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