lördag 31 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...

fredag 30 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

onsdag 28 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

tisdag 27 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

söndag 25 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

fredag 23 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

torsdag 22 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.

tisdag 20 oktober 2009

Spenta (Expansion) and other Zoroastrian concepts

Dear Rory and Jehan

Thank you for your contributions to this wonderful thread!
I would like to add that I believe Jehan is better positioned to understand some of the concerned concepts than western scholars have been. A case in point is the concept of "spenta" where the Avestan-Sanskrit concept of "expansion" is far more spot on than "westernized" guesses like "holiness" and even "benevolence". Because the concept of expansion was seen as positive in the environment which Zarathushtra came from, and has been percieved as such among Zoroastrians ever since. The expansion both of the material world and the mental understanding of it, has been seen as truly positive, as "creative expressions of existence". So it is "progressiveness" rather than "progress" that we need to get at to understand the Zoroastrian pathos. And "holiness" is not really what Zarathushtra would have had in mind. That's my ten cents on the issue. Think classic South Asian, not medieval European or contemporary Middle Eastern!

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/20 Jehan Bagli

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

The next "next" on the Ushta Forum?

Dear Judy

Parviz (an Iranian) has tried to convince Mehran - the way you just have - for the past few years or so about the merits of monism but not succeeded. So we are not surprised you failed too. But well done!

You should certainly spend your wonderful energy and intelligence on other issues. And whether you like it or not, despite the fact that the MAJORITY of Americans are dualists like Mehran, your beloved The United States has done rather well in the past 100 years or so. It seems even dualists can work hard and get things done. So no need to bash Iran or any other country because it contains dualists. Successful countries have even more of them than Iran.

As for "vocabulary", who care what vocabulary people are using? What counts is what they believe and what they do. So why not steal other people's vocabulary (say a Marxian vocabulary) and turn into something else (a liberal discourse)? I don't see why you should get so frustrated with dear Dino. He is clearly not the Marxist you have tried to turn him into and according to me at least he won "your debate" hands down by presenting superior arguments to yours.

The fact is that vocabulary is one thing, substance is another. Or like a Salvation Army officer said when he was asked in 19th century London why the Salvation Army took melodies from secular hit songs and gave them Christian lyrics: "Hey, why should The Devil have all the best tunes?". Replace The Devil with Marx and tunes with vocabulary, and you should have a good metaphor for what Dino (and I) have been trying to say all along.

Now, the more interesting question, our proper "next", should of course be: What is your interest in Zarathushtra? When you read the Gathas, what strikes you as the most important aspect of his philosophy? We are all drying to hear, Judy, you are a great addition to the Ushta forum, and when you dig into philosophy you show your best and most educational side to the rest of us. Please keep going!

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/20 Judy Weismonger



I just sent Moobed, bless his soul, to spam hell...I'm out of "good words" (science, logic and reason)...so before I begin stating 'bad words'...I thought it best to avoid him. But, I can now see exactly why why Iran is so intractable and not making any progress in the 21st Century. Poor Iran.

Anyone, can do the same to me...if you get tired of my rhetoric, and want to never receive any posts from me again...anytime one of my posts comes up...just hit the SPAM button a couple of times...and you will not see my posts again. It is your choice....and,

Of all people, I am for Free Will...and choice. Make yours, I won't be offended.

I've sent one last post to Kain as well on the subject of Karl Marx as the founder of sociology...in a "theory" that continues to use the Marxist "vocabularly." I have given him citation after citation after citation to prove that fact...but, it just doesn't click. I imagine I would be quite in denial too if Karl Marx was the founder of my chosen work. Ergo, I'm done with that subject.

Next......

Ushta Hugs, Judy

--- On Mon, 10/19/09, Rory wrote:


From: Rory
Subject: [Ushta] Re: Stop arguing with The Moderator - and listen to the advice instead!
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, October 19, 2009, 3:27 PM



Dear Alexander,

Please take the WE out of your argument. I have seen several people disagree with your accusation that Judy's messages are too long or too frequent but I have not one person say that this is the case other than yourself and Dino and Dino says they are too long whereas you say make them longer! This is crazy! You're making a mountain out of a molehill! Who has actually left BECAUSE she is posting too much? And by the way, calling people childish when they are to apologise and explain their point of view really IS childish. Judy has quite correctly pointed out that the individual can actually block messages if they don't want to receive from certain people. That sounds like a perfect solution.

As Parviz has pointed out Judy did get into conversation mode but stopped and everyone seems to be making an effort.

Ushta,
Rory

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups. com, Alexander Bard wrote:
>
> Dear Judy
>
> You can believe in free choice as much as you want, and you are perfectly
> entitled to voice your opinion, but at the end of the day you are going to
> have to rely on the collective trust of your very own friends who started
> this forum. We appreciate your participation and most of your postings. But
> we are honestly dead tired of the AMOUNT of postings you make and have
> therefore asked you to calm down and post less but more qualitative
> postings. Goodbye oneliners! Now how hard is that to follow and respect?
> Keep posting your excellent postings but skip the meaningless oneliners. OK?
>
> So please respect this wish. It is called "moderation" and should you choose
> to refer to this capacity as a "Forum Nazi" again I will be forced to ask
> you to leave this forum. That kind of attitude towards the wishes of others
> will not be tolerated. What good is Ushta if it stops working? What freedom
> to communicate do we have then? And I guess that's the end of that.
>
> Ushta indeed
> Alexander

måndag 19 oktober 2009

Zoroastrian American Philosophers: The Case of John Dewey

Dear Dino

Yes, I do, and I agree, Dewey is the "most Zoroastrian" of American thinkers (although I would love to hear more about the Zoroastrian-ness about other American philosophers, like Ayn Rand, too). Especially the idea that freedom as the route to ethical completion (haurvatat) goes through the construction of a social arena where freedom becomes possible. This is why Zarathushtra opposed the SHORTSIGHTEDNESS of nomads in Central Asia versus the INVESTMENTAL approach taken by the settlers. This is also interestingly where we find a strong case for a Zoroastrian belief in ownership (as ownership fosters responsibility and further investment in future ideas etc). Zarathushtra was a civilizationist interested in the empowerment of humans. This is also why Zoroastrianism is a religion without hermits, monks and nuns. Participation in civilization is what is sacred, not distancing oneself from civilization. This is what Gathic ethics is all about.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/19 Special Kain



Dear friends,

Freedom of choice is key in Zoroastrian philosophy. The choices we make determine our future identities and profoundly affect our future thoughts and words which in turn will affect our actions which in turn will affect our choices and thoughts etc.
I've recently promoted John Dewey's collection of philosophical essays, "Philosophy and Civilization", and the essay on "Philosophies of Freedom" is 100% Zoroastrian!!! Since I don't have the time to write a summary, please don't hesiate to read the following article on Dewey's political philosophy at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-political/

Don't you agree that many, many ideas and conclusions presented have already been similarly discussed on Ushta? Dewey's essays actually solve many conflicts and confusions that have regularly popped up here.

Ushta, Dino

söndag 18 oktober 2009

The Search for Pragmatist Heroism!

Dear Judy and Dino

This is what I feel too!!!
I believe Dino and I totally SHARE your concerns, Judy! You're preaching to the already converted.
What Judy is attacking sounds like a parody of bad sociology of the 1960s (which perhaps is what was taught in American sociology departments even later, I don't know). Dear Judy, Dino and I are PRAGMATISTS, we are Nietzscheans and not Marxists in any way. We read guys like James, Dewey and Rorty for inspiration (all Americans and STRONG individuals), we don't really have a problem with Ayn Rand (in my case I just believe Nietzsche already did everything that Rand is credited for later and I also believe her "problems with Kant" are unwarranted; I'm a subjectivist and not an objectivist), so what's the big deal?
Why not try to find a route towards a PRAGMATIST HEROISM together instead?
Because this is after all what Zarathushtra set out to create and we owe it to him and his followers to do exactly this for our time and age. Don't you agree?
Just as an example of how productive sociology can be (when done right): I'm off to Tel Aviv today to conduct research on how young Israelis live their lives and especially how they interact with new technology. I would not get paid for my research results if not commercial enterprises found my information and knowledge highly relevant, innovative, correct and of the highest possible scientific standard.
I can't see in what way Judy (or Dino) would object to this kind of sociology, or do you?
And knowing Dino, he is the LEAST collectivist Swiss guy ever, Judy, trust me!

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/18 Special Kain

Judy, you don't have any clue what sociology really is or Habermas, Luhmann and Deleuze. You're confusing far too many things with each other while eagerly and ardently dissing and lashing out at anything that is concerned with communities in any way. To you it's all Marxism. But such conspirancy theories won't get you anywhere. The Cold War is over, communism is as good as dead - and wherever you did whatever kind of social research, either you didn't get it or your employers didn't get what they were doing. And whatever I or somebody else says simply doesn't matter to you, since you refuse to listen, so I just have to leave you where are without reacting.

Ushta, Dino


--- Judy Weismonger schrieb am So, 18.10.2009:


Von: Judy Weismonger
Betreff: [Ushta] Randian fundamentalism (freedom) vs. liberal pragmatism (theft)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Sonntag, 18. Oktober 2009, 1:04



What social research, performed how, by whom, on whom...and when? Who were the test subjects...did you have a control group...what were the methodological conditions? Who performed the operant conditions?

When I was in "social research" (sociology) it meant no more than taking on a political view based on the some foggy moralism, that pointed to a bunch of so called "victims" then blaming their victimhood on the rest of us...hauling up a bunch of citations of like minded people accusing "society" meaning people who think and achieve of being at fault for all the victimhood in the entire world...and then claiming their assumptions were scientific.

Then you begin again...claiming that social research is a science, because its engaged in philosophy.. ....

You have to be kidding me.....

I am sure you are very nice person and you mean well...but, there is NO objective, rational science methodology in sociology that means a thing. Philosophy is not a science....who told you it was?

Again...each one of these so called scientists you mention, are not scientists.. ..they are philosophers, and there is not one single bit of true scientific experimentation among them but a simple rehashing and regurgitation of Marxian and Kantian thought. To wit:

Theory

Habermas has constructed a comprehensive framework of social theory and philosophy drawing on a number of intellectual traditions:

* the German philosophical thought of Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Schelling, G. W. F. Hegel, Wilhelm Dilthey, Edmund Husserl, and Hans-Georg Gadamer
* the Marxian tradition — both the theory of Karl Marx himself as well as the critical neo-Marxian theory of the Frankfurt School, i.e. Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse
* the sociological theories of Max Weber, Émile Durkheim, and George Herbert Mead
* the linguistic philosophy and speech act theories of Ludwig Wittgenstein, J.L. Austin, P. F. Strawson, Stephen Toulmin and John Searle
* the developmental psychology of Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg
* the American pragmatist tradition of Charles Sanders Peirce and John Dewey
* the sociological social systems theory of Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann
* Neo-Kantian thought

Jürgen Habermas considers his major contribution to be the development of the concept and theory of communicative reason or communicative rationality, which distinguishes itself from the rationalist tradition by locating rationality in structures of interpersonal linguistic communication rather than in the structure of either the cosmos or the knowing subject. This social theory advances the goals of human emancipation, while maintaining an inclusive universalist moral framework. This framework rests on the argument called universal pragmatics - that all speech acts have an inherent telos (the Greek word for "end") — the goal of mutual understanding, and that human beings possess the communicative competence to bring about such understanding. Habermas built the framework out of the speech-act philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, J. L. Austin, and John Searle, the sociological theory of the interactional constitution of mind and self of George Herbert Mead, the theories of moral development of Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg, and the discourse ethics of his Heidelberg colleague Karl-Otto Apel.


Deleuze is another philosophical mess....right out of the Kantian school of foggy mystical moralism and who did not do one single truly scientific study. Again, he's just an old rehash of the same old anti-reason garbage that functions like a religion. Here are the criticisms?


Deleuze has attracted critics as well. The following list is not exhaustive, and gives only the briefest of summaries.

In Modern French Philosophy (1979), Vincent Descombes argues that Deleuze's account of a difference that is not derived from identity (in Nietzsche and Philosophy) is incoherent, and that his analysis of history in Anti-Oedipus is 'utter idealism', criticizing reality for falling short of a non-existent ideal of schizophrenic becoming.

In What Is Neostructuralism? (1984), Manfred Frank claims that Deleuze's theory of individuation as a process of bottomless differentiation fails to explain the unity of consciousness.

In "The Decline and Fall of French Nietzscheo-Structur alism" (1994), Pascal Engel presents a global condemnation of Deleuze's thought. According to Engel, Deleuze's metaphilosophical approach makes it impossible to reasonably disagree with a philosophical system, and so destroys meaning, truth, and philosophy itself. Engel summarizes Deleuze's metaphilosophy thus: "When faced with a beautiful philosophical concept you should just sit back and admire it. You should not question it."[37]

In The Mask of Enlightenment (1995) Stanley Rosen objects to Deleuze's interpretation of Nietzsche's eternal return.

In Deleuze: The Clamor of Being (1997), Alain Badiou claims that Deleuze's metaphysics only apparently embraces plurality and diversity, remaining at bottom relentlessly monist. Badiou further argues that, in practical matters, Deleuze's monism entails an ascetic, aristocratic fatalism akin to ancient Stoicism.

In Reconsidering Difference (1997), Todd May argues that Deleuze's claim that difference is ontologically primary ultimately contradicts his embrace of immanence, i.e., his monism. However, May believes that Deleuze can discard the primacy-of-differen ce thesis, and accept a Wittgensteinian holism without significantly altering his practical philosophy.

In Fashionable Nonsense (1997), Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont accuse Deleuze of abusing mathematical and scientific terms, particularly by sliding between accepted technical meanings and his own idiosyncratic use of those terms in his philosophical system. (But see above, Deleuze's interpretations.) Deleuze's writings on subjects such as calculus and quantum mechanics are, according to Sokal and Bricmont, vague, meaningless, or unjustified. However, by Sokal and Bricmont's own admission, they suspend judgment about Deleuze's philosophical theories and terminology.

In Organs without Bodies (2003), Slavoj Žižek claims that Deleuze's ontology oscillates between materialism and idealism,[38] and that the Deleuze of Anti-Oedipus ("arguably Deleuze's worst book"),[39] the "political" Deleuze under the "'bad' influence" of Guattari, ends up, despite protestations to the contrary, as "the ideologist of late capitalism".[40] Žižek also calls Deleuze to task for allegedly reducing the subject to "just another" substance and thereby failing to grasp the nothingness that, according to Lacan and Žižek, defines subjectivity.[41] What remains worthwhile in Deleuze's oeuvre, Žižek finds, are precisely those concepts closest to Žižek's own ideas.

In Out of this World: Deleuze and the Philosophy of Creation (2006), Peter Hallward argues that Deleuze's insistence that being is necessarily creative and always-differentiat ing entails that his philosophy can offer no insight into, and is supremely indifferent to, the material, actual conditions of existence. Thus Hallward claims that Deleuze's thought is literally other-worldly, aiming only at a passive contemplation of the dissolution of all identity into the theophanic self-creation of nature.

And now....Luhmann. ...who I found out was a Nazi and was taken prisoner by US forces during WWII....also has not performed one single truly scientific experiment in his life....and like Noam Chomsky has simply dazzled the naive with heaps of bull shit. And for these people...and especially Luhmann to begin identifying himself with "cognitive psychology" is one of the hugest, silliest jokes in all of the scientific community.I would bet that Luhmann has not a clue what a synapse is...or the function and impact of DNA on the personality. I truly fear you have not a clue what "science" is either...Science is not people claiming they are scientists, and it is not philosophy.. .and it is not those who make things up and claim they are true...because they said so.

Luhmann is probably best-known to North Americans for his debate with the critical theorist Jürgen Habermas over the potential of social systems theory. Like his one-time mentor Talcott Parsons, Luhmann is an advocate of the "grand theory", aiming to address any aspect of social life within a universal theoretical framework - of which the diversity of subjects he wrote about is an indication. Luhmann's theory is generally considered[citation needed] highly abstract, and his publications are difficult to read. This fact, along with the somewhat elitist behaviour of some of his disciples and the supposed[citation needed] political conservatism implicit in his theory, has made Luhmann a controversial figure in sociology.

A major critique of Luhmann is found in Piyush Mathur's detailed exegesis (2006) of one of Luhmann's treatises in an American journal.[2] Luhmann himself described his theory as "labyrinth-like" or "non-linear" and claimed he was deliberately keeping his prose enigmatic to prevent it from being understood "too quickly", which would only produce simplistic misunderstandings.[3] The influence of Gregory Bateson and Jurgen Ruesch on Luhmann has been discussed by Piyush Mathur in an April 2008 article titled Gregory Bateson, Niklas Luhmann, and Ecological Communication. [4]
Theory

Luhmann's Systems theory was based on, what he called, the "evolution of communication" : from oral communication, over writing systems towards electronic media and parallel with the evolution of society through functional differentiation. In his theory there are three strands

1. Systems theory as societal theory
2. Communication theory and
3. Evolution theory

which weave through his entire work.[5] The core element of Luhmann's theory is communication. Social systems are systems of communication, and society is the most encompassing social system. Being the social system that comprises all (and only) communication, today's society is a world society. A system is defined by a boundary between itself and its environment, dividing it from an infinitely complex, or (colloquially) chaotic, exterior. The interior of the system is thus a zone of reduced complexity: Communication within a system operates by selecting only a limited amount of all information available outside. This process is also called "reduction of complexity." The criterion according to which information is selected and processed is meaning (in German, Sinn). Both social systems and psychical or personal systems (see below for an explanation of this distinction) operate by processing meaning.

Furthermore, each system has a distinctive identity that is constantly reproduced in its communication and depends on what is considered meaningful and what is not. If a system fails to maintain that identity, it ceases to exist as a system and dissolves back into the environment it emerged from. Luhmann called this process of reproduction from elements previously filtered from an over-complex environment autopoiesis (pronounced "auto-poy-E- sis"; literally: self-creation) , using a term coined in cognitive biology by Chilean thinkers Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. Social systems are autopoietically closed in that they use and rely on resources from their environment; yet those resources do not become part of the systems' operation. Both thought and digestion are important preconditions for communication, but neither appears in communication as such.

Luhmann likens the operation of autopoiesis (the filtering and processing of information from the environment) to a program, making a series of logical distinctions (in German, Unterscheidungen). Here, Luhmann refers to the British mathematician G. Spencer-Brown's logic of distinctions that Maturana and Varela had earlier identified as a model for the functioning of any cognitive process. The supreme criterion guiding the "self-creation" of any given system is a defining binary code. This binary code, is not to be confused with the computers operation: Luhmann (following Spencer-Brown and Gregory Bateson) assumes that auto-referential systems are continuously confronted with the dilemma of disintegration/ continuation. This dilemma is framed with an ever-changing set of available choices; everyone of those potential choices, can be the system's selection or not (a binary state, selected/rejected) . The influence of Spencer-Brown' s book, Laws of Form, on Luhmann can hardly be overestimated.


--- On Sat, 10/17/09, Special Kain wrote:


From: Special Kain
Subject: AW: [Ushta] Randian fundamentalism vs. liberal pragmatism
To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, October 17, 2009, 11:37 AM



Dear Alexander,

This is also the difference between us: you're philosophically interested in their works, I'm much more scientifically and empirically interested in their works. I don't judge Luhmann, Habermas or Deleuze by the psychological excitement they may or may not invoke, but by their passing the empirical tests on the level of social research (and "postmodernists" like Deleuze never could explain societies empirically, which doesn't say anything about their achievements as philosophers; or take Foucault, for example, whose theories of power can't be tested empirically at all, so they're only bold claims that one chooses to believe in or not).
You can forget about Habermas's Marxism, but his works on the public sphere have been quite valuable in terms of social research and media studies (but quite altered and adjusted empirically to what he didn't know at the time when he first came up with "Der Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit", which he would also criticize about 20 years later). I'm not a Habermasian, but a pragmatist, and I therefore judge such theories pragmatically by their use as scientific tools. A formidable thinker like Deleuze is fun and truly fascinating, but if I can't use it for scientific research (since it's neither verifiable nor falsifiable) , then I just drop it and move on to far more useful concepts.
A totally different thing is Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, whose philosophical claims have turned out to be scientifically true (both in psychological research and, more recently, sociological research)!
I know that dry analysis is far less exciting than totally new and outrageously bold claims, and such interesting and controversial theories are initially much praised but regularly dropped after not having passed the test. That's why radical constructivism (Varela, Watzlawick etc.) is as good as dead, that's why the critical Foucauldian criminology is as good as dead.

Ushta,
Dino // 100% Peircean and Deweyan

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Sa, 17.10.2009:


Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Randian fundamentalism/ personal attacks vs. sociation (was: A question of sociation)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Datum: Samstag, 17. Oktober 2009, 12:13



Dear Judy

We need to make som eclarifications here.
Your very American opposition between "Liberals" and "Indvidualists" is a very American opposition.
Dino and I live in Europe where this opposition does not exist or is of very limited interest.
Like Zarathushtra, Dino and I are PRAGMATISTS and neither individualists or liberals or Marxists or whatever.
The concept of autopoesis was first developed in the early 1970s by the Chilean philosophers Maturana and Varela and was then introduced to sociology by the formidable thinker Niklas Luhmann.
Neither of these three gentlemen fit into your American opposition pair.
So you are just going to have to adjust to a world of philosophy were the old oppositions are dated and no longer of interest. The important thing now is to find a home for the strong individual you are promoting within this new environment. And perhaps then Michel Foucault's concept of living your life as a work of art is more helpful than Ayn Rand?
Calling me and Dino "American Liberals" is however definitely to miss the point. But I guess that is good news, don't you think? Now we can together see what happens when Rand meets Foucault, Luhmann and others. What can WE create out of these mergers in a society and within a worldview which is POST the old opposition?
Have you read Varela or Luhrmann yet? Or perhaps the greatest giant of the process philosophers, Gilles Deleuze, who also studied and promoted autopoesis heavily in opposition to Habermas (who really is a Marxist!).

Ushta
Alexander

lördag 17 oktober 2009

The Beautiful Freshokereti - Definitions!

Dear Rory

I believe you are - intelligently! - getting closer and closer to the meaning of "freshoketeti".
I would avoid describing freshokereti as an ideal, as it easily invokes misunderstandingsa among westerners, and instead I prefer to regard freshokereti as an ATTITUDE towards life which is the foundation of Zoroastrian ethics. Freshokereti is for example closely related to Spinoza's concept of "joy" as an ethical imperative.
Freshokereti is what your mind is supposedly full of once you have gone through your morning meditations as a bedhin! Oarviz apparently does his meditations while brushing his teeth, his explanation of freshokereti is spot on!
In addition to "making wonderful and excellent" I would add that freshokereti also means "making new, expanding". Newness and expansion, the embracing of change for the sake of change itself, is also Zoroastrian and an integral part of the concept of freshokereti.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/17 Rory



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

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Parviz Varjavand wrote:
>
> Dear Rory,
>
> Every morning I Freshokereti my mouth by brushing my teeth.
> I consider Freshokereti more a discipline and an attitude than an ideal.
>
> Parviz

Truth and nonsense about Politics

Dear Judy

Stop this nonsense about high IQs being connected to political viewpoints at once!!!
This has no bearing at all outside of your Randian private fantasies. And you know it! The people with the highest IQs are often incompetent idiots locked up in mental hospitals rather than successful and noble individuals. Silicon Valley has the most high IQed people in the world but also by far the highest number of autistic children. And don't forget that it was the Nazis and not Randians who invented the concept of the IQ in the 1930s.
My point is that the Zoroastrian community welcomes people of VARIOUS political backgrounds and convictions and I will not idly accept anybody claiming that their political philosophy is the only acceptable one here on Ushta.
Judy, you are welcome here as a Randian fundamentalist if you like. But please respect that others have good reasons to disagree with you politically even when agreeing with you on religious and philosophical matters.
And as for collectives being a lie (not that I have noticed that Dino meant anything other with "collectives" than your concept of "collection of individuals"), well then the individual is a lie too. The only thing we know from science is that there are bodies, six billion of them, who do live in flocks and not solitaire (like polar bears), but whether we refer to them as "individuals" or not is entirely a metaphysical issue and not a scientific one. I'm personally aggressivley opposed to socialist politics but must also admit that my native Sweden seems to work better than any other society on the planet. So there you go. A bit of modesty would REALLY prove your intelligence, not the other way round!
If we ask science, there is not even such a thing as "free will", both the freedom and the will are lies or at best empty beliefs according to brain science. Which makes Randianism a political faith and not a science.
So, can we please have some more modesty between us on this forum? Let's listen more and learn! Political propaganda is just boring and destructive.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/17 Judy Weismonger



Well...Special, you did not disappoint me...whenever a "liberal" is caught in the trap of logic, they change vocabularly...and in this case, it went from the term "collective" to "community"...and later in your dialogue to attempting to bamboozle me and the reader by an over intellectualized description of an "autopoetic system." However, as is true in about 99% of all such dialogues and interviews, the more someone attempts to explain something using such vague, unproven terms, the more they trap themselves inside their own logic.

