it as 'Holy'.In fact
> > in Ys 43.5,7,9,11,13 and 15 the Prophet addresses Ahura Mazda as
> > Spentem. In the Gathas the word qualifies various Divine
> > abstractions. I have concluded that the term represents a quality of
> > "Progressively Benevolent" way of thinking, speaking and acting -
> > Being. For me the entire creation, the whole Universe is in the state
> > of flux of being 'Progressively Benevolent' - continuously evolving to
> > perfection, through the knowledge of science and culture.
> >
> > Is our own micro A-meretat reflected in or a reflection of a macro A-
> > meretat happening in all existence?
> > I think that is very true. In oder to bring about the A-meretat state
> > of being in the corporeal existence, it is incumbent that each one of
> > us attain our microcosmic Oneness of the physical and the spiritual-
> > wholeness, completeness -Haurvatat. For only through that we can
> > relate to the same in others, to attain the state in Marocosm. That is
> > absolutely essential to before we step to that last stage of Eternal
> > Bliss A-meretat.
> >
> > I hope all of the above is of some help.
> >
> > With Peace and Light fro Mazda
> >
> > Jehan
> >
> >
> >
> > On 19-Oct-09, at 9:55 AM, Rory wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Jehan,
> > >
> > > Thank you. This helps greatly. The key questions for me are, if
> > > Freshokereti came about after the Gathas then, mythological
> > > embellishments aside, what is the key message of Farshokereti and is
> > > it in conflict with the Gathas? I am a firm believer in "if it ain't
> > > broke don't fix it". If it works for the common man as a myth and we
> > > can interpret it into modern scientific and philosphical terms then
> > > we should do so. If it was developed after the Gathas, then was it a
> > > step forward, building on the wisdom of the Gathas, or a step in the
> > > wrong direction for whatever reason? From what I can understand the
> > > essential message was clearly a positive development and rather than
> > > being in conflict with was in keeping with Gathic doctrine. With the
> > > trend in certain areas to re-invent Zoroastrianism I think it is
> > > very important that such doctrines be understood clearly before
> > > anyone hastily dismisses them...
> > >
> > > What you say about the legend of final purification evolving as an
> > > explanation of how universal existence will attain the state of A-
> > > meretat I find very interesting, is the universe in the process of
> > > gaining completelness in some way? Is our own micro A-meretat
> > > reflected in or a reflection of a macro A-meretat happening in all
> > > existence?
> > >
> > > I am more and more facinated with how Gathic principles in many ways
> > > seem to have devolved into mythology and even into the scriptures of
> > > other belief systems. Yet we must be grateful or a lot of this
> > > wisdom might never have reached us if this had not happened. Without
> > > Tradition the Gathas would never have reached us. It is a source of
> > > wonder to me that so many non-Zoroastrian "scholars" can have seen
> > > Zoroastiranism as "the roots of the tree" with regards their own
> > > faiths and even primintive forms of their own ideas rather than the
> > > other way round. How much profound wisdom is veiled behind
> > > superstitious stories? Were the Gathas so far ahead of their time
> > > that men were incapable and probably still are incapable of fully
> > > understanding the deeper meanings. That they were conceived 3700
> > > years ago beggars belief!
> > >
> > > I can see how the myth could have brought about the doctrine of the
> > > resurrection in Christianity specifically as well as messianic
> > > thought generally in Judaism, Islam and Christianity. So many times
> > > Zoroastrians over millenia must have fully understood the old saying
> > > "where ignorance is bliss t'is folly to be wise"!
> > >
> > > So if A-meretat is our desire then Freshokereti is one of the ways
> > > we go about achieving it?
> > >
> > > Ushta,
> > > Rory
> > >
> > > --- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Jehan Bagli wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Rory:
