The Zoroastrian call for secular democracy

Dear Shahrooz

As long as Zoroastrianism is viewed as a religion rather than a philosophy, all talk about a Zoroastrian state will only do us enormous harm and not any good at all. It is better to speak of a secular and democratic state rather than a Zoroastrian state even if we all know that philosophically speaking Zoroastrianism is the INVENTOR of democracy.

We need to be clever now. The public demand for democracy heard across the Middle East and many other parts of the world (Russia, Congo, Kazachstan, only this week) is a demand for secular democracy with FREEDOM OF RELIGION as an integral part. Any talk of a Zoroastrian state in the midst of all this will just smack of another set of mullah or military dictatorship rule. Let's stop speaking such nonsense once and for all! We all need to be a part of this brand new movement, not be viewed as eccentric enemies of secular democracy!

Ushta
Alexander

Den 20 december 2011 05:35 skrev SHAHROOZ ASH :

Dear Alex,

Hope all is well and good.

As I stated before, a Zoroastrian-State will be compatible with secular society. The Zoroastrian-State will be based on Vohu-Khshathra, with true freedom and liberty for all; including any individual who is not Zoroastrian. This form of state does not exist in our world today. Because, in Vohu-Khshshthra the value is that which is right because it is right and not it is right if it makes money. This is the path to true freedom and liberation. Once we establish this liberation in our own state, then we begin to export it, and liberate the rest of our human brothers. The world is on the wrong path, the path of destruction.
And also, all nations have lead to disaster at some point in their history regardless to the form of the state. The level of success; that Zoroastrian Iran achieved far exceeds its recession.

Wishing you the best (Behesht),
Shahrooz Ash

To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: bardissimo@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:18:22 +0100

Subject: Re: [zoroastrians] Re: [Ushta] Encroachment of Zoroastrian properties in Yazd

Dear Shahrooz

Yes, I believe it would be much better if Israel was a secular state. I would never want to live in a Zoroastrian state where non-Zoroastrians would be treated as inferiors. Ideas should be fought for in democratic elections and not be forced upon people from a religious constitution. And every time there has been a Zoroastrian state, it has lead to disaster to Zoroastrianism as a religion. It was one of the reasons why the Arabs managed to invade Iran in the first place. It is a really bad idea. Zoroastrianism is not suitable to FORCE people to do anything, it is the religion of ethical choice! Zarathushtra would have strongly disagreed with you.

Ushta
Alexander

Den 17 december 2011 23:54 skrev SHAHROOZ ASH :
Hope all is well and good.

1. Israel is a Jewish-State. Should we dismantle this country because it is not a secular society?

2. A Zoroastrian-State, the way I see it can be, by definition a Zoroastrian-state & Secular at the same time; both ideas are compatible. And also, my view of secular is different than what people think secular is today. What this world calls secular today, I call it cultural destruction. I am against the secular system of the world today. Want nothing to do with it. It is a western capitalist scam.

The fall of Iran at the hands of Muslims had nothing to do with the Iranian government at the time. If bunch of invaders come to attack you for no good reason, for example; Changis Khan, and you lose the battle, then this does not necessary mean the government was bad. The fact that the Sassanians are being blamed for the fall of Iran, under the pretense of Zoroastrian Religion is propaganda of the: West, Jews, Christians & most of all the Muslims. I personally do not buy that story, never have & never will. I am not going to get fooled by the hands of the enemy. Zoroastrians have many enemies and not just one.

NO PERSON WILL EVER CHANGE MY MIND IN ANY OF THE ISSUES ABOVE, EVER. And, I will propagate my own position as much as I can and will work towards my own idea of a Zoroastrian-State as long as I am able. And the entire greater Iran must be a Zoroastrian-State. If any person disagrees, then can leave Iran and go some other place. The archeological evidences are all over the place.

Wishing you the best (Behesht),
Shahrooz Ash

To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: behnaz.larsen@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:08:16 +0300
Subject: Re: [zoroastrians] Re: [Ushta] Encroachment of Zoroastrian properties in Yazd

I understand your frustration.
A Zoroastrian Iran might be a possibility in the future but not by law, force, manipulation or mass conversions. We need to inspire people to be Good. If they conclude that being good requires a conversion, so be it. But in no way should we mix our religion/ideology with politics of how to govern a society. Politics in itself is a lie. It is based on how to manipulate the mass in order to guide them towards a common goal. As zoroastrians we cannot lie. Our way of influencing is everlasting and a lie, no matter how convenient, is not a sustainable approach. Our country should be governed by people we choose based on their abilities to tackle challenges and not based on their religious believes. And yes, they will need to lie here and there to get things moving.

God bless our mother land,

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 16, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:
Dear Shahrooz

No, we don't need any Zoroastrian state. We need a secular, democratic state in Iran where people are allowed to choose any religion they wish and where religion is separated from government. This is the proper Zoroastrian thing. When a religion takes over a state both the religion and the state become corrupt and totalitarian. This is what has happened in Iran now with Shia Islam. And this was the problem wtih Zoroastrianism in Iran before the Arab invasion. It was precisely when Zoroastrianismn became a state religion in Sassanian Iran that it begun to fail and lose its once widespread respect and popularity.

Ushta
Alexander

Den 16 december 2011 04:18 skrev SHAHROOZ ASH :

Hope all is well and good.

This is the reason why we need a Zoroastrian-State. We have paid with our lives for centuries.
The only way we are going to be safe and protected is to have a Zoroastrian-State.
Therefore Iran must become a Zoroastrian-State.

Wishing you the best (Behesht),
Shahrooz Ash

Zarathushtra's unique position in literary history

Correct!

But I was referring to a LITERARY POSITION of which there is none in Zarathushtra's philosophy. Simply because he was one of the first literary authors ever (if at all, the original Zarathushtra may well have been an oral author, which explains why The Gathas is 100% poetic text). So he refers to positions he has understood in his own society but not to positions FORMALLY made by anybody else. His work is actually pre-historical in this sense, not referring to any other historical documents.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/11/19 Special Kain

Dear all,

Zarathushtra indeed refers to other people's beliefs and convictions, especially the Kaplans (priests) against which he puts forward his own beliefs and convictions about how things work. His opposition to superstition only makes sense against the religious background of his time. And he encourages people to question those priests' authority in matters of knowledge and wisdom.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 9:19 Montag, 14.November 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Importance and identities

Correct!
What is so wonderfully odd with Zarathustra is of course that he does not refer to anybody else in his texts. His texts create a context, they are not part of of any.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/11/13 Daniel Samani

Yes! Then I have confidence that I have comprehended what you had said. As we all know, there currently is competing narrative (even for texts written long time ago). ;)

2011/11/13 Alexander Bard
What is the reason? Why would Zarathushtra leave a reason? A reason may only be referred to if there is a COMPETING narrative. But with Zarathushtra being one of of the first authors of history, he never refers to anybody else's ideas. This is how the world works, according to Zarathushtra, he sees no reason for this besides understanding this is how things work.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/11/13 Daniel Samani

If I rephrase then, as I got the impression that you had the view that Zarathustra found ditto important. Whats the reason for this according too him? And how would you define an relationship? Does this include interpersonal relationships? Or maybe is it ONLY this we are talking about in this context?

Ushta
Daniel

2011/11/13 Alexander Bard

Whether something is important or not is really up to us. Nothing IS important in itself. Importance is not part of the substance of anything. It is a subjective attribute, nothing more, nothing less. And sure you can have as many identities as yoy like. As human beings we have at least as many identities as we have relationships with other human beings. Attaching only ONE identity to a person is nothing but a social convention. What is singular is not identity but BODY.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/11/12 Daniel Samani

Oh that is a very helpful replys indeed!

Dino: Could you please explain for the ones not initialized, what "socio-symbolic resources" means. As I have no actual grasp myself. Also can there be one or many identities in your view?

Alex: Me writing this and who I am at this very moment is the same thing? How is this something of great importance? Is the reason for this ("you and your behavior") that our behavior is what people judge me from? And also the way I can get an idea myself of who I am?

Ushta
Daniel

Obsession with Ethics

Well, only if you disregard choice, which we as humans actually have.
If we remove a child from a parent, the parent is not going to be very important to that child's upbringing or identity. However this does not mean that the parent can or will not ascribe importance to the existence of his or her offspring. To the contrary, the parent is likely to be obsessed with the separation from his or her child, making it highly important in his or her life, GIVING it importance.
So while your suggestion is correct in nature it is inadequate to describe how human identity is produced (culture). Which is exactly Zarathushtra's point: You are your thoughts (to then fill that identity with your words and actions in a similar manner). You produce your world through subjective experience.
Plants and animals don't, but we do.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/11/13 osred90

Importance is not part of the substance of anything NOR is it a mentally subjective attribute.

Rather it is a property of a relationship between two things.

Something can only be said to be important in relation to something else. Something being important means it will have a BIG IMPORT for something else i.e. have a POTENTIAL BIG IMPACT on it.

A person who is a father will be important to their children because of the big impact they have on their lives. That same person is not important to unrelated people. But this is not just a subjective attribute (if subjective means mentally constructed). Of course people have the power to construct their own SENSE of IMPORTANCE (sense of what is important) which may or may not match the reality of the situation.

Similarly IDENTITY is a property of the relationship of a person or thing to the rest of the world. It is neither a property of a thing in itself not a mentally constructed thing.

A person's identity starts with their physical relationship to the world - what physical location their bodies occupy. From this springs the position they occupy in the complex dynamic web of actions and consequences that make up the activity of the world.

Again it is SENSE OF IDENTITY which has to be constructed. A good mental sense of identity will orientate a person effectively so that they know what are the actions worth doing.

