måndagen den 8:e november 2010

Practiced Pragmatist Parenthood Part 2

Pragmatism IS a value in itself, of course it is.
It is a healthy skepticism towards all claimed eternal truths, an openness to and embrace of the unpredictable, and a respect towards history (not making mistakes is essentially learning not to repeat the mistakes of others, minimizing your mistakes to the ones you are bound to make anyway).
Why Dino and I are Zoroastrians is because this is precisely what Zarathushtra taught.
Of course you could not be any further from the Abrahamic objectivists than that.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/11/9 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alex,

Children by nature do want to learn from their parents and values are one of the things they want to know the stand of their elders in. Can you teach pragmatism with no value attached to it? I am not lecturing, I am trying to understand what pragmatism is. I read all i could find on Wikipedia about it, but it did not convey to me that it has any standards of ethics embedded in it. If it is void of standards for decent existence, then is it anything more than the laws of the jungle? (I know we are in a jungle, but we do want to keep it a jungle and not turn it into a wasteland.)

Parviz

Practiced Pragmatist Parenthood

What do you prefer?
A kid who is an idiot and never drinks, smokes or has sex?
Or a bright kid who does whatever he or she wants, regardless of what you prefer?
All I'm saying is that I much prefer Pragmatist parents to any Idealist ones of whatever kind their Idealism is.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/11/8 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Dino,

My mind is more crude than that of Alex, so you have to educate me by examples.
If I find by hard statistics that those who believe in the blood of Jesus washing their original sins away have less unwanted pregnancy amongst their daughters and less drug addiction amongst their boys, should I then baptize my kids and send them to Sunday School? What happens to Idealism in the middle of all these other Isems? Is idealism dead and statistics the only god we are left with because 'What Works" is of importance rather than "What is Right"?

Mehr,
Parviz

--- On Mon, 11/8/10, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: Re: AW: [Ushta] Practiced Pragmatism
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, November 8, 2010, 5:30 AM



Very interesting!!!

How do you mean that Pragmatism is Fallibilism without Relativism?
I'm not disagreeing at all. Just curious to fond out how you came to that conclusion.
Ushta
Alexander/Pragmatist Zoroastrian

2010/11/7 Special Kain

Dear Parviz,

It's a shift in focus: from the observer's pursuit to precisely describe the world as it is (realism) to prope-Nietzschean ethics of self-enrichment and self-enlargement by throwing ourselves into new experiences through new narratives (instrumentalism).
Please note that pragmatism is fallibilism without relativism.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Parviz Varjavand schrieb am So, 7.11.2010:

Von: Parviz Varjavand
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] Practiced Pragmatism
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Sonntag, 7. November, 2010 08:48 Uhr


Dear Dino and Alex,

So essentially, what you are saying is that if the idea that the blood of Christ washing us of our original sin WORKS in making us better persons, don't argue with it and send your children to Sunday school. This is an insult to minds wanting to think by the rules of logical and scientific clarity and reason. Look carefully at what you are saying and then shout back at me that I am wrong; this is what you are saying.

Parviz

--- On Sat, 11/6/10, Special Kain wrote:

From: Special Kain
Subject: AW: [Ushta] Practiced Pragmatism
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, November 6, 2010, 2:31 PM


I agree 100%!
Such stories are not photographs, but tools. This is where pragmatism as a philosophy has greatly inspired science (and this is where positivism has gone wrong): it is not about the sacred truth as such (my theory is "truer" than yours), it is about functionality and intersubjective agreement. Think of Charles S. Peirce's imagined community of investigators and John Dewey's instrumentalist take on scientific work!

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Sa, 6.11.2010:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Practiced Pragmatism
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Samstag, 6. November, 2010 17:51 Uhr


Exactly!!!