And the sociologists you mention and all their questions and quandries exist...because they are not scientists, they are philosophers, societal "engineers"....driven by some degree of self important grandiosity, in which they believe they can construct communes/communities....when in fact, they have not a clue as to what DNA is, or what a neuron in the brain is..or how it functions....A society is a collection of individuals...society is not an entity that can be "engineered" to serve some utopian idealism (socialism/Marxism).

If these failed sociologists you revere as your new priests ever want to progress, they need to begin first with cellular biology and quantum physics...

To wit you described the impact of autopoietic systems:

The term autopoietic was originally introduced by Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela in 1973:

An autopoietic machine is a machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network. [1]

[…] the space defined by an autopoietic system is self-contained and cannot be described by using dimensions that define another space. When we refer to our interactions with a concrete autopoietic system, however, we project this system on the space of our manipulations and make a description of this projection. [2]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis


Please note...that an autopoiectic system is "self-contained" i.e. a community/collective/ant hill/junta/herd/tribe...and is a concrete de facto regulatory police state. And in 1978...these two "biologists" did not know much about DNA, genetics, physics, or cosmology...making this entire concept of an autopoietic "sociation"...null and void today.


We already know how functioning societies are built, which is first through the establishment of a good justice system...which does not rob the product of other people's work or through socialist theft other people's property. And...an association with a "community" should always be an individual's choice, and not a "regulatory" mandate. Some people simply do not like being part of a community....

Have you ever lived in a condo where the Condo Commandos watch your every move, knock on your door if your garbage is not put in a proper plastic bag...and you used a paper sack? Then, you have no idea how little people in such "communities" can become power mongering twits...who just can't wait...to be the HNIC (Head ____ in charge) and pass all of these communities "laws" to make you be a good citizen of the community.

The major problem with all of these "utopian" idealistic, irrational, dream world, "communes" is that the designers and dreamers such as yourself...have not a clue as to what variances there are in human psychology...and if they do, or were exposed to such facts, refuse to recognize it. Communes attempt to make their systems autopoietic, or a closed system...when in fact, as technology increases, we are becoming a wide open global system....and maybe almost ungovernable in the traditional sense. Oh...too bad.

The entire concept of "community" utopianism...began with B.F. Skinner, a socialist...whose untried, unproven bio-psychological theories were never tested...but adopted by the Marxists, and Hitler's fascists...in the false belief human beings could be 'trained" and conditioned like one of Pavlov's dogs to "serve the state." Well, no they can't. People do rebel as a statement and an act of individualism....and people really do not like being a disposable tool of the state or a closed "community" unless they are very old or insecure. Today's modern equivalent of the now discredited B.F. Skinner is that other socialist idiot, Noam Chomsky who puts out more bull shit than a bard full of cows.

And, you simply cannot create a "commune" (collective/herd/tribe/junta/) or a community...and have two dichotomous ideologies, i.e. respect for the individual, who is then "forced" or somehow coerced, regulated, held in check, or constrained to 'serve' some kind of utopian "community" (collective/commune/herd/tribe/anti hill/ or junta) for the "common good." Gee...who decides what common good is?

Communities exist all over this planet, who most often have their genetics as an organizing factor. But, does that mean they are successful on all levels? No....Such semi successful communities are bonded by family ties, religion, common heritages, and shared experiences, and education or lack thereof. However, even in such groups, they have individuals who leave the group and immigrate elsewhere...seeking novel (new) experiences and a chance to be an individual.

Human beings for the most part are novel seekers...and communes, quash most desires for the novel and the experiential as being threatening to the group/herd/tribe/junta/ant hill/collective/state/church...etc.

Almost everyone in Sweden is related to each other, the same in Denmark, etc...however, if you read today's recent history, they too are removing much of the draconian utopian communistic idealism that oppresses human individuality and initiative. Living in a world of enforced 'sameness" in the name of social justice and equality is about the most boring existence to ever be imposed on a human being.

What we do know in anthropology, political psychology, and general social psychyology...is that the more educated and "rational" a person becomes, the more individualistic they become...whereby they do not seek out "communities" for protection or security or direction...such successful Individuals...seek self reliance and independence instead. Such persons want the freedom to do as they wish. One of the most liberating things about education, intelligence, and a rational mind...is that one does not have to hide inside a group, or a community, a herd or a tribe...to live and be successful.

Now try this one on for size...the lower the IQ of an individual...or a group, the more they "need" a "community" to survive...whereas, the higher the IQ is of the individual...the less there is of a need for a regulated, held in check, mandated community. Now extrapolate that fact and see what you come up with. By the way...what is your IQ?

Zarathustra...lived 3500 years ago, that was then, this is now....Zism teaches one to respect and develop the individual mind....and not the "collective" mind of the herd/tribe/ant hill/ or any other engineered or regulated society which is devised to control human behavior and thoughts. I would love to live around and near other Zs...but not as a closed community in which the group voted on ...or determined my life's course, thoughts, actions, or degree of independence. Those who seek such "communities" are highly insecure self doubters.

I am sure you simply "hated" George Bush...whose 'tribe' of christians imposed their "community" beliefs on the rest of us. I freaked out when I found out that Bush stopped stem cell research funding.... and was trying very hard to remove an individual woman's right to control her own body. But...that is what "communities" do...they impose their values as an extension of the family...when in fact, the idea of being a grownup...is to be able to leave the family and live as an independent adult.

For example: I have a friend who is a psychiatrist from the Southern part of India. He is quite bright, very rational, or so I thought. One day, I saw that as he walked, he appeared to be in pain. I asked him what was wrong? He said he had a hernia. Immediately, I said...so you are going to schedule surgery and get it taken care of? He said "No"...he had to wait for his father, uncle, and elder brothers to fly in from India in order for them to make the decision whether he was to have surgery or not. I was simply floored.....This man was an adult, lived alone, made decisions regarding patients 100 times a day...but had to wait for his family (a community of relatives) to make the decision whether or not he was going to have surgey. No thank you....

I asked him why he had to "ask permission from his family" to get surgery? He said...that he respected his family and to defy them or make an independent decision...was an insult to the family (community)...Therefore, in your below quotations....it is this same kind of "expectation" you mention...that is also used to destroy human individualism and initiative through peer and family and now 'societal" and community pressure. No thank you...you and your kind need to mind your own business....

Such a "community" as you describe is not anything less than an extended state of childhood, with the community representing a family with a mommy and daddy, i.e. all the big people, who make decisions for the child. I rather like being an adult myself. So called "Liberalism" (a misnomer, in which the term "liberal" was co-opted by the socialists in the 1960s...from the original term meaning respect for the individual as exampled by the founders of the US)...is nothing more than socialism, which is by all of its processes a herd/an ant hill/a tribe/a junta/a church-state dictatorship, etc.

What progress as has been achieved has never come about by a "community" but through the individual creativity of the human mind acting alone, or trading in the "commerce" of ideas with others who are also like minded individualists. Do you think the "brilliance" of the first massive buildings and pyramids were built by a community in Egypt? Hell no...there are records that such incredible pyramids were designed and built through the genius of individual minds. Even the workers on these pyramids were not slaves...but paid, skilled workers. The Jews lied by the way.

The autopoietic communities you describe do not like "individualism" at all. Liberals especially have some kind of arrogant, neo-religious belief system going on that everyone else is just simply stupid and naive but them...and that as the superior ones, the Liberal elitests with the most progressive ideas...then have a right to pass laws and policies to regulate the behavior and commerce of the rest of us....to then save us from ourselves.

Since my taxes are now at about 68%....I have a few choice words to say to all those Liberals...who take my money and give it to those who don't work for it, and don't deserve it...and worse, create even more dependency and nonfunctional, criminal people on this planet.

The Liberal idea of "equality" is simply "Poverty for All." No thank you.

You can hide behind, and use all those extraordinary utopian phrases your sociologists can create in their ample spare time, but the reality is that behind such "nice" words...is a draconian police state, that must exist...to make everyone obey the rules of the "community" to make it work (for a while) for the good of "all."

By the way...I can't find and have never run into the word "sociation." Do you mean association, or socialization? Or is it a term referencing society in some way? Is that a European word that is not a part of the English language? Try googling the word "sociation" and tell me what you come up.

I take it that you are in university training...and as such, you are subjected to not the real world...but the imaginary world of Liberal professors who must dream up new words, and ideas to stay tenured...and appear to be doing original research and publishing as is often required of them. I've lived long enough, and observed enough...to state, you are getting ripped off, and being sold a sack of horse manure and being told that there is a pony inside.

In the vernacular of the left...they use such words, as "democracy, or human rights, or pluralism" to mean something quite different than what one thinks it is and which is far divergent than the original use of the terms....Marxists and socialists use and change these terms all the time to co-opt those who really think they are voting for freedom and equality....when in reality...such words as "democracy" actually mean, that ignorant, utopianized silly people vote through mob rule, to limit freedom and individuality...in exchange for 'security" and revenge....to the point that today, "rich people" are now the new class of those being persecuted as being "greedy."

I have learned...that when anyone tells me that if I give up some or all of my rights for self determination, in exchange for the security of the "community" ...and "justice"...then the end result will be an oppresive, state run dictatorship...and so I run like hell in the opposite direction. Didn't you all learn anything when Hugo Chavez came to power?

You said: "All I wanted to say is that Zarathusthra was concerned with sociation and how to build, maintain and expand liberal, future-oriented and essentially pluralistic communities."

...and the operative word here is "maintain"...and "expand Liberal" (idealism)...without explaining "how" you are going to "maintain" such a community....or explain exactly what a "liberal" is. Are you talking about Thomas Jefferson "liberals" or the co-opted covert socialist Liberals who came to power in the 1960s? Until you can answer those questions...all utopian dreams of such a community and the particular vocabulary you are using to describe 'community" you seek...is meaningless. And to associate Zoroastrianism with marxism/communisn/fascism...or whatever name you want to call it now...simply makes me want to puke. How dare you? Did Zarathustra or any other Z...ever enforce "community values" by any other means but voluntary choice? You know nothing about Zoroastrianism....and its embarrassing. And....do you think that Zoroaster used the word "liberal" at any time in his life? Show me the word "liberal" in the Gathas...I dare you....

What is "future-oriented"....oriented toward what? Science, welfare, social and government policy, tight control of commerce and economics....enforced equality (poverty) of all individuals in such a state/community? What? Actually, I've heard all of this before...and its nothing more than extant infantile emotionalism and wishes for a mommy-state by those who are extremely insecure in their own personhood. Hitler and Stalin ...as well as Pol Pot and Castro, and now Hugo Chavez all used the same propaganda with the same failed results.

One of the very worst problems your "sociologists" have is that they never read history....Marx by the way, was Jewish, never worked a day in his life, married into a rich, titled Prussian family and sat around in his study writing about the revenge he would take on the rich by the poor. Most of sociology is about revenge...class struggle my hind end! Redistribution is simply theft and out right robbery.

One of the most important parts of Zism...is to think for yourself, seek exactly what the consequences are of one's ideas...and change if such ideas do not work or create failure. One cannot think for one's self in such an organized, controlled "community" or whatever you want to call it. Evolution is messy, it is not always good, or right....nature is filled with mistakes and mutations...and war.

War is a natural state, inside and outside your body and actually serves many purposes of evolution and progress. Just as your white blood cells are at war with bacteria, viruses, and toxins...the body politic is also at war...and the day that there is no "war"...is the day that human kind no longer exists. There is value in chaos...chaos is the beginning process of evolution...."communities" do not like chaos...of any kind.

Do you realize that without exposure to stress, threats, and violence...as is demonstrated inside your body at war....your body then lacks the ability to rise up, mutate, and change to meet the challenge of invaders and defend its self. HIV is now running rampant all over the world...killing more than 90 million people in its wake, however, what is also occuring are individuals whose immunity is changing...and who are not affected by HIV. The human body and the mind has been at war since the first one-celled animal was evolved, and another one-celled animal came along and ate it...Ergo, "communities" cannot prevent war.....war and threats serves a process of strengthening and evolving biological organisms.

I suggest you also read some Darwinism...and see the value of struggle and evolution, and....the very idea of communities who seek to prevent struggle of any kind for the ideal of "peace" is in fact...creating an evolutionary dead end. The US maybe just at this point.

In fact, "peace" is when your enemy is rebuilding his weapons and getting ready to strike those are at peace...and who are the most vulnerable. The cosmos is at war....and simply filled with stars exploding, black holes eating up entire galaxies, baby stars being born, and others dying....and it is simply irrational to believe that one can create such a community that blocks all the processes of creativity, including war, destruction, and chaos whether in the individual human mind, the human body,...or the body politic.

My undergraduate degree is in sociology...and sociology is nothing more than Marxist-inspired crap....profiteered by those who are the most uneducated in all of the sciences. I am embarassed to tell people my undergraduate degree is in sociology. Sociology will NEVER, EVER be able to rid its self of its Marxist origins....sociology simply repackages this old dead, destrutive tripe in new vocabularies and attempts to sell this shit over and and over again. Us old dogs aren't buying it....And...you said:

"Oh, no, I didn't do that. I didn't recommend anything at all. All I said was that sociation is based on double contingency which is held in check by expecting the expectations of others, thus requiring social norms and values. This is only one possible answer (it's Luhmann's and - to a certain extent - Habermas's, to be precise), since there are many social theories available. You'd better read a book on the basics of sociology first?"

(I went into psychology and neurophysiology because sociology is the most irrational, irrelevant bull shit junk that calls its self a 'science" on this planet...and I suggest you do the same and get a real education. Social workers are simply the Marxist community organizers of sociology...and the most silly, irrational people to ever impose their 'social justice' agenda on human kind...and they should all be rounded up and have their brains washed out. In my personal library, I have about 15 text books donated to me by a relative on social work...and it is just awful. None of this crap is "research based" or scientific...it is simply another religion. What a waste...worse, they are rife in government and forcing Marxist welfare, police state policies on the rest of us.)

Once again...the operative word you used.... is" held in check (police state).....through requiring (police state) social norms and values (of whom?.by whom?..who decides these norms and values)...etc." Who gets to be the head honcho, the all-knowing, most elite advisor and dictator of social norms and values? The individual? Hell no...the state.

One of your most bizarre statements was that Zoroaster was one of the original mentors of "community"...which you then associated with modern sociology's vision of utopian socialism...

...when in fact, all of the Zoroastrians I know...are supreme individualists, they are rich, successful, confident, extremely well educated, all of them are PhDs or physicians, and responsible human beings...who give to the community not because Zoroaster told them to, but because it makes sense. However, they choose (and are not forced by peer pressure, guilt, or the community) who they are benefactors to carefully and do not waste their money on people who have been trained for generations to be subservient and dependent on the "state."

Evolution and the strengthening of the mind...as well as a true education, does not always come easily or as a gift. And often, that which is 'given' is thrown away....

One of the very worst things imaginable is for converts to Zism...to then convert and bastardize Zism into some kind of socialist/marxist bull shit.

You have a lot of growing up to do and a lot to learn my friend....Hugs, Judy



--- On Fri, 10/16/09, Special Kain wrote:


From: Special Kain
Subject: [Ushta] A question of sociation
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, October 16, 2009, 2:30 PM



Dear Judy,

So drop the word "collectivism" and use "community" or "society" instead! There actually are quite liberal societies on this globe, such as constitutional democracies that support the human rights and political pluralism. All I wanted to say is that Zarathusthra was concerned with sociation and how to build, maintain and expand liberal, future-oriented and essentially pluralistic communities. We are who we are only in relation to the people around us (namely: the entire human race). It's not either solitary nomads or oppressive collectivism!

Secondly, Dino....you did not answer a previous question...which was..."Just how do you suppose the "collective" or the tribe keeps its members in line and a part of the collective? I would appreciate it if you would answer this question honestly.

I already have, see the controversy between Habermas and Luhmann in the early 1970's. And this is the one million dollar question in sociology, since this is THE MOST IMPORTANT sociological question of all: how does sociation work? Even Luhmann who's one of the most important and famous 20th century German sociologists couldn't answer this question (since he couldn't explain intersubjectivity with his sociological take on autopoiesis) .

I know how the tribe/herd/ant hill/church/ state/collective does this and I suggest you read some anthropology on tribalism, before you jump off and recommend a very old, static, nonevolving kind of existence for the rest of us as individuals.

Oh, no, I didn't do that. I didn't recommend anything at all. All I said was that sociation is based on double contingency which is help in check by expecting the expectations of others, thus requiring social norms and values. This is only one possible answers (it's Luhmann's and - to a certain extent - Habermas's, to be precise), since there are many social theories available. You'd better read a book on the basics of sociology first?

Tell me how a "collective" of any kind can protect and endow its self with power to enforce "collectivisation" without force or at the very least...trickery? How do you do that? Please answer this question.... .

This was one of the major questions raised by the Enlightement movement centuries ago. Their ideals, the printing press and the public sphere are decisive here. Citizens should be the authors of the very rules they would adhere to, thus liberal democracies were born (even though Zarathusthra probably was the first to point in that direction millennia ago).

So I guess the problem lies with the word "collectivism" only. I'm sorry for my obviously poor choice of words. I could now write on and on without pause but this would lead to me still typing tomorrow morning. And I'd have to translate everything I know (as a sociologist) into English, but the language barrier just sucks. That's why I try to keep it simple and stupid and get my main points across as simply as possible. If I fail, I'm glad people like you ask such questions, so I'll try and do better next time.

Ushta, Dino

--- Judy Weismonger schrieb am Fr, 16.10.2009:


Von: Judy Weismonger
Betreff: [Ushta] Collectivism and The Wrong View of the Principle of Freshokereti
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
CC: dwilsontx@gmail. com
Datum: Freitag, 16. Oktober 2009, 15:43



Dino...

“Theory and Practice,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 137.

The advocates of collectivism are motivated not by a desire for men’s happiness, but by hatred for man . . . hatred of the good for being the good; . . . the focus of that hatred, the target of its passionate fury, is the man of ability.

I have a PhD in medical anthropology and understand quite well tribalism and collectivism. ...which has kept such groups from evolving...because they do not allow any "differentness" ...or anyone to think outside the box.

If you can show me any tribe or "collective" that not only promotes individualism, but within this tribe, it has produced a significant number of individual thinkers and achievers and persons of ability, such as physicists, I will send you a check for $10,000.

Secondly, Dino....you did not answer a previous question...which was..."Just how do you suppose the "collective" or the tribe keeps its members in line and a part of the collective? I would appreciate it if you would answer this question honestly.

I know how the tribe/herd/ant hill/church/ state/collective does this and I suggest you read some anthropology on tribalism, before you jump off and recommend a very old, static, nonevolving kind of existence for the rest of us as individuals.

Marxism is "collectivism" (i.e. tribalism/herds/ ant hills/churches, etc.) on a grand scale...however, whether collectivism or tribalism is large or small....the "collective" always demands --and if it can-- "enforces" a cult-like magical, and neoreligious idea that it is somehow endowed with special knowledge, and anyone who challenges such "specialness" then causes the collective/group/ tribe/herd to feel threatened and vulnerable. And...ask yourself then...what happens when a group feels that its "collective" power (and it is power we are talking about)...is threatened. It subsequently removes that threat (i.e. a police state).

Between 1900 and 1999, more than 180 million people died (180,000,000) because one kind of collective or another (facists/communists /socialists/ churchists/ Islamacists) who all believe in thier own "view" and "right" of the collective.. .demanded individuals submit to the collective.

Tell me how a "collective" of any kind can protect and endow its self with power to enforce "collectivisation" without force or at the very least...trickery? How do you do that? Please answer this question.... .

The collectivism of Marxism, or the collectivism of any church-state has no differences in function and process....none. If you can tell me if there are any differences in the "collectivism" you are recommending and Churchism or Marxism...please do so.

The idea of a "collective" is no more new or astounding than an ant hill, a herd of cows, or a church-state collective, and the most outstanding and original idea to ever come about in world history...was for the founding fathers to eliminate by law...any kind of "enforced" collectivism by either the church or the state, or any other group...who punishes individualism. True Zoroastrianism is the "anti-thesis" of "collectivism. ....

This is what Ayn Rand said about "collectivism, " and she was right:

Collectivism

Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group—whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.”


“The Only Path to Tomorrow,” Reader’s Digest, Jan. 1944, 8.

Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective—society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc.—is the unit of reality and the standard of value. On this view, the individual has reality only as part of the group, and value only insofar as he serves it.


Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 17.

Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group . . . and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force—and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism.


“Racism,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 128.

Fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory . . . both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state.


“‘Extremism,’ or the Art of Smearing,”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 180.

Modern collectivists . . . see society as a super-organism, as some supernatural entity apart from and superior to the sum of its individual members.


“Collectivized ‘Rights,’” The Virtue of Selfishness, 103.

The philosophy of collectivism upholds the existence of a mystic (and unperceivable) social organism, while denying the reality of perceived individuals—a view which implies that man’s senses are not a valid instrument for perceiving reality.


Collectivism maintains that an elite endowed with special mystic insight should rule men—which implies the existence of an elite source of knowledge, a fund of revelations inaccessible to logic and transcending the mind.


Collectivism denies that men should deal with one another by voluntary means, settling their disputes by a process of rational persuasion; it declares that men should live under the reign of physical force (as wielded by the dictator of the omnipotent state)—a position which jettisons reason as the guide and arbiter of human relationships.


From every aspect, the theory of collectivism points to the same conclusion: collectivism and the advocacy of reason are philosophically antithetical; it is one or the other.


“Nazism vs. Reason,” The Objectivist, Oct. 1969, 1.

The political philosophy of collectivism is based on a view of man as a congenital incompetent, a helpless, mindless creature who must be fooled and ruled by a special elite with some unspecified claim to superior wisdom and a lust for power.


“Who Will Protect Us from Our Protectors?
The Objectivist Newsletter, May 1962, 17.

What subjectivism is in the realm of ethics, collectivism is in the realm of politics. Just as the notion that “Anything I do is right because I chose to do it,” is not a moral principle, but a negation of morality—so the notion that “Anything society does is right because society chose to do it,” is not a moral principle, but a negation of moral principles and the banishment of morality from social issues.


“Collectivized ‘Rights,’” The Virtue of Selfishness, 101.

As a cultural-intellectu al power and a moral ideal, collectivism died in World War II. If we are still rolling in its direction, it is only by the inertia of a void and the momentum of disintegration. A social movement that began with the ponderous, brain-cracking, dialectical constructs of Hegel and Marx, and ends up with a horde of morally unwashed children stamping their foot and shrieking: “I want it now!”—is through.


“The Cashing-In: The Student ‘Rebellion,’”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 266.

Collectivism has lost the two crucial weapons that raised it to world power and made all of its victories possible: intellectuality and idealism, or reason and morality. It had to lose them precisely at the height of its success, since its claim to both was a fraud: the full, actual reality of socialist-communist -fascist states has demonstrated the brute irrationality of collectivist systems and the inhumanity of altruism as a moral code.


“The Cashing-In: The Student ‘Rebellion,’”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 269.

Collectivism does not preach sacrifice as a temporary means to some desirable end. Sacrifice is its end—sacrifice as a way of life. It is man’s independence, success, prosperity, and happiness that collectivists wish to destroy.


Observe the snarling, hysterical hatred with which they greet any suggestion that sacrifice is not necessary, that a non-sacrificial society is possible to men, that it is the only society able to achieve man’s well-being.

“An Untitled Letter,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 10

Judy: In effect, the founders of the US were by nature scientists, and ergo functional Atheists...who revered "individual" human existence as allowing freedom to the human mind to create and explore Wisdom...in comparison to the collectives of the church and kings...who declared by "divine right" their mandate to enforce "collectivism" on individuals. Haven't we evolved far past any idea of "collectivism? " Aren't we now held together and evolving through law, which appreciates and respects the "individual" and not the "mob" rule of the collective?

Please a) show me how you think collectivism works...b) demonstrate to me how the "collective" will enforce its will, and c) demonstrate any real or known benefits of collectivism to the individual.