A person has only ONE IDENTITY - i.e. they are only one person - but they may have multiple SENSES of IDENTITY - because each sense of identity only captures a partial aspect of their true IDENTITY.

Osred.

www.zoroastrian.org.uk


--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Alexander Bard wrote:
>
> Whether something is important or not is really up to us. Nothing IS
> important in itself. Importance is not part of the substance of anything.
> It is a subjective attribute, nothing more, nothing less. And sure you can
> have as many identities as yoy like. As human beings we have at least as
> many identities as we have relationships with other human beings. Attaching
> only ONE identity to a person is nothing but a social convention. What is
> singular is not identity but BODY.
> Ushta
> Alexander
>
> 2011/11/12 Daniel Samani
>
> > Oh that is a very helpful replys indeed!
> >
> > Dino: Could you please explain for the ones not initialized, what "socio-symbolic
> > resources" means. As I have no actual grasp myself. Also can there be one
> > or many identities in your view?
> >
> > Alex: Me writing this and who I am at this very moment is the same thing?
> > How is this something of great importance? Is the reason for this ("you and
> > your behavior") that our behavior is what people judge me from? And also
> > the way I can get an idea myself of who I am?
> >
> > Ushta
> > Daniel

Importance and identities

Whether something is important or not is really up to us. Nothing IS important in itself. Importance is not part of the substance of anything. It is a subjective attribute, nothing more, nothing less. And sure you can have as many identities as yoy like. As human beings we have at least as many identities as we have relationships with other human beings. Attaching only ONE identity to a person is nothing but a social convention. What is singular is not identity but BODY.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/11/12 Daniel Samani

Oh that is a very helpful replys indeed!

Dino: Could you please explain for the ones not initialized, what "socio-symbolic resources" means. As I have no actual grasp myself. Also can there be one or many identities in your view?

Alex: Me writing this and who I am at this very moment is the same thing? How is this something of great importance? Is the reason for this ("you and your behavior") that our behavior is what people judge me from? And also the way I can get an idea myself of who I am?

Ushta
Daniel

Spinoza - Kant - Hegel - Nietzsche - Zarathushtra Part 2

Exactly!!!
And elegantly written it is too, dear Dino!
The point is that you either take the argument that all valuations are subjective (or rather intersubjective) and never objective seriously, or you don't. And if you do take it seriously, you're left to think in terms of processes where CREATION OF MEANING becomes everything since absolutely nothing is given.
And the canvas on which you then PAINT YOUR WORLD is indeed The Wall of Contingency.
I'm writing this sitting on the side of the volcano of Santorini in Greece. The volcano could literally explode any second. Sitting here reminds me of how utterly contingent life is.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/10/15 Special Kain
I agree. Spinoza's mistake was to promote "logical necessarism".
I see Zarathushtra as an existentialist thinker precisely because he addressed the issue of inescapable and random suffering in the same way as did Nietzsche.
It is the task of religion, political ideology and, more recently, self-help culture to explain random suffering - making it seem less random - and therefore "ease the pain": suffering as a necessary learning experience during one's journey towards self-actualization, one's sacrifice for a better future.
Existentialist thinkers like Zarathushtra, Epictetus and Nietzsche were a lot smarter than this. They believed in CONTINGENCY and therefore took random suffering for what it is. They didn't take it as theologically or psychologically necessary, but put their focus on one's ATTITUDE towards inescapable suffering and how we choose to REACT: what we choose to think, speak and act, and how our ATTITUDE eventually affects this issue. They put their focus on the FUTURE rather than the past, because we become the choices we make within a given environment. For Epictetus there was nothing good or bad about suffering: it was merely "preferred" or "dispreffered". But it is us who CREATE VALUES and therefore differentiate between good and bad as a medical rather than moralistic choice. That's why Nietzsche defined ethics in terms of physiology, dietary needs, climate and one's constitution.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 18:18 Freitag, 14.Oktober 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Spinoza - Kant - Hegel - Nietzsche - Zarathushtra

Yes, Hegel mistake was to be a determinist. What Nietzsche did was to take the Hegelian concept of "the mind observing the mind as pure mind" into the physical realm and turning it existentialist. And it is not so much idealism which is opposed to materialism as it is a matter of existentialism as opposed to determinism. What Hegel lacks is the concept "contingency", he is not a pragmatist.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/10/14 Special Kain

It is true that Nietzsche rarely mentioned Hegel. But Hegel's idealism is strictly teleological and dialectical, and Nietzsche was strongly opposed to teleology and dialectics. Hegel was the first to push Kant aside and discover a new path, but it was Nietzsche who took the first steps.

Spinoza - Kant - Hegel - Nietzsche - Zarathushtra

Correct!
Although I would defend "idealism" in the Hegelian sense and claim (which I know is controversial) that Nietzsche and Hegel are united in this stance. Hegel's world is namely ALSO a world where we are to trust and refine our senses (his philosophy deals with how such a mind would work). So the BREAK WITH RATIONALISM really happens with Hegel as his "rationalism" is radically different from the classic rationalism of Kant (it is a transrationalism, a rationality knowing its own limits) and Nietzsche then builds on this as a sort of "post-Hegelian poet". Nietzsche did not openly oppose Hegel. The unfortunate opposition between the two thinkers was constructed much later by sloppy readers of the two (especially French Hegelians and French Nietzscheans opposed to each other in the 1950s).
Ushta
Alexander

2011/10/13 Special Kain

Nietzsche's point was to trust and refine our senses rather than blindly submit to rationality and all things abstract. He killed idealism in all its forms. As he knew, it takes courage to face reality and take things for what they are, as it takes courage to that which one knows (see his best text "Götzendämmerung"). Phenomenology as ontology!

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 15:41 Montag, 10.Oktober 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] Spinoza - Kant - Nietzsche - Zarathushtra

Immanuel Kant arrived after Spinoza but before Nietzsche.
The Kantian revolution means that we can no longer look at "the idea of reality" as anything but a more or less qualitative fantasy about the world. The real "noumenal" world that Kant discussed is out of reach. For good.
Spinoza had no clue about this and discussed realism and rationalism as if they were perfectly self-evident necessities. No such concepts survived the Kantian revolution. Not even the self-evident cogito of Descartes which Spinoza never really opposed either.
What Nietzsche ultimately then does is to put Kant against Kant himself and then throws the Kantian revolution into an historical context (showing the horrible consequences of Kant's achievement and the possible opening to a new affirmative nihilism this entails).
As for Zarathushtra, he didn't step into Spinoza's trap to begin with. So he neither had to deal with. His is a cogito of action and effects rather than reflection.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/10/10 Daniel Samani

If one is not an "logical necessarist" what is one then? Even if Spinoza have inherited ways of toughs from Descartes does this means that his idea of necessity dont apply to Nietzsches idea of necessity in any way, shape or form? How do they differentiate? How I have comprehended it is some sort of skepticism towards our minds ability to process reality itself.

Ushta
Daniel

Spinoza - Kant - Nietzsche - Zarathushtra

Immanuel Kant arrived after Spinoza but before Nietzsche.
The Kantian revolution means that we can no longer look at "the idea of reality" as anything but a more or less qualitative fantasy about the world. The real "noumenal" world that Kant discussed is out of reach. For good.
Spinoza had no clue about this and discussed realism and rationalism as if they were perfectly self-evident necessities. No such concepts survived the Kantian revolution. Not even the self-evident cogito of Descartes which Spinoza never really opposed either.
What Nietzsche ultimately then does is to put Kant against Kant himself and then throws the Kantian revolution into an historical context (showing the horrible consequences of Kant's achievement and the possible opening to a new affirmative nihilism this entails).
As for Zarathushtra, he didn't step into Spinoza's trap to begin with. So he neither had to deal with. His is a cogito of action and effects rather than reflection.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/10/10 Daniel Samani

If one is not an "logical necessarist" what is one then? Even if Spinoza have inherited ways of toughs from Descartes does this means that his idea of necessity dont apply to Nietzsches idea of necessity in any way, shape or form? How do they differentiate? How I have comprehended it is some sort of skepticism towards our minds ability to process reality itself.

Ushta
Daniel

2011/10/9 Special Kain

Dear Daniel,

Nietzsche was not a Spinozist and therefore not a "logical necessarist". Spinoza was as much a rationalist and systematic philosopher as Kant and Descartes, and Nietzsche was strongly opposed to this philosophical obsession with systematicity.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Daniel Samani
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 6:37 Sonntag, 9.Oktober 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] How I have comprehended Asha

Dear Dino,

Thank you for your time and your careful reply it is appreciated. I don't disagree at all, even if this to my mind sounds so simple to the point that it almost renders meaningless. In my mind the general description of what exists is what we can observe and sense - now I am not sure this is what you have in mind. Spinoza talks about and divide between adequate and inadequate ideas. As I have comprehended it Spinoza argues that inadequate ideas are contingent while adequate ideas are necessary - I have not currently grasped the ramifications of this statement. But is this on these lines you are speaking of that which really exists? I also see an connection between Spinozas concept of adequate ideas and Nietzsches concept of Amor fati where Nietzsche writes “I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth!”.

Ushta
Daniel

2011/10/8 Special Kain

Dear Daniel,

Asha is that which fits with reality - that which really exists, which is Ahura. There are causes and effects. It is our attitude towards life that determines what we will choose. And we become the choices we make.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Daniel Samani
An: ushta
Gesendet: 13:12 Donnerstag, 6.Oktober 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] How I have comprehended Asha

Dear friends,

Asha or Arta is an very old concept, and is not without certain error translated to any given modern language. In both Sanskrit and Gathic Avestan, it literally means "what fits", in any and every situation. The Asha concept summarize Zarathustra's philosophy and it is not strange if one have to translate it differently in different contexts to minimize the loss of meaning when translating it too English. I have, one could say quite arbitrary categorized the different contexts in realms and dimensions. But this is too my defense how I have comprehended it.