All that we KNOW is that Religion, Philosophy, Science are literary categories.
What else they are can only be measured in terms of their usefulness as metaphors to guide us through our lives. This is where The Story of Evolution works a lot better than The Story of Adam and Eve. Rather than pointing to a story being truer than another story, it is better to speak of its usefulness, of one story being more relevant to our lives than another story. Creationism is simply a story that has no relevance to children's education. So it should not be taught anywhere outside of the subject of Mythologies.
The big bang is a useful such story as it explains the background radiation in space and the origin of our current physical universe (better than alternative narrative we have come up with so far). Adam and Eve explains nothing more than a ceratin culture's obsession at a certain time with coming up with a mythology of the origin of the nuclear family (it does nit explain how the physical umiverse come about). However, it does not explain why the nuclear family exists in the first place (if it does outside of some fantasies). Which is why Adam & Eve belongs in a Mythologies class but not in a Science class.
The problem with Ali Jafarey's claims is that he says Zoroastrianism should be scientistic. But Science was not a narrative that existed at the time of Zarathushtra (it was not regarded as relevant yet). Which may also explain why Jafarey then goes on to believe in lots of things which are clearly incompatible with Science (such as dualism). It is all very confusing and not very fit to win hearts and minds of people. Fairytales and Science make a bad mix.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/11/6 Special Kain

Dear Parviz and Ron,

Isn't it ironic that August Comte, who is considered the Father of Rationalism in France, tried to commit suicide because of a broken heart and then spent six months in a sanitorium?
It is naive to believe in "what is considered rational" only or to stick to "scientific evidence" so dramatically, because rationality changes as times change. And we are living and thinking in a web of beliefs that have not been scientifically verified yet, but we still hold them to be scientifically true.
This is where I agree with Alexander that we need words with capital letters, such as Religion, Philosophy, Science, Politics, etc.

Ushta,
Dino

Pragmatism as Fallibilism without Relativism

Very interesting!!!
How do you mean that Pragmatism is Fallibilism without Relativism?
I'm not disagreeing at all. Just curious to fond out how you came to that conclusion.
Ushta
Alexander/Pragmatist Zoroastrian

2010/11/7 Special Kain

Dear Parviz,

It's a shift in focus: from the observer's pursuit to precisely describe the world as it is (realism) to prope-Nietzschean ethics of self-enrichment and self-enlargement by throwing ourselves into new experiences through new narratives (instrumentalism).
Please note that pragmatism is fallibilism without relativism.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Parviz Varjavand schrieb am So, 7.11.2010:

Von: Parviz Varjavand
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] Practiced Pragmatism
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Sonntag, 7. November, 2010 08:48 Uhr


Dear Dino and Alex,

So essentially, what you are saying is that if the idea that the blood of Christ washing us of our original sin WORKS in making us better persons, don't argue with it and send your children to Sunday school. This is an insult to minds wanting to think by the rules of logical and scientific clarity and reason. Look carefully at what you are saying and then shout back at me that I am wrong; this is what you are saying.

Parviz

--- On Sat, 11/6/10, Special Kain wrote:

From: Special Kain
Subject: AW: [Ushta] Practiced Pragmatism
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, November 6, 2010, 2:31 PM


I agree 100%!
Such stories are not photographs, but tools. This is where pragmatism as a philosophy has greatly inspired science (and this is where positivism has gone wrong): it is not about the sacred truth as such (my theory is "truer" than yours), it is about functionality and intersubjective agreement. Think of Charles S. Peirce's imagined community of investigators and John Dewey's instrumentalist take on scientific work!

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Sa, 6.11.2010:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Practiced Pragmatism
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Samstag, 6. November, 2010 17:51 Uhr


Exactly!!!

All that we KNOW is that Religion, Philosophy, Science are literary categories.
What else they are can only be measured in terms of their usefulness as metaphors to guide us through our lives. This is where The Story of Evolution works a lot better than The Story of Adam and Eve. Rather than pointing to a story being truer than another story, it is better to speak of its usefulness, of one story being more relevant to our lives than another story. Creationism is simply a story that has no relevance to children's education. So it should not be taught anywhere outside of the subject of Mythologies.
The big bang is a useful such story as it explains the background radiation in space and the origin of our current physical universe (better than alternative narrative we have come up with so far). Adam and Eve explains nothing more than a ceratin culture's obsession at a certain time with coming up with a mythology of the origin of the nuclear family (it does nit explain how the physical umiverse come about). However, it does not explain why the nuclear family exists in the first place (if it does outside of some fantasies). Which is why Adam & Eve belongs in a Mythologies class but not in a Science class.
The problem with Ali Jafarey's claims is that he says Zoroastrianism should be scientistic. But Science was not a narrative that existed at the time of Zarathushtra (it was not regarded as relevant yet). Which may also explain why Jafarey then goes on to believe in lots of things which are clearly incompatible with Science (such as dualism). It is all very confusing and not very fit to win hearts and minds of people. Fairytales and Science make a bad mix.
Ushta
Alexander

