The Civilizationism of Zarathushtra (was: The Secret of Ethics - trial and error)

Excellently put!!!
In other words: The possibly BEST translations to English of "asha" and "druj" are Longsightedness versus Shortsightedness.
Zarathushtra detests the tribes who plunder open villages in Central Asia because they destroy civilization and also themselves ethically in the process. What he detests is not the destruction itself (that would be tantamount to moralizing which he is careful not to do) but the shortsightedness of the whole behavior, the historical backwardness of the whole thing.
Pure ethics in other words. I would even call it "Civilizationism".

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/3 Special Kain

Dear Daniel

Please ignore my previous posting. :-)

As a matter of fact, our closest relatives in the animal kingdom share the same "moral instincts" with us. And there are a few basic rules that we share with all other human beings whether they live in modern metropolises or still in small tribes in exotic forests. These "moral instincts" are a result of evolution by means of natural selection. They must be several 100,000 years old. They are adaptations to the natural and social environments in which certain species developed. For example, altruism is a widespread phenomenon.

Of all animals on this planet, we human beings have always been one of the nastiest. When moaning about the current pollution and destruction of our environment, we have to remember that human beings have always been harmful and destructive. Now we have new technologies to destroy our environment more efficiently and effectively.

It has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between cultural evolution and biology. However, biologists are not able to explain cultural evolution. They recently tried memetics, but ironically memetics hasn't made a big dent in the scientific community.

What matters here is complexity. Civilization has become more and more complex over time. Natural selection hasn't prepared us for this dramatic increase in complexity and contingency. The few basic programs that we share with our ancestors don't help us here. Also, we developed LANGUAGE and the CAPACITY TO SPEAK which changes the whole picture. What postmodernists and poststructuralists got wrong is their belief that language was everything that matters. They completely ignore our natural heritage such as the few "moral instincts" and behavioral patterns that are part of our personalities. And communication isn't all about sending out and receiving messages. The very act of communication is part of communication. Any purely strategic take on communication describes sociopathy.

What comes with greater complexity is CHOICE. Zarathushtra said in Yasna 48 - Verse 4 that the outcomes of our words and actions are different according to the NATURE of our thoughts (constructive thoughts lead to good changes, destructive thoughts lead to bad changes). He applied LONG-TERM THINKING to his contemporaries' ways of life. So it isn't only language that is crucial, it is also our capacity to think for the long term and base our choices on long-term thinking. This is where ethics steps in and assesses our heritage.

Seen from this perspective, morality is concerned with preservation and ethics is concerned with selection. Morality is directed at the past, whereas ethics is directed at the future. This explains why Zarathushtra's philosophy is at the very heart of CIVILIZATION and CULTURAL EVOLUTION. It is a primary force within the forces of nature - in Nietzschean and Deleuzian terms: it is an active force within reactive forces.

Now please correct if I make things seem less complex than they are.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Special Kain
Betreff: AW: [Ushta] The Secret of Ethics - trial and error
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Mittwoch, 3. August, 2011 13:30 Uhr

Dear Daniel

As a matter of fact, our closest relatives in the animal kingdom share "moral instincts" with us. There are a few basic rules that we share with almost all other human beings, whether they live in modern metropolises or still in small tribes in exotic forests. These "moral instincts" are a result of evolution by means of natural selection. They are adaptations to the natural and social environments in which certain species developed. For example, altruism is a widespread phenomenon.

Of all animals on this planet, we human beings have always been the nastiest. When moaning about the current pollution and destruction of our environment, we have to remember that human beings have always been harmful and destructive. It has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between cultural evolution and biology. However, biologists are not able to explain cultural evolution. They recently tried memetics, but ironically memetics hasn't made a big dent in the scientific community.

Morality is concerned with preservation. We have always done it this way, we will keep on doing it this way. We follow our ancestors' path. The only way to survive and be successful is SUBMISSION. We will not accept any deviations, since they can lead to harm. Danger is evil.

Ethics is concerned with attitude. For example, Zarathushtra said in Yasna 48 - Verse 4 that the outcomes of our words and actions are different in accordance with the NATURE of our thoughts (constructive thoughts lead to good changes, destructive thoughts lead to bad changes). He applied LONG-TERM THINKING to his contemporaries' ways of life. So danger might be necessary in order to achieve something that will be more beneficial for everybody.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Daniel Samani
Betreff: [Ushta] The Secret of Ethics - trial and error
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Dienstag, 2. August, 2011 09:44 Uhr


To my mind this video reflects the diffrence between an ethical and an moral approach. To admit to ourselfs that we don't know - let's focus to make our minds see the diffrence between asha and druj. Or that which works between that which does not work. This is the ethical way of life - as i have understod it.

http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_harford.html