In the material realm; in Mazdayasna also called Ahura - Asha means viewing the world as it is, the key concept here is what is probable in connection to the senses. When one talk about Asha in the mental realm the key concept is identity. What identities does currently work in the immediate space time environment one is experiencing. In Mazdayasna the concept Mazda could be equal of what I translate as the mental realm. Asha is then in this particular context what lenses (recall of memory) Mazda have too accurately fit together with Ahura.

Asha can also be spoken in the emotional dimension - if this is done the key word is desire in cooperation with an attitude of constructiveness. How can one act in an constructive and effective way that is in alignment with ones and others desires. The ethical choice can be called Asha and does then means the sum of all Asha and that which works best in the long perspective.

Where do we reach agreement - help me comprehend Asha correctly.

Ushta,
Daniel

Sacred fires

The oldest fire temple in the world is currently being restored in Azerbaijan (the country, not the Iranian province). It is over 3,000 years old and is indeed built on a still active oil well. So the fire has been burning continously for over 3,000 years (!!!). Must be a bit irritating for Parsees in India who cllaim that all atash bahram fires should be taken from India when in reality there are still active sacred fires in Azerbaijan at least 1,700 years older than the oldest Zoroastrian fire in India. ;-)
Ushta
Alexander

2011/10/9 Hampus Lindblad

Yes, this is interesting. Would love to see the burning hillsides some time. This area is probably the region in the world where the power of fire through oil and natural gas was first experienced. Fitting then how the fire of Zarathustra also arose from there - as both things are so essential to our civilization, albeit on very different levels.

Ushta,
Hampus

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Alexander Bard wrote:

Yes, The Sacred Fire as idea was INVENTED by the Iranians (though not by Zarathushtra who never even mentions fire in The Gathas) and then later picked up by the Greeks. So the sacred fire is an Iranian/Zoroastrian innovation (the name Azerbaijan, both an independent country and a province in north-west Iran illustrates this perfectly as it means "The Land of Fire").

Ushta
Alexander

2011/10/9 Daniel Samani

Yes yes!! I have heard of metaphors and I find them really interesting and fascinating. I would really love to be able to read up about and understand further metaphors relevant to Zarathustra's philosophy. If you have any sources regarding this I would be really thrilled. Regarding Zarathustra's sacred fire - is there any connection that you are aware of with the olympic fire? If you know any change regarding the meaning in the abrahamic traditions that would be helpful to.


Ushta
Daniel

2011/10/9 Alexander Bard

Ever heard of metaphors?
Sky is a metaphor for infinity, the torch with the fire indicates that Zarathushtra carried the sacred fire to people (carried the sacred message to people), and wings indicate freedom, the freedom to create one's own identity. You will find these metaphors in all pagan Indo-European artistic traditions.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/10/7 Daniel Samani

Dear Alexander,

Thank you for the informative reply. Does this represent something, the sky and the torch with the sacred fire? And why does Zarathustra have wings? ;)

Ushta
Daniel

Restoring the Art of Thinking (was: The Subjective Consequences of Amor Fati as The Founding Concept of Zoroastrian Ethics)

In plain English: Nietzsche goes on step further than Epictetus in not merely ACCEPTING but AFFIRMING his nihilism. He shares this pathos with Zarathushtra although Zarathushtra really PREDATES NIHILISM. Zarathushtra has not even started the historical journey that ends with Nietzsche. He does not even acknowledge such a journey. So in this sense, becoming a ZOROASTRIAN is to say that "Philosophy was right from the very start". What we do now is merely RESTORING the ART OF THINKING (Mazdayasna).
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/29 Special Kain

This is the WILL TO POWER: the liberation and sense of one's power involved in not only accepting our life histories, but actually WANTING them to be just as they are - including our most devastating and dreadful experiences. It is our wills that make this cycle complete.

This is the difference between Nietzsche and Epictetus (and Nietzsche was most impressed with Heraclitus and the Stoics as the only Greeks with whom he felt a certain kindship): Nietzsche's acceptance and will ("I want it the way it is and use it to playfully co-create my future self") versus Epictetus' mere acceptance and composure ("I accept it the way it is and make use of that which happens to me.")

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 19:18 Donnerstag, 15.September 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] The Subjective Consequences of Amor Fati as The Founding Concept of Zoroastrian Ethics


Please observe that the amor fati of Zarathushra, Epictetus, and Nietzsche, includes the amor fati of ourselves as subjetive beings, of our entire life histories as perceived by ourselves.
I believe that the most important aspect of amor fati is not its stoic and grandiose character of "accepting history for what it is" but the LIBERATION involved in the complete, utter, first logical and then emotional LOVING ACCEPTANCE of who we are to ourselves.
We couldn't be further removed from the massive internal guilt-tripping which is the MOTOR of the Abrahamic faiths and the moralisms of their bi-product of modern secular humanisms. No wonder that proper Mazdayasni never feel guilty about anything, in stark contrast to Christians, Jews, and Muslims who make personal guilt their dominant personal trait.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/15 Hampus Lindblad

Just ignore the ethical part and think logic instead. And it doesn't contradict emotion per se, but rather many of it's common affiliations. If all is interaction and relationships as process philosophy argues, then we apply logic to sever the destructive/unwanted relationships whilst we promote and strengthen the ones we prefer on a long term basis. It's all about balancing emphasizing and de-emphasizing without moralistic judgement.

Have you ever tried calming down a psychotic person, or someone looping in a bad trip? It's the same method you apply - at least that's what I have done quite successfully when I've found myself in that kind of a situation.

Ushta,
Hampus

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Daniel Samani wrote:
Could you explain what you ment by ethical logic - and how this logic
contradict emotion.
Ushta
Daniel

2011/9/15, Hampus Lindblad :

> Yes, but then enters the paradoxical dance of managing to actually bring the
> ethical logic alive with emotion. It truly is a dance! The logic is the
> cleansing tool, but it is not what fills the resulting void (which is of
> course completely full looking at it in terms of possibilities and possible
> interpretations). I don't believe one can turn off emotions, and repression
> always strikes back. The objective is rather to control them by restricting
> their movements whilst still allowing them enough space to roam in areas
> where they are constructive rather than destructive.
>
> Playing music is one of the more direct ways of doing it. You can never play
> truly great music strictly through logic. Or I definitely can't anyway...
> And I don't think musical geniuses like Bach played or composed without
> emotion neither.
> Bringing Frankenstein alive required the bolt of electricity in combination
> with the mad emotions of it's creator. It's the same with Zizek's ethical
> monster I believe.
> For me amor fati is an emotion, albeit a chosen one (to the extent that that
> is possible)..And that's what separates it from the rest for me.
>
> Daniel: Have you read Fredrika Spindlers books on Nietzsche and Spinoza? I'm
> pretty sure Alexander has so I won't even bother with asking him... :)
> I don't think they have been translated from Swedish yet so unfortunately
> it's of limited interest to the rest of the list. I'm planning to sink my
> teeth into them as soon as I have finished my current books.
>
> Dino: If you feel like discussing it I would be interested in hearing more
> about how you experience yourself as still bitter and nihilistic - either
> here or offlist.I find that difficult to believe given your persona here,
> but then of course our representations here are just a segment of our
> totalities.
>
> Ushta,
> Hampus

The Ethics of a Nihilism Overcome

Exactly!!!
Which is why Nietzsche speaks of "overcoming nihilism", using Zarathushtra as "the originator of ethics" as his character, perfectly aware of what he is doing in "Also Sprach Zarathustra" (as Nietzsche consequently claims in his following work "Ecce Homo"). So Nietzsch'e historical achievement (in a European and post-Christian achievement) is REALLY the RETURN to the ethics of the original ethicist. How ironic indeed!
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/26 Hampus Lindblad

Best summary I've seen or heard so far!!! So easy and yet so elegant. You overcome nihilism by first acknowledging it and then moving beyond it. Just like how taking a look underneath the bed is the only way for the child to dispel the lurking monster.

Ushta,
Hampus


On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Special Kain wrote:

I think Zarathushtra's existentialist philosophy is anti-nihilism in the best possible sense.
We believe that there is something rather than nothing (Ahura). We further believe that this Something is made up of causes and effects (Asha). And we see ourselves as part of this Something and therefore as ethically obliged to educate ourselves and interact intelligently with and contribute constructively to this Something (Mazda).
Think of Nietzsche who treated ontology and epistemology as ETHICS!

Zarathushtra vs Nietzsche

The only thing Zarathushtra adds that Nietzsche did not have is the pantheistic turn.
In ethics, this means that where we choose pantheism (rather than say atheism) we also get ethical turn laxking with Nietzsche: We BECOME Mazda, we are the MANIFESTATIONS of Mazda in a world of Ahura.
You are your thoughts, your words, and your actions! What you choose is how you are by chossing how you think, speak, and act. This is Zoroastrianism at its purest.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/26 Special Kain

I think Zarathushtra's existentialist philosophy is anti-nihilism in the best possible sense.
We believe that there is something rather than nothing (Ahura). We further believe that this Something is made up of causes and effects (Asha). And we see ourselves as part of this Something and therefore as ethically obliged to educate ourselves and interact intelligently with and contribute constructively to this Something (Mazda).
Think of Nietzsche who treated ontology and epistemology as ETHICS!

Zoroastrianism in Iran

You probably think of the controversial Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esfandiar_Rahim_Mashaei
He was vice president briefly but was forced by Ayatollah Khamenei to resign last year while he still holds enormous power and influence behind Ahmadinejad.
Mashaei plays the nationalistic card intensely, mainly to create a separate power center against the controlling mullahs and is widely seen as the biggest rival to Ayathollah Khamanei in the Iranian government as a whole.
Yes, I guess this is good for Zoroastrianism. But the support of Zoroastrianism, at least culturally, which Mashaei has provided has so far not been publicly supported by Ahmadinejad himself. We should remain skeptical while of course endorsing the productive support we can get for the Zoroastrian cause within Iran.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/19 Daniel Samani

Dear friends,
I have heard rumors that the vice president of Iran promote
Zoroastrianism in Iran. There looks as if its an ongoing trend here
with Z symbols. My question is if this simply is nationalism or
somthing else. Any information regarding this would be appreciated.
Ushta
Daniel

2011/9/19, Hampus Lindblad :
> And that should pragmatically be regarded as a relief... Just like amor
> fati. It's the same whenever you come back from some solipsistically tainted
> illusion of being God. Good fucking riddance every single time! The absolute
> loneliness "at the top" is unbearable. It's the "be careful what you wish
> for"-aspect of the classical longing for "Being One With
> Everything"-fantasy.
>
> Ushta,
> Hampus

The Subjective Consequences of Amor Fati as The Founding Concept of Zoroastrian Ethics

Please observe that the amor fati of Zarathushra, Epictetus, and Nietzsche, includes the amor fati of ourselves as subjetive beings, of our entire life histories as perceived by ourselves.
I believe that the most important aspect of amor fati is not its stoic and grandiose character of "accepting history for what it is" but the LIBERATION involved in the complete, utter, first logical and then emotional LOVING ACCEPTANCE of who we are to ourselves.
We couldn't be further removed from the massive internal guilt-tripping which is the MOTOR of the Abrahamic faiths and the moralisms of their bi-product of modern secular humanisms. No wonder that proper Mazdayasni never feel guilty about anything, in stark contrast to Christians, Jews, and Muslims who make personal guilt their dominant personal trait.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/15 Hampus Lindblad

Just ignore the ethical part and think logic instead. And it doesn't contradict emotion per se, but rather many of it's common affiliations. If all is interaction and relationships as process philosophy argues, then we apply logic to sever the destructive/unwanted relationships whilst we promote and strengthen the ones we prefer on a long term basis. It's all about balancing emphasizing and de-emphasizing without moralistic judgement.

Have you ever tried calming down a psychotic person, or someone looping in a bad trip? It's the same method you apply - at least that's what I have done quite successfully when I've found myself in that kind of a situation.

Ushta,
Hampus


On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Daniel Samani wrote:
Could you explain what you ment by ethical logic - and how this logic
contradict emotion.
Ushta
Daniel

2011/9/15, Hampus Lindblad :


> Yes, but then enters the paradoxical dance of managing to actually bring the
> ethical logic alive with emotion. It truly is a dance! The logic is the
> cleansing tool, but it is not what fills the resulting void (which is of
> course completely full looking at it in terms of possibilities and possible
> interpretations). I don't believe one can turn off emotions, and repression
> always strikes back. The objective is rather to control them by restricting
> their movements whilst still allowing them enough space to roam in areas
> where they are constructive rather than destructive.
>
> Playing music is one of the more direct ways of doing it. You can never play
> truly great music strictly through logic. Or I definitely can't anyway...
> And I don't think musical geniuses like Bach played or composed without
> emotion neither.
> Bringing Frankenstein alive required the bolt of electricity in combination
> with the mad emotions of it's creator. It's the same with Zizek's ethical
> monster I believe.
> For me amor fati is an emotion, albeit a chosen one (to the extent that that
> is possible)..And that's what separates it from the rest for me.
>
> Daniel: Have you read Fredrika Spindlers books on Nietzsche and Spinoza? I'm
> pretty sure Alexander has so I won't even bother with asking him... :)
> I don't think they have been translated from Swedish yet so unfortunately
> it's of limited interest to the rest of the list. I'm planning to sink my
> teeth into them as soon as I have finished my current books.
>
> Dino: If you feel like discussing it I would be interested in hearing more
> about how you experience yourself as still bitter and nihilistic - either
> here or offlist.I find that difficult to believe given your persona here,
> but then of course our representations here are just a segment of our
> totalities.
>
> Ushta,
> Hampus
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:
>
>> What is interesting here is how Zarathushtra, Epictetus, and Nietzsche
>> don't view attitude as an EMOTIONAL issue but actually as a LOGICAL issue.
>> Emotions are supposed to follow logical calculations. It is not for
>> wanting
>> to love the world and ourselves we should do it, but because it simply is
>> the only option left for us to consider. Amor fati is an ethical logic,
>> not
>> an emotion.
>> Ushta
>> Alexander
>>
>> 2011/9/14 Special Kain
>>
>>> It is a difficult lesson. And I'm not there yet. I still have a bitter
>>> and
>>> nihilistic attitude. But what Zarathushtra and Epictetus had in common is
>>> what I consider really, really clever and wise.
>>>
>>> Ushta, Dino
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *Von:* Daniel Samani
>>> *An:* Ushta@yahoogroups.com
>>> *Gesendet:* 20:39 Mittwoch, 14.September 2011
>>> *Betreff:* Re: [Ushta] Stoics, Ethics and Narcissism (was: Zoroastrian
>>> Ethics vs Narcissism)
>>>
>>> I agree, also to me suffering is an indication that we view the world
>>> not as it is! To view the world as it is means to see what one control
>>> and what one doesnt. And when one act on this one doesnt suffer.
>>> Ushta
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> 2011/9/14, Special Kain :
>>> > A few more words in this:
>>> >
>>> > I think narcissism is really boring. Narcissists are people who are
>>> deeply
>>> > disappointed by the world. They neurotically avoid everything that
>>> > would
>>> > make them happy or change their pessimistic outlook. They're not so
>>> > very
>>> > different from people who get a twisted thrill from self-victimization.
>>> I
>>> > guess most narcissists are quite cynical. They put their focus on
>>> themselves
>>> > and devalue the world around them.
>>> >
>>> > This is the difference between Stoic philosophers with an aristocratic
>>> > background, such as Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, and Stoic philosophers
>>> who
>>> > used to be slaves, such as Epictetus, Juvenal and Chrysippus. The Stoic
>>> > aristocrats praised INDIFFERENCE and told their students to kill off
>>> their
>>> > passions and desires. And their writings usually were much more
>>> extensive
>>> > than the slaves'. They were quite idealistic and obsessed with abstract
>>> > thought. They actually wanted to save their students from their love of
>>> life
>>> > - as if the world wasn't worthy of their love.
>>> >
>>> > The Stoic slaves instead praised PRAGMATISM and told their students to
>>> > control their convictions (dogmata) and their ideas about the world,
>>> because
>>> > it is the only thing they can control. The Stoic slaves were a lot more
>>> > sarcastic, their writings rather concise and short (if they wrote
>>> anything
>>> > at all), and they also used rude words in order to change the way their
>>> > students would organize their affections. They didn't want to save
>>> > their
>>> > students from their love of life, but instead wanted to save and
>>> > nurture
>>> > their love of life. So they deemed it necessary to help them be in
>>> control
>>> > of the only thing that could make them depressed and angry: their
>>> > convictions, ideas, opinions and value judgements. And yet they put
>>> their
>>> > focus on the world around them, because we're nothing but bodies in
>>> motion
>>> > that collide and react, collide and react, collide and react. The world
>>> is
>>> > as it is, and it is our attitude towards existence that makes a
>>> difference.
>>> >
>>> > So I see a lot of Zoroastrian ethics in the teachings of the Stoic
>>> > philosophers who used to be slaves, especially in the philosophy of
>>> > Epictetus.
>>> >
>>> > Ushta,
>>> > Dino

Stoics, Ethics and Narcissism (was: Zoroastrian Ethics vs Narcissism)

What is interesting here is how Zarathushtra, Epictetus, and Nietzsche don't view attitude as an EMOTIONAL issue but actually as a LOGICAL issue. Emotions are supposed to follow logical calculations. It is not for wanting to love the world and ourselves we should do it, but because it simply is the only option left for us to consider. Amor fati is an ethical logic, not an emotion.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/14 Special Kain

It is a difficult lesson. And I'm not there yet. I still have a bitter and nihilistic attitude. But what Zarathushtra and Epictetus had in common is what I consider really, really clever and wise.