lördagen den 6:e november 2010

Practiced Pragmatism

Exactly!!!
All that we KNOW is that Religion, Philosophy, Science are literary categories.
What else they are can only be measured in terms of their usefulness as metaphors to guide us through our lives. This is where The Story of Evolution works a lot better than The Story of Adam and Eve. Rather than pointing to a story being truer than another story, it is better to speak of its usefulness, of one story being more relevant to our lives than another story. Creationism is simply a story that has no relevance to children's education. So it should not be taught anywhere outside of the subject of Mythologies.
The big bang is a useful such story as it explains the background radiation in space and the origin of our current physical universe (better than alternative narrative we have come up with so far). Adam and Eve explains nothing more than a ceratin culture's obsession at a certain time with coming up with a mythology of the origin of the nuclear family (it does nit explain how the physical umiverse come about). However, it does not explain why the nuclear family exists in the first place (if it does outside of some fantasies). Which is why Adam & Eve belongs in a Mythologies class but not in a Science class.
The problem with Ali Jafarey's claims is that he says Zoroastrianism should be scientistic. But Science was not a narrative that existed at the time of Zarathushtra (it was not regarded as relevant yet). Which may also explain why Jafarey then goes on to believe in lots of things which are clearly incompatible with Science (such as dualism). It is all very confusing and not very fit to win hearts and minds of people. Fairytales and Science make a bad mix.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/11/6 Special Kain

Dear Parviz and Ron,

Isn't it ironic that August Comte, who is considered the Father of Rationalism in France, tried to commit suicide because of a broken heart and then spent six months in a sanitorium?
It is naive to believe in "what is considered rational" only or to stick to "scientific evidence" so dramatically, because rationality changes as times change. And we are living and thinking in a web of beliefs that have not been scientifically verified yet, but we still hold them to be scientifically true.
This is where I agree with Alexander that we need words with capital letters, such as Religion, Philosophy, Science, Politics, etc.

Ushta,
Dino


--- Parviz Varjavand schrieb am Fr, 5.11.2010:

Von: Parviz Varjavand
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] FW: What is YOUR philosophy?
An: "ron's group" , ushta@yahoogroups.com, w-z-info-c@yahoogroups.com, "group"
Datum: Freitag, 5. November, 2010 22:58 Uhr


Ushta Ron,

I have traveled down the road of this line of arguments that you are presenting more times than I care to remember. At the end, you will get to prove that the soul is as real as anything else, which in a way will prove my point too, that the Jinns are as real as the members of the Zoroastrian Assembly. They (the Jinns) gather in Hammams and hold their congregation there just before the sun comes up. We even have some Zartoshti Jinns still, a famous Jinngir in Yazd has informed me. I wonder how these Zartoshti Jinns are surviving and if they might need some of our newer books that explain our religion better than the old ones. If this is where you want to take us, consider it done and don't stress your mind any further.

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Fri, 11/5/10, Zaneta Garratt wrote:

From: Zaneta Garratt
Subject: [Ushta] FW: What is YOUR philosophy?
To: "ron's group" , ushta@yahoogroups.com, w-z-info-c@yahoogroups.com, "group"
Date: Friday, November 5, 2010, 1:51 PM








---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Park East Security
Date: Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: What is YOUR philosophy?
To: Parviz Varjavand


Ushta Parviz

I think I see what you are saying. The operative determinant of something being real for you is that it must be rational. Then the question becomes what is rational and, specifically what do you consider rational and why. Before I go on, I want to go as slowly as you want to go, so I believe we should define what we say and mean and avoid misunderstanding each other. So just what do you mean by rational and why is it rational, is my first question.

I think that we can have a very productive conversation this way. We will define what we mean and why. It might be, that we are in general agreement on basics and disagreement on peripheral issues. Or it might be that we are totally at odds, we shall see. For example, take faith. Our definitions would almost certainly be different. Why I could only guess and I do not want to guess but find out. So we should discuss faith as well.

I would just venture one thing that is self evident, which is, that we perceive and interpret the physical only through mind, brain if you prefer, although to me the brain is just the vehicle of the intelligence which is mind. But let's not discuss the peripheral just yet, but concentrate on the central. We, also, scientifically know that what our minds perceive, is not precisely what is out there, that is, we do not see the fact that, in any given material object that appears to us as solid and contiguous, is in reality a collection of subatomic particles arranged in a particular way and separated by mostly SPACE, empty space. And that this 'material' object is actually held together (like all physical reality) by energy, an energy that, in fact, permeates the universe.