> > > > Farshokereti (ph Farshogard) is a Myth that evolved in the
> > > > Zoroastrian religion centuries, if not a millennium after the time
> > > > Zarathushtra. Whereas the concept of individual salvation of soul
> > > > pervades through the Gatha, these hymns say nothing about he
> > > Universal
> > > > salvation or Final purification of all souls that Farshokereti
> > > > represents. In the Gathas, which are uniannimously conidered by the
> > > > academicians as the words of prophet Zarathushtra, the word
> > > > Farshokereti does not even appear in these hymns.
> > > >
> > > > The legend goes that three Saoshyants will appear after the prophet
> > > > and renovate he existence. Their names are:1) Ukhshyat-ereta (Ph.
> > > > Ushider) -he who makes Righteousness grow, 2) Ukhshyat-nemah (Ph.
> > > > Ushider Mah) - he who makes Reverence grow and 3) Astvat-ereta (Ph.
> > > > Soshyosh) - he who embodies righteousness. The first two are
> > > believed
> > > > to be born, each sequentially, a millennium after Zarathushtra while
> > > > the last one is to arrive 57 years before the end of time (12000
> > > > years). It is the last Saoshyant who is believed to preside over the
> > > > process of renovation to purify the universe through final
> > > > dispensation of the evil to render mankind immortal. They are all
> > > > linked will Zarathushtra in that they will be born of virgin maids
> > > who
> > > > will be impregnated while bathing in a lake Ksaoya, where the
> > > seeds of
> > > > Zarathushtra are mystically preserved in the waters of a lake.
> > > >
> > > > It is difficult to determine when the Zurvanite scheme of a linear
> > > > time line of 12000 years infiltrated "main-stream" religion of
> > > > Zarathushtra. However, all this will start to happen in the tenth
> > > > millennium and end at the end of 12th millennium. That will be the
> > > end
> > > > of time, that is when all evil will be vanquished and the era of
> > > > "Making Wonderful" begins. When the existence will be renovated to
> > > its
> > > > state of being ever prosperous. When there will be no aging , no
> > > > sickness and no death. The time will have stopped and the entire
> > > > existence will have reached the state of A-meretat -a state of non-
> > > > death-ness. That is the concept of Farshokereti.
> > > >
> > > > Let me hasten to point out that the Saoshyants mentioned in the
> > > > Gathas has no relevance to the saoshyants of this legend.
> > > According to
> > > > Zarathushtra all man and women who live their life through
> > > truth,love,
> > > > kindness and bringing happiness to others are Saoshyants. They are
> > > the
> > > > benefactors and the true saviors. To the prophet they are the
> > > > renovators of existence. However i believe the legend of final
> > > > purification evolved as an explanation how universal existence will
> > > > attain the state of A-meretat.
> > > >
> > > > In the Ninth century texts of the Pahlavi era such as Bundahisn,
> > > > Dinkard, and Dadestan-e-Denik the doctrine of Universal Salvation is
> > > > so vividly elaborated that it may well have caused the
> > > insemination of
> > > > Messianic thought in Judaism, Christianity, and Mahayana Buddhism.
> > > >
> > > > Personally i look at it as a legend. However, we must realize that
> > > > the mission of Zarathushtra was to eradicate evil from the physical
> > > > existence, not through punishment but by changing the thinking of
> > > the
> > > > individual -by changing their mind. The notion is to bring the
> > > > physical world - Getig in close proximity to the Divine- Monog
> > > world.
> > > > Basically most zoroastrian rituals depict an expression of this
> > > > purification. Farshokereti is an expression of that final
> > > attainment.
> > > >
> > > > I hope this helps
> > > >
> > > > Jehan Bagli
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 17-Oct-09, at 8:14 AM, Rory wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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".
> > > > >
> > > > > Ushta,
> > > > > Rory

fredagen den 23:e oktober 2009

Ushta is a Zoroastrian collective

None of this, Judy Weismonger, has anything to do with Zoroastrianism whatsover..
You clearly have only ONE agenda, it is not Zoroastrian at all, and you have utterly failed to convince anybody on this forum that your agenda is worth anything TO US. Instead you are just consuming everybody's valuable time and energy, while utterly boring us with your long, prejudiced and one-dimensional tirades.
Not only Jews were thrown into the ovens of the 1940s. Homosexuals were too and before the Jews. So if you are going to start some perverse "victimhood contest" you have clearly picked the wrong people when picking me and Dino. It also certainly doesn't help that your idol Ayn Rand was homophobic and hated modern art (wto more big wrongs in our world with dear Ayn). For all her best qualities, this doesn't really endear people like myself and Dino to your extremist agenda. And that's that.
There are actually quite a few randian Zoroastrians, very decent ones too. That's not even a problem. The problem is your PERSONALITY, your total lack of capacity to COMMUNICATE WITH others. But since you hate any form of "collective" so much, why do you even bother to BE HERE? This is a collective, a Zoroastrian collective. So with these two wrongs in your book, why do you bother to stay here? Have you got nothing better to do? Seriously!
Ushta
Alexander/sees the total irony here in that Ayn Rand lived in a commune in the 1950s called, of all things, "The Collective", at least she must have had a sense of humor...

2009/10/23 Judy Weismonger



Solidarity against what? People with money? Solidarity against People who have educated themselves, worked hard, asked nothing from anyone...sold good products at a fair price in the market place...and then some sociologist with a "poor me" political agenda comes along and tells them they are racists, bigots, homophobes, unjust...because they are "rich" (anyone with a job and who doesn't have a failed, defective personality?) Just who exactly are you "solidly" against? Fess up and tell us who your targets of hate are. I bet I can flip through any sociology text you have on your shelf...and it will tell me.

Just exactly "who" are you "solidly" for...or "solidly" against? I know the answer, but it would be refreshing for you to be honest and forthcoming for once.

I have never picked up any book in science, or psychology, or biology...which has as its stated goal...a target of hate or destruction.

..."Social justice" for whom, against whom...for what reasons...and at what cost to the individual? Its the same old tired Left Wing treadmill of using nice sounding words, that actually mean nothing, but in the end....creating a police state, to "force" people to all be fair, just,...and equally poor.

And well Gee...thank you for the compliment, that I'm "paranoid."...Just before Hitler took power and imposed his Left Wing Fascism (NAZI does stand for National Socialist Workers)...some Jews "got it" in their "paranoia"...they left Germany, including Albert Einstein...but the other Jews who stayed...all said that "Nah...Einstein and all those Jew who are leaving are just "paranoid." And, the rest is history.

So...thank you so much for putting me in the same "paranoid" company with Albert Einstein, C.J. Jung, and especially Ayn Rand who saw what the Left did to her family and country up close and personal. In my family, more than 33 Weismongers and von Oldenburgs were shoved into the ovens....and you are right. We are certainly justifiably paranoid of people like you on the Left who use the same terminology, the same ideas, the same persecution and scapegoat tactics against someone, be they rich or Jew...for "solidarity" against ...your enemies, i.e. independence and freedom.

You and your Leftist friends may have all the 'best intensions' of wanting to create a "new world order" of peace, social justice, community, society, economic fairness, blah, blah, blah...but you are simply fools, tools, dupes and stooges of the Left...who use you and your naivete' to put on a "civilized" face.

The problem is...once the Left has won...your type, who describe themselves as "moderates" who state they all believe in "democracy"....will be the first to be crucified as a threat to the party or the "state." I was in Nicaragua...when the Marxist Sandinistas won...and the first thing Tomas Borge did...was begin to execute people just like you...the nice guys, those who thought the Sandinistas were going to bring "justice to the people." Right...justice at the point of a gun. I was the first journalist to document Marxist Sandinista atrocities against the Moskito-Suma-Rama Indians...which was entered in the US Congressional Record in 1986.

You and your Leftists...have all supported the Marxist Sandinistas, Fidel Castro, the Viet Cong, Hugo Chavez, and now Hussein Obama...who have all followed the same game plan...in which once they come to power, the people...all people rich or poor, black or white, begin to suffer at the hands of the "state." I think its the "arrogance" that disturbs me the most, coupled with naivete'...that makes "sociology" so dangerous and irrational.