Ushta, Dino

Von: Daniel Samani
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 20:39 Mittwoch, 14.September 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Stoics, Ethics and Narcissism (was: Zoroastrian Ethics vs Narcissism)

I agree, also to me suffering is an indication that we view the world
not as it is! To view the world as it is means to see what one control
and what one doesnt. And when one act on this one doesnt suffer.
Ushta
Daniel

2011/9/14, Special Kain :
> A few more words in this:
>
> I think narcissism is really boring. Narcissists are people who are deeply
> disappointed by the world. They neurotically avoid everything that would
> make them happy or change their pessimistic outlook. They're not so very
> different from people who get a twisted thrill from self-victimization. I
> guess most narcissists are quite cynical. They put their focus on themselves
> and devalue the world around them.
>
> This is the difference between Stoic philosophers with an aristocratic
> background, such as Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, and Stoic philosophers who
> used to be slaves, such as Epictetus, Juvenal and Chrysippus. The Stoic
> aristocrats praised INDIFFERENCE and told their students to kill off their
> passions and desires. And their writings usually were much more extensive
> than the slaves'. They were quite idealistic and obsessed with abstract
> thought. They actually wanted to save their students from their love of life
> - as if the world wasn't worthy of their love.
>
> The Stoic slaves instead praised PRAGMATISM and told their students to
> control their convictions (dogmata) and their ideas about the world, because
> it is the only thing they can control. The Stoic slaves were a lot more
> sarcastic, their writings rather concise and short (if they wrote anything
> at all), and they also used rude words in order to change the way their
> students would organize their affections. They didn't want to save their
> students from their love of life, but instead wanted to save and nurture
> their love of life. So they deemed it necessary to help them be in control
> of the only thing that could make them depressed and angry: their
> convictions, ideas, opinions and value judgements. And yet they put their
> focus on the world around them, because we're nothing but bodies in motion
> that collide and react, collide and react, collide and react. The world is
> as it is, and it is our attitude towards existence that makes a difference.
>
> So I see a lot of Zoroastrian ethics in the teachings of the Stoic
> philosophers who used to be slaves, especially in the philosophy of
> Epictetus.
>
> Ushta,
> Dino

Zoroastrian Ethics vs Narcissism

Very very interesting!!!
Isn't this also where Zoroastrian ethics is OPPOSED to Narcissism?
Narcissism is built on the illusion that one can affect EVERYTHING in one's surroundings (or even worse, that everything in one's surroundings is affected by the presence of The Narcissist).
When in reality 99% of what affects us is contingency, pure luck (or lack of luck).
So ethics is left with that which we CAN affect. This is where Zoroastrianism, Epictectus, and Nietzsche are in perfect agreement.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/12 Special Kain

What I consider most important is the difference between that which we can't control and that which we can control (our ethical choices in Zarathushtra's sense and what Epictetus called "prohairesis"). It is this difference that goes beyond individualistic ideology and this ideology's obsession with the narcissistic self. We live and act within social situations. And situations provide for resources, opportunities and restraints. So in order to provide ourselves with more freedom, we have to change the bigger picture collectively. Anything else leads to the typical narcissist's neurotic avoidance of happiness.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Special Kain
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 22:20 Sonntag, 11.September 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The issue of suffering


The difference between Zoroastrianism and Daoism is the difference between political activism and urban subsistence farming. While Zoroastrians strive to contribute to civilization, Daoists retreat and live their lives independently.

Von: Hampus Lindblad
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 16:02 Sonntag, 11.September 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The issue of suffering


Dear Dino,

This reminded me of the saying "Achieve more, or want less". I did a quick search to find out the origin and the first hit was from some "Daily Tao"-site which quoted the Tao 12:

"The five colors blind the eye.
The five tones deafen the ear.
The five flavors dull the taste.
Racing and hunting madden the mind.
Precious things lead one astray.

Therefore the sage is guided by what he feels and not by what he sees.
He lets go of that and chooses this."

Then I started looking for alternative translations of which there seem to be plenty. The interpretation of the first page differs somewhat from the one above. Very telling how much they differ from each other. Historically the Tao Te Ching seems to be a free for all in projection. Of course the same fate is shared by the Gathas and most other religious texts, which I guess is both a blessing and a curse - depending one the chosen attitude of the observer and holder of opinion...

There's also that Richard Feynman quote that "No problem is too small or too trivial if we can really do something about it". Now the other side of that same coin is that problems that have no solution ARE "too small" to worry about. I would even go so far as to rob them of their problem status and instead sort them under the must-be-integrated foundational structure on which we can start to make our choices and create - not free will - but a wider and exponentially growing array of choice.

By the way Feynman seems to have been very much into process philosophy:

"All matter is interaction"

And talked like a Mazdayasni too:

"Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which are there."

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

On a side note I think that Buddhism has gotten a lot of credit historically for the "why lament over the unchangeable" line of thought. It would indeed be satisfying to see some of that appreciation redirected back towards Mazdayasna if that indeed is a much earlier fountainhead. And talking about fountainheads; what is known about Zarathushtras influences?

Ushta,
Hampus


On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Special Kain wrote:

Dear Hampus

I agree. As I said a few times before, we have to choose for ourselves what to do with that which happens to us. When we learn new skills, we possibly learn better ways of coping. New problems arise, old problems prove to persist, we simultaneously loathe and enjoy certain problems (what Lacan called "jouissance" as opposed to "plaisir"), we learn to live with a few problems still unsolved, etc. What matters the most is one's attitude (spenta mainyu vs angra mainyu): to make a distinction between medicine and poison. You have to decide for yourself what is the right thing to do, and then just do it as if it was a sacred law. This is what Aleister Crowley meant by saying: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." We have to live truthfully and be brutally honest with ourselves.

I personally love Epictetus. We have to distinguish between that which is within our power to control (and therefore can be useful and good or harmful and bad) and that which is not within our power (and is either 'preferred' or 'dispreferred'). Why lament over something that we can't influence nor change? We should keep our cool and focus on that which we can influence and change: our feelings and thoughts, our attitude and character, opinions and decisions, convictions and abilities, etc.

Ushta,
Dino


Von: Hampus Lindblad
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 14:03 Sonntag, 11.September 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The issue of suffering


I think it is a matter of definition whether suffering can be said to contain learning potential as it's usually the overcoming of suffering that provides most of the insight. Indirectly the absence of suffering is of course also a good indicator that one has progressed i.e "I would previously have been suffering under these circumstances (facing infidelity or whatever) but now I'm not").

To a certain degree I agree with you regarding Spinoza though. New problems arise as old ones vaporize as a result of our growing knowledge. It's a little bit like how the problem of falling off the edge of the Earth was resolved by the realization that our planet is spherical. The new problem that took it's place was now how to spread that knowledge without being burned on a stake by fanatical flat-Earthers.

Fundamentally I don't think there's a static and permanent way of avoiding suffering. One has to adapt alongside the change. One of the few things that would be wise to upkeep always is of course the constructive Ashavan mindset. Do you agree with the above or do you have diverging perspectives?

Usha,
Hampus

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Special Kain wrote:

Zarathushtra talked about the courage and strength to do what is right and necessary, to live in accordance with "that which fits" and defend ourselves against those who act upon destructive mentalities. So it's a matter of what we choose to do with that which causes misery and pain, and whether or not long-term thinking and education may ease the pain.
According to Spinoza, all that is "harmful" is caused by our limited knowledge, and the more and better we educate ourselves, the less we will suffer. But I disagree with Spinoza's optimism here.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Hampus Lindblad
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 1:17 Sonntag, 11.September 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The issue of suffering

I would personally not state that "suffering is not a learning experience" or words to that effect. Instead I prefer to postulate that suffering - given a constructive enough attitude - can be a learning experience (just as any other type of experience). Nothing more and nothing less. Which is more or less exactly what Dino has written here below... I'm just bringing it up because I believe statements like "suffering is not a learning experience" can be easily misinterpreted unless they are given in a wider context like that of this thread. It would for example be unsuitable for a more concentrated Zoroastrianism 101 conversation I think.

With the right attitude I believe temporary suffering can be a very efficient learning experience. Similar to that of bliss and ecstasy, just on the other extreme of the spectrum. I find that strong contrasts are generally very useful tools to build understanding and constructive self-policy.

Ushta,
Hampus

Pity as Druj

When confronted with the suffering of others, you either see things for what they are and act AFFIRMATIVELY (you do the right thing because it is the right thing to do and you are a person who do right things) for example by doing your best to alleviate the suffering but without any pity or mistaeking for being YOUR suffering (because it is not). Pity is instead the passive reaction when one is in DENIAL of what suffering truly is. It is a product of fear of conflict, precisely how people react who can't handle reality and are therefore escaping it whenever given a chance. Pity is therefore a product of druj and not of asha.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/10 Special Kain

I don't get you here. Could you please elaborate on this a bit? Where is the connection between pity and self-denial (or one's excess in conformity)?
Thanks!

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 13:06 Samstag, 10.September 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] The Problem with Pity


I agree!
The only reason why PITY exists is because most people are so afraid of the conflicts and other unpleasantries they may encounter from others if they actually tell the truth. Pity is therefore probably the lowest form of lying, the form of lying you get from people who refuse to see the world for what it is and only seek minimum resistance (and maximum likeability) in their entire behavior. These are the people who show pity. You can never trust them.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

Yes, this is where Zarathushtra, Nietzsche and Spinoza agree (even though I'm not a Spinozist and I strongly disagree with Spinoza's determinism, because I see the universe as probablistic in nature). And this is also where Nietzsche and Epictetus agree that PITY is unacceptable.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 18:25 Donnerstag, 8.September 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] The issue of suffering

I completely agree.
Zoroastrianism is also THE ONLY RELIGION or philosophical system which refuses to add meaning to suffering. Suffering is just bad (druj) and something we should fight. But this fight IN ITSELF does not have any meaning other than that the success of relieving suffering is its own reward. So both Zarathushtra and Nietzsche were right and here stress an important difference between Zoroastrian thinking and the philosophies of the east (where suffering is a learning experience, something it is not) and the religions of the deserts (which all claim that suffering is caused by sin and disobedience against God).
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

Dear brothers and sisters

As already discussed, Friedrich Nietzsche was philosophically interested in how different cultures and religions teach their members and followers how to cope with random suffering. Cultures and religions provide for ready-made explanations and interpretations that help people cope with random suffering: God walks in mysterious ways, and all your pain and misery will pay off in the future; those who suffer will be rewarded, and those who enjoy themselves will fall (we envy those who seem to be better off); there will be salvation and forgiveness; success requires hardship (see Max Weber's studies on the Protestant work ethic), etc.