The different perceptions that we form of what is 'out there', tells us that what we see (or perceive in any other way through the senses) are INTERPRETATIONS of reality. In other words OUR reality is the interpretation of absolute reality, arrived at by our minds and the ground of our reality, therefore, is mind.

That maybe why, Quantum tells us that reality, that is the reality that Science observes which is material reality, needs an observer to manifest/exist . Or why it says that we change or create OUR reality, according to what we choose out of a infinitude of possibilities. I don't know, but then I have not heard of a Quantum scientist ( or any other scientist, that knows all either. We all speculate, form opinions, arrive at conclusions and we BELIEVE. For the thing is, that what we can actually measure, quantify, falsify and copy or re-enact, is precious little in the scheme of things. We all, as a matter of fact, must function in some ways on what we believe to be, rather than we know is.

So I am looking forward to your opinions and beliefs in this matter with an open and mind which I have learned, from Zarathushtra, to keep open, indeed, wide open and with a willingness to test what I believe against what you believe and see if I can learn truth from it.

Ushta te
Ron

måndagen den 1:e november 2010

Mithraism as Western Zoroastrianism

Five million???
Let's just say that the European and Russian mobeds are doing a wonderful job at converting and including new members into a Zoroastrian community here that shows no interest in Abrahamification whatsoever.
I'm not saying no to Zoroastrianism. Mihthraism is just western Zoroastrianism by another name. The more the merrier.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/11/1 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alex,

For many years Jafarey used to say that he has five million converts!? ;-) How many converts and to what ;-) do YOU have in Europe? Do not go behind the walls of Mithraic secrecy, it is childish. We need to choreograph our acts and have meaningful and wholesome conversion ceremonies and be a good gathering of wise persons. We should be counted and proud to be what we are, otherwise we will only repeat the mistakes that others made in their attempts to revamp Zoroastrianism and put it on the world stage.

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Mon, 11/1/10, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism in Europe: Mazdayasna as the Mainstream
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, November 1, 2010, 12:54 AM



My point is simply that Jafarey's attempt to "Islamize" Zoroastrianism has not worked outside of his own community in Los Angeles and - according to you - with some impressed and confused locals in Iran. The version of "Mazdayasna" that we have been discussing here on Ushta for some time is the mainstream version in most of Europe today. This is apparently the result you get within a community consisting of Iranian intellectuals in exile mixed with European converts, critical of all traditional and especially all Abrahamic religion.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/10/31 Parviz Varjavand

Absolutely false! ( trying to begin my posts like Alex does! )

So we have a Jafareyan Zoroastrianism and a Scandinavian Zoroastrianism already!? Where did these categorizations come from? You Alex, you dared to identify them and give them these names, they did not come out of the pandoras box of gods with these names on them. We are godlike because We give names to things. If someone comes to one of your performances and comments that what you are doing is not Art, your response, at least in your heart, should be "..@$% you..". That is the best answer because who is anybody else to tell you that you are or are not an artist, art is what you make it to be.

Sophia means Wisdom and Philo means lover-of something. So Philosophy is The Love of Wisdom, and I dared equate it with Mazda-Yasna. Now you say that Love of Wisdom is the same as Art? I say No, it isn't. Art is art and there may not be any love of wisdom involved in it and there may be, but this Love of Wisdom stuff is not a given in Art. You can not readily equate Art with Mazdayasna, but it is most logical to equate Philosophy with Mazdayasna. This is my Nomenclature and I will live by it and I don't give a damn what someone else's nomenclature may say Mazda or Yasna or Sophia is. Most scholars may not equate Mazda with Sophia and Wisdom, but I do, and that is that (for me).

Ushta,
Parviz

--- On Sun, 10/31/10, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism: The Differences between Philosophy, Religion and Science
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, October 31, 2010, 6:34 AM



Not true.

