But we are you going to do with the theory which we have established?
Isn't the logical consequence of a deep Mazdayasna philosophy to question the very practices of contemporary Zoroastrianism that seem to attract such few if any young Westerners or even Iranians? Should not a new philosophy also result in a new and improved and more interesting practice? Isnät it a fact that I'm taking our theory and now am DOING something with it instead of just talking?
I started a Mithraism facebook group and within two days it had more members than all the Zoroastrian facebook groups known to us have accumulated for the last four years.
Apparently people need something more imaginative that a minimalist overtly diplomatic Iranian nationalist aestethics to get interested.
And this is certainly not show business to me. But it is Art as Religion, which is precisely what contemporary religion should be.
I suggest that we leave Zoroastrianism as we know it and take Zarathushtra with us to a new more creative environment. Mithraism 2.0 is the perfect starting point for me in that sense. It is also an enviroment where words like "conversion" and "isolation" are never heard. Because you have no idea how tired I am of hearing such endless babble. As I am with hearing a theory without a practice, without a thrilling life.
Ushta
Alexander
2010/9/20 Parviz Varjavand
Dear Mehemet and Alexander,
We developed a line here on Ushta that no one else had and that is that we defined Mazda-Yasna as Philo-Sophia. With all the attention that comes the way of Zoroastrianism and that one approach that we have come up with, we are in a great position and have all the credibility that a new school of thought needs. I am not at all happy with Dino showing off all the the time that he has more important things to do than to talk to us or now Alex showing off that he has a new toy to play with (Mithraism) and is walking out on us. One does not abandon a good thing that WE (and not some dastoor on some mountaintop) have worked so hard for so long to establish. My home is going to be within Zoroastrianism, but as I define it, as it being Mazda-Yasna and Philosophia. One gets credibility only in time and with tenacity. Mazdaism is my school of thought within the framework of a LIVING religion, that of Zoroastrianism. I am going to establish myself and my line of thinking as a legitimate part of a LIVING organism and not part of some virtual-reality recreation and resurrection of a dead cult.
Alex is in the show business, so as a new gimmick to present at the Burning-Man, he may find that he can get more millage out of Mithraism than Z'ism. Jafarey and others of the Dastoor Bodh group worked very hard to make room for their brand of Zoroastrianism which was fixated on what Zarathustra had said in the Gahan in order to have themselves a "religion of the book". We should also work hard to see our version of Monist Mazdaism (within Zoroastrianism) and as Philo-Sophia take root and become a reality for many, and I am staying put with that dream in mind.
Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand
--- On Mon, 9/20/10, mehmet azizoglu
From: mehmet azizoglu
Subject: Re: [Ushta] What is Philosophy?
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, September 20, 2010, 5:46 AM
Dear Alex,
It is quite sad to see the blows still coming from philosopher to chop philosophy , let alone those from sceintists like Hawking. I remember Daniel Dennett delivering a talk in Istanbul a couple years ago having compared scientists, naturalists and engineers to philosophers and taking the formers superior to the latters in the sense they contributed to technology&modern life much..
Bu I totally agree with you...philosophy is building block of human mind.
Mehmet
--- On Mon, 9/20/10, Alexander Bard
From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] What is Philosophy?
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, September 20, 2010, 2:29 PM
Dear Mehmet
When Wittgenstein got older and wiser, he admitted that this quote was the stupidest thing he has ever said. He even regretted publishing the megalomanic "Tractatus". Philosophy will exist for as long as people think and try to formulate their thoughts as language. Because then we need concepts and philosophy is an art form whereby concepts are created to enrich thinking as such. You have to kill human beings and language before you can kill philosophy.
Ushta
Alexander
2010/9/20 mehmet azizoglu
Dear Alex,
I think it is Wittgenstein who declared the end to philosophy in beginning of 20th century and assigning the task of it as only the analysis of language. so discouraging to hear that from such big philosopher but I never lose my faith in a "groundwork" that philosophy has so far built up. Sorry for my discursive message here but I sometimes really need help on how I should approach philosophy considering that science has taken its path to the sea of data with tangible consequences while philosophy became "obsolote". maybe I should adopt a pragmatic approach to it?
ushta
Mehmet
--- On Mon, 9/20/10, Alexander Bard
From: Alexander Bard
Subject: Re: [Ushta] The ecology of choice
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, September 20, 2010, 12:52 PM
What makes you think that I said that philosophers are superior to sociologists???