Simply put, as long as we are able to explain and GIVE MEANING to our pain, this will ease the pain. But once our explanations fail, we are exposed to suffering in its full CONTINGENCY. As long as we see our pain as MEANINGFUL, we are able to cope with it. As soon as we realise that it doesn't actually make any sense (or any more sense than something else), we face the TRUTH OF NIHILISM. Suffering itself isn't that which scares us. It is the fact that suffering has NO POSITIVE SUBSTANCE and NO INTRINSIC VALUE.

So how did Zarathushtra address the issue of suffering? His take on suffering was brutally and uncharmingly existentialist: he simply states that there is random suffering and that it has no intrinsic value. In other words, it is pointless to suffer. He doesn't even think of suffering as a prerequisite for excellence and bliss. What he stressed is our ATTITUDE TOWARDS EXISTENCE and the choices we make when faced with suffering. How do we choose to react to this phenomenon? How do we choose to JUDGE it? And what will this choice make with us? Where am I, and who will I become once I've made my choice? Do I choose nihilism or fatalism or something more constructive and encouraging? How do I make us of it?

Ushta,
Dino

The Problem with Pity

I agree!
The only reason why PITY exists is because most people are so afraid of the conflicts and other unpleasantries they may encounter from others if they actually tell the truth. Pity is therefore probably the lowest form of lying, the form of lying you get from people who refuse to see the world for what it is and only seek minimum resistance (and maximum likeability) in their entire behavior. These are the people who show pity. You can never trust them.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

Yes, this is where Zarathushtra, Nietzsche and Spinoza agree (even though I'm not a Spinozist and I strongly disagree with Spinoza's determinism, because I see the universe as probablistic in nature). And this is also where Nietzsche and Epictetus agree that PITY is unacceptable.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 18:25 Donnerstag, 8.September 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] The issue of suffering

I completely agree.
Zoroastrianism is also THE ONLY RELIGION or philosophical system which refuses to add meaning to suffering. Suffering is just bad (druj) and something we should fight. But this fight IN ITSELF does not have any meaning other than that the success of relieving suffering is its own reward. So both Zarathushtra and Nietzsche were right and here stress an important difference between Zoroastrian thinking and the philosophies of the east (where suffering is a learning experience, something it is not) and the religions of the deserts (which all claim that suffering is caused by sin and disobedience against God).
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

Dear brothers and sisters

As already discussed, Friedrich Nietzsche was philosophically interested in how different cultures and religions teach their members and followers how to cope with random suffering. Cultures and religions provide for ready-made explanations and interpretations that help people cope with random suffering: God walks in mysterious ways, and all your pain and misery will pay off in the future; those who suffer will be rewarded, and those who enjoy themselves will fall (we envy those who seem to be better off); there will be salvation and forgiveness; success requires hardship (see Max Weber's studies on the Protestant work ethic), etc.

Simply put, as long as we are able to explain and GIVE MEANING to our pain, this will ease the pain. But once our explanations fail, we are exposed to suffering in its full CONTINGENCY. As long as we see our pain as MEANINGFUL, we are able to cope with it. As soon as we realise that it doesn't actually make any sense (or any more sense than something else), we face the TRUTH OF NIHILISM. Suffering itself isn't that which scares us. It is the fact that suffering has NO POSITIVE SUBSTANCE and NO INTRINSIC VALUE.

So how did Zarathushtra address the issue of suffering? His take on suffering was brutally and uncharmingly existentialist: he simply states that there is random suffering and that it has no intrinsic value. In other words, it is pointless to suffer. He doesn't even think of suffering as a prerequisite for excellence and bliss. What he stressed is our ATTITUDE TOWARDS EXISTENCE and the choices we make when faced with suffering. How do we choose to react to this phenomenon? How do we choose to JUDGE it? And what will this choice make with us? Where am I, and who will I become once I've made my choice? Do I choose nihilism or fatalism or something more constructive and encouraging? How do I make us of it?

Ushta,
Dino
Svara
Alexander Bard till Ushta
visa information 13:06 (0 minuter sedan)
I agree!
The only reason why PITY exists is because most people are so afraid of the conflicts and other unpleasantries they may encounter from others if they actually tell the truth. Pity is therefore probably the lowest form of lying, the form of lying you get from people who refuse to see the world for what it is and only seek minimum resistance (and maximum likeability) in their entire behavior. These are the people who show pity. You can never trust them.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

Yes, this is where Zarathushtra, Nietzsche and Spinoza agree (even though I'm not a Spinozist and I strongly disagree with Spinoza's determinism, because I see the universe as probablistic in nature). And this is also where Nietzsche and Epictetus agree that PITY is unacceptable.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 18:25 Donnerstag, 8.September 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] The issue of suffering

I completely agree.
Zoroastrianism is also THE ONLY RELIGION or philosophical system which refuses to add meaning to suffering. Suffering is just bad (druj) and something we should fight. But this fight IN ITSELF does not have any meaning other than that the success of relieving suffering is its own reward. So both Zarathushtra and Nietzsche were right and here stress an important difference between Zoroastrian thinking and the philosophies of the east (where suffering is a learning experience, something it is not) and the religions of the deserts (which all claim that suffering is caused by sin and disobedience against God).
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

Dear brothers and sisters

As already discussed, Friedrich Nietzsche was philosophically interested in how different cultures and religions teach their members and followers how to cope with random suffering. Cultures and religions provide for ready-made explanations and interpretations that help people cope with random suffering: God walks in mysterious ways, and all your pain and misery will pay off in the future; those who suffer will be rewarded, and those who enjoy themselves will fall (we envy those who seem to be better off); there will be salvation and forgiveness; success requires hardship (see Max Weber's studies on the Protestant work ethic), etc.

Simply put, as long as we are able to explain and GIVE MEANING to our pain, this will ease the pain. But once our explanations fail, we are exposed to suffering in its full CONTINGENCY. As long as we see our pain as MEANINGFUL, we are able to cope with it. As soon as we realise that it doesn't actually make any sense (or any more sense than something else), we face the TRUTH OF NIHILISM. Suffering itself isn't that which scares us. It is the fact that suffering has NO POSITIVE SUBSTANCE and NO INTRINSIC VALUE.

So how did Zarathushtra address the issue of suffering? His take on suffering was brutally and uncharmingly existentialist: he simply states that there is random suffering and that it has no intrinsic value. In other words, it is pointless to suffer. He doesn't even think of suffering as a prerequisite for excellence and bliss. What he stressed is our ATTITUDE TOWARDS EXISTENCE and the choices we make when faced with suffering. How do we choose to react to this phenomenon? How do we choose to JUDGE it? And what will this choice make with us? Where am I, and who will I become once I've made my choice? Do I choose nihilism or fatalism or something more constructive and encouraging? How do I make us of it?

Ushta,
Dino

Empathy without pity

I believe a good starting point is to admit that ANOTHER PERSON'S SUFFERING is that person's suffering and not our own. "Oh, so you broke your leg and it hurts, well that's too bad for you but it doesn't mean that MY LEG hurts." Empathy then becomes an attitude of GRACEFULNESS more than a co-emotion (which it is not), almost like a gratitude that the suffering of others doesn't affect us. And from this point can we act to support MENTALLY and PRACTICALLY. And will want to do so as an act of affirmation of who we are. In Christianity, it is only God who is allowed to act with such freedom. But in Mazdayasna philosophy this choice comes to all of us. YOU ARE YOUR CHOICES and nothing but your choices.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

If we choose to pity someone who is frustrated and hurt - e.g. someone who has just been dumped by his girlfriend and now believes that he'll never be loved again -, we actually confirm their pessimistic outlook: "Yes, your situation truly is unbearably sad, you are a poor victim, you are helpless, and you don't have the strength nor the brains to change things." In other words, we simply refuse to see their potential.

But if we really want to actually help them, we would say something like: "Yes, it is perfectly OK to be sad; it is true that some people sometimes are lucky and others are unlucky; but your being a victim is your own choice; you have the potential to see things from a different angle and make the best out of whatever happens to you." In other words, pity is misanthropy at its most cynical.

This doesn't mean that we should be heartless and cruel to people who already suffer. It doesn't mean that we would disrespect their feelings or that we wouldn't take them seriously. We actually choose to see the good in people and their potential. I believe that it is our OBLIGATION and DUTY to help those in need, when necessary, and that we therefore should do away with pity.

Zoroastrianism on Suffering

I completely agree.
Zoroastrianism is also THE ONLY RELIGION or philosophical system which refuses to add meaning to suffering. Suffering is just bad (druj) and something we should fight. But this fight IN ITSELF does not have any meaning other than that the success of relieving suffering is its own reward. So both Zarathushtra and Nietzsche were right and here stress an important difference between Zoroastrian thinking and the philosophies of the east (where suffering is a learning experience, something it is not) and the religions of the deserts (which all claim that suffering is caused by sin and disobedience against God).
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

Dear brothers and sisters

As already discussed, Friedrich Nietzsche was philosophically interested in how different cultures and religions teach their members and followers how to cope with random suffering. Cultures and religions provide for ready-made explanations and interpretations that help people cope with random suffering: God walks in mysterious ways, and all your pain and misery will pay off in the future; those who suffer will be rewarded, and those who enjoy themselves will fall (we envy those who seem to be better off); there will be salvation and forgiveness; success requires hardship (see Max Weber's studies on the Protestant work ethic), etc.

