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.