I never said any such thing.
Philosophers do the GROUNDWORK on which sociologists then make hopefully good sociology and scientists then formulate hopefully good science. That's jst the way it is.
No hierarchy. That's just in your imagination. Just forget about that whole "top bottom" thing.
Best
Alexander
2010/9/20 Special Kain
Dear Alexander, I don't see philosophers as superior to sociologists. ;-)
I don't subscribe to this top-bottom approach anymore, because there are movements in both directions.
Besides, I surely know that Lacan has already died. I'm not that stupid.
Zizek isn't as PRAGMATIC and EMPIRICAL as Illouz. His way of applying to Lacan to contemporary society is a bit sloppy. And Illouz is a much better sociologist than Beck, since Beck is a theorist and not necessarily a researcher in the first place.
Ushta,
Dino
--- Alexander Bard
Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The ecology of choice
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Montag, 20. September, 2010 09:21 Uhr
Well, the problem is that Lacan is dead and Illouz is not a Lacanian.
Furthermore, Illouz is a sociologist while Zizek is a philosopher (a constructor of concepts, which then sociologists like Illouz and Ulrich Beck and others use).
Which is why Zizek quotes for example me but never Eva Illouz in his works. ;-)
Perhaps you could write a book comparing Illouz and Lacan? Honestly! Sooner or later you will just have to become a writer, Dino!
Ushta
Alexander
2010/9/20 Special Kain
Oh, I know that Zizek is a Marxist. :-)
He is trying to save Marxist thought into the 21st century.
But wouldn't it be nice to listen to a conversation between Lacan and Illouz? This would be quite interesting.
--- Alexander Bard
Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The ecology of choice
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Sonntag, 19. September, 2010 13:14 Uhr
Zizek actually writes about a freedom of choice as if there existed one. He is very defiant against postmodern theory. Which is good, as Zizek SHOULD be read as a modern-day Marxist critic of contemporary society, givingmany new insights but not necessarily getting it right. He is after all not a Pragmatist you and me, Dino!
Ushta
Alexander
2010/9/19 Special Kain
So what's Zizek's take on the issue of choice in his new book, then?
Has he changed his theory about choice as not being a choice per se?
--- Alexander Bard
Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The ecology of choice
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Samstag, 18. September, 2010 21:13 Uhr
Slavoj Zizek also writes about "the turning of people into objects" in his new tombstone "Living in the End Times" (where he again quotes the Swedish philosophers Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist in several places, there you go!). But Zizek has another take than Illouz and would probably find her theories too limited and lacking. I need to check out both books thoroughly to know better.
Ushta
Alexander
2010/9/18 Special Kain
Dear friends,
I'm desperately looking forward to reading Eva Illouz' upcoming new book, "Why Love Hurts".
It will be focussed on how the conditions of choice have changed. We usually mistake choice for a fixed property like rationality. But as soon as the ecology of choice changes, our choices will change accordingly. And it is Illouz' sound observation that many people don't know how to cope with choice. Therefore, choice often creates confusion and apathy, since we never really know what we want.
So we become maximizers - people who are never really satisfied with what they have, someone who's constantly begging for more: younger and sexier partners, a better and more prestigious job, better friends, etc. The people around me turn into consumer goods - from the first cell phones carried around in cases to iPhones. The obvious inequality can easily be observed when looking at mating rituals: Men who desire women will be able to choose as long as they're well situated, wealthy and socially interesting - but straight women (and gay men) have less time to find a partner. In their early 30s, they will have to pick what is "good enough", since men mostly care about their partners' youth and sexual attractiveness (that fades with age).
So choice becomes something that has to do only with ourselves - what we take for our emotional and rational preferences, and how we prioritize between our preferences.
As Zoroastrians we should keep track on this!!!
Ushta,
Dino
1 kommentar:
Grate article, We at Addhunters shifted this service to a level much higher than the broker concept.
you can see more details like this article
Good location
Skicka en kommentar