Simply put, as long as we are able to explain and GIVE MEANING to our pain, this will ease the pain. But once our explanations fail, we are exposed to suffering in its full CONTINGENCY. As long as we see our pain as MEANINGFUL, we are able to cope with it. As soon as we realise that it doesn't actually make any sense (or any more sense than something else), we face the TRUTH OF NIHILISM. Suffering itself isn't that which scares us. It is the fact that suffering has NO POSITIVE SUBSTANCE and NO INTRINSIC VALUE.

So how did Zarathushtra address the issue of suffering? His take on suffering was brutally and uncharmingly existentialist: he simply states that there is random suffering and that it has no intrinsic value. In other words, it is pointless to suffer. He doesn't even think of suffering as a prerequisite for excellence and bliss. What he stressed is our ATTITUDE TOWARDS EXISTENCE and the choices we make when faced with suffering. How do we choose to react to this phenomenon? How do we choose to JUDGE it? And what will this choice make with us? Where am I, and who will I become once I've made my choice? Do I choose nihilism or fatalism or something more constructive and encouraging? How do I make us of it?

Ushta,
Dino

Islam is not Asha

Parviz Varjavand wrote:

Dear Alex,

I do not want to go into details, but in any religious system, the Nomenclature or the meaning you wish each word to have is everything. In Zoroastrianism, if in your Nomenclature you describe certain key words with certain meanings, you get an enslaving system of thought, same as any other religion. You choose to give the good Nomenclature to Zoroastrianism and the bad one to Islam and this is how you win your arguments. Now try giving the good nomenclature to Islam too and see what happens? Every good thing you wish for Zoroastrianism also happens to Islam.

No, they do not. I CHOSE Zoroastrianism because I believed it was a SUPERIOR CHOICE. I could easily have chosen Islam instead but since I found Islam to be inferior I did not.

A true Moslem is supposed not to surrender to anything that is not Hagh. Hagh has been translated as the equivalent of Asha. Shehadat is giving witness as what you think Hagh is, often at the cost of your own life. So a True Moslem is not one that just sits in a corner in a state of submission to faith, he/she will fight to death for what is Hagh/Asha against what is Batel/Droj. I will exit this argument for it can cause me enmities from all sides, but what I say CAN BE, in the same way that what our vision of True Zoroastrianism is also "CAN BE*"!

Zoroastrianism is much more than Asha, and islam is not even dealing with Asha but only with Obedience which is a completely alien concept to Mazdayasna. In islam, even if Allah is wrong, you must obey. In Zoroastrianism your Mind is superior to any divinity. Sacredness is a proper thought of your mind, not an external divinity. There is an enormous difference between Zoroastrianism and Islam. Period. You may suffer from guilt from having been born a Zoroastrian, but that has nothing to do with me or my choice of religious affiliation. Don't mx the two!

Ushta
Alexander

Islam and Asha

Nietzsche never spoke of "surrendering to amor fati" any more than Zarathushtra did.
"Amor fati" is merely the STARTING POINT for Nietzsche's existentialism. As it is for Zarathushtra, when he claims that we do not become who we are merely by contemplating on our existence and ACCEPTING it (although this is necessary first, as one massive "reality check" before we act), but we achieve our very substance as ashavands through ACTIONS.
This is precisely why Zarathushtra was OPPOSED TO hermits and monks and nuns. His ideal is an ACTIVE ashavand, not an inward-looking holier-than-thou human.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/1 Parviz Varjavand

Islam and Asha,

We went over and over the meanings we wanted to give Asha and to ourselves as Ashavands, followers of Asha. I want to make a case that Islam also carries with it meanings as deep as Asha and a Muslim can be dedicated to concepts as vast and beautiful as an Ashavand.

Surrendering mind and body to that which is not Asha Vahishta can be ugly no matter what religion one follows. But surrender to Amor Fati or choosing the right Asha Vahishta is the key to the attainment of Oshta, is it not?

Could this way of looking at Islam be possible, with all the historic baggage that Islam carries with it? To a true intellectual, all things beautiful and complex should be a possibility. May some day come when I as an Ashavand can look a true Muslim (According to my definitions of who a true Muslim is, one who Taslims him/herself to that which is the highest Truth) in the eye and say "friend, we are looking for the same thing".

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

Islam vs Zoroastrianism - a philosophical exercise (and where to put Spinoza in this mix)

Dear Parviz

There are many Sufi philosophers (are there are many great Sufi philosophers) who have tried to interpret Islam in an affirmative manner but this is where they ultimately fail.
What makes Zoroastrianism (Mazdayasna) distinctly different from Islam is the concept of asha-vahishta, the concept of an AFFIRMATIVE attitude towards fate FOLLOWING acceptance. It doesn't stop at understanding and accepting asha, it is not asha-ism.
Mazdayasna is not acceptance towards asha (they way Islam can be interpreted), it is never surrendering and even less so OBEDIENCE (the proper English translation of Islam) but rather DIALOGUE and CO-CREATION. So Mazdayasna is acceptance FOLLOWED BY AFFIRMATION. The same goes for Spinoza and Nietzsche: The acceptance is NOT an END IN ITSELF (rather this "slave morality" is what Nietzsche hated the most) but just a STARTING POINT for then moving into a state of AFFIRMATION of life and existence, to CREATE SOMETHING out of the raw material that is accepted fate. Islam stays with the raw material, it does not ENDORSE and make an ethical substance of what HUMANS CREATE THEMSELVES. No wonder it is a religion where human creation is a waste and God is supposed to do all creation.
Remember that Zarathushtra doesn't stop at creative thoughts, he MOVES ON to creative words to then COMPLETES THE CYCLE with creative deeds. All three levels conducted by humans are ourselves since we are the MANIFESTATIONS of Ahura Mazda when we do the right thing.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/31 Parviz Varjavand

Dear friends,

Please be a little into deep thinking when answering this question of mine.
Islam means Taslim or surrender, surrender to the flow, the flow of that which is the greatest.
Forget all you know about Islam, think about what it could be.
Can Islam not mean Amor Fati to the new Moslem intellectuals?

Against Islam stands Kofr. Kofr means to deny or to cover.
Against Asha stands Droj.
(Remember Dino describing Asha in the forest, how all is Asha when you reach out.)
I venture that a case can be made for Islam being the same as Amor Fati and Asha and Kofr beeing Droj and Dev.
Remember, close-minded Zoroastrianism can be ugly too, and we chose not to be for it and went abstract and went past it.
I think open-minded Islam can be a beautiful thing, (Please no long winded cries of pain in response, just go abstract and bypass all that) what says you?

Parviz

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

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Spinoza and Zoroastrianism
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011, 1:06 PM

Dear Sharooz

Thank you for a wonderful contribution on Spinoza.
However, I disagree on the interpretation of Spinoza's concept of will, I believe your interpretation is too deterministic. I find Spinoza's attitude to will similar to if not identical with Zarathushtra's. God's perfection according to Spinoza is only a phenomenon in hindsight (as it is with Hegel too), but never beforehand. In this, Zarathushtra is similar too, as is Nietzsche woith the concept of "amor fati" (the obligation to love fate).

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/10 SHAHROOZ ASH

[Attachment(s) from SHAHROOZ ASH included below]
SPINOZA

Shahrooz Ash

Spinoza was Jewish and came from a Spanish family, he eventually moved to Holland. He claimed, God had a physical body. And for this reason the Jewish community did not want to be associated with him, they did not want people to think that this was the view of the Jews, because this view was considered to be heresy. Spinoza's universe is very cold and impersonal, his system has one idea in its meta-physics, "God is the only thing that exists". According to Spinoza, God is perfect and the only thing that exists, apart from God there is nothing. We are all a part of God, and the world is a part of God, the world is physical and that's why God is physical. Everything is God.

We do not exist permanently, we die and turn into something else. Mind and Consciousness loses its nature, but, it does not disappear, our mind is part of God and our consciousness is part of God. The world and nature is a part of God, if this is the case, then, does this mean God is just nature? God is just thinking of nature, it's the conception of nature. But it’s even more than that, God is a substance, it is something that can exist independently. Hence God is the only existence.

God also has an Essence, and his essence has Attributes, God has an infinite number of attributes. Out of all the infinite attributes we only know of two.

1. Thought
2. Extension > (leads to)> Space.

God has no purpose, he is not making things more perfect or better for us. This is because God is already perfect. So, what is Thought, and, is Thought nature? And since we don't know the rest of the attributes, then we can never know it. It is beyond anything we can ever know. We exist among the attributes of Thought, Mind and Extension, which is body.

So you and I don't exist permanently, we pass away. We are modifications of the attributes. We are like waves in the ocean, and God is the ocean, God creates the waves and not us. Water will always be there in the ocean, that's God. But waves are gone, while the water is still there. God causes everything that happens in the world. Spinoza does not believe in free-will he is a Determinist, God does everything. This means no one is ever praise or blame worthy, Evil ultimately does not exist. He also likes Occasionalism, one of Descartes students came up with it, his name was Malbranche. Causes are not a cause, they are an occasion of the effect, God creates both of them.

Spinoza likes occasionalism and determinism. This is because of the Islamist theology which was around during his time in the Middle Ages in Spain and Holland. Why did Spinoza like this as a person? God is impersonal, and God does not care about us. It’s all good to God whatever that happens, but, how about us. There is another connection, this can be traced to the middle ages of Judaism and Islam. It is Mysticism, there is a mystical side to Spinoza, an Islamic parallel.

