I believe both Zarathushtra's and Spinoza's lesson is that there are other interests than those of The Individual. It is precisely when we begin to see Existence as a whole as sacred we also begin to see other interests than those of ourselves. We move beyond nihilism. Zarathushtra actually speaks very little about The Individual (other than as the causal and ethical process where thoughts become words become action), he is far more concerned with The World as a whole and holding it sacred, to point beyond our current existences, as Dino puts it: Zarathushtra is as corcerned with intersubjectivity as he is with subjectivity. His goal is not hedonism but Creating Civilizations.
2011/8/10 SHAHROOZ ASH
Hope all is well and good.
Yes Correct - Good and right for whom and according to whom. Things can only be good and right - I call it IDEAL (ASHA) for an individual.
And, if that individual compromises what is ideal because of others, then here is the conflict between; Singular & plural. However, sometimes,
IDEAL (AHSA) can be compatible with your choice and others - but in most cases it is struggle. Unless we all have our own individual universes.
Wishing you the best (Behesht),
CC: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:44:40 +0200
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Re: [zoroastrians] A Scientist and a Judge
Which is precisely why I never speak of "good" or "right" in connection to asha since "good" or "right" are meaningless terms unless you specify "goof for WHOM?" or "right according to WHOM?". It's platitudes that mean nothing. Or rather they become CONSERVING terms of death rather than life.
Better to speak of "constructive thoughts", "constructive words", constructive actions" since this is what Zarathushtra spoke about. He was certainly not an idiot and he hated meaningless clichés that made people stop thinking rather than thinking new and fresh and creative ideas. Otherwise you just end up with "conservative thoughts", "conservative words", and "conservative actions" as Parsi isolationists and those with Islam-envy mistakenly interpret Zarathushtra's excellent concepts.
To this mistreatment of Zarathushtra's philosophy, we should of course respond with a "constructive and creative mentality" and be vehemently opposed to "conservatism". Asha does mean "the which fits" or "how things work". But Asha is not what we should do as much as how things work. How we then think, speak, and act in relation to Asha is an entirely different matter which the translation in itself is not enough to answer.
2011/8/10 Parviz Varjavand
Dear Ostad Jafarey,
I thank Ms. Zaneta for coming to my rescue. I do not keep a files on you as I do not feel that I am in a legal battle with you. We are discussing philosophical issues here and what you say “Asha is the right thing to do, at the right time, at the right place and with the right means to have the right result” and what Mr. Dino Kane says Asha is “That which FITS” sounds pretty much the same to me. Can you see someone using “..the right thing to do, at the right time, at the right place and with the right means to have the right result” and producing a result that does not “FIT” the situation at hand? I rest my case and promise to try and not mention you by name again in any non substantiated reference
Your very dumb ex-student,
From: Zaneta Garratt
To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; group
Sent: Tue, August 9, 2011 4:13:34 AM
Subject: RE: [zoroastrians] A Scientist and a Judge
My best wishes to everyone, As i recall, I think it is Dina who explains Asha in a simple way to make it easier to understand as "that which fits"
best wishes from zaneta