People with a good dose of paranoia...stay alive in this world. So, if you want to bring your Leftist politics into Zoroastrianism...OK, let's get it on. I've asked you now for about 4 times...to show me the Gathas that state that Zoroastrianism is like or supports any kind of Leftist ideology? And you have not done so. Why is that? Because there is none. This delusion of Zism as a religion parallel to socialism...is just another fig newton in your poor, deluded, Left wing, naive mind.

I know the Left's "psychology" inside and out...and I know what kind of childhood dysfunctionality and lack of bonding most of those on the Left suffered from as children...and as a result are most attracted to the Leftist ideology and why...and how such children grew up with a "cultured" sense of "victimhood"...who as adults are used as dupes and stooges by the Left. Did you ever stop to think...that you were being used...and manipulated by some of the best public relations' people on this planet? Well, you are.

The Marxist Sandinistas..with your donated money, hired two of the best PR firms in the world..one in New York and one in WDC...to engineer the best public relations campaign the world has ever seen...to block votes to support the Contras (the good guys), create some of the nastiest hate literature through media exposure to smear Ronald Reagaon and the Nicaraguan people who did not support Marxism...and organized every campus, every library, every public TV station...to promote the Marxist Sandinistas. However, when legal elections finally took place in Nicaragua...even after the Marxists "imported" some 250,000 illegal voters from El Salvador and Guatemala to vote for the Marxists...they still lost. (Hmmm, those tactics sound just like the illegal voting engineered by Obama's community organizers at ACORN...only this time Obama and his Chicago Thugs won.)

The professionals in public relations...are better sociologists than any of your crowd...because they make money at it...all your side does is whine and wish for a "better world." Poor you. You have nothing to lose you think...by promoting your ideology, its all just words isn't it.

All this yearning for a "community"...which is really just another hidden agenda for a daddy state...is really about the Left's need for a surrogate father to be the perfect, caring, warm, fuzzy daddy they never had to replace the daddy who was so weak with imperfections who disappointed when daddy couldn't give them everything their little hearts' desired. Of course, all this displaced aggression and yearing...is really all about "you." It has nothing to do with politics...or organizations, or communities...or "collectives"...because if it did...you would be reading and citing "real" studies in organizational psychology...which you have not. I've asked you a couple of times to describe what you think is "empiracal" evidence, or show me some "empiracle" studies by your sociologists...and you won't or can't.

There is a massive difference in the real research performed in organizational psychology...in comparison to the social and political emotionalism in sociology, its like night and day. Not once have I ever read a text in organizational, or political psychology...that uses terms such as "social justice"...or "the collective" or the dehumazing idea of that we all belong to a "community," in which the individual is treated like a herd animal. Why don't you take a very close look at your vocabulary...starting with the first couple of sentences you began your diatribe with...

Business people know more real psychology, from real studies and research than your entire field of sociology....Why? Because they have to know what is real and what is just phoney baloney political emotionalism meant to trip some triggers...because they "sell" stuff...and if they don't get it right, then their products don't sell. What do you sell? You sell victimology (social justice.). The very best cure for the "poor" is to allow them and others to create jobs in response to the market place and leave their money and rights alone.

Don't you think it bizarre to attempt to impose your utopian idealism in order to create a "community" or a "society" that you approve of...rather than just let people organize themselves into communities and societies...based on their individual needs, wants, and desires? What incredible arrogance!

You really should read Dr. Jerrold Post's texts on political psychology and become enlightened. Post is a psychiatrist, and head of the Dept of Political Psychology at Georgetown University. I've been through their "intelligence" collections held on reserve at the Intelligence Library...and to say the least, it was both disturbing and enlightening...because nearly everyone on the Left in every country engaged in "revolution' (murder) all use the same vocabulary and terminology as you...and your sociologists. Your chosen field of study, or your politics, or your "end game" is not trusted and for good and historical reasons.

Jerrold Post has done extensive psychiatric studies of Fidel Castro, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, and many other heads of government, all of whom impacted the "societies" they had control over. The first two of which...all have many aspects of their dysfunctional childhoods in common...with Leftist ideology. Its really too bad your field doesn't do any real research, and "does not believe in biology"....if it did, it might learn something useful.

When Hillary Clinton said it "takes a whole village (because you on the Left think everyone is soooo stupid), to raise a child (she meant that two parents were not enough...and in reality, that village is the Federal government in a socialist police state.)

Hillary's early speeches when she was just out of university are quite telling: Hillary wanted all families with children to be 'assigned' a social worker and a local police agency so that "parents" could be prevented from abusing children. The very most Hillary knows about rearing children is about how to sign a check for the Nanny. The entire Left Wing view of the world is just laughable and tragic,...and so arrogant.

Just who do you think you are kidding here? Not me...or those who email me privately....Its really getting funny. Thank you so much for exposing exactly what your Left Wing police state fascist intentions are...but, we knew that already. Social Justice my hind end...hahahahah. For whom? And just how are you going to do it?

How many people's rights and money do you recommend you take away and steal...before you feel that Justice has been served and everyone is now "equal"? But, then your field of sociology never asks those questions do they? Its just about some seemingly benign concept such as the "community" or the "society."....So, let us know.

Let us engage in a little psychoanalysis here, and just see how much hostility you have...and to whom, and why? Tell us why you "chose" sociology as your field of study?

I do hope that you poor Leftists do get a chance to mature...

Ushta Hugs, Judy

--- On Thu, 10/22/09, Special Kain wrote:


From: Special Kain
Subject: [Ushta] What Zarathushtra has to do with sociology
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, October 22, 2009, 8:46 AM



Dear friends,

Dina, Arthur, Alexander and I agree that Zoroastrianism as a faith promoting inclusion, solidarity and the overcoming of social injustice and cruelty is based on a community-minded attitude. In this respect Zoroastrians are concerned with building, maintaining and expanding communities - that is, interacting with people we've previously ignored or excluded or discriminated. Zoroastrianism is a liberal and brutally tolerant religion: religious tolerance, gender equality, protecting the environment, having a constructive mentality and basically doing good things. This is where Zarathushtra and sociology meet: the matter of SOCIATION in a sociological sense. How do communities rise out of our daily interactions? And how do they dissolve? You can take different approaches, either top-down (macro-theories, see Niklas Luhmann) or bottom-up (micro-theories, see Erving Goffman). Just to give you a few examples.

Remember that identities always are social identities. You can't have subjectivity without intersubjectivity. And, of course, you can't have intersubjectivity without subjectivity. The social worlds we're part of are the hosts of meaning, as we're continually shaping the world together and giving meaning to our thoughts, words and deeds. An isolated nomad can't come up with anything "meaningful" , because the symbols we're using borrow their meanings from social uses and their actual effects: things mean what they cause. Meaning therefore is an open-ended and social learning experience that is utterly creative!

So there's the social world as the host of meaning and we're all a part of it as co-creators: we are Mazda! Because Zarathushtra was a social reformer and civilizationist, after all. And as we all know it is possible to cherish Zarathushtra' s civilizationist ethics without becoming evil socialists. Actually, Zoroastrianism is combining liberal hopes with a community-minded attitude WITHOUT falling into the individualist trap: it's not someone's petty ego versus the rest of humanity, it's us as individuals with partly distinct identities within the global community! Subjectivities give rise to intersubjectivity (sociation) and intersubjectivity gives rise to different subjectivites (social integration) . Our thoughts, words and deeds are embedded within socially shared and interacting flows and both individual and social at the same time. Why is that? Because things mean what they cause, because meaning is an open-ended and liberating and social learning experience.

My ten cents,
Dino

The Barsam - a text by Parviz Varjavand

The Barsam is a Mithraic symbol also sacred to the Zoroastrians. It is a bundle of sticks tied together with a cord that is supposed to symbolize the cord of Mehr (Love and Promise) (Zon'nar and Koshti). Barsam was taken to Rome by Mithraists and becomes the Fascia and we have the infamous Fascism of Mussolini getting its inspirations from that. Yet the Barsam is not what the Fascia became to Mussolini. It does not have an Axe in the middle of it. The Axe was placed in the middle of the Fascia at times of war; it meant that civil liberties should be dropped and individuals should support the military leader and submit their human rights to his military leadership. The Fascia with an Ax in the middle is the bad symbol that gives us Fascism and we should be beware of, the Barsam is not a bad symbol.