The Mutazilites (an Islamic school of thought) believed in free will and justice of God. But, by the Middle Ages we get the Ashrites (which is another Islamic school of thought), they opposed the existence of free will. They believed in the power of God and God’s free will. God does what he pleases, and if God leads a person stray then you just have had it. So, if God decides to mess you up, you have had it. The Ashrites believed, if God is to be Omnipotent (All Powerful), then God must be permitted to do anything. If God is to be all powerful, then this means God cannot be all good, because, this will limit God. Man cannot be free, because, our freedom will reduces God's freedom and power, and this would mean God will no longer be all powerful and free. It is selfish to look at things that affect us, to Spinoza we are nothing.

1. Free-will

a: Matazilites > freewill > justice of God

b: Ashrites > no freewill > power and freedom of God.


2. Occasionalism

a: Al-Ghazzali


3. Mysticism

a: Sufism > compare to God we are nothing > they want to obtain "Extinction" of self.

Sufism of the time had many similar beliefs; one such common belief amongst most of these different Islamic sects is this, a person should try and reach the state which enables one to get absorbed by God, so one becomes extinct. God is so overwhelming, we are nothing. According to Spinoza, you and I, do not exist apart from God. Spinoza was like Hallaj in Sufism. Hallaj said, "Extinction of Self". Spinoza wants to lose the sense of himself, and achieves extiction so that he can get absorbed by God. He has no separate freewill and his will becomes God's will.

God is free because of his nature, God could not do anything different. But, the fact that God could not do anything different becomes a problem, because, does this mean God is limited? Why do things exist? Why are things the way they are? And why is God the way he is? Spinoza's answer is, you would know this if you saw God. All the Mysticism was a big deal in the Medieval times, Islamic and in some cases even Jewish mysticism, (things like the Cabbala).

To Spinoza God is perfect, and individuals such as Hitler and Jesus are each a part of God, this means there is no difference between the two in terms of ethics. The interesting thing here is, despite the view that there is no difference between Hitler and Jesus in terms of ethics, Spinoza actually develops a system of ethics. How he explains this no one knows. However, the system of ethics which he developed is constructed like Geometry, he does Philosophy like Geometry which is what Aristotle would have expected. If we claim God's causes makes things happen, and his causes came from the past and the past makes things happen, then the future is determined by his causes of the past. Because of this we are not in control of the future events.

Human freedom will reduce and restrict God's power and he will no longer be all powerful. This idea is strange and foreign in Zarathushtrianism, one of the most important concepts introduced by Zarathushtra is free-will and choice by individuals. In Zarathushtrianism human free-will does not limit the power of God, in fact it increase god's power. So in terms of free-will Zarathushtra and Spinoza are not similar.

Ethics:

Since God has no purpose and all causes are Gods, then evil does not exist. Hitler and Jesus are a part of God and there is no difference between the two. God is not making things perfect and better, because he is already perfect. So, for a perfect God there cannot be any imperfection in terms of values, there is no wrong for a perfect being. God is already perfect, so it has no purpose. Thus, God has no ethical value per-say in terms of right and wrong. God does not have a will and does not act for a good, or an end, but for his nature. With the issue of there not being any difference between Hitler and Jesus in terms of ethics, Zarathushtra would disagree. In this respect the two are a world apart and not similar at all.

The Ecologism of Zarathushtra (was: The Worldview of a Mazdayasni)

Dear Parviz

It is the other way round: The ecological disasters make it MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER to separate asha from druj. Because it is the only way to solve the problems involved. Asha is another word for SUSTAINABILITY, druj for DESTRUCTION THROUGH SHORTSIGHTEDNESS. Zarathushtra was the first ecologist. Listen to him.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/26 Parviz Varjavand

What we SEE and what we WISH to see.

I love my native Iran and some forty years ago I was in the Environmental Protection agency here working hard to protect the land. Now I travel often to the shores of the Caspian Sea and I can see day after day how this beautiful sea is dying. I do not want to go into details and bring tears to your eyes, but the size of the calamity is very large. Who is guilty of these crimes happening against nature? No one is and everyone is at the same time.

If global warming and the many other ecological disasters are killing our whole planet, is our situation one of Asha or Droj? Who were the Ashavands and who were the Drojvands who have brought us into this nightmare this far? I would venture that every Ashavand was a Drojvand at the same time, from the man who invented the wheel to the man who tamed the horse to the man who sent us into space. So the separation of Asha from Droj cannot be determined by how nicely everything FITS into one another, it takes religious commitments LARGER than the commitments of any other religion to be an Ashavand and a Mazdayasni. Can man actually do this? Civilization proves to me that man can’t; we are asking the termite to stop eating wood. Mithra cannot stop bleeding to death our mother the Cow.

Sorry for not being "constructive" here and the image of a bitter old man fits.

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand


--- On Thu, 8/25/11, Special Kain wrote:

From: Special Kain
Subject: Re: [Ushta] The Worldview of a Mazdayasni (was: The Concept of Truth)
To: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2011, 4:52 PM


Dear Parviz
It has nothing to do with political opportunism, conformity or lawyers. Asha simply is that which fits with what it real (as in 'the laws of nature are real'). Druj is that which isn't real or which deceives us. Asha therefore has a lot to do with intellectual integrity. It is one's willingness to speak the truth at play here.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 23:52 Donnerstag, 25.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The Worldview of a Mazdayasni (was: The Concept of Truth)


Who said it was simple to separate asha from druj? Nobody did.
Parviz, I don't know what you think you can achieve by portraying yourself as some wise old man while treating everybody else like naive idiots? Dino and Hampus are anything but naive. So stop accusing them of naivety, please!
The number of lawyers has nothing to do with what is asha and what is druj. Nothing at all. There's no connection. The fact that something is asha or is druj doesn't determine which is chosen. Unless you're a sincere Mazdayasni, of course, but which few people are and we are merely WORKING towards becoming.
You should support that ambition instead of throwing your bitterness around here. It would be more, shall we say, constructive. OK?
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/25 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Dino and Hampus,

If separating Asha from Droj was as simple as you make it sound, then we would not have need for so many lawyers, would we?
Any good lawyer jokes?
Man in a cemetery sees this grave marked, "here lies a lawyer and an honest man", and he wonders to himself "How did they fit two corpses in one grave!/"

Purviz


--- On Thu, 8/25/11, Special Kain wrote:

From: Special Kain
Subject: Re: [Ushta] The Worldview of a Mazdayasni (was: The Concept of Truth)
To: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2011, 2:12 AM

I agree, dear Hampus.
Asha has nothing to do with opportunism and intellectual sluggishness. We are requested to live in accordance with "that which is true / which truly fits" (asha) and not with "that which deceives" (druj). People deserve to know the truth and that which works in the long run, and they also deserve to be free to base their choices on the actual facts and long-term thinking. Anything will prove to be destructive. Zarathushtra's doctrine of asha is all about the empowerment of people through education and civilization as its result. Even though the truth can be downright nasty at times.

Ushta,
Dino

Overcoming nihilism - the Zoroastrian way (Continued)

Except that Nietzsche and Tanner meant radically different things.
What Nietzsche speaks of is acceptance of that which can not be changed or altered. His idea is identical to Zarathushtra's idea of asha (Zarathushra was of course the original Nietzschean). As a STARTING POINT for choices that CAN be made.
The only alternative would be to bitterly accuse the past for it being what it is. And I don't think Tanner would find that any more joyous. ;-
Having said this, I totally agree with you concerning Nietzsche's quote. It could have come straight from The Gathas.
And Parviz is a sweetheart and an excellent interlocutor.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/26 Special Kain

In "The Gay Science" Nietzsche wrote:
"I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a yes-sayer."

It is indeed a beautiful thought. We love our fate and do not want anything to be different. And this is from where we will create ourselves ("to give style to one's character"). We take all the bits and pieces that we encountered and create something - someone - out of it that is larger than the sum of its parts. This is most affirmative. It is our artistic tastes based on ethical choice that give meaning to our existence.

Michael Tanner once said that this "undifferentiated yes-saying" creates strangely boring and dull persons. ;-)



Von: Parviz Varjavand
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 3:35 Freitag, 26.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Overcoming nihilism - the Zoroastrian way


Dear Alex,

I wish I could present what I want to say as profoundly and well as you just did.
I could not agree with you more.

Mehr,
Parviz

--- On Thu, 8/25/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Overcoming nihilism - the Zoroastrian way
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2011, 7:21 AM


Dear Dino and Hampus

I believe Zarathusthtra's whole point - as with any process philosopher - is to leave the choice free (or rather explain that it always is) but then try to understand end explain the CONSEQUENCES of choices taken. It is quite easy for us to choose logically - and foresee the PRACTICAL and PHYSICAL consequences of our actions - but the really tough question which absorbed Zarathushtra is the question of WHAT OUR CHOICES DO TO US. Who am I before I choose? Who do I become after my choice? And who do I become after the consequences of actions taken become apparent? Which direction in my life are my actions taking ME as seen by myself?
This is a concern Zarathushtra shared with Nietzsche, but which does not seem to concern Zizek much (who doesn't speak of affirmation in his works). I believe it is the most important question of all. Nihilsim becomes AFFIRMATIVE the second it is properly thought through, and acted upon, this is when it becomes an AFFIRMATIVE nihilism and creates the opportunity for "amor faiti" or its result, "asha-vahishta".

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/25 Special Kain

@ Alexander:
I agree. The thing that comes next is CHOICE. To choose what to do with it next and how to do it. As Nietzsche pointed out, there are at least two sides to nihilism: nihilism out of strength and nihilism out of weakness.
This is different from Slavoj Zizek's take on Nietzscheanism: active nihilism (one's willingness to destroy everything in equal measure) vs. passive nihilism (one's willingness to surrender to relentless destruction).

@ Hampus:
I really don't understand what you mean. Could you please elaborate on your thoughts? Much appreciated!