Hugs, Judy

Sociology vs Philosophy

Dear Dino

Yes, of course, this is why it is important to keep the distinction between Sociology and Philosophy.
The perfect example of this in none other than Karl Marx. Marx was a brilliant sociologist and one of the founders of the discipline but a lousy political philosopher whose theories have caused a lot more destruction than possibly anybody else in the last 200 years. Which is why people who study and use Marx as a sociologist only (I guess, people like us) are referred to as MARXIAN and are not be mistaken for people who still defend Marx's political philosophy (Marxists).
It is for example perfectly feasible to be a MARXIAN Randian. And Habermas can be most valuable even if one is not a Habermasian.
And Philosophy is more than a fun game, it is also where sociological concepts have their origin. Autopoesis being a case in point. Philosophy is not a science, but an art-form that inspires Sociology, Art, Politics, that is its duty! For example, where would you be with Sociology today without Pragmatism as its foundation?

Ushta
Alexander/ an ironic liberal myself, as Richard Rorty would have it...

2009/10/17 Special Kain



Dear Alexander,

This is also the difference between us: you're philosophically interested in their works, I'm much more scientifically and empirically interested in their works. I don't judge Luhmann, Habermas or Deleuze by the psychological excitement they may or may not invoke, but by their passing the empirical tests on the level of social research (and "postmodernists" like Deleuze never could explain societies empirically, which doesn't say anything about their achievements as philosophers; or take Foucault, for example, whose theories of power can't be tested empirically at all, so they're only bold claims that one chooses to believe in or not).
You can forget about Habermas's Marxism, but his works on the public sphere have been quite valuable in terms of social research and media studies (but quite altered and adjusted empirically to what he didn't know at the time when he first came up with "Der Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit", which he would also criticize about 20 years later). I'm not a Habermasian, but a pragmatist, and I therefore judge such theories pragmatically by their use as scientific tools. A formidable thinker like Deleuze is fun and truly fascinating, but if I can't use it for scientific research (since it's neither verifiable nor falsifiable), then I just drop it and move on to far more useful concepts.
A totally different thing is Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, whose philosophical claims have turned out to be scientifically true (both in psychological research and, more recently, sociological research)!
I know that dry analysis is far less exciting than totally new and outrageously bold claims, and such interesting and controversial theories are initially much praised but regularly dropped after not having passed the test. That's why radical constructivism (Varela, Watzlawick etc.) is as good as dead, that's why the critical Foucauldian criminology is as good as dead.

Ushta,
Dino // 100% Peircean and Deweyan

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Sa, 17.10.2009:


Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Randian fundamentalism/personal attacks vs. sociation (was: A question of sociation)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Samstag, 17. Oktober 2009, 12:13



Dear Judy

We need to make som eclarifications here.
Your very American opposition between "Liberals" and "Indvidualists" is a very American opposition.
Dino and I live in Europe where this opposition does not exist or is of very limited interest.
Like Zarathushtra, Dino and I are PRAGMATISTS and neither individualists or liberals or Marxists or whatever.
The concept of autopoesis was first developed in the early 1970s by the Chilean philosophers Maturana and Varela and was then introduced to sociology by the formidable thinker Niklas Luhmann.
Neither of these three gentlemen fit into your American opposition pair.
So you are just going to have to adjust to a world of philosophy were the old oppositions are dated and no longer of interest. The important thing now is to find a home for the strong individual you are promoting within this new environment. And perhaps then Michel Foucault's concept of living your life as a work of art is more helpful than Ayn Rand?
Calling me and Dino "American Liberals" is however definitely to miss the point. But I guess that is good news, don't you think? Now we can together see what happens when Rand meets Foucault, Luhmann and others. What can WE create out of these mergers in a society and within a worldview which is POST the old opposition?
Have you read Varela or Luhrmann yet? Or perhaps the greatest giant of the process philosophers, Gilles Deleuze, who also studied and promoted autopoesis heavily in opposition to Habermas (who really is a Marxist!).

Ushta
Alexander

The post-atheist dilemma (Religion vs Psychology)

Dear Judy

At the end of the day, all of William James' arguments for religion and against atheism can be used exactly the opposite way too. What is important is the PRIORITY he gives to psychology in the choice between religion and atheism. But we must at the end of the day disregard the effects of these choices (which James never did) and look out for what is honestly TRUE. Personally, I call myself a post-atheist. What I'm dealing with is how we should deal with the atheist revolution since atheism does not provide a substance in itself (it is only a NEGATION of religion, it does not provide any answers to how we should deal woth our lives etc which was always the point with religion). The conversion to Zoroastrianism as the religion whoch holds the current world as sacred and facts as higher than beliefs was an obvious first step. Now we are into Step 2: After the conversion, how do WE affect Zoroastrianism from within?
Oh, and another thing: be careful with the argument that atehism is a winning formula for living! We had two prominent atheists in Europe in the 19th century who we do not particularly like afterwards, they were called Hitler and Stalin...
Atheism is good because it is true, not because it makes people happy. But what if atheism is not enough? That is where Mazdayasna comes in! The answer to the post-atheist dilemma!

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/17 Judy Weismonger



Well...thank you and Alexander you are correct in that such associations between psychology and religion were well known in times past especially in James time...but by a very small group of people in the field of psychology and psychiatry who became intimidated to the point they could not examine religion for what it was.

(William James (January 11, 1842 – August 26, 1910) was a pioneering American psychologist and philosopher trained as a medical doctor. ...)...

The problem is that since the era of William James and his impact on the field of American psychology ...the study and dissection of religion has been a Sacrosanct subject in which one did not dare...in any scientific field...examine or confront religion on any level. Part of the problem was that James was a proponent of religion....

I've read biographies regarding James...and he often stated that Atheism would cause the disintegration of the family and the destruction of civilization. However, James was very wrong and his scientific research in the field was lacking.....

Why? Because today's research indicates that Atheists have lower divorce rates, have the lowest rates of criminality (95% of all felons in prison are Christians). Atheists have less child abuse rates, higher educational levels, less mental illness, over all satisfaction with their lives, higher IQs...give more money as individuals (Bill Gates and Buffet are both Atheists)...and there are lists and lists of some of the most creative, intelligent, scientific minds in all of history who are and were Atheists. Seventy five percent and some say higher of scientists polled...are either Atheists, Deists, Agnostics, or don't give a damn about religion. Well, there goes the neighborhood.

Below is a summary of what James said with a commentary by Vitz...in which James' best guesses regarding what the world would be like without religion were in the context of his era. Sadly, he was wrong because James framed almost of his psychological studies within the framework of psychoanalysis and not the biology of psychology or human behavior...and his own cultural biases.

James et al, knew very little or nothing about DNA, genetics, or quantum physics....since he could not look inside the brain, or examine cellular function. He also was idiosyncratic and xenophobic to the point that anyone who did not believe in his Christian "god" was considered a "nasty little pagan." Well, that would also include us Zoroastrians if he had been aware of Zarathustra.........Hugs, Judy

Summary of William James' interesting points below.

1. The history of psychology's study of and antipathy towards religion

He begins by covering Sigmund Freud who studied belief as the result of natural causes (psychological). He discusses how this foundation set psychology off in an antagonistic, skeptical stance towards faith, esp. the Christian faith, which Freud despised.

He discusses how using psychology to examine UNbelief, which characterizes the majority of secular psychologists, alarms them. Vitz argues that psychoanalatic tools can be used to study belief and unbelief alike.

2. His underlying assumptions

a. The major barriers to belief in God are not rational, but psychological.

I am quite convinced that for every person strongly swayed by rational argument, there are countless others more affected by non-rational psychological factors....Intense, often unconscious psychological barriers to belief in God are of great importance....Psychological factors can be impediments to belief, and these may often be unconscious factors (i.e. rejection of a surrogate father figure).

The extent that these factors are present in the lives of people, as well as the their individual temperament, upbringing, and social environment, may make belief in God much harder than for those who have not suffered these same factors.

b. In spite of serious difficulties to belief, all of us have a free choice to accept or reject God.

Although the ultimate issue is one of the will...it is still possible to investigate those psychological factors that predispose one to unbelief, and that make the road to faith in God especially long and difficult.

3. The shallow reasons for being an atheist

In this section, he critiques the notion that "belief in God is based on all kinds of irrational and immature needs, but atheism or skepticism is based on a rational, no-nonsense appraisal of the way things really are."

His main points are that many people are atheists for the following reasons (including himself before he converted at age 38).

My reasons for becoming and remaining an atheist skeptic from ages 18 to 38 were superficial, irrational, and largely without serious intellectual or moral justification. I am further convinced that my shallow motives were and still are commonplace among skeptics.

These reasons he labels as

* General Socialization - the desire to fit in with peers in the secular culture, in which traditionalism and faith are considered backwards.
* Specific Socialization - the desire to be accepted by those who are powerful, sophisticated, and 'smart and skeptical' in one's professional circles, an attitude common in the University setting, where Vitz studied (Stanford). He remarks "as a graduate student, I was thoroughly socialized by the specific culture of academic research psychology. My professors at Stanford were united in only two things - their intense personal career ambition and their rejection of religion....In this environment, just as I learned how to dress like a student by putting on the right clothes, I also learned to think like a proper psychologist by putting on the right, that is, atheistic and skeptical, attitude."
* Simple Personal Convenience - "The fact is, it is quite inconvenient to be a serious believer in today's neo-pagan world. I would have had to give up many pleasures and a great deal of time....Now perhaps you think that such perspectives are restricted to callow young men like myself, but it is not." He goes on to quote from Mortimer Adler.

4. Deeper reasons for being an atheist - an unresolved Oedipus complex

He admits that, though the simple reasons may be the most common, there are deeper psychological reasons why one might be an atheist.

First, Freud characterized belief as illusions that are fulfillment of the deep wishes of mankind to be safe from the difficulties of life, and theorized that we all have a desire for a benevolent father.

However, after deconstructing this view as not central to Freudianism (as Freud himself admitted, it was not an extension of his analytic theories, but just his personal views), Vitz argues that Freud's ideas also provide a basis for evaluating unbelief.

I believe Freud is quite right that a belief can be an illusion that arises from powerful wishes, from unconscious childhood needs. The irony is that Freud himself provides a powerful new way to understand the neurotic basis for unbelief.

He goes on to discuss the Oedipus complex that forms the center of Freud's theory of male emotional development. Briefly, the boy is threatened by his father, and has an unconscious desire to kill him, but since he cannot, he eventually instead identifies with him and the fear and hate are sublimated and never removed, and they may surface later as neuroses and our innate hatred for authority.

If we take this as true, we can see the wish-fulfilling desire to reject God, who represents the ultimate powerful father, and so we have a deep rebellion against such authority, and a desire to replace Him with ourself.

He then mentions two well known historical skeptics that fit this pattern:

* Voltaire, though a type of deist, rejected his father to the point of changing his name, and displayed an overt hostility to the King and religion. His first play? Oedipus.
* Diderot - "If the little savage was left to himself, preserving all of his foolishness, and adding to the small sense of a child in the cradle the violent passions of a man of thirty, he would strangle his father and lie with his mother."

5. A broader psychological model for atheism - the defective father

Vitz goes on to say that no other theory of atheism has been deeply developed, but another idea of Freud's which he did not explore provides a more detailed model for the formation of atheism, and he uses this for his own theory, since Vitz believes that the Oedipal complex is really not the best or broadest model.
Psychoanalysis, which has taught us the intimate connection between the father complex and belief in God has shown us that the personal God is logically nothing but an exalted father, and daily demonstrates to us how youthful persons lose their religious belief as soon as the authority of the father breaks down.
- Freud's Essay on Leonarod Davinci

Vitz then simply reformulates this into his hypothesis:
Once a child or youth is dissapointed in or loses respect for their earthly father, then belief in a heavenly Father becomes difficult or impossible.

The father can fail the child in many ways:

* He can be present, but weak, cowardly, and unworthy of respect
* He can be present, but abusive
* He can be absent through death or abandonment

6. Case histories of famous atheists and skeptics lend universal support to this model

Vitz mentions many, but here's a smattering:

* Freud - His own father was a weak man, unable to provide for his family, and passive in response to antisemitism against the family. Freud's own writings show his disappointment with his father. In two of this letters as an adult, Freud writes that his father was a sexual pervert, and that his own family suffered because of it. Additionally, his father spent hours reading the bible with Sigmund, which connected this weak figure with God in Sigmund's mind.
* Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach - When he was thirteen, his father left the family and openly took up living with another married woman in a different town. In the early 1800's in Germany, this would have been a deep and public scandal. When his mistress died, he returned to his original wife as if nothing happened. Additionally, the father, a well known Jurist, was described as "the Volcano" because of his explosive, angry temperament.
* Madalyn Murray O'Hair - She hated her father so much that she tried to kill him with a Butcher knife.
* Albert Ellis - Vitz tells a very funny story about how he actually read his thesis to this established atheist psychologist and theorist, who denied that it applied to him, but whose biography actually mentioned that Ellis' father abandoned the family when Ellis was 10, and was largely absent before that, due to an illness. The mother had a mental illness, so Ellis grew up on the street essentially without his parents.
* David Hume - father died when he was 2
* Bertrand Russel - father died at 4
* Nietzsche - father died at 4
* Sartre - father died at 1.5
* Camus - father died before he was born
* Schopenhauer - disliked his mother a great deal and liked his father, but his father committed suicide when Schopenhauer was 16.

CONCLUSION

He adds that in addition to these personal factors, the common experiences of death and suffering can generate anger, often directed at God, and this is frequently openly used as evidence against faith in God. He concludes that this common sense model not only fits the facts, it is a highly plausible mechanism for predisposing people against faith in God. He ends with a nice statement:
However prevalent the superficial motives are for being an unbeliever, there still remain, in many instances, the deep and disturbing psychological sources as well. However easy it may be to state the hypothesis of the defective father, we must not forget the difficulty, the pain and the complexity that lie behind each individual case.

And for those whose atheism has been conditioned by a father who died, who rejected, who denied, who hated, who manipulated, or who physically or sexually abused them, there must be understanding and compassion. Certainly, for a child to be forced in this way to hate his father or even to despair because of his father's weakness is a great tradgedy. After all, the child only wants to love his father, and to have a father who loves him back.

For any unbeliever whose atheism is grounded in such experiences, the believer blessed by God's love should pray [for them]...perhaps the former atheist will expeirence even more joy than the beleiver, for the atheist will have that extra increment that comes from his surprise at finding himself surrounded by joy, in of all places, his Father's house.

Now that is a compassionate man.


--- On Fri, 10/16/09, Special Kain wrote:


From: Special Kain
Subject: AW: [Ushta] Religion and psychology: A religion BEYOND fear (was: The Reason for Intolerance)
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, October 16, 2009, 4:57 PM



Dear Alexander,

I agree with you that Judy's posting is nothing but brilliant. However, I also have to disagree.
The religious experiences was already psychologically discussed by none other than William James ("The Will to Believe", "The Religious Experience"). On the other hand, the desire for religion was psychologically discussed by Baruch Spinoza, David Hume and Friedrich Nietzsche, for example. I could drop far too many names, which would be far too tiring, but the link between psychology and religion hasn't been ignored or misunderstood. There's plenty to read about it, actually!
If you're interested in the psychologization of the religious experience, William James could be a good start.

Ushta, Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Fr, 16.10.2009:


Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Religion and psychology: A religion BEYOND fear (was: The Reason for Intolerance)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Datum: Freitag, 16. Oktober 2009, 18:14



Dear Judy

When you post postings like the one below, you are absolutely BRILLIANT!!!
Not only is every word you mention true, but you are also pointing to a link which has rarely been used or understood and always ignored: The link between psychology and religion!
We need to psychologize the religious experience! We need to understand how the religious experience is a part of and should be a part of our psychology. This way we can create a religion which is OPEN to diversity, pluralism and truly cheris such things as sacred, which is the exact opposite of traditional religion.
Zarathushtra was of course into this already 3,700 years ago, which explains why pluralism as dogma was introduced into human history by Iranian Zoroastrians. This is an amazing legacy we can build on when we create a religion BEYOND fear.

Ushta
Alexander

Autopoesis (Philosophy post individualism vs collectivism)

Dear Judy

We need to make some clarifications here.
Your very American opposition between "Liberals" and "Indvidualists" is a very American opposition.
Dino and I live in Europe where this opposition does not exist or is of very limited interest.
Like Zarathushtra, Dino and I are PRAGMATISTS and neither individualists or liberals or Marxists or whatever.
The concept of autopoesis was first developed in the early 1970s by the Chilean philosophers Maturana and Varela and was then introduced to sociology by the formidable thinker Niklas Luhmann.
Neither of these three gentlemen fit into your American opposition pair.
So you are just going to have to adjust to a world of philosophy were the old oppositions are dated and no longer of interest. The important thing now is to find a home for the strong individual you are promoting within this new environment. And perhaps then Michel Foucault's concept of living your life as a work of art is more helpful than Ayn Rand?
Calling me and Dino "American Liberals" is however definitely to miss the point. But I guess that is good news, don't you think? Now we can together see what happens when Rand meets Foucault, Luhmann and others. What can WE create out of these mergers in a society and within a worldview which is POST the old opposition?
Have you read Varela or Luhrmann yet? Or perhaps the greatest giant of the process philosophers, Gilles Deleuze, who also studied and promoted autopoesis heavily in opposition to Habermas (who really is a Marxist!).

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/17 Special Kain
- Dölj citerad text -



Well, Judy, I'm a top sociologist and media scientist, so I perfectly know what autopoiesis means. And you can't judge our societies on the grounds of biology. That's exactly what Richard Dawkins was so bothered by the mid-1970's, so he came up with memetics to provide an alternative (which wasn't very successful, admittedly, but not because it would be all wrong). The word "collectivism" obviously struck a nerve, didn't it?

If you did your research better, then you'd know by now that Luhmann adopted the concept of autopoiesis and applied it to his systems theory, which is known as "die autopoietische Wende". But, as I said, it can't explain sociation. Habermas was one of his most prominent opponents, heavily relying on a communications theoretical reformulation of the Enlightement project - with the intersubjective recognition of potentially criticizable validity claims as the foundation of socation in modern societies ("die intersubjektive Anerkennung kritisierbarer Anerkennung als Grundlage der Vergesellschaftung"). Still I think you should get familiar with the controversy between them in order to UNDERSTAND what was going on. It's quite tough, absolutely no picnic, but will eventually pimp your brains (which is never a bad thing).

But let me please answer to some of your (silly) objections (while ignoring your Randian fundamentalism):

The major problem with all of these "utopian" idealistic, irrational, dream world, "communes" is that the designers and dreamers such as yourself...have not a clue as to what variances there are in human psychology.. .and if they do, or were exposed to such facts, refuse to recognize it

That's just a very bold claim, nothing else. I guess that anyone who knows me - even some folks here on Ushta - agree that I'm one of the fastest-learning, most curious and smartest members who has no problem whatsoever with adjusting my head with reality. And please don't forget who you're addressing your postings to - I, Dino, was the one to bring up William James concerning the psychologization of the religious experience. ;-)

And, please, not every community-minded person is a communist! Communism is dead and I don't know of any Zoroastrian supporting communism. But when reading the Gathas it's made perfectly clear that Zarathushtra was concerned with settled communities and their growth and cultural evolution. And cultural evolution is different from natural evolution. Evolutionary psychology and sociobiology aren't that popular anymore.

Now try this one on for size...the lower the IQ of an individual.. .or a group, the more they "need" a "community" to survive...whereas, the higher the IQ is of the individual.. .the less there is of a need for a regulated, held in check, mandated community. Now extrapolate that fact and see what you come up with. By the way...what is your IQ?

Shit, it really must have made you extremely angry. I guess whatever I would come up - the reputation of the University of Zurich, my grades, my professors's statements etc. - can't calm you down and see me for who I am. I'm definitely one the smartest to have graduated this year at one of the world's leading universities. If Zurich is known for anything else than money, then it's science and research (and not for pop culture, unfortunately).

By the way, such a relentless psychologization of people who are more community-minded than others is pointless. Where does health start, where does it end? This is pathologization, which is an instrument of power - silencing the opponents, discriminating against them, excluding them. See Michel Foucault and Eva Illouz for further infotainment.

I asked him why he had to "ask permission from his family" to get surgery? He said...that he respected his family and to defy them or make an independent decision...was an insult to the family (community). ..Therefore, in your below quotations.. ..it is this same kind of "expectation" you mention...that is also used to destroy human individualism and initiative through peer and family and now 'societal" and community pressure. No thank you...you and your kind need to mind your own business....

No, absolutely not. I was talking about all possible expectations. We're always expecting other people to behave in one way or another, and we're always expecting them to probably know what we in turn expect their expectations to be. If that's too tough to grasp, then please see Niklas Luhmann for more infotainment.

What progress as has been achieved has never come about by a "community" but through the individual creativity of the human mind acting alone, or trading in the "commerce" of ideas with others who are also like minded individualists.

Think of scientific communities for a second!

The autopoietic communities you describe do not like "individualism" at all. Liberals especially have some kind of arrogant, neo-religious belief system going on that everyone else is just simply stupid and naive but them...and that as the superior ones, the Liberal elitests with the most progressive ideas...then have a right to pass laws and policies to regulate the behavior and commerce of the rest of us....to then save us from ourselves.

You're putting in my words ... it's getting silly. Frankly, Luhmann can't explain sociation, so how could he possibly move from autopoietic people (everyone of us is such an autopoetic system) to larger social systems which are equally autopoietic? I've never promoted such closed communities where everybody would have to bow down and accept the rules as they are - quite the opposite! So please note the difference between a sociologist's DESCRIPTIVE statements and your NORMATIVE woes.

You can hide behind, and use all those extraordinary utopian phrases your sociologists can create in their ample spare time, but the reality is that behind such "nice" words...is a draconian police state, that must exist...to make everyone obey the rules of the "community" to make it work (for a while) for the good of "all."

Now that's just paranoia. We're tribal animals. The situation decides. Some of us are able to think more critically and independently than others. Or would you say that integrity, intelligence and self-criticism were the status quo? I've never promoted such a stupid and ignorant kind of collectivism, so please stop your accusations IMMEDIATELY!!! This is just stupid and a waste of time.

In Europe criticizing one's society is quite a popular game.

By the way...I can't find and have never run into the word "sociation." Do you mean association, or socialization? Or is it a term referencing society in some way? Is that a European word that is not a part of the English language? Try googling the word "sociation" and tell me what you come up.

Once again you should've done your research better before starting to rant and lash out. Sociation is a sociological term: how do single players cooperate and create a community? How do societies come into being?

I take it that you are in university training...and as such, you are subjected to not the real world...

And that's just bullshit again. I've just graduated, and quite successfully so. If your limited view can't grasp anything else than Ayn Rand, then you're going to misunderstand lots of people out there - in the real world. Now you'll probably have to downplay lots of my statements (or the University of Zurich or whatever), without considering the language barrier. Then that's just ignorance on your part.

And it's a common and very, very stupid mistake to believe that students were less exposed to the real world than, let's say, assemblymen. It's so tremendously stupid that I even refuse to talk with people who would come up with such non-arguments.

You know nothing about Zoroastrianism. ...and its embarrassing. And....do you think that Zoroaster used the word "liberal" at any time in his life? Show me the word "liberal" in the Gathas...I dare you....

I've now decided to ignore the rest of your posting and quit. You're definitely a manic.

End of discussion,
Dino

Mazdayasna and folk Zoroastrianism vs Brahmanism and folk Hinduism

Dear Friends

Let's learn from INDIA here, the closest culture to Iran historically and philosohically.
Indians are happy to divide their religion between a folk religion called Hinduism, where popular practice dictates the content of the religion, and a philosophy in search of truth, called Brahmanism. Hinduism has thousands of gods, Brahamnism only has Brahman, which is the same as The Universe (Pantheism or possibly Panenthiesm, just like us).
Zoroastrianism should be devided along the same lines: We have a folk Zoroastrianism, which Jehan talks about encountering every day in his congregation, but there is also "Mazdayasna", our equivalent of Brahmanism, which we try to define here on Ushta. In this sense, we on Ushta have more in common with Indian Brahmanists then with most folk Zoroastrians, but our thoughts will eventually slip through into folk Zoroastrianism too and have effect there. That is the whole point of Brahmanism in India and we should make sure the same thing is true of Madayasna (Mazdaism) in regard to folk Zoroastrianism in our culture.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/17 Judy Weismonger



Hello Jehan....It is nice to read your posts. I too was religious as a christian, and even as a later Atheist...because I thought I could save people and provide for the "needs" of the world. I also went into my field of study...because I considered the "needs" of the world.

However, the more I have observed human nature, the more I realize that not all of either nature or the world's human population is under my control...or yours either. The question then begins...how much of myself, my education, and my time and will is spent...on the needs of the world and why?

Do I or anyone like us who care about people...really make any difference in the world? The answer is no....I became extremely sad when I realized that I, and so many others in my field of science have so little impact on other human beings.

The question is then Why?....Why don't we have a bigger impact on other human beings? The answer is complicated, but it has to do with...the slow process of genetics, mutations, and evolution. It has taken us bipeds more than 7 million years to be able to put a couple of thoughts together. We are still evolving...and too many are not evolving and remain at the hand-to-mouth stage of existence...where only their basic needs of food, shelter and sex are considered...and not the future of the world.

Yes, I can be accused of Social Darwinism...and to a degree that is correct. Change comes from the inside the human mind, and...it happens over 100s of generations...and I came to this conclusion by reading UN GAO reports (United Nations General Accounting Office) in which the US, the Europeans and others have spent literally trillions of dollars on third world countries...who have made little to no changes. Every year the number of those in povery expands, they do nothing on their own or in groups to save themselves...or even consider why they are starving and ramp up the emotion or intellect for change. Religion too often tells them "its god's will"....they are being punished. The Left says its the fault of all the rich countries who won't share the wealth. But, the rich have shared and shared and shared...more wealth than the world has ever seen, and nothing has essentially changed. What then are the rich to do? Kill themselves...because the poor remain poor? Why?

Feeding programs (without birth control)...which feed the poor all over the world...do nothing more than make the "poor" just healthy enough to have even more children they cannot support with the resources available....and are actually increasing poverty and the number of poor to a higher degree than if they had been left alone....or fed intelligently with birth control methods.

India tried to actually pay Hindu men to have vasectomies in train stations....which did not work. In Africa....thousands of birth control nurses went to villages and tried to get men to put on condoms...to no avail. Billions have been spent in Africa to get men to use condoms and women to say no to men without condoms...to prevent HIV...and its been a dismal failure. HIV is increasing....although in some countries like Botswana, they are giving out free condoms on every street corner.

The US has the largest welfare system in the world...and to date, 13% of the population which was considered poor in the 1950s....has not improved one whit, and 13% of the US population remains poor in 2009. Why?

When one engages in helping the poor as did Mother Theresa, rarely does that "helper" look inside themselves and ask Why? I did....I also examined the psychological literature of those who have high degrees of "empathy" toward the poor. In almost every research study, such an individual "helper" perceives themselves also as a 'victim' to the point that if they can help and control the lives of others...they are in essence helping themselves. It does not matter that their efforts are not effective, it is the "emotion" behind 'helping' that is important to them.

Mother Theresa believed that dedicating her life to the poor...got god's attention. In the end, Mother Theresa doubted the existence of god. She became an atheist.

So, it comes down to this...do I as a "helper" jump on the boat filled with drowning people, who all got on that boat...without paying attention to anyone who said if too many of you get on that boat (over population) your boat will sink? Do I get on that boat...simply because I have so much sympathy for the poor and drown myself?

Or do I get off that boat, take notes, do what I can for those who are smart enough to jump over board and swim to shore...and save myself and those I care about? Just where do I put my time, energy, money and resources? It really comes down to a triage system of decisions of who to help and why.

In the "wisdom" of nature, it is not the dumb, or the slow, who survive. It is those with some kind of will to live, those who pay attention, create new strategies for survival...who are in the process of evolution who survive. However, there are cultures on this planet who have not changed in 100,000 years....why? And sometimes, such evolutions and adaptations are very quick.

And sometimes....one wonders about those who do not seem to have any kind of historical memory of those who died before them. For example....I've been at the scene of a volcano in Costa Rica where 40,000 people died. This particular volcano also erupted 30 years before and 5,000 people died. One then has to ask...what kind of "genetics" is involved for a group of people to resettle right back on the side of an active volcano...and risk dying a horrible tragic death which was almost certain?

What kind of genetics drives people on the island of Fuket in Indonesia...who were very aware of the history of tsunamies....devastating their community 20 years ago...to then resettle right back on the very same beach fronts....and in just a few years...1 million then die from a tsunami? What is going on here?

Was such foolishness and suicidal behavior a product of stalled genetics, religion or both? What should we do ...or how much should we do....for people who have the kind of unevolved genetics who cannot save themselves?

The amount of money spent on both HIV research and education in the US robbed breast cancer and heart disease research of massive amounts of funding. Why? Because homosexuals gained control of the media ....and used massive public relations campaigns to make others feel guilty enough to grant billions to HIV research...and deny funding to those with diseases not related to intentional life style choices. What is interesting is that HIV is fully preventable by changing one's life style and not engaging in anal sex or needle sharing. So...what is the point of all this HIV research? If we find a cure for HIV...will it change how homosexuals have sex, or stop drug addicts from sharing dirty needles? Was all this funding simply to allow homosexuals to entertain themselves through unprotected anal sex, and for the rest to continue to get high using dirty needles?

Now after more than 20 years of HIV education and research, HIV rates are rising again, and in all of those 20 years...it barely made a dent in the ongoing infection rates. Very few homosexuals either changed their life style and stopped having anal sex...or used a condom. What then is the point in spending billions of dollars on HIV education and research for a) so that such individuals could continue to have a certain sexual position that causes damage and disease to the rectum, and so that drug addicts could share dirty needles?

The outrageous stupidity of this wasted funding, which denied legitamate researchers money...did what to further human progress and evolution? Tell me. Why...is it so very necessary to spend such huge amounts of money and resources on individuals who simply will not help themselves? What does that tell us about how we think or our future?

I think we are much like lemmings all running in a pack following leaders who are going to lead us over the cliff of annialation and no return.

What then are the differences in such cultures where "intelligent" or rational individuals practice birth control, space out their children to give them the best advantages, use condoms, and who are not drug addicts who share dirty needles...and ensure that their children go to school and become self sufficient and productive adults...and seek other opportunites for advancement and change? What are we doing to support them?

In the current Left wing political spectrum...it appears that everything is being done to punish people who care...and who support themselves, or who live intelligently. How long can we do this?

My conclusion is...that by "helping" many of the masses of over populating poor who won't or can't help themselves, I am interrupting the laws of nature, i.e. the wisdom of nature, the laws of consequences and in reality, the laws of physics...and worse, I am NOT expending my intellect, education, time, and resources on those who have demonstrated some potential and will to survive, and survive well. Who then am I...to interrupt the laws of nature and physics at this level?

I say at this level...because in time, maybe in 1000 years, genetic engineering will be at such an advanced state, that there will be no poverty, no low IQed people, no disease...if we can survive the next 1000 years, where it is projected that this poor suffering planet will have a population of more than 100 billion people. Can anyone guess what 100 billion people is going to do to this planet and human kind?

However, in the mean time on the outside chance we do survive the next 1000 years...I and others should be helping our brightest and most able, and willing and motivated children...regardless of race or gender to succeed and find answers to this mess. In the US...particular minorities who were passed through school, with IQs of 80...are now given scholarships to universities...passed through based on race alone and graduated...whereas other children who have the potential to succeed on their own...and they and their parents are required to pay and pay and pay for those with no potential and who will...fail. Why? What is the point? What is very wrong with this ideology and idolatry, and sainthood of the poor?

If anything is to be done...a world wide campaign to induce people to use birth control...should be underway...and no one should be fed in massive feeing programs...without also consenting to birth control.

In this process of self examination of why I am involved in helping and now not helping, I also had to understand my own emotional motivations for helping...and become more intelligent in how I helped and who I helped. Yes, I believe in alleviating suffering and pain...but, going out to the way to provide extravagant and expensive resources all over the world that changed nothing...simply means that we are also depleting ourselves of the intellectual and financial resources that support science and progress...and the more we spend on the poor, who will not help themselves, or add nothing to "life" and progress...the more we deny support to those who can and will make a difference in the future.

Human beings are still animals...and not very intelligent animals it seems when it comes to over population. Hugs, Judy

--- On Fri, 10/16/09, Jehan Bagli wrote:


From: Jehan Bagli
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Re: Ahura and Mazda, Giti and Minoo
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, October 16, 2009, 11:47 PM




Hello Judy:

I too appreciate your brilliant postings but I fully agree with Giorgios 100%. There are 6.8 billion people in this world and we need to consider the needs of those who has limitation to appreciate the high level of scientific facet of Zoroastrianism that we discuss and read on Ushta. Myself as a retired research scientist in medicinal chemistry truly enjoy the scientific implications of my faith. However, my duties as a Zoroastrian clergy has completely different set of responsibilities To satisfy the religious and spiritual needs of the lay members. Much of the Zoroastrian laity does ot have the level of appetite that prevails on Ushta network.

There are Zoroastrians who simply are happy with accepting the fact that there is Mazda Ahura. It matters little to them where? Perhaps within them that satisfies them the most. Their feelings that they commune with Him in their prayers and in their ritual is a great source of satisfaction to them. To tell them that prayers and rituals are for the birds, and that they should forget about it is blasphemy and sacrilegious to them. They have been brought up believing in the presence of God, immortality of soul and after life. May be their Grey matter has these beliefs imprinted in the DNA. May be they generate protein through the mRNA that has the proofs for these beliefs in them!!! They need no scientific proof for their beliefs. In fact trying to convince them and explaining to them that Ahura Mazda resides in neutrons and positrons would slide like water over ducks back. It could do more harm then good for these significant fragment of Zarathushtis. They do not comprehend Baruch Spinoza, John Dewey or David Hume.

Any thoughts you might have to rectify this, to bring them to the type of Mazdaism under discussion on Ushta will be appreciated.

Jehan Bagli

Faith, belief and identitity in Iranian philosophy (was: Religion is Escapism, Hypnosis, Hallucinations, and Getting Stoned)

Dearest Mehran

You are bringing up something very interesting here!!!
I always thought translating "bavar" as "belief" would be a poor translation. Bavar is to me much closer to "identification with" than "belief". The term belief in English does not have an element of personal attachment to it the way bavar does in Farsi. So I would prefer to translate bavar as "identification with", the way you use idenitification in Zoroastrianism as a consequence of good thoughts and words. What you think influences what you say and what you say influences what you do, which means that you ultimately BECOME what you think, so you should identify yourself as your thoughts.
So maybe bavar and iman are NOT synonyms in Farsi language after all? What do you and all other Farsi-speakers here think? After all, it is not when you believe smoking is dangerous that you stop smoking, but when you IDENTIFY yourself to yourself as a non-smoker, when you reach "bavar" about not smoking, that you stop smoking!

As for the question of "The Wise Maker", isn't the whole problem here on Ushta that we are all addressing the wrong issue??? Nobody here believes in a PERSON (like an old man with a grey beard above the clouds) as the maker of the universe. Our difference is between the BELIEF in a force outside of The Universe as the driver of existence (Panentheism) which you, Dina, Zaneta, Ali and Ronald have advocated and the BELIEF in no such force, but rather a belief in The Universe as its own force (Pantheism) of existence, where existence is en emergent quality of The Universe, which Parviz, Judy, Dino, Arthur and I have all advocated.

My point is that Zarathushtra is not interested in GUESSING in The Gathas and rather keeps a question unanswered (and thereby productive and encouraging of creativity) than guessing its answer, he is interested in knowing and not guessing and he is not afraid of not having an answer to a question (because contrary to Jesus and Muhammed he has no belief in the necessity of divine omnipotence or guardian angels sent to prophets). So Zarathushtra does not answer whether Panentheism is true or whether Pantheism is true, because the honest truth is that he did not know and we do not KNOW. And as long as we don't know, we will not have a definitive answer, the search for scientific truth will keep on going. As it should be. It is good that we do not know, because it keeps us open, tolerant, productive and creative!!! This is the religion of the spirit of Cyrus The Great!

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/17 MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi



Dear Judy
dorood
You wrote:
1- "... click on the below "citations" for where I got some of my information...."
a- All of the are based on same hypothesis, thus reach same results?.
b- All of them explain how a process works, but do not explain why? They do not explain why a calssium ion(for example) in my brain makes my character and the same one makes your character.

2- ".. I have a PhD in medical anthropology (area of political psychology), an MS in psychology.. ..I am not wired neurologically for romantic delusions... .that is both my curse and my "gift. ..."
That is very good. Who has told that you are not a scholar?

3- "... In my vernacular.. .the word "belief" means to state something is true without proof..."
In my vernacular the word is bAvar this word in persian-english dictionary is equal to belief. In Persain the word bAvar is a step heigher than knowing. When you know that smoking is harmful, you may smoke, but when you believe (have the belief = bAvar kardan) you never smoke. I do not know any about the real meaning of belief in English, but the word bAvar is based on science, wisedom, family or society's morals ......

4- "... Faith...also means the willingness to believe a lie or a myth....without any proof of its veracity. To have "faith" is the height of laziness and stupidity in my opinion...."
We have not a proper persian word for the word faith. We use arabian word of imAn. We use Persian word of bAvar as a synonym of faith. However non of them are blindly or any blindly one is called a bad thing.



5- "... Believers do not ask questions. ...Most such religious hypnosis is forced on children, through fear, guilt, shame, blackmail, extortion, and out right terror....I. E...If you don't "believe" in Jesus...you will suffer for ever in a lake of fire....and burn and suffer in "hell." Such promoters of this kind of religion are bullies, and hate human kind...and worse...destroy the beautiful minds of children by forcing them to close their minds to reason and logic. .."
Who has told in such bad manner? Me? Am I of such hyponsis?
However I do not believe in such manner at all. All person should choose their beliefs theirselves by free willing and bright mind.


6- "... There is no difference in a five-year old child believing in Santa Claus, and a 50 year old person "believing" in Jesus. There is no proof that Jesus existed...Although "life" teaches one that Santa Claus is just a myth, religion "compartmentalizes" the mind...whereby all logic, reason, and a quest for proof and truth regarding "Jesus" and the Abrahamic "god" is suspended, and the "believer" is actually taught to either "fear" or "enjoy" being challenged as "proof" of one's goodness (martyrhood) and belief (I can expand on this further with more research if you like.)..."
Do think that I am so ignorant that needs to be taught?

7- "... The process of feeling 'religious' in the brain, and production of brain chemistry... .takes place in the same areas of the brain, producing the same kinds of chemicals such as endorphins (the brain's form of heroin)...as occurs in drug addicts getting high. This has been demonstrated many times in MRI studies. ..."
Who has condemned/opposed science that you are teaching his.her? But the question is why endorphin has such effect? not how! Why same molecules/ ions/ atoms have become this and the same one have become that?

8- "... Religion is a belief in magic...i.e. in that if you "pray" to god...which for many is simply "begging," then you can get this "god" to interrupt the laws of physics just for you, which has never happened in all of known history...."
Where and when I told that I believe in such praying and beliefs?
I do not believe in praying as you described, at all. In ashoo Zartosht's teaching there is noting the same as you described.


9- "...hallucination or delusion, they are in the presence of a "divine" force...or a god that is "bigger" than themselves.. .and that their existence becomes small or meaningless. This has been replicated in laboratories. ..whereby the "nonreligious" do not "feel" god...but hallucinate cartoon figures, UFOs...and other characters, but not god. An electrical probe stuck in the left temporal lobe of the brain (just above the left ear)...causes religious people to hear angels sing (or so they believe). We are all hard wired for creative delusions..."
But what to me?
In gAthA it is clearly taught that God (=ahoorA mazdA) has created ashA law first and then has created all creation/ existence/universe/world and uman being a compnent of the universe upon the ashA law. Nothing is and nothing will be done out of the ashA law. Thus no prayer will be effective out of the law. God leaved existence, including human being, to work freely but should bear the outcome results.
Are you going to insult me by calling me such a believer?


Nik-o shAd bAshid
KhodA negahdAr,
MoobedyAr MehrAn Gheibi.
Kerman_Iran




--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Judy Weismonger wrote:


From: Judy Weismonger
Subject: [Ushta] Religion is Escapism, Hypnosis, Hallucinations, and Getting Stoned
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 4:43 AM


MoobedyAr... .I see your point...therefore, click on the below "citations" for where I got some of my information. I have a PhD in medical anthropology (area of political psychology), an MS in psychology.. .near a PhD in neuropsychology, am a master hypnotherapist, and do research. I have other graduate credits in other fields as well...and have worked as a combat photographer, journalist, and editor for eight years...when I needed to take a break from my field. There is very little that I discuss...that I have not done extensive research in...and thought about. I leave no stone unturned, and let the chips fall where they may. I am not wired neurologically for romantic delusions... .that is both my curse and my "gift."

People often confuse and intermix religiosity and politics.... but, I do not. Like you...I demand a lot of consequential proof before I jump off and make a statement that I would take to the bank....I don't "believe" in "belief."

However, although I make the claim that I am some what "learned" in the subjects I write about...I don't expect you or anyone to "just believe" me...because I said something is "true"...because that would mean that I am making the same mistakes as the "religious" who demand "belief" without substantiation and often their so called conclusions and ideas are based on a dysfunctional childhood and some kind of "neediness."

In my vernacular.. .the word "belief" means to state something is true without proof.

Faith...also means the willingness to believe a lie or a myth....without any proof of its veracity. To have "faith" is the height of laziness and stupidity in my opinion.

Most religions... fit most or all the parameters of a "cult" and are based on induced, and practiced waking hypnosis...where "disbelief" is suspended. Believers do not ask questions.

Most such religious hypnosis is forced on children, through fear, guilt, shame, blackmail, extortion, and out right terror....I. E...If you don't "believe" in Jesus...you will suffer for ever in a lake of fire....and burn and suffer in "hell." Such promoters of this kind of religion are bullies, and hate human kind...and worse...destroy the beautiful minds of children by forcing them to close their minds to reason and logic.

There is no difference in a five-year old child believing in Santa Claus, and a 50 year old person "believing" in Jesus. There is no proof that Jesus existed...Although "life" teaches one that Santa Claus is just a myth, religion "compartmentalizes" the mind...whereby all logic, reason, and a quest for proof and truth regarding "Jesus" and the Abrahamic "god" is suspended, and the "believer" is actually taught to either "fear" or "enjoy" being challenged as "proof" of one's goodness (martyrhood) and belief (I can expand on this further with more research if you like.)...

The process of feeling 'religious' in the brain, and production of brain chemistry... .takes place in the same areas of the brain, producing the same kinds of chemicals such as endorphins (the brain's form of heroin)...as occurs in drug addicts getting high. This has been demonstrated many times in MRI studies.

Religion is a belief in magic...i.e. in that if you "pray" to god...which for many is simply "begging," then you can get this "god" to interrupt the laws of physics just for you, which has never happened in all of known history. Five research studies on the efficacy of "prayer" found that those who "knew" they were being prayed for....and believed in prayer died the soonest after a second heart attack....whereas, those who were not prayed for at all and were not aware of the study (a control group)...lived the longest. Being involved in prayer....as a wish for magic, has been proven to be dangerous for one's health.

Self hypnosis taught from a very early age in the "church" shuts down a part of the brain that recognizes "time, space, and place," making the individual "feel" and have a hallucination or delusion, they are in the presence of a "divine" force...or a god that is "bigger" than themselves.. .and that their existence becomes small or meaningless. This has been replicated in laboratories. ..whereby the "nonreligious" do not "feel" god...but hallucinate cartoon figures, UFOs...and other characters, but not god. An electrical probe stuck in the left temporal lobe of the brain (just above the left ear)...causes religious people to hear angels sing (or so they believe). We are all hard wired for creative delusions.

So...have fun....my computer and internet was out for a number of days....and I now have 1000s of emails to read and responds to...including those from Ushta, who I find the most interesting and fun...Yours is a very good comment..... and certainly representative of a True Z.

Hugs, Judy

fredag 16 oktober 2009

Worshippers Of The Mind - Text by Arthur Pearlstein!

Just this past year, Time magazine featured a cover story on the “legacy of Abraham” which suggested that, as author of the monotheistic idea and more, Abraham was responsible for “a complete departure from everything” that went before. Unmentioned in the article (and in most history books and classroom texts) is the fact that there is substantial evidence that Zarathushtra (aka Zoroaster), may really have been responsible for the “complete departure from everything” that the author attributes to Abraham. However, the road traveled by the “great religions” since this departure has had some dramatic detours from what Zarathushtra taught. Nowhere is this divergence more manifest than in the answer to the seemingly simple question: what is it that Zoroastrians worship?

There is strong basis in the historical record of religions to conclude that the idea of a single, universal, creative force came to the three “Abrahamic” religions through the influence of Zoroastrians on the Jews during the Babylonian exile. Since the traditions of those religions came to dominate so much of our world, we are in the peculiar position of examining and interpreting Zarathushtra’s concept of “Ahura Mazda” backwards in time through the lens of the Abrahamic concept of “God” as if it were one and the same thing. It is not.

The term “Ahura Mazda” has been variously translated “Wise Lord,” “Lord Wisdom,” “Supreme Wisdom,” or “Supreme Mind.” The followers of the religion called themselves “Mazdayasni,” which could loosely be interpreted as “Worshippers of Supreme Wisdom” or, perhaps more appropriately, “Worshippers of the Mind.”

The Zarathushtrian object of worship is so altogether different from the personified form of the Abrahamic religions that the very use of the term “God” to describe these divergent concepts can be confusing. Zarathushtra’s “God”—Ahura Mazda—is simply not there in a material or geographical sense. Instead, “God” is the origin and precondition of thought and of all we perceive with our senses: uncaused and eternal. Zoroastrian scholar Farhang Mehr has defined it as wisdom and truth in essence (Y28, and Y51.7) and infinitude in time and space (Y31.8) (Mehr, An Introduction to the Gathas of Zarathushtra, May 1990). The Gathas describe Ahura Mazda as “the most ancient and the youngest” or that which “has always been and always will be” or which has “no beginning and no end.” (Y31.8).

Simply put, Ahura Mazda is an idea: the mind of the universe—the origin of existence and, indeed, existence itself, infinite and eternal. There is striking similarity between Zarathushta’s concept of Ahura Mazda and the “God” described by the European philosopher Spinoza thousands of years later: “…there exists in nature an infinite power of thinking, which… contains subjectively the whole of nature, and its thoughts proceed in the same manner as nature—that is, in the sphere of ideas.” (Spinoza’s letter to Oldenburg, 1665).

Ahura Mazda works as a process through a kind of “divine” law, the built in conditions of the universe and, therefore, of humanity. That law of the universe is known as “Asha,” a term which has been translated as truth, righteousness, universal order, and even justice, but which is perhaps best left untranslated. The infinite variety we experience in this fast moving world of change is the expression of Asha.

Where do human beings fit in this picture? Human intelligence is a spark of the cosmic mind: the fire of Ahura Mazda is within each of us. Again, shades of Spinoza who wrote that “the human mind is part of the infinite intellect of God.” (Spinoza, Ethics). Yet human beings play a less restrained, more intense role than Spinoza may have envisioned. To Zarathushtra, we humans are co-creators of the universe. In this sense, “Zarathushtra wants every person to be godlike.” (Jafarey, “Spenta Mainyu,” Introduction to the Gathas).

The God posited by Zarathushtra is neither to be feared nor begged. Ahura Mazda does not punish or reward. Rather than trying to please God, we are enriched by acting in conformity with the nature of God and the true nature of the world. We participate in Asha in proportion to the degree to which we understand Ahura Mazda and conform our actions to the law of the universe. The saoshyants or saviors are “those who follow their knowledge of thy teaching with actions in harmony with good thinking and with truth, Wise One.” Y48.12 (Insler Tr.) There is a profound joy that comes with this experience. In words that echo Zarathushtrian sentiments, Albert Einstein described a feeling “that takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law” and is “a sort of intoxicated joy and amazement at the beauty and grandeur of this world…” (Einstein, The World as I See It, 1934).

Zarathushtra’s concept of the single, universal, creative “God” has been translated through the ages into a highly personified form. Yet personification, if it has any validity, is only for the purpose of helping us comprehend the vision of “Supreme Mind” that is Ahura Mazda. As finite beings, we cannot easily grasp infinity and eternity so a degree of anthropomorphism is helpful. But Zarathushtra used such analogies sparingly and only in allegorical or poetic expressions. Indeed, he rebelled against what he called “false gods” that he condemned as unreal—manipulative tools of evil minds.

In examining Zarathushtra’s influences on philosophy and religion, his revolutionary concept of “God” as mind is only a beginning. Beyond this, the powerful, moral dimension to religious teaching, and the future-orientation of religious and political/social thought with its accompanying apocalyptic vision, can be traced directly to Zoroastrian influences. Likewise, such emblems of western religion as heaven and hell, angels, the devil, the messiah, and even resurrection have clear connections to the Good Religion. The powerful impact of Zarathushtra’s philosophy can thus be seen as much in the distortion of his teaching as in the embrace.

For example, the morality of the Abrahamic religions—the notions of “good and evil”—are derived from something quite different in Zoroastrianism: the idea of drawing distinctions that Zarathushtra understood as so important to establishing life in settled communities. What Zarathushtra taught was a pragmatic ethics, promoting that which works, that which promotes the full range of our potential. It is a philosophy of joy that relentlessly seeks truth, starting with laser sharp focus on seeking to know the world as it is and dealing with it, questioning our assumptions constantly along the way. Indeed, only as we question our beliefs do we learn to become more true to ourselves and more aligned with Asha, the way of the universe.

The apocalyptic vision—the whole idea of looking toward a "final battle" or resolution bringing on a "perfect world"—has been shown to be directly attributable to early (but post-Zarathushtra) Zoroastrianism. Indeed, this concept is really very much the same whether it is the Christian version or the Marxist/utopian version. But while Zarathushtra’s concept of the future inspired much utopian thought, it was something quite different from the apocalyptic idea it inspired. Zarathushtra offered an innovative future perspective representing an enormous shift from the then-dominant view of endless cycles controlled by the gods. His “making wonderful” is a process of continual re-invention, a constant evolution that starts anew with each life. The future offers an ever-deepening array of exciting, joy-bringing delightful (and surprising) things, if only we struggle for it. It is a process and something more—it is life itself.

There can be little doubt of the enormous impact that Zarathushtra has had on the development of civilization and ideas. Being among the first to understand the ethical requirements for settled living, Zarathustra was the original spokesman for civilization as we know it. And though many of his once innovative ideas have emerged through the millennia in almost unrecognizable form, the most powerful impact of his inspiring message surely lies ahead—in the future of civilization.

Collective vs Individual - Beyond political opinions...

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

2009/10/16 Special Kain



Dear Judy,

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

Ushta, Dino

--- Judy Weismonger schrieb am Fr, 16.10.2009:


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hugs, Judy

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


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



Dear Alexander,

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

Still your friend, but not mentally.
Parviz Varjavand

Science and Metaphysics (was: Will Higgs Bosun particle turn out to be God?)

Dear Judy

I refuse to speak of "religion" at all in these circles since the term is so infected, but instead I speak of "metaphysics".
Metaphysics is not something we choose to do, it is something we do whether we like it or not, without metaphysics we would all be mad. Even the idea that we exist as human beings is a metaphysical idea. Physically there are only six billion bodies on this planet. Only through metaphysics do these bodies become "humans".
Once people recognize that metaphysics is a necessity (even the whole concept of science is metaphysical) they are open to the question: What metaphysics do we choose then if we must choose one?
And this is where Mazdayasna presents a 3,700-year-old brilliant alternative!

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/16 Judy Weismonger



Thank you Alexander....my po9nt is not that I agree with any of the below "god particle" stuff...but that in the common vernacular, there is a movement toward understanding what a "god" might be as explained by either poor, or speculative science...which is at least a step toward moving many away from Abrahamic religion and toward science.

How does one explain the sophisticated concepts of Zism or Mazdayasminism....to such a populace who has been polluted with the idea that god is an old guy with a long beard, sitting up on a cloud, waving his hands and throwing thunder bolts down to earth...and think its really neat that he "sent his only son..." to commit suicide?

This mass consciousness is taking baby steps....but at least they are moving away from Abraham and toward science....finally. Far be it from me...to criticize such baby steps.

Hugs, Judy




--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Alexander Bard wrote:


From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Will Higgs Bosun particle turn out to be God? (Particle turns energy into mass)
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 9:37 AM



Dear Judy

I believe this is just speculative nonsense. Serious scientists hate terms like "The God Particle" which overstates the importance of the Higgs boson. What makes them irritated is that they still have not found the particle although all leading theories predict it exists and have done so for the past 40 years. It is a curious particle indeed, and very likely to exist.

Ushta
Alexander

Allah or Ahura? Part 2

Dear George

Point taken and you are correct. But this makes no difference whatsoever.
The point is not whether somebody is divine or human but whether there is only one truth and WHOSE truth it is in that case. The point here being that ONLY the truth of Muhammed is divine, according to Islam, everything else is a lie. So Christians believe that the truth of Jesus (or rather St Paul) is the divine truth and Muslims believe that Muhammed's truth is the divine truth. THAT is what the struggle is all about.
Against this we have Zarathushtra's approach: Truth is not given beforehand through angels to prophets etc, but truth is PRODUCED, we are every one of us producing a truth relating to universal questions which we all have in common. It is the outcome of this process which is sacred, the attempt at producing a truth rather than a specific truth, which is sacred according to Zarathushtra. The Gathas is a book of productive questions, not of dogmatic truths!
This is in line with the concept of Megatheism. Only Zarathushtra takes Megatheism seriously. Islam and Christianity are fundamentally contradictions (truth can not be grasped but OUR truth is still the one and only truth = contradiction!). Zarathushtra however was a true megatheist (at least with the concept of Ahura) and even more than that (he also added Mazda). That's my point.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/16 Georgios

The infamous declaration of faith of muslims can be translated as "There is no god except Allah, Muhammed is his prophet". This can be taken literally: the phrase is intended to make the believer accept that M. is only the prophet of God, and no God himself, or anything else. That was informed in order to avoid the great sin committed by the christians, believing their prophet JC was God himself.
These are muslim explanations and not my personal beliefs.


--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Alexander Bard wrote:
>
> Dear Parviz and Rory
>
> I will be happy to surrender to Allah Akbar, as long as he is not presented
> by a small bigot called Muhammed.
> There is nothing wrong with "There is only one god and that god is Allah",
> that line is actually just a tautology and no different than "There is only
> one world and that world is The World".
> The problem with Islam is instead the silly second phrase: "And his prophet
> is Muhammed".
> To which we should respond to the one billion or so Muslims: REALLY??? On
> What Grounds???
> Because THAT is where Islam flops. Always did.
> Our response is: There is only one god and that god is Allah, and he HAS SIX
> BILLION PROPHETS. Now, learn to live with that, because that is the truth!
> Or rather: There is one god and one god only and that god is Ahura and Ahura
> has six billion or so manifestiations which together form Mazda. TOGETHER
> they make Ahura Mazda.
>
> Ushta
> Alexander
>
> 2009/10/15 Parviz Varjavand

>
> >
> >
> > Dear Alex,
> >
> > I demand sophistication and high level intellectual answers from you and
> > Arthur; please do not disappoint me. It is always simple to reduce somone to
> > the level of a cartoon character, and then win an argument with them. There
> > are XX00000000000 Moslems in this world, which one of them should I ask your
> > questions from?
> > If you want to understand Allaho Akbar and what surender to this consept
> > means, hold your breath and decide that you are not going to breath again.
> > You can not, and you will be forced to breath in order to live on. You have
> > to surender to Allah for He is Akbar, if you want to live. If you die and
> > win the bet, you still melt into Allah, for again "Allaho Akbar". This is
> > how I had Allaho Akbar explained to me by my Moslem friends that I respect.
> > The others cartoon Moslems or Christians, why bother with them, I can show
> > you cartoon Zoroastrians as much as you want me to, some of them on this
> > site even.
> >
> > Ushta,
> > Parviz

Religion and Psychology: A religion BEYOND fear!

Dear Judy

When you post postings like the one below, you are absolutely BRILLIANT!!!
Not only is every word you mention true, but you are also pointing to a link which has rarely been used or understood and always ignored: The link between psychology and religion!
We need to psychologize the religious experience! We need to understand how the religious experience is a part of and should be a part of our psychology. This way we can create a religion which is OPEN to diversity, pluralism and truly cheris such things as sacred, which is the exact opposite of traditional religion.
Zarathushtra was of course into this already 3,700 years ago, which explains why pluralism as dogma was introduced into human history by Iranian Zoroastrians. This is an amazing legacy we can build on when we create a religion BEYOND fear.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/16 Judy Weismonger



In psychological research...it has been found that such individuals who are highly "intolerant," use concrete, black and white thinking...and have little to no flexibility or "tolerance" to consider other people's ideas, opinions, or expressions..and who.are found to be most often extremely insecure individuals, who also lack self confidence and self-esteem...and whose insecurity is often driven by fear. Therefore, to control such "fear"...intolerant individuals must seek to "dominate" and control their environment.

In this case....the intolerant person in this group...shows all the markers of a highly insecure individual...most probably as a result of being overly punished as a child, whose role model was also an intolerant father figure, who did not allow any flexibility in his thinking...or much personal expression. Often, those who are most intolerant....were also punished as children for any degree of creativity, including disapproval or punishment for simply asking questions, or challenging the parent's status quo.

Intolerance (or concrete and inflexible thinking) is most often learned....however, there are new studies that indicate that genetics may be involved.

In object-relations theories, when a parent becomes extremely punishing and "intolerant," it is thought that such a parent is most often confronting and identifying with their own sense of vulnerability and victimhood they experienced as a child....and thus seek to either punish or destroy such weakness in their own children.

Therefore, it is no use in verbally beating up such an intolerant person and demand tolerence, because such emotional and intellectual expressions heighten that individual's insecurity and fear levels. To emotionally beat up such an intolerant person is like demanding a mentally retarded child with an IQ of 70 function on the level of a brain surgeon.

In therapy, those who are most "intolerant"...are often difficult to treat, and the therapist has to spend many sessions in gaining the individual's trust...to then gently move the patient toward tolerance...most often through assisting them in becoming empathetic toward themselves first, and then transferring that sense of empathy toward others.

Significantly, those who are also intolerant of others, are also often extremely harsh and judgmental toward themselves and often perceive themselves as failures.

Ergo, the more the patient begins to tolerant and "like" themselves, and perceive themselves worthy of positive regard by others, the more they lateralize such regard for others and begin to move toward tolerance other people's opinions. But, it is a very slow process...which is often complicated by those who are also afflicted with a comorbid obsessive compulsive disorder. If it is found the individual also has OCD, then any hopes of assisting such a person to become more tolerant is almost impossible, without significant treatment, including psychotropic medications.

Hugs, Judy

--- On Sat, 10/10/09, Rory wrote:


From: Rory
Subject: [Ushta] Re: The Art of Acceptance - Tolerance - Pluralism of Truths
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, October 10, 2009, 6:01 AM



Dear Alexander,

"Since Zoroastrianism is based an a series of QUESTIONS and not absolute statements, it follows as a logical consequence that Zoroastrianism is based on the attitude of creativity and co-creation and not on some mistaken idea that "the world has gone wrong because of man" and consequently "has to be corrected through divine intervention" . Zoroastrianism has no concept of sin(and the following necessity of salvation)" - I am 100% with you here. You have described a large part of the objectives of all the Abrahamic faiths exactly.

"consequently truth is not objective and absolute but recognized as subjective and produced". This is what I find to be a bit of a leap but after reading through Dino's links realised that maybe it is a question of definition of terms. Please can you explain exactly how you define truth? Scientific fact? Opinion? Are you refferring to the Pragmatic Teory which holds that something is true if it is useful to believe? If you face the wall, put your head down and take a good run at it you are going to have a sore head! That is pretty absolute... Existence is pretty absolute...

Ushta,
Rory

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups. com, Alexander Bard wrote:
>
> Dear Rory
>
> Since Zoroastrianism is based an a series of QUESTIONS and not absolute
> statements, it follows as a logical consequence that Zoroastrianism is based
> on the attitude of creativity and co-creation and not on some mistaken idea
> that "the world has gone wrong because of man" and consequently "has to be
> corrected through divine intervention" . Zoroastrianism has no concept of sin
> (and the following necessity of salvation), consequently truth is not
> objective and absolute but recognized as subjective and produced. You are
> your truth! The question is therefore not what is true but rather who are
> you? And with 6 billion of us, that means 6 billion truths. Religious
> pluralism is an entirely different matter, we just recognize the concept of
> tolerance and freedom of speech (well, we invented it!) but the concept of
> "religion" is itself alien to Zoroastrians. We are interested in asha vs
> druj, whether asha is religious or not does not really concern us.
> Mazdayasna means "the love of the capacity of mind", whether that is
> considered religious or philosophical or merely literature, is less of a
> concern.
>
> Ushta
> Alexander

torsdag 15 oktober 2009

Allah or Ahura? Part 2

GREAT!!!
My point is that classic montheistic religion is first claiming that God is infinitely great, which is actually a perfecly acceptable statement. The Universe is after all immensely big and complex and impossible to fathom. And regardless of whether God and The Universe are identical or not, this means a divinity of any sort of relevance must also be of immense greatness.
But then comes the SECOND move which turns this insight into classic montheism: DESPITE the greatness of God, somebody, some little prophet or big-headed founder of a religion, claims to have GRASPED this infinite being and written a book where the mind of this infinite being was caught and presented.
And THIS is where classic monotheism always fails and becomes pathetic over time. The results are crappy books like The Bible and the Qoran. But what good are they to us today?
Zarathushtra's greatness was to realise that such a move would amount to both idiocy and hypocrisy. So what did he do? He kept God infinite (Ahura)! And then added a second dimension, OUR human dimension, what makes us as humans special, our minds. He made minds (as a collective) into something sacred and this is the Mazda part of Mazdayasna, that which defines us from all the other "monotheistic religions". Mazda is what we proudly MANIFEST, as part of Ahura Mazda.
This is why WE ask the other religions: Why did you not STAY with God's greatness? Why did you betray the only GOOD thing with monotheism? Because we stayed with it.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/16 Rory

Dear Alexander,

Excellent we're agreed! Play the ball, not the man as rugger players say! So can you please explain the following (in particular the uppercase "YOU" part)?
"In other words: We should ask the Muslims:
If God is sooo great, how come YOU have reduced God to an imbecille little narcissistic boy from the western tip of the Arab Peninsula?
What is wrong is not the concept of Allah as infinitely great. What is wrong is the following REDUCTION of God into an imbecille little narcissistic boy from the western tip of the Arab Peninsula who WE MUST OBEY".

Ushta,
Rory

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Alexander Bard wrote:
>
> Dear Rory
>
> To regard an opinion as an idiocy is not to belittle the holder of such a
> belief.
> A PERSON is one thing, an OPINION is quite another.
> You can perfectly well hold another human being as immensely valuable while
> totally disregarding that person's specific opinion.
> Or what is the option? To become hypocritical and pretend to take an idiotic
> opinion seriously when in reality you do not?
> I hold all human beings as radically equal.
> I certainly do not hold all human opinions as equally valid. Big difference.
> And we should be able to be openhearted and honest to each other on Ushta,
> don't you agree?
> There are far more intelligent and interesting ways to view the world than
> Catholicism and Islam. And that is my honest opinion which I see no reason
> to go hypocritical about.
>
> Ushta
> Alexander
>
> 2009/10/15 Rory

>
> >
> >
> > Dear Alexander,
> >
> > You are preaching to the converted! We all agree that Islam is not truth!
> > However, please don't underestimate Muslims, Catholics, Jews, Buddists or
> > anyone else. It is not as simplistic (at least to them) as you put it. Maybe
> > I am wrong but I believe it is better to approach the subject of other
> > religions both with caution and respect for the individuals and meet them on
> > an even playing field. We should have the confidence and assurance of the
> > wisdom of our religion behind us NOT to have to belittle them or make
> > parodies of their beliefs. It is enough to expose the errors.
> >
> > Ushta,
> > Rory
> >
> >
> > --- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com , Alexander Bard

> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Parviz and Rory
> > >
> > > I will be happy to surrender to Allah Akbar, as long as he is not
> > presented
> > > by a small bigot called Muhammed.
> > > There is nothing wrong with "There is only one god and that god is
> > Allah",
> > > that line is actually just a tautology and no different than "There is
> > only
> > > one world and that world is The World".
> > > The problem with Islam is instead the silly second phrase: "And his
> > prophet
> > > is Muhammed".
> > > To which we should respond to the one billion or so Muslims: REALLY??? On
> > > What Grounds???
> > > Because THAT is where Islam flops. Always did.
> > > Our response is: There is only one god and that god is Allah, and he HAS
> > SIX
> > > BILLION PROPHETS. Now, learn to live with that, because that is the
> > truth!
> > > Or rather: There is one god and one god only and that god is Ahura and
> > Ahura
> > > has six billion or so manifestiations which together form Mazda. TOGETHER
> > > they make Ahura Mazda.
> > >
> > > Ushta
> > > Alexander

Ahura = God is Everything

Dear Ed

Why not instead ask for a quote from the Gathas that says that Ahura is separate from The World?
Because there is none.
The option did not exist at the time of Zarathushtra. Among Indo-Europeans 3,700 years ago the idea of God as something separate from Existence did not exist. There as not even a concept of God. There are the concepts of Ahura (that which has existance, including everything that has existance) and the concept of Mazda (that which has mind).
And that which is taken for granted will never be quoted in any text.
Or rather, the only quote you need is a single word: Ahura! The meaning of which is the quote you ask for.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/15 eduljee@yahoo.ca



Hi Rory,

In your reply to Arthur regarding Megatheism you wrote: "as Zoroastrians we believe all that exists is a part of God."

Perhaps you or others in this discussion group can assist me. I have been looking for a direct Avestan quote (if one exists) that states words to the effect that "all that exists is a part of God." If you or others are aware of such a quote, I will greatly appreciate the reference. If the reference is an English translation, I will appreciate the translation and the name of the translator.

P.S. Just to clarify, at this stage I'm not looking for opnions or commentary - just a direct quote or translation to assist me in my research. A separate email follows requesting opinions.

Many thanks

Ed
http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/index.htm

Allah or Ahura?

Dear Parviz and Rory

I will be happy to surrender to Allah Akbar, as long as he is not presented by a small bigot called Muhammed.
There is nothing wrong with "There is only one god and that god is Allah", that line is actually just a tautology and no different than "There is only one world and that world is The World".
The problem with Islam is instead the silly second phrase: "And his prophet is Muhammed".
To which we should respond to the one billion or so Muslims: REALLY??? On What Grounds???
Because THAT is where Islam flops. Always did.
Our response is: There is only one god and that god is Allah, and he HAS SIX BILLION PROPHETS. Now, learn to live with that, because that is the truth!
Or rather: There is one god and one god only and that god is Ahura and Ahura has six billion or so manifestiations which together form Mazda. TOGETHER they make Ahura Mazda.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/15 Parviz Varjavand



Dear Alex,

I demand sophistication and high level intellectual answers from you and Arthur; please do not disappoint me. It is always simple to reduce somone to the level of a cartoon character, and then win an argument with them. There are XX00000000000 Moslems in this world, which one of them should I ask your questions from?
If you want to understand Allaho Akbar and what surender to this consept means, hold your breath and decide that you are not going to breath again. You can not, and you will be forced to breath in order to live on. You have to surender to Allah for He is Akbar, if you want to live. If you die and win the bet, you still melt into Allah, for again "Allaho Akbar". This is how I had Allaho Akbar explained to me by my Moslem friends that I respect. The others cartoon Moslems or Christians, why bother with them, I can show you cartoon Zoroastrians as much as you want me to, some of them on this site even.

Ushta,
Parviz


--- On Thu, 10/15/09, Alexander Bard wrote:


From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Megatheism
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, October 15, 2009, 12:17 AM




In other words: We should ask the Muslims:
If God is sooo great, how come YOU have reduced God to an imbecille little narcissistic boy from the western tip of the Arab Peninsula?
What is wrong is not the concept of Allah as infinitely great. What is wrong is the following REDUCTION of God into an imbecille little narcissistic boy from the western tip of the Arab Peninsula who WE MUST OBEY. Megatheism allows nothing of this sort. So Islam is NOT Megatheism but rather MICROTHEISM, the reduction of God into something infinitely small and pathetic.
If God really is infinitely great, then God has no need whatsoever for our obedience. God is ONLY and ALWAYS Allaho Akbar but never Allah without the akbar part.
Like Arthur says, it is actually the other way round! There is no obedience involved at all, we are CLEARLY left to our own devices (for example, deciding as a humanity whether we want to save our own planet or not). God is too great to ever interfere!
This is of course the divinity of Ahura and not the divinity of Allah. Where we add the Mazda part of Ahura Mazda. The God before which we stand in awe and ask questions that we have to answer ourselves. In other words: The divinity of The Gathas. I'm beginning to think that Zarathushtra was the ONLY founder of a religion ever who actually BELIEVED in a God for real! All the alternatives just seem to be psychopathic speculations.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/15 Arthur Pearlstein



Dear Parviz,

I am responding to your two emails on the subject here because the heading is more relevant. The concept of megatheism and Allaho Akbar are completely different. I will, in another email, attempt to delve more deeply into megatheism itself, but for now I want to underscore a few of the most glaring contrasts.

Islam is about submission to Allah; megatheism is nothing of the sort--indeed, it is about avoiding submission-- not allowing ourselves to be dominated by the power play that is inherent in the human attempt to construct a God figure that gives us orders and enslaves us.

The "greatness" of Allah refers to human characteristics ("the most merciful", the most compassionate, the avenger, etc.). This is a man-in-the-sky notion of God--completely supernatural and unscientifc, completely at odds with all we know. It would be as if we were to describe God as "the most blonde" or "the most well hung" or "the best football player" --these characteristics are no more absurd as descriptions than the other qualitative ones, they just seem so because they happen to be physical traits rather than other kinds of very human traits.
Allaho Akbar is about explaining why we need to follow certain rules and why we must not doubt all the stories in the holy book and why we must fear, etc. Megatheism is essentially the opposite. It is about why the God concept transcends all possible explanations; why we must constantly doubt and constantly question; it is about transcendence of fear in dealing with philosophical issues. It is about change rather than stasis.

The adonai concept in Judaism is also very much a man-in-the-sky God, though the depiction of that God changes within the Old Testament as Judaism came to be influcenced by (but still very different from) Zoroastrianism. Adonai has very human characteristics, performs miracles, chooses a people as his own--all a complete contrast to the megatheist concept of "God" (I use quotes because the concept is really so different that some would deny that such a term is appropriate) .

The Abrahamic religions have all seized upon the concept of God to monopolize an ultimate greatness in a very small, narrow, manipulative way that actually is designed to bestow more power on particular human beings. Megatheism involves a declaration that it is time to steal this concept back--to identify as sacreligious all the thinking that attempts to so limit the concept.

In truth, the Abrahamic God is no more fanciful or unscientifc than the Greek or Roman or Norse Gods which were fundamentally a more honest human creation.

As I understand it, much of what Zoroaster reacted to was the very false and manipulative constructs of the day that were used to dominate, enslave, and rob, in much the same way as more modern religious charlatans. Ahura Mazda is, I believe, a timeless megatheistic concept that, like "the Tao" cannot be directly told or explained or described other than to realize it transcends explanation and merely is.

Ushta,

Arthur, wondering if Parviz can give an example of how Alexander's every word "has been said about Allaho Akbar"
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Parviz Varjavand wrote:



Dear Alex,

Every word you say, has been said about Allaho Akbar. Thousands of years of scholarship of very polished religious minds has gone into this; so what is it that Arthur has discovered?





I never got it why your Megatheism was any different from Allaho Akbar in Islam (many times written as ... o Akbar, for even to write the name of Allah would be considered blasphemy) or when fundamentalist Jews do not even use the name of the Lord. To be BIG, you need something Small to compare the Big to! That in itself separates the Big from the Small.
Ushta te,
Parviz

--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Alexander Bard wrote:


From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Megatheism
To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 11:39 AM


As for the wonderful and most interesting concept of megatheism:
In Lacanian psychoanalysis The Subject is precisely that which is undescribable.
That means that whatever is "me" and "you" in us is always something that transcendens all descriptions, all obsession with detail. It is always that which is "left" after all descriptions that is the true "me" and "you".
Just like the "love" in a love relationship is always that which can NOT be described. This is why when we truly love somebody, we can not say WHY we love, only state that we do.
I believe this is an important point: It is not only that The Universe (and whatever force is behind the fact that there is a universe to begin with) is so overwhelmingly enormous in size and scope that it can never be encompassed. It is also the other way round: The concept of God as our ultmiate horizon of existence is so vast in itself that it transcends all description. This certainly speaks LOGICALLY in favor of the concept of megatheism even beyond what we know from modern science etc.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/14 Arthur Pearlstein


Parviz,
Thanks indeed for your kind words. I am very much here, even though I do not post so often (I did post just a few weeks ago). In the past year, I have been lurking and taking in a lot and learning a considerable amount from a number of people such as you and Alexander as always but also from some of the newer members of the list. Most of the time, I have felt that I do not have much to add but I will do anything I can for "Project Mazdayasna."

Meanwhile, I have become more and more convinced of what I have called "megatheism": the idea that "God" is so massive and endlessly complex that to describe it in qualitative human terms ("merciful" "compassionate" etc) is, in effect, sacreligious. http://www.megathei sm.com/

But I will try to contribute more--please feel free to ask me to weigh in on any particular issue on which you think I might have something valuable to say.