How a Barsam for good is tied should be the pre-occupation of every Mazdayasni person; it gives us all our social structures. How do we band together to gain strength without sacrificing too much of our personal freedoms. That is why the red pointed cap known as "Capo Phrygio" or the cap that comes from Phrygiya or"Farghane" in Persia was always placed on top of the Barsam. This red pointed cap that Mithra usually wears symbolizes individual freedoms and only persons aware of their full individual rights when banded together form the proper Barsam. We are Barsamists and not Fascists.

Ushta,
Parviz Varjavand

torsdagen den 22:e oktober 2009

What Zarathushtra has to do with Sociology

Exactly!!!
And this is what Zoroastrian society is all about:
A strong society with strong and self-confident individuals!!!
Precisely what I SAW when I first met Zoroastrians in the 1980s and gradually became fascinated with their ATTITUDE towards life and finally converted. I discovered a society which already had implemented all those values I had been searching for but never seen implemented in Western society. And done so very successfully!
The whole tiresome debate of Individual vs Collective as if they are opposites in a constant struggle is IRRELEVANT to Zoroastrian discourse. It is a Western/American/European conflict that has little or no bearing HERE.
So let's not waste our time with this chatter within THIS forum. Judy will find a stronger, healthier and more robust individualism here than anywhere else. So why does she go on and on with all her Randian sectarian ramblings? Throwing accusations around against her co-Zoroastrians which are blatantly untrue??? It makes no sense.
It's time to live and let live.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/22 Special Kain



Dear friends,

Dina, Arthur, Alexander and I agree that Zoroastrianism as a faith promoting inclusion, solidarity and the overcoming of social injustice and cruelty is based on a community-minded attitude. In this respect Zoroastrians are concerned with building, maintaining and expanding communities - that is, interacting with people we've previously ignored or excluded or discriminated. Zoroastrianism is a liberal and brutally tolerant religion: religious tolerance, gender equality, protecting the environment, having a constructive mentality and basically doing good things. This is where Zarathushtra and sociology meet: the matter of SOCIATION in a sociological sense. How do communities rise out of our daily interactions? And how do they dissolve? You can take different approaches, either top-down (macro-theories, see Niklas Luhmann) or bottom-up (micro-theories, see Erving Goffman). Just to give you a few examples.

Remember that identities always are social identities. You can't have subjectivity without intersubjectivity. And, of course, you can't have intersubjectivity without subjectivity. The social worlds we're part of are the hosts of meaning, as we're continually shaping the world together and giving meaning to our thoughts, words and deeds. An isolated nomad can't come up with anything "meaningful", because the symbols we're using borrow their meanings from social uses and their actual effects: things mean what they cause. Meaning therefore is an open-ended and social learning experience that is utterly creative!

So there's the social world as the host of meaning and we're all a part of it as co-creators: we are Mazda! Because Zarathushtra was a social reformer and civilizationist, after all. And as we all know it is possible to cherish Zarathushtra's civilizationist ethics without becoming evil socialists. Actually, Zoroastrianism is combining liberal hopes with a community-minded attitude WITHOUT falling into the individualist trap: it's not someone's petty ego versus the rest of humanity, it's us as individuals with partly distinct identities within the global community! Subjectivities give rise to intersubjectivity (sociation) and intersubjectivity gives rise to different subjectivites (social integration). Our thoughts, words and deeds are embedded within socially shared and interacting flows and both individual and social at the same time. Why is that? Because things mean what they cause, because meaning is an open-ended and liberating and social learning experience.

My ten cents,
Dino

Zoroastrianism is the religion of TOLERANCE and PLURALITY and not the religion of Ayn Rand

Judy

You clearly have absolutely no idea at all of what you're talking about.
When Kristoll invented Neo-Conservatism in 1968 he did so PRECISELY by hijacking the language of the social sciences and present CONSERVATISM as a SOCIAL SCIENCE. Without Kristoll, there would have been no Ronald Reagan as President of the United States. Just as ONE among THOUSANDS of examples of non-socialist or anti-socialist sociology.
Equalling social sciences with socialism is therefore outright IDIOTIC!
Zarathushtra wrote EXTENSIVELY about SOCIETY and society as civilization in The Gathas. It is one of Zoroastrianism's major themes. He clearly sees no freedom without a social context, but rather he sees civilization as that which SETS US FREE as individuals. Why don't you study Zoroastrianism with an open mind? Keep off those Randian extremist glasses.
And if there were socialists among us Zoroastrians (which I am sure there are) you are going to have to learn to live with that too. Or just leave!!! Your sectarian intolerance towards all dissent from your extremist worldview is becoming totally unbearable. Why don't you just stay in your Randian sect if you are NOT interested in Zoroastrianism???

Ushta
Alexander/extremely tired of this Randian propaganda, wonders what it has to do with Zoroastrianism (if there is a connection, please explain it), and does not believe in objectivism at all (because Ayn Rand frankly did not understand Immanuel Kant, reality is a product of the mind and not immediately accessible to us as humans), STILL I accept that there are Randian Zoroastrians, AS LONG AS THEY accept that there are non-Randian Zoroastrians too, and that that acceptance is SACRED to us all!!!

2009/10/22 Judy Weismonger



In answer to your question as to where this "discussion" came from...here is the chronological history:

There was a person who began posting about the importance of the "collective" of Zarathustra, and then the poster began to explain that the term "collective" was aligned with the values of "tribalism" (of all things), which I then associated with insect societies/ant hills/herds/juntas/communes/state dictatorships, etc....That was over two weeks ago and the discussion counter to this claim that the "collective" didn't mean socialism ensued...

I reacted, because the term "collective"...is a socialist term...and is not used in any other field but sociology and social work.

The definition of the word...To wit: "Collectives are also characterised by attempts to share and exercise political and social power and to make decisions on a consensus-driven and egalitarian basis. Collectives differ from cooperatives in that they are not necessarily focused upon an economic benefit or saving (but can be that as well)...Collective consciousness is a term created by French social theorist Émile Durkheim that describes how an entire community or a majority comes together to share similar values....(Judy here: at whose expense and what are the consequences for the individual who refuses to obey the "collective?" I asked this question three times and received no answer.)...

Then one poster wrote...that the word "collective" seemed to "upset" me....and then suggested that the word be changed to "community and society." Meaning....the words are changed, but in reality and in the socialist vernacular, all such words mean and refer to the same thing within the sociologists' field of study, which is highly politicized and comes with an extensive socialist agenda and founding background.

Then...someone began expounding on the founders of sociology....which I then cited all the literature in which the word "collective" is used in a socialist context....

Words mean distinct things...and in certain fields...there is a vocabulary for each field that may mean one thing in one discipline and something different or more loaded with meaning and political intent in another field. In my field of research, the syntax, grammatical usage, and lexicon of "words" and content are highly significant...and not thrown around carelessly for others to figure out what has been said and intended.

In the field of sociology, such syntax, vocabularies the associated lexicon of various words are tied like a noose to socialism and are loaded with meaning and most often acts of "social justice." If such a poster had a background in 'science" or say "history" (or whose field of study did not reject science and biology) then the word "society" would mean something completely different, and would NOT be used to refer to the word "collective" (collectivism)...used by a sociologist....or a social worker to mean all the same thing as "society."

I do not know of a single psychologist, psychiatrist, physician, scientist, surgeon, historian, a real researcher, or any hereditary Zoroastrian...who has ever used the term "collective" in my life time...except as a term of derision. And therefore, if you are so against such police state socialism as enforced and created by a "collective," I suggest that such posters choose vocabularies carefully, and also explain carefully what the term means....or such free use of such politically loaded and significant words as "collective" just might be understood.

So, therefore, I apologize if I misunderstood that you are not 100% socialist, but just a little socialist....and that the field you are in....is trying desperately to unlock themselves from their sordid founders who have caused so much pain, death, and destruction based on an "anti-science" dogma. Well...good for them. Reality does teach valuable lessons.... But, in the end...whether it is soft, sneaky socialism, or hard-core socialism...I will continue to state my objections.

Ushta Hugs, Judy

--- On Wed, 10/21/09, Special Kain wrote:


From: Special Kain
Subject: Re: AW: [Ushta] Zoroastrian American Philosophers: The Case of John Dewey
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2009, 9:39 PM



And who said otherwise, dear Judy?
Do you see anyone promoting socialism here?
Will the real socialist please stand up?

...

OK, there are no socialists here. False alarm, Judy!
Why is that? Because Zoroastrian philosophy is past the distinction between the individual and the community. Most of us can see that you can't have one without the other. Can you?

--- Judy Weismonger schrieb am Mi, 21.10.2009:


Von: Judy Weismonger
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] Zoroastrian American Philosophers: The Case of John Dewey
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Datum: Mittwoch, 21. Oktober 2009, 22:33



Thank you Jehan...you have demonstrated that Zs do very well without a socialist state...and that what they respect is "intellectual capital"...meaning the creative abilities of the individual "mind" not controlled or engineered by the state, or the Left or whatever...which results in an entire community benefitting from the bottom up (individuals) rather the socialist ideal of from the top down...being ruled and told what to do by Weberian "elites." Ayn Rand said the same thing...I do wish others immerse themselves in Rand so that they can intelligently and correctly understand "individualism" and ethical capitalism .

It is one thing to band together for protection as has the Z's chamber of commerce...and another thing where "unions" become an extension of the state...and do the bidding of the state, including coerce those who don't belong to unions...Unions in the US have an extended history of being no more than thugs who rob from their own members and engage in protectionism of those who are incompetent.

...below is the entire article about Zs chamber of commerce...which I think deserves to be read by all CONVERTS seeking to understand what and how Zoroastrianism is beneficial in the everyday world and has zero to do with either statism or top-down "elitist" socialism... or the utopian idealism of Marxist sociologists. ... on any level.

The World Zarathushti Chamber of Commerce (WZCC) was established by and for members of the community to facilitate networking, increase trade, commerce and economic welfare.

The Chamber plans to enhance the economic well being of the community by using the vast resources available, including intellectual capital and existing business talent and know-how to create opportunities for our young adults.


As long as commerce has existed, traders have banded together. The first purpose of their association may have been to seek common protection against competition. Later, codes were established to govern trade whilst at the same time attempting to influence local legislation and laws. These early pioneers and traders have little in common with our modern Chambers of Commerce, which has ended up as a more refined product.


The WZCC will generally undertake promoting the sale of goods & services. The Chamber will facilitate market relationships and in general will promote the interest of its members. The emergence of our Chamber as a true community organization will come later when business leaders realize that their own prosperity depends upon the development of opportunities within our community.


A strong focus of the Chamber will be on education & research, governmental relations, infrastructure planning, economic development, business and professional growth and leadership development through various initiatives and incentives. The community's growth and support by their businesses will reflect on the strong value of the Chamber.


The Chamber's World Headquarters are in North America and its members hope that this would be the prelude to an exchange of trade and commerce between Zarathushti communities worldwid, thus leading to the formation of chapters throughout the world.


The aim of the Chamber is to rejuvenate the entrepreneurial spirit from within our fold by providing a helping hand, partnerships and an exciting future.


The Chamber's main asset will be its database providing information of topics ranging from job availability and business opportunities to a bank of current data on Who's Who in Zarathushti Business Worldwide.


WZCC invites business initiatives, encourages networking and allows our members to enunciate or advertise their businesses and concepts too.

Again, thank you Jehan....I love seeing the more practical applications of Zism put into practice...esepcial ly for the converts to understand how Zism works in every day life.