Jafarey's version of Zoroastrianism was never very popular in Scandinavia.
I had not even heard of it until I came to America and met the wonderfully sweet Ali Jafarey himself, who I dearly love but also disagree with on the basic tenets of Mazdayasna.
The version of Mazdayasna discussed here on Ushta is the mainstream version within at least European Zoroastrianism.
And in any case, none of this affects the defnitions of Philosophy, Religion and Science and the differences between the three. Philosophy is an art form, Religion a social practice tied to certain beliefs, and Science is the social evaluation of hypotheses in relation to physical experiments that can be repeated and verified.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/10/31 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alexander and Dino,

Alex says that Zarathustra is a great philosopher because he invented Mazda, Asha, Ahoora, etc..etc.. But what IS Mazda, Asha, Ahoora, ..etc.? They are what meaning we mortals give these words depending on who we are and how our minds are working at any particular time. The meanings of these words shifts depending on who is using the word, why, and when. Ostad Jafarey is honest when he says that Mazda means a BIG WISE GUY who sits outside His creation and creates and maintains it just as a shoe maker makes a shoe (we being the shoe and the BIG WISE ONE being the shoe maker). He says this because most (%99.9999) of those who get involved with Zoroastrianism have to work with this GIVEN definition of MAZDA, so he is being honest in saying that this is what you get when you join. Alex, you joined a religion in which this was a given at the time you joined it, are you still staying with the same solemn wows that you undertook when you joined the religion? I do not think so, I think you have moved out of living under the shadow of the BIG ONE being a shoe maker and you being a shoe.

The same is true of Sophia, Sophia is what YOU and I make of it, and when I say "I am a lovers of Sophia", I want My Sophia to love and not any Sophia which is pushed on me down the street. A Philosopher is a Lover of Sophia, a name I equate with Mazda. I live by my definition of what Sophia is to ME, I do not care what Sophia means to the guy who lives next door to me. If you do not get to the level of defining every key word of the school of thought you want to be a teacher in, and stick to that key definition the way you want it, it is best not to pretend to have anything deep to say and just dance with the crowed and have a fun party.

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

Clarification on Zoroastrianism and Metaphysics

Dear Parviz

I'm not really into comfort as much as I'm into some honest intensity. And haven't you heard that money corrupts? When did the Parsees get paranoid? When they got wealthy, of course.
Unless a religion can provide me with some deep emotional experience I could not care less.
I'm the kind of guy who does not go to church on Sundays and bow my head to authority.
I much prefer to stay out all night and sleep through Sunday mornings. Under bridges with other bag ladies, so be it. But to me religion is far more interesting when it is locacted on a dancefloor or in connection to shshamanic rituals rather than social submission.
That's just me.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/11/1 Parviz Varjavand

No,No,No,

Where do you get these junky ideas from.
(Dear Alex, if you do not wish to be talked like this to, don't talk to others like this!)

Dear Alex, I have news for you. If you think you are safe from Abrahamic views hiding behind Mithras name, you have many surprises coming your way. Mithraism is like sleeping under the bridge, every other homeless person has already made a nest there and will give you hell for every word you speak. Zoroastrianism may be a home in shambles, but at least it pays its electric and gas bills and you will have some light and warmth while staying in its house.

You are great and I know it, even when I argue with you.
Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz varjavand

--- On Mon, 11/1/10, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Clarification on Zoroastrianism and Metaphysics
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, November 1, 2010, 6:27 AM

No, I do not!

I believe that human beings HAVE TO USE words written with capital letters to be able to grasp a world at all. Which is what you do too from the moment of your birth.
This is not OBJEJCTIVELY given, where on earth did you ge such nonsense from?
The way you use the term "Social Science" as a given starting point, as a reference of truth as Badiou would call it, proves that you believe exactlt the same thing. Or else you are terribly naive about your own beliefs.
And words do not have to be discursive, Dino, they often are USED that way but it is not a necessity. Although I must admit that the MAIN reason I refer to myself as a Mithraist and not a Zoroastrian is that it seems the safest way during my own lifetime not to ever be associated with the Abrahamic junk I detest so much.
Read Hegel!
Ushta
Alexander

Post-atheism

Dear Osred

I believe this is a healthy starting point, but we don't have to end there.
I certainly do not want any sort of return to supersitition.
But I think we can experiment BEYOND this atheistic starting point.
Which is why I refer to myself as a post-atheist and a pantheist.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/10/31 osred90
Is it rational to believe in deities? or (maybe not the same thing) is it possible for a rational person to also have a belief in a deity?

A typical modern European (and people on this list perhaps) believe:

1. Things either really exist or they don't . To believe in something means to think that that something really exists. To not believe in something means to think that thing doesn't exist.

