Swedish has a beautiful word "livsåskådning" (I believe there is a similar word in German, perhaps Dino can help us with that?) which perfectly illustrates what Zoroastrianism or Mazdayasna is to me. Unfortunately the word can not be translated to English (freely translated the word would mean somehting akin to "having and oracticing a view on the conditions of existence". The problem here is not our concept of what Mazdayasna is or should be but rather the Ebnlish language's lack of vocabulary to describe our ambition.
And I must disagree there can be a society without philosophy: As Slavoj Zizek has explained and proven: There is always an IDEOLOGY at work in any given society, a matrix of ideas that dominate (precisely through vocabulary), and what is an ideology if not a philosophy, but merely STRONGER by operating as subconscious rather than conscious. So we can live in a society without a conscious philosophy but then only even more controlled by subconscious philosophy or rather ideology. Supersitition is the most perfect example of such subconscious philosophy. What we are doing by giving a vocabulary to philosophy (which is what Rorty would mean is the art of philosophy) is actually to DISTANCE ourselves from ideas that control us uncritically.
Ushta
Alexander
2010/8/13 Parviz Varjavand
Dear Jehan and Dino,
Spirituality connotes the existence of a spirit often perceived as separate from the body, something i do not believe in. Religion on the other hand was a bonding between men, but Agustin turned it into a bonding of men and God. I believe in Religion (Relegare) in its original implication, I share a religion between you, Dino, Alex, Arthur, and many others because we have come to like one another and some kind of a "bond" has been created between us. That "bond" I call Religion.
We are very lucky because our Zoroastrian religion does not have a chain of authority that must be obeyed, so I feel very at ease sailing my ship under that flag.
Parviz
--- On Fri, 8/13/10, Special Kain
From: Special Kain
Subject: Re: AW: [Ushta] Re: Mazdayasna vs Zoroastrianism (Comparions of The Mazdaist, Jafareyite and Parsi views)
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 1:35 PM
Dear Jehan
Spiritualism is neither superior nor inferior to any other metaphysical concept, such as materialism, idealism, whatever-ism. It's simply another vocabulary that may or may not serve a specific purpose under certain circumstances.
Ushta,
Dino
--- Jehan Bagli
Von: Jehan Bagli
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] Re: Mazdayasna vs Zoroastrianism (Comparions of The Mazdaist, Jafareyite and Parsi views)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Freitag, 13. August, 2010 20:36 Uhr
Ushta Perviz and Dino:
I know that you are both among those Zoroastrians who translate Mazda-Yasna as Philo-Sophia. I am agreeable to that. However I see the need of Parviz to address Mazda-Yasna as something other than Philosophy. Personally I feel that religions by definition are divisive. They tend to attempt to confine the Infinite Reality -God/Mazda whatever it is - into a finite forms and set out limits to it. I think Spiritualism is a much broader concept that would cover an aspect that may be acceptable to masses as Mazda-Yasna Spiritualism or Zarathushtrian Spirituality.
I think people need a crutch to be spiritual following a way of life. Through worship of Mind or Wisdom people can find a path to spirituality.
My two cents
Jehan
On 13-Aug-10, at 1:36 PM, Parviz Varjavand wrote:
Ushta Dino,
There are no buildings housing Spinoza Philosophy but there are so many fire temples dedicated to Zoroastrianism and dating back to ancient times. This is a very precious thing and I do not feel like I would gain anything by throwing it away. There is such an animal as ZoroastrianISM while there is no such animal as SpinozaISM. A philosophy with some structure to it becomes a religion as far as I am concerned. Even the most structured religions can not control subgroups in their religion which do not go with the flow of the sheepish general congregation. So I feel we have a place within the general religion called Zoroastrianism, but I define myself as being amongst those Zoroastrians that translate Mazda-Yasna as Philo-Sophia, and that is that, end of my story.
Ushta,
Parviz
Parviz
--- On Fri, 8/13/10, Special Kain
From: Special Kain
Subject: AW: [Ushta] Re: Mazdayasna vs Zoroastrianism (Comparions of The Mazdaist, Jafareyite and Parsi views)
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 3:47 AM
Dear friends
I still don't agree with Parviz that Zoroastrianism should be defined as a religion, that is in Christian-Roman terms. For example, I'm far from being religious. There's no reason to go to church other than marvel at the beauty of architecture. I became interested in Zoroastrianism as a philosopher (or, at least, as someone who takes a strong interest in philosophy). To me Zoroastrianism is Mazda-Yasna is Philo-Sophia. You can have Zoroastrian philosophy without buying the whole package.
By the way, the world wouldn't crumble if there was a lack of philosophical convictions tying and gluing all "societal bits" together. Society works perfectly fine without philosophy. Please refer to Martin Heidegger, Jürgen Habermas and Richard Rorty.
Ushta,
Dino
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar