The Ethics of Process Philosophy

"Constructive" or "relevant" always have to be constructive or relevant in relation to something which in itself is eventually constructive and relevant in relation to our and our fellow human beings' drives and desires. We will always begin with and end up at the drives and desires of ourselves - as Jacques Lacan pointed out - and also the drives and desires of others - according to Zarathushtra, what he would refer to as "Civilization". Being "constructive" or "relevant" in relation to an isolated desire to destruct - such as today's terrorist in Norway - is the exact opposite of what Zarathushtra meant. It is PRECISELY these people who "storm into villages and kill and destroy" that Zarathushtra is so vehemently opposed to in The Gathas. They are druj in that they have identified themselves with their own hatred and act it out accordingly. It even goes beyond "choice" interestingly enough. Zarathushtra sees mentality neither as choice nor substance but rather as "character", as in many minor choices made over a long period of time. This is why we should pay attention to the small changes in our mentality, this is why we should meditate daily to push our mentalities in the right direction. A process ethics if ever there was one. ;-)
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/23 hampus lindblad

I have a problem with the term relevant used in this fashion as processes can be relevant to druj just as they can be to asha. The relevancy is what ascribes them asha or druj "status" is it not? Isn't the point that the underlining Universe isn't partial to asha or druj, but that that's where our consciousness makes an entry on the stage and get's to partially steer whether our particular play - viewed from the end of our personal reality tunnel - is to be themed based mainly on asha or druj? With varying degree of overlap to the other parallel plays (or processes) taking place in the minds of our fellow beings of course.
Or what am I missing?

Ushta,
Hampus

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Alexander Bard wrote:

Sure thing!

The interesting opposition is not "truth" vs "lie" but rather "relevance" vs "irrelevance".
What we need to do philosophically is to connect "relevance" with "constructivity" and as its opposite couple connect "irrelevance" with "destructivity". Then we have better and more relevant (!) translations of "asha" and "druj" too.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/23 Special Kain

I think we're all pop cultural nomads today in the sense that we have joined different subcultures at different times. We discover something else and we choose to adopt a new set of identities that are in tune with these newly discovered subcultures. Or we co-create something new with like-minded people either online or in the so-called "real world". I have always been part of different subcultures both online and offline. Both online and offline subcultures had a strong impact on who I have become.

Frankly, I don't see any state of mind as more natural than another. This is where I agree with John Dewey and Richard Rorty. Zoroastrian ontology is not "truer" than any other ontology. It's just a vocabulary that creates more possibilities than restraints. And that's why I have chosen to fully identify with Zoroastrian philosophy!

Ushta,
Dino