Warmest regards and mucha ushta,

Arthur

Megatheism - uh oh

Dear Friends

I believe you should all know Arthur and me well enough by now NOT to compare us with the idiocies of Catholicism and Islam. We should be way past such clumsy jumpings to conclusions. Don't you agree?
If Catholicism and Islam would have been serious about what they say, THIS is what they SHOULD have been serious about. But after saying that "God is infinite" they go on to turn God into a pathetic human replica anyway. It is the HYPOCRISY and even the idiocy of this turn that makes them so despicable.
It is not the Megatheism of Catholicism and Islam that is wrong with them and worthy of our contempt. It is the fact that they do NOT stick to it. Our response should therefore be: Since God is infinite, what is left to deal with is US and OUR lives and what WE are going to do with THAT. Allah and God are impossible precisely because of their infinity. They can and do not exist, they are fakes, even by Catholic and Islamic fundamental standards!
Which is precisely where Zoroastrianism is and always has been at. Our prayers are meditations, they are not begging rounds. That says it all, speaks volumes. Thuis is TRUE down-top-religion rather than top-down-religion. Because what Megatheism does, is that it ELIMINATES the top once and for all and leaves us only with the "down part".
I can't see what can possibly be wrong or untrue with that???

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/15 Arthur Pearlstein

Thanks Rory. I don't have more on the megatheism site. That was just a quickie/freebie site that I put up for the fun of it and there was not room for any more words. Hence, also, the very short, inadequate explanation on that site that ended up leading to a misunderstanding here. When I included the megatheism link on my posting I was just doing it for sport and should have explained that. Sorry for the confusion.

My strongest interest in megatheism is as an antidote to the typical religion-mongers. An attempt to beat them at their own game rather than simply mounting a reactive challenge as the atheists have framed it. I'm still working on the concept, so thanks for your indulgence.

Ushta,

Arthur

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Rory wrote:



Dear Arthur,

Thank you for this http://www.makingwonderful.com/ I wish I had seen this 20 years ago! It is excellent and I will refer others to it. Do you have something similar on Megatheism?

Ushta,
Rory


--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, "Rory" wrote:
>
> Dear Arthur,
>
> Please forgive me if I have misunderstood you. My mis/understanding on your concept of Megatheism is based on the following:
>
> 1. Your first message said that "God is so massive and endlessly complex that to describe it in qualitative human terms ("merciful" "compassionate" etc) is, in effect, sacreligious". Well, endlessly complex certainly means infinitely complex. Infinitely complex is part of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the "infinity of God" which is in turn part of the Catholic doctrine of the "Nature and attributes of God".
> 2. You gave a weblink http://www.megatheism.com/ The website has only one bit of text; "God is so massive and intensively complicated, it transcends all possible explanations" This is similar but infinitely different (please excuse the pun:-)) from the explanation above. I CAN now see that this can also be a "bottom up" rather than a top down explanation. However, because the phrase is presented on its own without another word on the entire website it does give the impression of being "stand alone" which is why I took it to be "pegged out there".
> 3. In your second message you said "Ahura Mazda is, I believe, a timeless megatheistic concept that, like "the Tao" cannot be directly told or explained or described other than to realize it transcends explanation and merely is". Personally I find the idea that AH is so complex and vast as to be beyond our full understanding to be obvious but as Zoroastrians we believe all that exists is a part of God and therefore for us to progress we need to and do apply useful terms to ASPECTS of AH, atarting with marmalade and toast for example. The reason one can easily see this as a top down approach is because YOU ARE APPLYING ATTRIBUTES TO THE WHOLE in an attempt to do the opposite.
>
> I have to disagree with your accusation that I have used a straw man argument. This is what wikipedia says about a straw man argument:
> "To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position". It also says "Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument". Do you still believe I have used a straw man arument based on the information I got from your posts?
>
>
> Ushta,
> Rory
>
>
>
>
> --- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Arthur Pearlstein wrote:
> >
> > Rory,
> > You are making a straw man argument. That is you are ascribing to me an
> > argument I have not made and then you attack the argument and defeat it. I
> > actually agree with almost everything you say (below), including the failing
> > of the "top down" concept. But you have not understood me at all (perhaps it
> > is my fault, I do not know). Catholics do not teach anything of the kind I
> > have mentioned. God is very much personified in the Catholic tradition. The
> > claim of "we cannot understand God's ways because he is so complicated" is
> > only made as a retort to questions that are too hard to answer.
> >
> > In any case, I am not talking about a "top down" God. I am not talking about
> > a man-in-the-sky, nor about something or someone to submit to. You are
> > mistaking a few overlapping words (e.g. "infinite") between megatheism and
> > catholocism for some kind of common understanding. Nothing could be further
> > from the truth. It would be as if you equated the Democratic Republic of
> > Korea (North Korea) with the U.S. because both emphsize the word
> > "democratic."
> >
> > My view is that zoroastrianism is not a religion that is "about" God at all.
> > Rather that complexity and infinitude of "God" means that it is just an
> > aspiration and human interpretations are a fraud-- the focus must be on the
> > world we know and what we can come to understand about it. There is nothing
> > in human civilization that makes sense other than a bottom up approach.
> >
> > For my view of what Ahura Mazda is about, check out www.makingwonderful.com My
> > thoughts have evolved a bit since then, and the concept of megatheism is as
> > much a semantic sleight of hand to answer the domineering dogma around us as
> > anything else.
> >
> > Ushta,
> >
> > Arthur
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Rory wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > This gives me the willies. Why? Because, although I can't speak for Parviz
> > > and how this realtes to Islam, I can tell you that this is EXACTLY what
> > > Catholicism teaches.
> > >
> > > They teach that God is so INFINITELY complicated, intelligent and all
> > > powerful that we puny humans cannot even begin to understand Him. This is
> > > defined as (again) a "holy mystery".
> > >
> > > What is the next step? Because he is infinitely complicated, intelligent
> > > and powerful he is able to do anything... and I'll just stop there because
> > > I'm already feeling queazy.
> > >
> > > This is a TOP DOWN approach and again the word that grows out of it is
> > > FAITH.
> > >
> > > I spend a lot of time ASKING what is Zoroastrianism and what is Mazdayasna
> > > and disciplining my mind to be malleable and open. I am very slowly adopting
> > > what I see clearly to be truth and shedding all the bs I've picked up over a
> > > lifetime. There are people in this group who have gone further over a long
> > > time and understood more and even started from a position of clearer
> > > understanding. For once I am going to be dogmatic (in a way) and I am going
> > > to say this (thanks Dino), BE TRUE TO YOURSELVES. What is special about the
> > > Zoroastrianian approach is that it IS BOTTOM UP. Science is sacred (thanks
> > > Alexander). We don't need to start pegging hypothetical infinites out there
> > > somewhere and then use pedantry to explain it to somehow be Zoroastrian.
> > >
> > > Forgive me if I am too candid.
> > >
> > > Ushta,
> > > Rory
> > >
> > > --- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com , Alexander Bard
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In other words: We should ask the Muslims:
> > > > If God is sooo great, how come YOU have reduced God to an imbecille
> > > little
> > > > narcissistic boy from the western tip of the Arab Peninsula?
> > > > What is wrong is not the concept of Allah as infinitely great. What is
> > > wrong
> > > > is the following REDUCTION of God into an imbecille little narcissistic
> > > boy
> > > > from the western tip of the Arab Peninsula who WE MUST OBEY. Megatheism
> > > > allows nothing of this sort. So Islam is NOT Megatheism but rather
> > > > MICROTHEISM, the reduction of God into something infinitely small and
> > > > pathetic.
> > > > If God really is infinitely great, then God has no need whatsoever for
> > > our
> > > > obedience. God is ONLY and ALWAYS Allaho Akbar but never Allah without
> > > the
> > > > akbar part.
> > > > Like Arthur says, it is actually the other way round! There is no
> > > obedience
> > > > involved at all, we are CLEARLY left to our own devices (for example,
> > > > deciding as a humanity whether we want to save our own planet or not).
> > > God
> > > > is too great to ever interfere!
> > > > This is of course the divinity of Ahura and not the divinity of Allah.
> > > Where
> > > > we add the Mazda part of Ahura Mazda. The God before which we stand in
> > > awe
> > > > and ask questions that we have to answer ourselves. In other words: The
> > > > divinity of The Gathas. I'm beginning to think that Zarathushtra was the
> > > > ONLY founder of a religion ever who actually BELIEVED in a God for real!
> > > All
> > > > the alternatives just seem to be psychopathic speculations.
> > > > Ushta
> > > > Alexander

Megatheism Part 2

In other words: We should ask the Muslims:
If God is sooo great, how come YOU have reduced God to an imbecille little narcissistic boy from the western tip of the Arab Peninsula?
What is wrong is not the concept of Allah as infinitely great. What is wrong is the following REDUCTION of God into an imbecille little narcissistic boy from the western tip of the Arab Peninsula who WE MUST OBEY. Megatheism allows nothing of this sort. So Islam is NOT Megatheism but rather MICROTHEISM, the reduction of God into something infinitely small and pathetic.
If God really is infinitely great, then God has no need whatsoever for our obedience. God is ONLY and ALWAYS Allaho Akbar but never Allah without the akbar part.
Like Arthur says, it is actually the other way round! There is no obedience involved at all, we are CLEARLY left to our own devices (for example, deciding as a humanity whether we want to save our own planet or not). God is too great to ever interfere!
This is of course the divinity of Ahura and not the divinity of Allah. Where we add the Mazda part of Ahura Mazda. The God before which we stand in awe and ask questions that we have to answer ourselves. In other words: The divinity of The Gathas. I'm beginning to think that Zarathushtra was the ONLY founder of a religion ever who actually BELIEVED in a God for real! All the alternatives just seem to be psychopathic speculations.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/15 Arthur Pearlstein

Dear Parviz,

I am responding to your two emails on the subject here because the heading is more relevant. The concept of megatheism and Allaho Akbar are completely different. I will, in another email, attempt to delve more deeply into megatheism itself, but for now I want to underscore a few of the most glaring contrasts.

Islam is about submission to Allah; megatheism is nothing of the sort--indeed, it is about avoiding submission--not allowing ourselves to be dominated by the power play that is inherent in the human attempt to construct a God figure that gives us orders and enslaves us.

The "greatness" of Allah refers to human characteristics ("the most merciful", the most compassionate, the avenger, etc.). This is a man-in-the-sky notion of God--completely supernatural and unscientifc, completely at odds with all we know. It would be as if we were to describe God as "the most blonde" or "the most well hung" or "the best football player" --these characteristics are no more absurd as descriptions than the other qualitative ones, they just seem so because they happen to be physical traits rather than other kinds of very human traits.
Allaho Akbar is about explaining why we need to follow certain rules and why we must not doubt all the stories in the holy book and why we must fear, etc. Megatheism is essentially the opposite. It is about why the God concept transcends all possible explanations; why we must constantly doubt and constantly question; it is about transcendence of fear in dealing with philosophical issues. It is about change rather than stasis.

The adonai concept in Judaism is also very much a man-in-the-sky God, though the depiction of that God changes within the Old Testament as Judaism came to be influcenced by (but still very different from) Zoroastrianism. Adonai has very human characteristics, performs miracles, chooses a people as his own--all a complete contrast to the megatheist concept of "God" (I use quotes because the concept is really so different that some would deny that such a term is appropriate).

The Abrahamic religions have all seized upon the concept of God to monopolize an ultimate greatness in a very small, narrow, manipulative way that actually is designed to bestow more power on particular human beings. Megatheism involves a declaration that it is time to steal this concept back--to identify as sacreligious all the thinking that attempts to so limit the concept.

In truth, the Abrahamic God is no more fanciful or unscientifc than the Greek or Roman or Norse Gods which were fundamentally a more honest human creation.

As I understand it, much of what Zoroaster reacted to was the very false and manipulative constructs of the day that were used to dominate, enslave, and rob, in much the same way as more modern religious charlatans. Ahura Mazda is, I believe, a timeless megatheistic concept that, like "the Tao" cannot be directly told or explained or described other than to realize it transcends explanation and merely is.

Ushta,

Arthur, wondering if Parviz can give an example of how Alexander's every word "has been said about Allaho Akbar"
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Parviz Varjavand wrote:



Dear Alex,

Every word you say, has been said about Allaho Akbar. Thousands of years of scholarship of very polished religious minds has gone into this; so what is it that Arthur has discovered?





I never got it why your Megatheism was any different from Allaho Akbar in Islam (many times written as ... o Akbar, for even to write the name of Allah would be considered blasphemy) or when fundamentalist Jews do not even use the name of the Lord. To be BIG, you need something Small to compare the Big to! That in itself separates the Big from the Small.
Ushta te,
Parviz

--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Alexander Bard wrote:


From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Megatheism
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 11:39 AM


As for the wonderful and most interesting concept of megatheism:
In Lacanian psychoanalysis The Subject is precisely that which is undescribable.
That means that whatever is "me" and "you" in us is always something that transcendens all descriptions, all obsession with detail. It is always that which is "left" after all descriptions that is the true "me" and "you".
Just like the "love" in a love relationship is always that which can NOT be described. This is why when we truly love somebody, we can not say WHY we love, only state that we do.
I believe this is an important point: It is not only that The Universe (and whatever force is behind the fact that there is a universe to begin with) is so overwhelmingly enormous in size and scope that it can never be encompassed. It is also the other way round: The concept of God as our ultmiate horizon of existence is so vast in itself that it transcends all description. This certainly speaks LOGICALLY in favor of the concept of megatheism even beyond what we know from modern science etc.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/14 Arthur Pearlstein


Parviz,
Thanks indeed for your kind words. I am very much here, even though I do not post so often (I did post just a few weeks ago). In the past year, I have been lurking and taking in a lot and learning a considerable amount from a number of people such as you and Alexander as always but also from some of the newer members of the list. Most of the time, I have felt that I do not have much to add but I will do anything I can for "Project Mazdayasna."

Meanwhile, I have become more and more convinced of what I have called "megatheism": the idea that "God" is so massive and endlessly complex that to describe it in qualitative human terms ("merciful" "compassionate" etc) is, in effect, sacreligious. http://www.megathei sm.com/

But I will try to contribute more--please feel free to ask me to weigh in on any particular issue on which you think I might have something valuable to say.

Warmest regards and mucha ushta,

Arthur

onsdag 14 oktober 2009

Megatheism

As for the wonderful and most interesting concept of megatheism:
In Lacanian psychoanalysis The Subject is precisely that which is undescribable.
That means that whatever is "me" and "you" in us is always something that transcendens all descriptions, all obsession with detail. It is always that which is "left" after all descriptions that is the true "me" and "you".
Just like the "love" in a love relationship is always that which can NOT be described. This is why when we truly love somebody, we can not say WHY we love, only state that we do.
I believe this is an important point: It is not only that The Universe (and whatever force is behind the fact that there is a universe to begin with) is so overwhelmingly enormous in size and scope that it can never be encompassed. It is also the other way round: The concept of God as our ultimate horizon of existence is so vast in itself that it transcends all description. This certainly speaks LOGICALLY in favor of the concept of megatheism even beyond what we know from modern science etc.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/14 Arthur Pearlstein



Parviz,
Thanks indeed for your kind words. I am very much here, even though I do not post so often (I did post just a few weeks ago). In the past year, I have been lurking and taking in a lot and learning a considerable amount from a number of people such as you and Alexander as always but also from some of the newer members of the list. Most of the time, I have felt that I do not have much to add but I will do anything I can for "Project Mazdayasna."

Meanwhile, I have become more and more convinced of what I have called "megatheism": the idea that "God" is so massive and endlessly complex that to describe it in qualitative human terms ("merciful" "compassionate" etc) is, in effect, sacreligious. http://www.megatheism.com/

But I will try to contribute more--please feel free to ask me to weigh in on any particular issue on which you think I might have something valuable to say.

Warmest regards and mucha ushta,

Arthur

The Beautiful Ethical Principle of Freshokereti

Exactly!!!
Very well written, Bahman! I could not agree more.
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.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/14 Bahman Noruziaan

Hello Dino,


Before I explain my understanding, let me set the stage.

Today, at work, my colleagues and I received an email informing that one of our dear colleagues passed away on Saturday, after a few months of battle with cancer. We knew of his disease and we were expecting his passing. He has survived with his young daughter and wife as well as his elderly dad, one brother and tow sisters. He was a very hardworking man, someone who had done a lot of contributions to our college and our department. He was and could still be a great member of our team and the society. This was certainly a loss for the college, our department and the society, let alone for his own family. I can only barely imagine the physical and emotional pain that he went through and the emotional pain that his young daughter and wife and his dad and his siblings are going through!

As a Zoroastrian, I see this as pure evil! There is nothing good in this. I see this as another act of Ahriman, but hold on, not the Bundahishn view of Ahriman.

I do not see this as the mysterious ways God works, or his testing of my colleague and his family, neither I see this perfectly fine and Good, or else we need to redefine human psychology altogether!

My Ahura Mazda does not want to see suffering of the people and other living and even non-living creations. The world or the Gaiti that originated/originates from his/her/its light however, is a mixture of life and non-life (the poetic way Gathas have put it in words). Gaiti, which came into being at the dawn of creation out of the interaction of two entities (Spirits, Mainyoos), is a world of interaction of the two. This interaction in our words and thoughts and deeds are reflected as better and worst, or in our words Good and Evil (Ahriman, why not!), or whatever you like to call them.

Then what is the responsibility of Ahura Mazda in this mess? First, I do not believe that Ahura Mazda is to be held responsible. But if you like to hold him/it/her responsible feel free, with no avail! I, at times yell at Ahura Mazda for such a messy world that has come about!

But then, I know that, this is the nature of the things. It is like that whether I like it or not. There has always been death and destruction, betrayal and sorrow, disease and frustration, together with birth and rejuvenation, happiness and creation.

I however, believe in what has been promised in the Gathas, that eventually the world, with the efforts of all men and women will get rid of all this nonsense, it will become Evil free if you like. 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! That is fine with me! The eventual Freshokereti hoowever, in my belief will come about as we, the humans overcome all the imperfections or the Evil or the Ahriman in the world. Ahura Mazda has given us the power and strength, wisdom and creativity to bring about that state of pure Goodness.

Bahman

måndag 12 oktober 2009

The Beautiful Ethical Principle of Freshokereti

Exactly!!!
And please note that the ethical goal of Zoroastrianism is not "amordad" (defiance of death) but "freshokereti" (the fullfilment of all life forms' full creative potential). It is a beautiful ethical principle!!!
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/12 Bahman Noruziaan

Hello Zaneta,

Yes as you have noticed, we all, despite our differences of opinion here and there, have the words of Zarthauhtra as the source of our understanding and views towards the world. As such, despite all discussions and at times even arguments, when we work collectively, we see our mission in life (if you like) as to make a better world, where all beings can reach their full potentials, and that is the essense of Mazayasna, to work and move towards "Freshokereti".

Bahman

söndag 11 oktober 2009

The divinity of thinking

This is not only what Mazdayasna tells you, this is what Mazdayasna IS!!!
Imagine that somebody decides that what the world needs is not religion but proper philosophy, so the person in question decides to make Philosophy the new Religion.
Well, this is precisely what Zarathushtra did with The Gathas. He turned Thinking into the Divine Activity par excellence, INSTEAD of obedience. Contemplation instead of Begging as the force of prayer.
Mazdayasna means "the love of thinking", islam means "obedience", sometimes a name says it all...
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/11 Weismonger

Brilliant Parviz-I want a religion that tells me it is a participation in the divine to think. There is nothing divine in mechanistic ritual or faith

Cosmology and Zoroastrian logic

Dear Mehran

I agree with you!!!
The fact that there IS a Universe to begin with PROVES that there is something there rather than nothing. That is our starting point, this is what Zarathushtra finds so awesome in The Gathas when he begins to look at the world and put forward his amazing questions regarding existence.
My point is that as Zoroastrians we do not need to separate this THING that we call God from The Universe, rather they co-exist, outside of time and possibly outside of our usual three-dimensional space. Regardless of whether we call this Pantheism or Panentheism (perhaps it is somehting in between that Zarathushtra has in mind).
The very NEED to separate God from The Universe arose far later in history after Zarathushtra as a means of separating Lord from Slave in human society (the Babylonian separation as I call it). We have never had a need for such a separation. To us, The Universe is in itself the very expression of Ahura Mazda, not just a separate entity.
According to modern physics there can even be thousands or even millions of other universes existing parallel to ours, all expressions of the same BEING. And this is where we are all unified in the belief of this being as "Ahura" (that which exists), expressing itself through "Asha" (how things work), manifesting itself as a contempltaing mind ("Mazda") in us as human beings.
This is to me, the LOGIC of the author of The Gathas, Zarathushtra, and it's brilliant logic! Much more logical than the Abrahamic contradictory explanations, where The Law was always constructed first (the Ten Commandments) and the divinity then constructed afterwards to DEFEND the specific law. In Zoroastrianism, Existence is the beginning of all logic, and we make our logical deductions from that fact and not from anywhere else.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/11 MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi



Dear Bahman and Dino
dorood
I understand and accept your these words. I do not want to explain such God and do not believe in such abrahamic God. I am trying to say there is some thing that we call it God, and the statement that there is not any God is completely wrong.
I observe somehow intelligence, wisdom, ability and .... but I do not know any more.
I just try to say there is something. I try to say that world/universe/universes/multiuniverses.... (everything) is/are made things and any made things need necessarily a wise maker....... If you want to know why, pleas ask me to explain once again about why any made thing needs a maker.



--- On Sat, 10/10/09, Special Kain wrote:


Dear Bahman,

Let me please answer even though your question is not addressed to me.
You are absolutely right!!! Analogy is but one inference, and there are three more types of inference, namely deduction, induction and abduction, with science being most concerned with deduction, induction and abduction, but not necessarily with analogy. I guess that Mehran is taking metaphors for granted (since "book" and "author" are only metaphors in this case).
But we should treat metaphors and inferences as compared to other types of inference as what they are.

Ushta, Dino

--- Bahman Noruziaan schrieb am Sa, 10.10.2009:


Mehran,

I am not sure if I can go all the way, comparing the whole of existence with a tiny portion of it which is us, the humans.
Generalizing and extrapolating our understanding of a piece creation and a creator (poem vs poet) to the whole and all of existence, is not that appealing. It may be a good start for young ones to explain the concept of creation, creator and the law governing the creation (i.e. Universe, God and laws of Universe if you like). But for the later development of one's understanding, perhaps, one may see things differently.
This view, in its extreme shape and form is observed in Abrahamic Religions, were God behaves totally like a person but with extreme power.
In the case of Asha as I know, the Gathas call it as the creations of Ahura Mazda, but in very mild and poetic way and not in a very harsh authorative form. Am I not right?

Bahman

Freedom and civilisation

Good, but I believe you're missing Zarathushtra's point here:
There is no freedom in being a shortsighted nomad plundering for survival, according to Zarathushtra (his idea of nomadism is almost the opposite of Gilles Deleuze's concept of nomadism).
It is precisely THROUGH a functioning collective organisation that Man can be free to build the aesthetic life. Think Foucault instead of Deleuze.
So while Zarathushtra refuses to see body and soul as opposites (the soul being an attribute of the body and not separate from or in opposition to the body) he also refuses to see a dualism between individualism and collectivism (which is a European 17th century idea, when The Bourgeoisie invented Liberalism as a new vocabulary in opposition to The Monarch and The Church). It is through an ethical collectivism that individuals are set free to act aesthetically. This is what Civilisation is!
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/11 Special Kain



Dear Alexander,

I agree 90%!
But when reading the Gathas there's no talk about individualism as promoted through such an exclusively aesthetic take on existence. It's rather civilizationist ethics: a desire to tame and be tamed in order to build, manage and expand increasingly complex communities based on truthfulness and righteousness that will prevail and outpace communities where the members would promote deceit, falseness, death and destruction.
Such an uncompromisingly collectivist take on mankind's existence doesn't allow for one's personal immortality as a separate unity interacting with other separate unities and thus composing larger bodies such as communities and societies. Any community adhering to civilizationist ethics will automatically prevail and enjoy a much longer life and much richer diversity than other communities. It's a drive towards increasingly complex, inclusive and encompassing non-zero-sum games that would benefit all players and parties involved.
But selfish deeds provoke selfish reactions - selfishness is highly contagious.
It's a beautiful thought indeed, but Zarathushtra was also naive to a certain extent. Which shouldn't surprise us, since he couldn't check back with sociological, psychological, economic and/or political studies!

Ushta, Dino // currently reading Bard & Söderqvist's "The Global Empire" which definitely inspired this posting

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am So, 11.10.2009:


Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] The Attitude of Amordad
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Sonntag, 11. Oktober 2009, 4:54



Dear Rory and Parviz

Parviz caught this issue spot on!!!
What Parviz realises is that the term "amordad" like all Zoroastrian concepts must be seen as an attitudal guide and not as some silly metaphysical reward (we have none, we DO NOT NEED rewards to act, we act out of our willingness to become something desirable, not to be rewarded, which is precisely what makes us ethical rather than moral beings).
This is precisely the difference between Zoroastrianism and the Abrahamic faiths. Ethics as opposed to moralism.
The term "amordad" is therefore an ATTITUDE. To defy death, to bring forth that which has life in it, to empower existence, is an ETHICAL quality, something which we "desire to be" and NOT "desire to get". It is consequently NOT a phenomenon to be rewarded to passive followers of a Father Figure-God in return for their obedience. This is why the translation "immortality" is so unfortunate, even outright wrong.
Because what Zoroastrians believe is NOT that there is an "immortality" waiting for us as a reward for following some Ten Commandments (we have none, remember?) but rather that nurturing an ATTITUDE which is pro creativity, which defies death, is what is ETHICALLY BEAUTIFUL and what ultimately gives our limited existence its meaning, which gives it "transcendence". Zoroastrianism is about ethics and aesthetics (or rather an aesthetic ethic), to live life as a work of art! Nothing more and nothing less. Just forget about scoring points in a heaven, once and for all.
Once again, the project of Mazdayasna we have undertaken is not the project of cleansing it from its rich variety of ideas but cleansing it from all this Abrahamic junk people constantly try to force on us.
"Defying death in your thoughts, words and deeds" is what amordad means. As you can tell, this has little or nothing to do with "immortality". Rather it is its opposite!

Ushta
Alexander

lördag 10 oktober 2009

Correction regarding reincarnation

No, Zaneta, the Hindus do not.
They creamate their dead because they have done so for thousands of years. It is an efficient way of getting rid of human remains, both for nomads and for people living in heavily populated areas.
The idea that this custom has anything to do with reincarnation was introduced much much later and then in folk Hinduism only. Reincarnation was instead a Dravidian idea that Indians picked up when Indo-Iranians arrived on the Indian subcontinent.
This is why you find no belief in reincarnation in Iran or in European or Central Asian Paganism.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/11 Zaneta Garratt



Hi Georgios, Alexander and Clint,

while on this subject-

The Hindus cremate their dead because they believe that it helps to release the soul which is then reincarnated-


Then there is in Hinduism also the god Yama who appears first in the Rig Veda and is seen as a mild personality in the beginning but later on he takes on some more scary traits-below are some references-


Yama (Sanskrit: यम) is the lord of death in Hinduism, first recorded in the Vedas. Yama belongs to an early stratum of Indo-Iranian theology. In Vedic tradition, Yama was considered to have been the first mortal who died and espied the way to the celestial abodes, and in virtue of precedence he became the ruler of the departed. In some passages, however, he is already regarded as the god of death.--- Yama is a Lokapāla and an Aditya. In art, he is depicted with green or red skin, red clothes, and riding a water buffalo. He holds a loop of rope in his left hand with which he pulls the soul from the corpse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yama_(Hinduism)

.

In Vedic tradition, Yama was considered to have been the first mortal who died and espied the way to the celestial abodes, and in virtue of precedence he became the ruler of the departed. In some passages, however, he is already regarded as the god of death. Yama's name can be interpreted to mean "twin", and in some myths he is paired with a twin sister Yami

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Yama_(Hinduism)#encyclopedia


YAMA. In the earliest Ṛgvedic hymns, Yama is a benign god who looks after the well-being of the dead, whom he entertains with food and shelter. His abode and its environment are pleasant and comfortable; survivors supplicate him for the care of their departed relatives.

http://www.bookrags.com/research/yama-eorl-14/

The Attitude of Amordad

Dear Rory and Parviz

Parviz caught this issue spot on!!!
What Parviz realises is that the term "amordad" like all Zoroastrian concepts must be seen as an attitudal guide and not as some silly metaphysical reward (we have none, we DO NOT NEED rewards to act, we act out of our willingness to become something desirable, not to be rewarded, which is precisely what makes us ethical rather than moral beings).
This is precisely the difference between Zoroastrianism and the Abrahamic faiths. Ethics as opposed to moralism.
The term "amordad" is therefore an ATTITUDE. To defy death, to bring forth that which has life in it, to empower existence, is an ETHICAL quality, something which we "desire to be" and NOT "desire to get". It is consequently NOT a phenomenon to be rewarded to passive followers of a Father Figure-God in return for their obedience. This is why the translation "immortality" is so unfortunate, even outright wrong.
Because what Zoroastrians believe is NOT that there is an "immortality" waiting for us as a reward for following some Ten Commandments (we have none, remember?) but rather that nurturing an ATTITUDE which is pro creativity, which defies death, is what is ETHICALLY BEAUTIFUL and what ultimately gives our limited existence its meaning, which gives it "transcendence". Zoroastrianism is about ethics and aesthetics (or rather an aesthetic ethic), to live life as a work of art! Nothing more and nothing less. Just forget about scoring points in a heaven, once and for all.
Once again, the project of Mazdayasna we have undertaken is not the project of cleansing it from its rich variety of ideas but cleansing it from all this Abrahamic junk people constantly try to force on us.
"Defying death in your thoughts, words and deeds" is what amordad means. As you can tell, this has little or nothing to do with "immortality". Rather it is its opposite!

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/10 Rory



Dear Mr. Varjavand,

When I was a young boy I was fortunate to spend time in the wild. I was amazed at the awareness, knowledge and understanding of certain people for their surroundings. I knew a few sounds, could tell a few plants and trees apart and so on, but they knew it all. They could track where I couldn't even see a sign, they seemed to be completely aware of everything happening around them, they knew every plant and it's uses, could identify every bird, animal and insect and so on and were confident and relaxed and at home in a world deadly to 99% of the world's population. I wanted to have that knowledge.
After spending the greater part of my life with these people and eventually, after years of learning, finally becoming one of them, I could do the same. I had learnt to differentiate between skill, which usually comes with practice and effort, such as shooting, tracking, skinning, etc. and knowledge, such as all the names, amimal behaviour, plant uses and so on. But most importantly I learnt that there are certain mental "tools" or principles that allow one the ability to live and act in the wild. They allow one to make the right decisions in any different situation.
Right now I really feel again as I did when I was a child, except this time the wilderness is quite different. It is a wilderness of existence. I am desperately trying, as quickly as possible, to learn everything about this new "wilderness". The tools in this new "wilderness" are the Ameshasepands. With your words below you have just taken it from a vague and confusing concept in my mind to a useful tool that I am aware of. Thank you! I will put it to good use!

Ushta te,

Rory

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Parviz Varjavand wrote:
>
> Dear Rory,
>
> As far as I am concerned, you are not "Vaguely" but "Absolutely" on the right track.
> All Zoroastrianism does is give you pointers as to how to choose your Better Truths (Vahishtayi Ashem) and strive for the higher Ushtas that those truths will bring you. For example A-Mordad (A means defiance and Mordad means Death, so Amordad means Not-Death or Death Defiance) is one of the Ameshasepands. Every decision you take, it is not bad to ask yourself, is there Death Defiance in this act of mine or not. If the act somehow Defies Death, it should be a better act than the one who Brings About Death. Planting trees is a good act because it promotes the life of those trees. Killing animals is a bad act as it ends the life of those animals, but it becomes a tolerable act as we eat the flesh and our lives gets prolonged. My grand children love to eat meat and I can see them grow and get strong eating well, so I do some wrong in buying meat, yet I go towards Amordad as my grand children grow and get strong. I have to choose every Truth by weighing
> its pros and cons and live with the Ushta (Or lack of it) that my decisions brings. That is how I understand Zoroastrianism.
>
> Ushta te,
> Parviz Varjavand
>
> Ushta,
> Parviz
>
> --- On Sat, 10/10/09, Rory wrote:
>
>
> From: Rory
> Subject: [Ushta] Re: The Art Finding theTruth
> To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, October 10, 2009, 2:10 AM
>
> Dear Parviz,
>
> Thank you for your kind and constructive words.
>
> I would very much like to read what you have written regarding the Ashem Vohoo. I've seen so many varied and completely different interpretations. The one below appeals to me not only because it appeals to reason but it is most in harmony with my own "nascent" beliefs and therefore gives me a pleasant affirmation that I may be vaguely on the right track.
>
> Ushta,
> Rory

The limits of language - and the difference between asha and law

Dear Clint

You're absolutely right!!!
I personally stopped using the term "law" in connection to physical reality a long time ago. Isaac Newton spoke of the laws of the universe in the 17th century but the metaphor is a lot less productive today with our knowledge of how the universe works and how relative physics truly is.
The beauty of the concept of asha of course being that asha is fundamentally how things work no matter how they work, and that the ethical principle of asha takes its starting point in the something that does exist rather than in the nothing that does not exist. Zarathushgra just spoke of asha, he never used it in connection to the term "law". Zoroastrianism is rather the only religion without laws. Or rather, we identify with our actions rather than have our actions submitted to any law.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/10 wagnerian1



Ushta Mehran,

Let me try to explain. Way before there was a scientific method, kings and councils were already making laws to govern the behavior of people, for obvious reasons. This word, "law" refers to this code of expected behavior and the semantic content, or first/primary/foundation meaning of the word "law" deals with expected behaviors that are imposed upon people to circumscribe limits that are theoretically healthy and beneficial for society as a whole. Understand so far?

So, as people began using their good minds to observe the natural world, which includes Us by the way, they began noticing that certain things act in predictable ways, and that even people act in predictable ways in many cases. The sun always rises, it is always warm at a certain time of year, if there are dark clouds there is a better chance of it raining, etc. The animals do this at this time of year, and do this other thing, when it is a different time of year. You add water to substance X and it does Y, etc. For whatever reason, these scientists, or philosophers as they called them back then, began to use the language of "law" to describe their theories as to why these things happened, and why they were so predictable.

Now think about this for a minute. As these observations began to be gathered up and talked about, and taught to other people, the world was still a very wild and uncontrolled place. For everything they knew, there was VERY MUCH that they did not know, and what they didn't know was very scary. Just like people can be scary if there aren't any "laws", if there aren't any rulers to put a boundary around their behavior, if there aren't any parents and children grow up wild, etc. It was a natural consequence of this mix of ideas, to see the few predictable and understood natural processes as being "governed" by "laws" in an otherwise lawless and chaotic, and not understood, natural world.

In our time, we can see many more predictable situations, we can read about and observe many things in action that our ancestors just hadn't found out about yet. But we still use the word "law", at least in normal, everyday conversation among non-scientists, to label our scientific observations and predictions. But this is a borrowed word from a totally different field of human knowledge and experience, and because it is borrowed, the word "law" does NOT entirely express the reality of what is going on and what has been observed and/or participated in. The word law, like I said above, refers to something imposed on behavior by someone else, either a king or a council of some sort. This is true of society. This is not true of the workings of the Universe. It might be a metaphor, or a convenient word to use, to speak of the "Laws of the Universe", or the "Law of Asha", but the word "law" is a much narrower word for a much narrower situation, the situation of setting limits upon human behavior so that Order might occur. Order is not imposed by laws, by the way, the laws only define limits, and these limits can change if we see that more order and harmony and all the rest might occur if we change the limits.

What it comes down to, Reverend Mobedyar, is this: the word "Law" is only borrowed as a metaphor to help describe the workings of the Universe. It was borrowed at a time in which the word "Law" seemed to describe what was going on, but as our knowledge has increased, to use the word "Law" can only be understood as a pale, inadequate shadow of what it is we are really talking about. Likewise, it is very easy to use the word "Law" when referring to the way the Universe works, then say "there must be a Law-giver!" because there are lawgivers and lawmakers in human society. But again, the word "Law" is only a substitute, a borrowed word from a different kind of human knowledge than the scientific. It is a word with moral and/or ethical connotations, and if used of science, philosophy, cosmology, theology and the like, should only be understood as a figure of speech. Unfortunately, this has not been the case, and the figure of speech has been literalized and carried too far. The only real Laws there are are those Laws which have been devised by human beings to try and create a functioning and effective society.

So, the above is an explanation of why the word "law" is problematic in our discussions, except when talking about man-made codes of conduct. My sentence, that you wanted an explanation about, was cautioning all of us to examine our words carefully, and to understand that for the most part, we are trying to use very limited language to describe that which has no limits; to please keep in mind the limits of not only the words of our language but of language itself. No one knows for sure, no one has totally understood everything, and this is even more true when we are speaking of the things of Ahura Mazda, the Amesha Spentas, life and death and the survival or non-survival of consciousness. In some native European traditions, they always say that, on this side of death or whatever, you never see the Invisible World straight on, but rather just off to the side, just out of the "corner of your eye". As I go forward in life, I find this is entirely and completely true, when referring to the things of God, or gods, or religion in general. Symbols and peripheral vision, side-glances, that is what we have to go on. If we understand that, we also understand this is a blessing, for that means that NO ONE has all the power, and if they claim all the power concerning religion and spirituality, then they are either self-deluded or liars.

--Clint

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi wrote:
>
> Dear Clint
> dorood
> I could not understand this your words. "...However, I would say be VERY careful in referring to the ways and means of the great Universe as something so easy to list and categorize as "laws" and other such language. Ahura Mazda is so much greater than this, I think, and more complex. There are so many things we just don't know, nor have control over, that one can never be too sure that they have Asha, or anything else Divine, all figured out. That includes all y'all, not just Mehran!...."
>
> Would you please explain them more?

The Concept of Amordad (Transcendence) - Persians vs Egyptians

Dear George and Clint

Very interesting thoughts!!!
I would like to add though that we can not take the Christian worldview as our starting point as if it was the norm. This is precisely the colonalist mistake that western scholars have been doing for the past 200 years that we must now try to avoid. Let's only judge people from their own histories and worldviews. And defiance of death is then an ATTITUDE among Indo-Europeans, it is NOT a belief in a possible conscious after-life. Even the early Greeks, prior to the arrival of Egyptian thinking, has no such ideas.
The standard in nomadic cultures was instead to see the world not as a world of individuals who live along a time line, hoping to transgress this line to keep living as the very same individuals forever. This was instead the worldview that began to take root among the Egyptian upper classes (and then among the upper classes only and nowhere else, peasants and slaves were never buried) along the Nile to later spread in the western half of the Middle East. Cremations stopped and instead bodies were buried deep underground and preferrably in pyramids. The radical move of Christianity was to present this concept of immortality as universally possible and even necessary for all human beings. Zoroastrianism never had any such ideas, if it had then Christianity would never have been perceived as radical, which it truly was, Egyptian religion for the masses. This was absolutely unheard of in Persia.
So Zoroastrianism was never a part of this thinking. Neither was Brahmanism in India or the myriad of paganisms prevalent from Western Europe across the Eurasian continent to Siberia in the east. They instead kept a nomadic idea of what it means to be human: It means to be part of a larger whole, recycling and not linearity is the founding principle for existence (just look at our Zoroastrian holidays, you have no idea how important Norwuz and Mehrgan was to Zoroastrians). So a dead body is a dead person but this is rather meaningless, what matters is the life of the tribe and the life of nature. Only when nature is bedeviled does a need rise to separate body and soul, Man and God, and with this dualism arrives with the construction of massive pyramids. Please note how Zoroastrian towers of silence were COLLECTIVE sites whereas pyramids and Christian graves are INDIVIDUAL sites (or possibly family entities).
None of this dualist stuff was ever Zoroastrian. Even the Sassanids passed the corpses of their dead on to vultures. What more proof do you need? And if there were earth burials in Central Asia, they definitely disappeared with the arrival of the Indo-Europeans. We know this because that was how we discovered that there were Indo-Europeans in the Indus Valley and Central Asia in the first place.
So George is right, amordad is a-death, but that is certainly not the same as the concept of immortality. There is an attitude here - that which within us which strives to transcend - but certainly no belief in a conscious life beyond death as the Egyptians imagined.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/10 wagnerian1



I'm with you, George. Wouldn't there be a different prefix for resistance or defiance, cognate to the Greek or Latin "anti-"? "A-" is simply a negative. As I think about immortality, I think about the various traditions concerning such a state, and they do not always agree on how that state is reached, how it works and what it entails, exactly. I cannot believe that a person was mortal, then because of some spiritual attainment, is now immortal. But I can believe that birth and death are phenomena that arise and pass away, and that a perspective can change to where neither are of ultimate significance. When this perspective change happens, no-death becomes the point of view from which a person approaches the world, and one's own life. Birth has happened, and death will happen too, but these are things that are happening to you, they are not YOU. You rest in the House of Songs always, and watch death and birth and death and birth and death and birth around you, then happen to you, and are entirely whole, or haurvatat, no matter what. If the Buddha used the metaphor of a ferry across the river, then Zarathushtra saw a bridge across a chasm. I would argue that ethical behavior is a foundational aspect of getting across that bridge, but alone is not enough.

Ushta, Clint

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, "Georgios" wrote:
>
> Dear Alexander,
> I've been reading your messages and you insist that Amordad still means "defiance of death" or "resistance towards death".
> I am not convinced by your statements since in wikipedia it says: "Etymologically, Avestan ameretat derives from an Indo-Iranian root and is linguistically related to Vedic Sanskrit amá¹›tatva", which literally means "that which is immortal".
> Although I am NOT an expert, I know that the prefix a- means "without", it's the same in Greek by the way. The rest of the word "mordad" derives (in modern farsi) from mordant which means to die. So I'd understand amordad as "athanasia" (a+thanatos=death) in Greek, roughly translated in English as non-death or immortality.
> Of course this has nothing to do with the concept of time, except the detail that sooner or later we will all shall die. So death might be related to the limited time of our life. This could be irrelevant.
> Besides this subject I am trying to understand your efforts to prove that the Indo-Iranians were cremating their dead. Does this practice mean that they did not believe in after life of some sort? Ancient Greeks, as Indo-Europeans, would also cremate their dead but there was a strong belief in an underworld. you know very well that all we can say about tribes that lived 3, 4 or 5 thousands years ago can only be speculations. Only some sort of deciphered text would be a firm evidence about the beliefs of prehistoric people. By definition though, prehistoric periods remain without written & deciphered records.
>
> Ushta,
> George

Mehregan in Tajikistan Part 2

Please note though that Tajiks are Sunni Muslim (like the Pushtuns in Afghanistan) and not Shia Muslims like Iranians, so the religious events in Iran have little or no influence on Tajikistan. Tajiks are also known as rather moderate Muslims, vehemently opposed to the Taliban in Afghanistan and with possibly the world's largest Ismaili population (the UIsmailis being the Muslims closest to and most friendly towards Zoroastrians) which can explain its flirtation with its Zoroastrian past. The Muslim "backlash" has rather already happened in Tajikistan, which it did in the 1990s, the country has since become less rather than more Muslim-fundamentalist. The focus is now very much on peaceful prosperity and less dependence on Afghanistan (the lucrative but illegal opium trade) for its survival. Tajikistan remains extremely poor even if people are litterate etc since Soviet days.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/10 Rory

Unfortunately alongside this progress will no doubt be a backlash against it by Muslim bigots. There will be a bust-up at some stage.
The President, Emomalii Rahmon, has in the past made comments to the effect that Zoroastrianism is the only belief system that can defeat Fundamentlist Islam. I think there is wisdom in these words because whilst other religions will get into a martyrdom or other such pi**ing contest with the fundamentalists and the secular ideologies will never be as capable of providing a substitute for the "spiritual ideals", Zoroastrianism is unique in its grounding in fact and appeal to reason as opposed to faith.

Ushta,
Rory

Mehregan official holiday in in Tajikistan!

This is VERY interesting!!!
It means that Tajikistan is picking up more and more Zoroastrian traditions and encourage them as official events.
Tajikistan is still one of the poorest nations in the world but the fact that it is embracing so many Zoroastrian ideas is very encouraging. Please observe that there is also a substantial Tajik minority in Afghanistan to its south and Uzbekistan to its west. Tajiks in neighboring countries are much inclined to pick up ideas and habits that are popular in Tajikistan proper.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/9 Bahman Noruziaan



According to Berasad at http://www.berasad.com/fa/content/view/2620/50/,
the Government of Tajikistan has declared Mehregan Celebration the official national celebration of Tajikistan.
According to the article MehregAn was celebrated with shows and theatres, sports, music and other entertainments.
Tajikistan is the only country that has declared MehregAn an official festival of the nation.

Bahman

Pantheism and Zoroastrianism

Which is exactly why Zoroastrianism is MORE than Pantheism only.
I used to be a member of the World Pantheist Society but dispproved of the way it was organised (it has no democratic organisation and is completely in the hands of its rather totalitarian founder) and also found its message lacking. Zoroastrainism is so much MORE than the new age-y type of Pantheism preached by the WPS from California. I prefer to refer to Zoroastrianism as "Pantheism-Plus". Concepts like Ahura Mazda and Asha do not exist within the Pantheism of the WPS. They have no ethics at all, which we indeed do.
But of course Zoroastrianism is a Pantheistic religion, to which we have also reached agreement to include PanENtheism since many Zoroastrians seem to want to keep this possibility open too. Many forms of Buddhism, Daoism and Hinduism are Pantheistic too (like Brahmanism).
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/9 Special Kain



Dear Bahman,

I agree considering the fact that panentheism states that God is not only within the forces and workings of nature, but also The Greater Force beyond the physical world as we know it, with pantheism subtracting such supernatural inclinations and equating God with the universe and all the stars within - with intelligence (Mazda) being its most adorable aspect.
However, revering and celebrating the universe doesn't necessarily mean that pantheists are going to love EVERYTHING. Pantheism shouldn't be confused with undifferentiated affirmation. The enjoyment of life is an ethical imperative indeed, but it does not allow for cruelty, humiliation or pollution. This is why ethics is no picnic! It's quite tough, since we have to justify why our great love of existence doesn't allow for anything that does exist in this world.

Ushta, Dino

--- Bahman Noruziaan schrieb am Fr, 9.10.2009:


Von: Bahman Noruziaan
Betreff: [Ushta] Pantheism vs. Zoroastrianism (1)
An: "Ushta Ushta"
Datum: Freitag, 9. Oktober 2009, 21:31



Since there have been several references to Pantheism in this mailing list, I browsed the website of World Pantheism at
http://www.pantheis m.net/manifest. htm and looked for, found and started reading their Belief Statement.
I presumed that, this is an authentic site. If not, please correct me before I continue with my future postings along this thread.

I will put my humble and admittedly not very deep and not very educated thoughts about this ideology/religion (if you like) in relationship with my understanding of Zoroastrianism and as a Zoroastrian layperson and not a scholar, in a few postings.

The Pantheists declare:


"1. We revere and celebrate the Universe as the totality of being, past, present and future. It is self-organizing, ever-evolving and inexhaustibly diverse. Its overwhelming power, beauty and fundamental mystery compel the deepest human reverence and wonder."



A Zoroastrian also reveres and celebrates the Universe. From a Zoroastrian point of view however, existence is not bound to what our senses and instruments of senses have detected so far. Existence is not limited to matter and energy that has been measured by our instruments, unless and until it is proven scientifically that this matter/energy has been existent for ever. In that case and then Universe has the same meaning as existence from a Zoroastrian point of view.

There is a vast source of existence from which the visible and measurable universe has sprung and is springing out. Universe of existence engulfs the Universe that our measurements have found so far. A Zoroastrian also, believes that Universe (existence) is self-organizing (organizer and organization are the same), ever-evolving and diverse. Universe is beautiful and mysterious. It is however, as a Zoroastrian realistically sees; painful and at times ugly! It has inherent destructive powers some of which are manifested in human beings destructive powers of lie, deceit, discrimination, murder, torture, harm and so on! Zoroastrianism traditionally has called this inherent ugly part of the observable existence (Universe) as Ahriman.



The Pantheists declare:



"2. All matter, energy, and life are an interconnected unity of which we are an inseparable part. We rejoice in our existence and seek to participate ever more deeply in this unity through knowledge, celebration, meditation, empathy, love, ethical action and art."



I see this statement in harmony of my Zoroastrian world view. I however, take the word meditation as the Gathic and Avestan as well as Persian word Sraosha (Soroush), the direct conduit of acquiring knowledge via connecting to the vast source of knowledge via what has been poetically referred to as heart.




The Pantheists declare:

"3. We are an integralpart of Nature, which we should cherish, revere and preserve in all itsmagnificent beauty and diversity. We should strive to live in harmony withNature locally and globally. We acknowledge the inherent value of all life,human and non-human, and strive to treat all living beings with compassion andrespect."



I see this statement in harmony with my Zoroastrian world view, considering the same point as I mentioned above that nature is not totally beautiful. It has a real ugly face too. A face that must be acknowledged confronted and dealt with. A Zoroastrian also strives to live in harmony with thelaws of Universe that happen to govern its ugly side too, and in order to usethe splendid, constructive and beautiful power of Existence (Universe) to tame its ugly and painful face and to make the world a better place, a more beautiful and harmless place for all life, a state called freshokereti in Zoroastrianism.

..... the rest I will write later.



Ushta you all

Bahman

fredag 9 oktober 2009

Pluralism of truths

Dear Rory

Since Zoroastrianism is based an a series of QUESTIONS and not absolute statements, it follows as a logical consequence that Zoroastrianism is based on the attitude of creativity and co-creation and not on some mistaken idea that "the world has gone wrong because of man" and consequently "has to be corrected through divine intervention". Zoroastrianism has no concept of sin (and the following necessity of salvation), consequently truth is not objective and absolute but recognized as subjective and produced. You are your truth! The question is therefore not what is true but rather who are you? And with 6 billion of us, that means 6 billion truths. Religious pluralism is an entirely different matter, we just recognize the concept of tolerance and freedom of speech (well, we invented it!) but the concept of "religion" is itself alien to Zoroastrians. We are interested in asha vs druj, whether asha is religious or not does not really concern us. Mazdayasna means "the love of the capacity of mind", whether that is considered religious or philosophical or merely literature, is less of a concern.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/9 Rory

Dear Mehran, Parviz,

Please can you expand on "pluralism of truths"? Are you reffering to Religious Pluralism"?

Abrahamic religions all traditionally reject Religious Pluralism on the grounds that it is contradictory.
Buddism teaches that one can only be liberated from Buddarahma through Budda's teachings although another faith may be a step towards this.
Hinduism fully accepts Religious Pluralism (and I understand the Parsees have adopted this view hence "follow your own religion") and therefore reject conversion.
Jainism is pretty unique is its belief than NO religion is completely true.

Having been raised in a religion that taught volumes of nonsense and having caused terrible damage (I am with you on this Parviz just disagree on the approach) I am loathe to accept it as "truth".

I believe Zoroastriansim is unique in it's core belief that one must accept what is truth regardless of contradiction. If there is a clear contradiction then the truth should be accepted and the falsehood dropped.

Tolerance to me means Mehran and Parviz tolerating each others views within reason (unless an opposing view is intolerant) even though it is unlikely that a "tertium datur" situation exists and that one of them is wrong. Saying they are both right is just nonsense and is a compromise designed to placate.

What are the Z views on this? My understaning is that we are searching for truth and should accept truths that may exist within these religions but not the religions themselves because their core beliefs are clearly false!

Ushta,
Rory

Mazda-Yasna: The Third Option

Dear Parviz and Bahman

I believe all three of us belong to the block Parviz is describing so elegantly.
Bahman refered to this alternative as an in-between between the other two extremes, but Parviz pinpoints exactly where the third alternative is at by pointing out that the third alternative (Mazda-Yasna) sees books as great sources of knowledge and inspiration but not as sacred literature. And precisely therefore our own minds take precedence over the books. We have our minds (Mazda) to use to judge the books on their own merits. We have chosen, rather than obeyed to, the Zoroastrian creed.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/9 Parviz Varjavand

The third option,

Mr. Noruziaan presented below the two options in Zoroastrianism that most of us are familiar with, those who consider the Gathas to be the corner stone of the religion and those who respect all of Avesta, Gatha and other ancient religious texts included. The Iranian Zoroastrians belong more to the first camp and the Parsi ones to the second.

There is a third block of Zoroastrians too that did not get mentioned, and since I belong to this block, allow me to introduce it. This block calls itself simply Mazda-Yasna or Philo-Sophia. Zoroastrianism is the only religion which does not command that its adherents need to pledge obedience to a Sacred Book or revere a Divinely Chosen Prophet. Zoroastrianism simply wants you to increase your ability to Think Good Thoughts, Speak Good Words, and Do Good Deeds. By this token, we who love Good-Thoughts go beyond what is in any and all Zoroastrian texts and choose that Philo-Sophi that makes us Think Best.

Because of being Mazda-Yasni, we Celebrate the Thoughts that seem to stimulate our minds best. We feel that the wisdom apparent in all of creation dwells within the creation and not outside it. So, even though we worship Ahoora as the Body and Mazda as the Mind of creation, we also worship Asha as the Law that govern all the behaviors in creation and consider it to be one with Ahoora and Mazda. The Trinity we worship are 1- Ahoora, the Body, 2- Mazda, the Mind, and 3- Asha, or the Laws apparent and governing the behavior of all that exists in Creation. We are the third option and we hope that you will join us in our Zoroastrianism if and when you want to join this religion.

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Tue, 10/6/09, Bahman Noruziaan wrote:


From: Bahman Noruziaan
Subject: [Ushta] Avesta and Zoroastrian Tradition vs the Gathas
To: "Ushta Ushta"
Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2009, 6:59 PM


Dear Friends,

For those who are novice in Zoroastrianism I need to say a few words.

There are two camps among those who call themselves Zoroastrians nowadays.

One camp believes that all of what is remained from Avesta, including the Gathas are divine and are rooted in the words of Zarathushtra. A large number of Parsis belong to this camp. There may still be some Irani Zartoshtis who have the same belief.

The other believes that Gathas only, are the true words of Ashoo Zarathishtra. The rest of Avesta is the fabrication of others. Among these group there are some who beleive those who have fabricated the rest of Avesta were cheaters and liars and corrupt minds who only for their own goals have composed some words and literature and have attributed them to Zarathustra to give them legitimacy. They believe the whole Zarathustrian tradition stretching after death of Zarathushtra to the Sasanian times is an absolute fraud. There is no credibility to such literature, there is no reliability in them and one should stay away from such literature as a Zoroastrian. Only the Gathas and based on some translations that are perhaps only a couple of centuries old are the sources of understanding of Zarathushtra. There are some Parsi and some Irani Zartoshtis as well as number of so called new-Zoroastrians who belong to this camp.

There are people who may be in between the two camps, such as myself. We believe the Gathas are the source and all other parts of Avesta must be studied in light of the Gathas and Gathas can be understood better in light of Avesta and Zoroastrian tradition. We do not believe that all parts of Avesta is product of some fraudulent minds who had no attachment and sympathy and understanding of the words of Zarathushtra. A large number of Irani Zartoshtis and I can say the Iranian Zartohti Mobeds as well as a good number of Parsis, and some new Zoroastrians belong to this spectrum.

You, my friends will make a decision where you will be standing.

Regards
Bahman

Cosmology and so on...

Dear Brothers Bahman and Mehran

I agree with Bahman but I would like to stress that this is my BELIEF and not some final knowledge and that I do find Mehran's panentheistic position perfectly credible, prefectly in line with the Gathic teachings too, and that I believe Zoroastrianism has always encompassed both pantheism and panentheism. Zarathushtra himself was most of all CURIOUS about how the world worked and did not propose and insist on any final answers. The Gathas is instead full of creative questions rather than dogmatic answers. We should share his courageous and creative approach towards Existence (as Bahman so correctly calls it) and keep our minds open and our debates free. So cheers to both of you for presenting your views with such flair and enthusiasm!

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/8 Bahman Noruziaan


Hello Mehran,

I tend to beleive that the law of existence (I on purpose do not use the word Universe here, which may refer to all we have found out by direct or indirect observation so far, i.e matter, dark matter, energy, dark energy and so on) is itself part of Ahura Mazda, the law and the lawmaker are one.
About pantheism, I have printed their belief statement and am still processing it.


Bahman



To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: mehran_gheibi@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 02:15:53 -0700

Subject: RE: [Ushta] Cosmology and so on


Dear Bahman
dorood
1- I did not find anything in your words that is not in agreement with my panenthism point of view.
2- In gAthA, ahoorA mazdA is the begining and the end of world. ahoorA mazdA has created the law of world and then let it to work self-regulatort/autonomic. Making, remaking, cycling recycling and ..... are parts of this law, but ahoorA mazdA is not involved in this progressive process.

torsdag 8 oktober 2009

The Art of Acceptance

The only ACCEPTANCE we need, dear Mehran, is to accept that when we have put forth our arguments and still not conviced each other about something, we have to ACCEPT this and move on to the next issue of interest. What you think of as scientific reasons is just nonsense to somebody else and perhaps what you think is nonsense is scientific reasons to somebody else. Now, learn to live with this multitude of ideas, with this diversity of opinions, with this pluralism of truths, or else you will be left all to yourself without any friends anywhere. Welcome to the world of the 21st century!
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/8 MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi

Dear Alexander
dorood
Blindly acceptance is denied. Only scientific reasons.

onsdag 7 oktober 2009

The Concept of Amordad (Transcendence) Part 3

Dear Bahman

ALL texts from Indo-Iranian culture are of interest to understand how they viewed the world (and I'm an in-between in regards to Gathas and Avesta just like yourself, Bahman!). Also, all other traces are most helpful. We must also understand that Indo-Europeans in Europe and Indo-Iranians in Iran and India are all of the same origin and therefore likely to share worldviews in many instances, far more so than with people of other origins in Eurasia. This is why Parviz is correct to point out that "amordad" means "death defiance" and not "immortality". The concept of immortality did not exist in ANY Indo-European cultures as understood later in semitic and Greek culture. Another word for "death defiance" is "transcendence" meaning "that which transcends or seems to transcend physical reality". Quite a difference then from immortality!

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/7 Bahman Noruziaan



Dear Alexander

Referring to your comment:

"To understand the ancient Iranians, we must FIRST understand HOW they VIEWED the world. Their worldview was radically different from ours. Only THEN we can begin to understand what they mean.",

I suppose that you agree the best and perhaps the only reliable source is Avesta, including all its various books, such as Yashts, Yasnas, Visperad, Vandidad, and so on.

Also referring to:
"So when Zarathushtra speaks of "soul" or "body" he does not even discuss OPPOSITES the way we have been trained to see them. To him and his culture, these are just ATTRIBUTES of one and the same thing, Ahura!"

The same idea flows into later, Zoroastrian tradition, where Manioo and Gaiti are both manifestation of the same unity, distinct but from the same source and so one in essence. There is Manioo in all elements of Gaiti. Referring to "Khorshid Niyayesh" as well as "Mehr Niayesh" and other Niyayesh prayers, a Zoroastrian praises the Mainoo of the sun, the moon and so on, in addition to praising their material benefits for the world. All universe in Zoroastrian tradition is sacred and worthy of veneration.
This idea that the whole existence is one and there is unity between material and spiritual, flows into Iranian philosophy, centuries after the passing of Ashoo Zarathushtra. The term "Vahdat-e Vojoud" composed of two Arabic words and and meaning unity of existence refers to the same idea.

This is based on my limited reading and knowledge.

Bahman

tisdag 6 oktober 2009

The problem with Christianity - what is all the big hoopla about?

So The Father sacrificed his only Son on the cross. Hmmm, well what happened then?
Because then The Son comes back - alive again - three days later.
Am I the only one who does not see any sacrifice in this at all? ;-)
So your son had a bad time on a cross for a few hours with pain etc. But he survived! And forever too!!!
So what was the big hoopla all about?
Fairytales that refuse bad endings, well that's not the way the world works. And it makes for a dull and deceitful world too. It was Heidegger who pointe dout that it is PRECISELY our deathness - our knowing that we will die - that makes us enjoy life, otherwise we would all be vampires who could not die and hate the whole thing.
Life is change, that's the beauty of it. And it is this CHANGE that we are forever a part of. Not some eternal beyond that refuses change.
No wonder Zoroastrianism is the OPPOSITE of Christianity, just like Heraclitus was the opposite of Plato in ancient Greece etc. When Eva listened to The Snake - that was the BEST moment in history, not the worst.
Ushta
Alexander

Quantum consciousness etc

Interesting!!!
I was just discussing Hameroff and Penrose on another internet forum yesterday. I have always followed Roger Penrose with enormous interest, especially as he is the leading sceptic towards string theory and instead one of the innovators of quantum loop theory, now the leading route towards a "theory of everything" in Physics. For those with a clue of mathematics, Penrose is always a recommended read!
However, we should note that Hameroff and Penrose have been widely criticized for their theories on quantum consciousness. The perhaps smartest critic of them all is Max Tegmark, the famous Swedish-American physicist who many consider to be the next superstar of Physics (he is already the father of the "Mathematical Universe" theory). If interested, it does pay off to read both sides of the current debate.
Tegmark's critique centers around the fact that quantum effects are so infinitely small and marginal (fast!) that they really should have no effect whatsoever on consciousness. Nature can work very well without such effects to create consciousness, is Tegmark's point.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/6 Rory

Dear Judy and Zaneta,

Have you heard of Suart Hameroff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hameroff)? I am very curious Judy what your thoughts are on his and Sir Roger Penrose' ideas on "quantum conciousness" considering your background.

Ushta,
Rory

The Concept of Amordad (Transcendence) Part 2

Dear Bahman

We have to understand that the whole division between "materia" and "spirit" as two distinctively DIFERENT substances did NOt exist in Zarathushtra's Iran. So why would he even comment on something that just did not exist as a concept to him or his culture??? Dualism was born in Egypt, far from Iran, and was imported by the Greeks who then spread it to the rest of the world as "Platonism" (with Christianity and later Islam as the ultimate dualist religions). So when Zarathushtra speaks of "soul" or "body" he does not even discuss OPPOSITES the way we have been trained to see them. To him and his culture, these are just ATTRIBUTES of one and the same thing, Ahura! To understand the ancient Iranians, we must FIRST understand HOW they VIEWED the world. Their worldview was radically different from ours. Only THEN we can begin to understand what they mean.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/6 Bahman Noruziaan




I beleive that "Farvardin Yasht" contains the remnants of pre-Gathic Iranian beliefs in the non-material part of Human exitence. Am I missing something here?


To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: bardissimo@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:31:34 +0200
Subject: [Ushta] The Concept of Amordad (Transcendence)


No, Mehran, here I must offer friendly disagreement.
There is no evidence whatsoever that any belief in the "immortality of the soul" existed anywhere in Indo-Iranian culture. This is a much later belief - as Dino has correctly pointed out - developed in Egypt and not in Iran. Otherwise, Iran would have been full of ancient pyramids but it is not. The pyramids are in Egypt and NOT in Iran.
Amordad should frankly be translated as "transcendence" to modern English and not as "immortality". We need to get rid of Abrahamic interpretations of our faith, not recycle or endorse them. We have had enough of them already.
Ushta
Alexander

Inside or Beyond The Universe? Or Escapism?

Dear Bahman

Good question! Well, here we go:
There are no FAITH STATEMENTS anywhere to be found in The Gathas!
Zarathushtra instead takes a very different approach from the Abrahamic founders of religion. He adresses the wonders of the world as a series of QUESTIONS; questions to which HE does not provide any answer. Not even any guessing.
So Zarathushtra's philosophy is to look at the world in awe and admire it, the Pantheistic credo, not to try to understand it, to domesticate and control the world in any way. To Zarathushtra, the questions are far more interesting than the answers. And answers without facts are irrelevant and of no interest. Which is precisely why there are NONE of them anywhere to be found in The Gathas.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/6 Bahman Noruziaan



Dear Alexander,

You have made two claims here:


"Zarathushtra CLEARLY states that we should only make statements about that which we KNOW about and not sit and guess wildly......."

and:

"We do NOT need to have an idea of how everything works, Mehran, Zarathushta said that he did not, and you know it......."

Could elebaorate on these by just referring to where you have got such understanding. Pease note that I do not consider myself in a position to evlauate your cliams, and only want to know where these clear statements have been made by Zarathushtra?
Also, this is also not endorsing Mehran's views which I have not been follwoing for quite sometime and maybe later.

Bahman

To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: bardissimo@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 18:54:46 +0200

Subject: [Ushta] Inside or beyond The Universe? Or Escapism?


No, this is nonsense, Mehran, and you know it! Logic can only be based on facts and where there are no facts there is no logic but just wild guessing. Don't mistake wild guesses for being logical, OK?
Zarathushtra CLEARLY states that we should only make statements about that which we KNOW about and not sit and guess wildly and come up with silly ideas that do not hold up to scrutiny. We do NOT need to have an idea of how everything works, Mehran, Zarathushta said that he did not, and you know it. Only about that which we KNOW about.
You can have your BELIEFS, Mehran, and I may have mine. But those beliefs that can not proved should be regarded as merely beliefs and not as facts. And please understand once and for all that LOGIC is one thing and INTUITION is another. You seem too be keen to think that YOUR specific intuition is logical but I'm afraid it is not (no intuition is). Many things in nature are not intuitive but rather conter-intuitive even if we KNOW that they are true. Quantum mechanics is one perfect example. It makes little sense to our intuition but it WORKS and it is therefore TRUE even if it goes against our intuition.
I wouls recommend that instead of constantly retreating to the same issue on Ushta, Mehran, you would take a sincere interest in modern science and READ and STUDY it more. I believe this is far more productive than to just endlessly repeating the same issues on a mailing list where people have long ago lost interest in following the tirade.
Your reports from Iran, however, are among the most appreciated contributions of all on Ushta. So are your educational words on Zoroastrian ethics. So keep up the good spirit and stay with that which interests us all. Repetition is not the same as clarification. OK?
Ushta
Alexander

The Concept of Amordad (Transcendence)

No, Mehran, here I must offer friendly disagreement.
There is no evidence whatsoever that any belief in the "immortality of the soul" existed anywhere in Indo-Iranian culture. This is a much later belief - as Dino has correctly pointed out - developed in Egypt and not in Iran. Otherwise, Iran would have been full of ancient pyramids but it is not. The pyramids are in Egypt and NOT in Iran.
Amordad should frankly be translated as "transcendence" to modern English and not as "immortality". We need to get rid of Abrahamic interpretations of our faith, not recycle or endorse them. We have had enough of them already.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/6 MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi

Dear Dino
dorood
I am not agree with you. Gatha is full of beliefs of imortal soul. amordAd is one basic evidence.

Nik-o shAd bAshid
KhodA negahdAr,
MoobedyAr MehrAn Gheibi.
Kerman_Iran




--- On Sat, 10/3/09, Special Kain wrote:


From: Special Kain
Subject: AW: [Ushta] WHAT IS "SPIRIT?" ...ENERGY, OR SOMETHING ELSE?
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, October 3, 2009, 11:38 AM



Dear Judy,

The immortal soul is a much younger concept than the concepts given in the Gathas, so there was no notion of immortal souls at the time when Zarathushtra started to raise questions. I used to do parapsychological research several years ago and we didn't detect any immaterial souls. There are, however, some phenomena that require further investigation.

Ushta, Dino

--- Judy Weismonger schrieb am Sa, 3.10.2009:


Von: Judy Weismonger
Betreff: [Ushta] WHAT IS "SPIRIT?" ...ENERGY, OR SOMETHING ELSE?
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Datum: Samstag, 3. Oktober 2009, 9:06


Hello Moobed....anything' s possible in one's imagination, but I defer to physics, and so far, I do not know of any physics theories that states that there is a separation.. .or a transcendent state between soul, or mind, body, etc. if there is, I'd like to see some proof.

When you say "spirit"...could you define what you mean by "spirit?" Not once in the below Wikipedia description of the history of the word "spirit" do they refer to Zoroastrian concepts. So...what is a Z concept of the the "soul" or the "spirit," etc.?

My take is that in Zism...the word "spirit" in interchangeable with the concept of physics and the word "energy." Am I wrong?

In my terms, "spirit"is another word for energy....as described by the original Greek context from the root word "espiritu" (or psyke, also meaning "mind") meaningalso to draw in breath...And for that reason, before we go into a discussion of "spirit" I would like for us to all get on the same page and come to a conclusion what 'spirit' is. Below is what I pulled out of the Wikipedia.com. ..Hugs, Judy

The English word "spirit" has many differing meanings and connotations, but commonly refers to a supernatural being or essence — transcendent and therefore metaphysical in its nature: the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines it as "the non-physical part of a person". For many people, however, spirit, like soul, forms a natural part of a being: such people may identify spirit with mind, or with consciousness, or with the brain.
Etymology

The English word "spirit" comes from the Latin spiritus, meaning "breath" (compare spiritus asper), but also "soul, courage, vigor", ultimately from a PIE root *(s)peis- (to blow). In the Vulgate, the Latin word is the equivalent for Greek πνευμα (pneuma) and the Hebrew רוח (ruah), as opposed to Latin anima and Greek psykhē. The word apparently came into Middle English via Old French. The distinction between soul and spirit developed in Judeo-Christian terminology (thus we find Greek psykhe as opposed to pneuma, Latin anima as opposed to spiritus, Hebrew ruach as opposed to neshama or nephesh; in Hebrew neshama comes from the root NShM or "breath").
Metaphysical and metaphorical uses

English-speakers use the word "spirit" in two related contexts, one metaphysicalmetaphorical. and the other in a metaphysical context.
Metaphysical contexts

In metaphysical terms, "spirit" has acquired a number of meanings:

1. An incorporeal but ubiquitous, non-quantifiable substance or energy present individually in all living things. Unlike the concept of souls (often regarded as eternal and usually believed to pre-exist the body) a spirit develops and grows as an integral aspect of a living being. This concept of the individual spirit occurs commonly in animism. Note the distinction between this concept of spirit and that of the pre-existing or eternal soul: belief in souls occurs specifically and far less commonly, particularly in traditional societies. One might more properly term this type/aspect of spirit "life" (bios in Greek) or "ether" rather than "spirit" (pneuma in Greek).
2. A daemon sprite, or especially a ghost. People usually conceive of a ghost as a wandering spirit from a being no longer living, having survived the death of the body yet maintaining at least vestiges of mind and of consciousness.
3. In religion and spirituality, the respiration of a human has for obvious reasons become seen as strongly linked with the very occurrence of life. A similar significance has become attached to human blood. Spirit in this sense denotes that which separates a living body from a corpse — and usually implies intelligence, consciousness and sentience.
4. Various animistic religions, such as Japan's Shinto and various Native American and African tribal beliefs, focus around invisible beings which represent or connect with plants, animals (sometimes called "Animal Fathers"), or landforms; translators usually employ the English word "spirit" when trying to express the idea of such entities.
5. Individual spirits envisaged as interconnected with all other spirits and with "The Spirit" (singular and capitalized). This concept relates to theories of a unified spirituality, to universal consciousness and to some concepts of Deity. In this scenario all separate "spirits", when connected, form a greater unity, the Spirit, which has an identity separate from its elements plus a consciousness and intellect greater than its elements; an ultimate, unified, non-dual awareness or force of life combining or transcending all individual units of consciousness. The experience of such a connection can become a primary basis for spiritual belief. The term spirit occurs in this sense in (to name but a few) Anthroposophy, Aurobindo, A Course In Miracles, Hegel, and Ken Wilber. In this use, the term seems conceptually identical to Plotinus's "The One" and Friedrich Schelling's "Absolute". Similarly, according to the panentheistic/pantheistic view, Spirit equates to essencemind/soul through any level in pantheistic hierarchy/holarchy, such as through a mind/soul of a single cell (with very primitive, elemental consciousness) , or through a human or animal mind/soul (with consciousness on a level of organic synergy of an individual human/animal) , or through a (superior) mind/soul with synergetically extremely complex/sophisticat ed consciousness of whole galaxies involving all sub-levels, all emanating (since the superior mind/soul operates non-dimensionally, or trans-dimensionally ) from the one Spirit. that can manifest itself as
6. Christian theology can use the term "Spirit" to describe God, or aspects of God — as in the "Holy Spirit", referring to a Triune God (Trinity): "The result of God reaching to man by the Father as the source, the Son as the course ('the Way'), and through the Spirit as the transmission. "
7. In (popular) theological terms, the individual human "spirit" (singular, lowercase) is a deeply situated aspect of the soul subject to "spiritual" growth and change; the very seat of emotion and desire, and the transmitting organ by which humans can contact God. In a rare theological definition it consists of higher consciousness enclosing the soul, pneumatology (note that pneumatology studies "pneuma" (Greek for "spirit") not "psyche" (Greek for "soul" — as studied in psychology). "Spirit" forms a central concept in
8. Christian Science uses "Spirit" as one of the seven synonyms for God, as in: "Principle; Mind; Soul; Spirit; Life; Truth; Love"[1]
9. Harmonism reserves the term "spirit" for those which collectively control and influence an individual from