2. A deity is by definition a being that doesn't really exist. People who believe in the existence of things that don't really exist are obviously mad.

3. The only things that really exist which matter are people . These people have attributes (like wisdom). Wisdom can only be an attribute of a person and doesn't exist in any other way.

Any comments?

Osred.

orZoastrianism in Europe: Mazdayasna as the Mainstream

My point is simply that Jafarey's attempt to "Islamize" Zoroastrianism has not worked outside of his own community in Los Angeles and - according to you - with some impressed and confused locals in Iran. The version of "Mazdayasna" that we have been discussing here on Ushta for some time is the mainstream version in most of Europe today. This is apparently the result you get within a community consisting of Iranian intellectuals in exile mixed with European converts, critical of all traditional and especially all Abrahamic religion.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/10/31 Parviz Varjavand

Absolutely false! ( trying to begin my posts like Alex does! )

So we have a Jafareyan Zoroastrianism and a Scandinavian Zoroastrianism already!? Where did these categorizations come from? You Alex, you dared to identify them and give them these names, they did not come out of the pandoras box of gods with these names on them. We are godlike because We give names to things. If someone comes to one of your performances and comments that what you are doing is not Art, your response, at least in your heart, should be "..@$% you..". That is the best answer because who is anybody else to tell you that you are or are not an artist, art is what you make it to be.

Sophia means Wisdom and Philo means lover-of something. So Philosophy is The Love of Wisdom, and I dared equate it with Mazda-Yasna. Now you say that Love of Wisdom is the same as Art? I say No, it isn't. Art is art and there may not be any love of wisdom involved in it and there may be, but this Love of Wisdom stuff is not a given in Art. You can not readily equate Art with Mazdayasna, but it is most logical to equate Philosophy with Mazdayasna. This is my Nomenclature and I will live by it and I don't give a damn what someone else's nomenclature may say Mazda or Yasna or Sophia is. Most scholars may not equate Mazda with Sophia and Wisdom, but I do, and that is that (for me).

Ushta,
Parviz

--- On Sun, 10/31/10, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism: The Differences between Philosophy, Religion and Science
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, October 31, 2010, 6:34 AM



Not true.

Jafarey's version of Zoroastrianism was never very popular in Scandinavia.
I had not even heard of it until I came to America and met the wonderfully sweet Ali Jafarey himself, who I dearly love but also disagree with on the basic tenets of Mazdayasna.
The version of Mazdayasna discussed here on Ushta is the mainstream version within at least European Zoroastrianism.
And in any case, none of this affects the defnitions of Philosophy, Religion and Science and the differences between the three. Philosophy is an art form, Religion a social practice tied to certain beliefs, and Science is the social evaluation of hypotheses in relation to physical experiments that can be repeated and verified.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/10/31 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alexander and Dino,

Alex says that Zarathustra is a great philosopher because he invented Mazda, Asha, Ahoora, etc..etc.. But what IS Mazda, Asha, Ahoora, ..etc.? They are what meaning we mortals give these words depending on who we are and how our minds are working at any particular time. The meanings of these words shifts depending on who is using the word, why, and when. Ostad Jafarey is honest when he says that Mazda means a BIG WISE GUY who sits outside His creation and creates and maintains it just as a shoe maker makes a shoe (we being the shoe and the BIG WISE ONE being the shoe maker). He says this because most (%99.9999) of those who get involved with Zoroastrianism have to work with this GIVEN definition of MAZDA, so he is being honest in saying that this is what you get when you join. Alex, you joined a religion in which this was a given at the time you joined it, are you still staying with the same solemn wows that you undertook when you joined the religion? I do not think so, I think you have moved out of living under the shadow of the BIG ONE being a shoe maker and you being a shoe.

The same is true of Sophia, Sophia is what YOU and I make of it, and when I say "I am a lovers of Sophia", I want My Sophia to love and not any Sophia which is pushed on me down the street. A Philosopher is a Lover of Sophia, a name I equate with Mazda. I live by my definition of what Sophia is to ME, I do not care what Sophia means to the guy who lives next door to me. If you do not get to the level of defining every key word of the school of thought you want to be a teacher in, and stick to that key definition the way you want it, it is best not to pretend to have anything deep to say and just dance with the crowed and have a fun party.

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand