söndagen den 24:e april 2011

The Difference between asking HOW and asking WHY

No, Parviz, these things have not WORKED. Jesus never returned. And Messiah never showed up. Muslims have to kill infidels because their Allah is too lazy to do the job himself. Their theories are actually completely dysfunctional.
These things were SUCCESSFUL, yes, but they did not work. These are very different things.
This is precisely why people have to look for other answers. And do so. We owe them to provide them with something better since this is what we found. Whether we call it Zoroastrianism for historical reasons or Spinozism or Nietzscheanism or Pragmatism for eurocentric reasons, but we should give them the proper answer.
As Daniel said, the question has to be the proper one. We are not concerned with why (as we make that up ourselves and it is not a given) but with HOW.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/4/24 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Daniel (and Alexander too)

I tend to come back too quickly at times in res ponce to others and that can cost me. I went over and over what you are trying to say and it has been educational; educational but also depressing. It has been depressing since it almost establishes it for a fact that the minds of us humans must be flawed and it must have a built in self destruct factor in it. This is why we are destroying the planet because this is built in and hardwired in our systems.

Alexander may say that no one is paying attention to the three sister religions any more, but he is wrong. The majority of earth's population (by a very very large margin the majority compared to those who think otherwise) are being born and die in religions that are hardwired to destroy the planet. You say >>"One thing that seprerates the living from the dead is that living creatures make choices. The choices ether don't work satisfactory or they do work brillant."<<. I say that mankind has chosen to let grow religions that are based on Earth Destroying Principals and these principals have worked brilliantly for these religions. The "Fall From Grace", the "Original Sin", the Books of "Revelation", the "Judgment of Souls" and many more of these concepts have succeeded, so I must shut up and go suck an egg because these things HAVE WORKED, THEY HAVE WORKED BRILLIANTLY.

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

The Difference between Zoroastrianism and the Abrahamic faiths

Dear Parviz

You're being deeply unfair. Daniel is not playing word games.
If you didn't understand what he wrote, say so, but don't accuse him of playing word games just because YOU didn't get what he was saying. You're beginning to sound like Ronald Delavega here.
And as for the restroom analogy. Zarathushtra would have said that restrooms are placed in different places depending on the architectural design which varies from place to place. He would then have told you to ask the usher for the way to the restroom.
While Jesus and Moses and Muhammed would have told you exactly where the restroom was with you finding any restroom in that location being very very unlikely. That's the difference between Zoroastrianism and Abrahamism.
Which director would you prefer?

Ushta
Alexander

2011/4/23 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Daniel,

I wish that even as an exercise in the absurd, you would have obliged me and given my questions some kind of a straight answer. Suppose I ask a park attendant the direction to the park's restrooms and he tells me that since I can never actually get to those restrooms, it would be pointless for him to give me directions to them. His argument that since while traveling to the restrooms, at some point my distance to those restrooms becomes half as much as my distance to those restrooms, I can then logically never get there because there will always be another half distance that I have not traveled yet! There I stand wetting my pants in anxiety over the most basic of questions by which religions have kept mankind hostage ever since the dawn of time, and instead of straight answers, you play word games that works only in their favor so that they can go on keeping the fools hostage longer.

Parviz

--- On Sat, 4/23/11, Daniel Samani wrote:

From: Daniel Samani
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Daniel and Mazdaism
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 23, 2011, 1:20 PM

I don't really know what to say dear Parviz. I have already pointed out that we are concerned with HOW values are legetmized and not what values, or why we use these values. OFC as you may point out, this can be applyed to other knowleage like facts about the world. That branch is called science, I can't give better answer then science does when it comes to facts.

As far as science is concerned we apply the scientific method to gain knowledge. THATS HOW!!! Just as an side note, you seam to have an categorical mindset to ethics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

I regonized this as you applied the pragmatist maxim on your categorical reasoning. But, one have to understand that an pragmatist worth the name view things in regards to habits, and not categorical absoluts. You see we indeed doesn't have free will, we are creatures of habites just as all other animals are. We can only do what we as humans KNOW to be the best action according to the values that we cherries (why then not have values that works?? ;)) ).

One thing that seprerates the living from the dead is that living creatures make choices. The choices ether don't work satisfactory or they do work brillant. Let's take the plant as an example, it's living in the sense that it can make choices. It choses to grow towards the light, if it wouldn't have done this it would have died eventially in the shade. In other words it doesn't work to grow towards the shade. The rocks on the other hand, can't make choices and are therefore effectively dead.

Ushta,

Daniel

2011/4/23 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Daniel,

I must thank you for making me think. I get quite a number of mails, so when you refer to a previous statement, please don't erase the original. For example when you say "Quite a radical statement", I do not know what statement you are referring to.

I believe that when we say "Water does not flow uphill", this is a true statement even though I know that there are many ways that we can make water flow uphill. To teach me how you would respond to some of the questions that religions have kept mankind hostage with for a long time, let me ask them of you and see how you would answer them. Please! shall we try?

Q- Where do we come from?
Q- Where are we going to?
Q- Why were we made?
Q- Who made us and why?
Q- Is there a life after death?
Q- Could Jesus have walked on water?
Q- Is there a Soul separate from the body?
Q- Do Jinns actually exist?

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

lördagen den 23:e april 2011

Epistemology, asha and druj (Part 3)

I'm not cutting anybody down.
There are only vocabularies. I use my vocabulary and you use yours. "There is nothing outside of language" Wittgenstein
Så if I cut anybody down then I cut EVERYBODY down. And maybe that's a good start!
I rarely use the terms Truth and Lie because if I find they often lead people in the wrong directions (including making them they think they understand things they do not really understand and making them believe their claims have substance because they sound good in a common sense sort of way but really don't amount to much). I prefer to use terms like Relevance and Attitude, it is a vocabulary that I find more useful. It is also closer to what Zarathushtra meant with asha and druj. He was 100% concerned with USEFULNESS and not with winning some war on metaphysics.
So usefulness is what we are concerned with as Zoroastrians. Making absolute claims on what is true and what is a lie is where Abrahamism goes all wrong. To break Zoroastrianism out of the Abrahamic void, we need to translate our fundamental terminology better. As Daniel has so intelligently pointed out already.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/4/23 Parviz Varjavand

And what does "if using your vocabulary" mean? First you cut me down as if my vocabulary is that of an ignoramus, and next you use "my vocabulary" to make a point. Are you lowering yourself to the level of us peasants to make a point so that we the crude can also understand what you want to say? Why don't you use YOUR vocabulary so that I can cut it to shreds with the same arguments that you cut mine to shreds!?

--- On Sat, 4/23/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Epistemology, asha and druj
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 23, 2011, 5:57 AM

As sure as I can possibly be, as TRUE as a TRUTH can possibly be, if using your vocabulary.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/4/23 Parviz Varjavand

How could you be so sure that the payee does not get to any heaven?
????? & ?????

--- On Sat, 4/23/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Epistemology, asha and druj
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 23, 2011, 5:13 AM

No, since the payee does not get to any heaven, "the lie" actually does not work at all.
"Druj" still means "that which does not work", "that which does not fit", no matter how hard you try to turn "druj" into something else which I must admit seems intellectually inferior to Zarathushtra's genial meaning.
Even a term like "druj" should be treated with the attitude of "asha"...
Ushta
Alexander

Epistemology, asha and druj (Part 2)

No, since the payee does not get to any heaven, "the lie" actually does not work at all.
"Druj" still means "that which does not work", "that which does not fit", no matter how hard you try to turn "druj" into something else which I must admit seems intellectually inferior to Zarathushtra's genial meaning.
Even a term like "druj" should be treated with the attitude of "asha"...
Ushta
Alexander

2011/4/23 Parviz Varjavand

Hi Alex and Daniel,

In many places, specially in politics and religion, the lie works just fine. "Give me your money and I will reserve you a place in Heaven", religion says. Is religion telling the truth or is it lying? The statement comes in a time the believer has great need for some security and the religion gives it to him/her and they both get what they need, money for the priesthood and comfort for the believer. So according to you this statement must be the Truth, it comes at the right time, produces the right results and everybody is happy. Viva this kind of Truth!

Parviz

--- On Sat, 4/23/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Epistemology, asha and druj
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 23, 2011, 3:15 AM

Another word for what Daniel is talking about here is epistemology.
Feel free to dig into the terminology at this Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
We can not credibly say that we know (or do not know) something unless we also specify how we came to that conclusion and while we are also aware that the language we use to describe this "knowledge" has a lot of built-in limitations too.
What is interesting is not so much whether a statement is true or false but whether it is constructive and relevant rather than merely destructive and pointless.
Opening a copy of "Little Red Ridinghood" when asked about how the physics of the Universe works is not so much a matter of LYING rather than a matter of reading the wrong or rather irrelevant litterature for the task that is to be solved.
"Asha" literally means "the right thing in the right place to make something work". As its opposite "druj" does not really mean "lie" but rather "the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time to work". Literally: That which does not work.
Zarathushtra was simply the first Pragmatist, that is his stunning historical achievement.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/4/23 Daniel Samani

Dear Parviz Varjavand,

Indeed it's a quite radical statement. The kind of reasoning used by you, turns down to a play on words on your part. What is the lie you so fanatically disgust? I am interpreting it as you do the same mistake as all Abramatic religions. IT'S HOW YOU COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SOMETHING IS A TRUTH OR A LIE THAT MATTERS!!!!! Essentially to my mind Christianity also have this concept, it's called holy spirit!! The problem is however that, it's quite random and vage how you gain the ability (probably because the writers have no idea and could care less).

In your reasoning this far you are on the WHAT and WHY level. You call somthing to be false or a lie. But you don't provide HOW you came to that conclusion, it's the same as all other dogma but backwards. An dogmatic anti-dogma if you so will. It's not enough to know what and why something is true or false. The more valuable dimension is HOW something becomes true or false. At least this is my perspective!

Ushta,

Daniel

Epistemology, asha and druj

Another word for what Daniel is talking about here is epistemology.
Feel free to dig into the terminology at this Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
We can not credibly say that we know (or do not know) something unless we also specify how we came to that conclusion and while we are also aware that the language we use to describe this "knowledge" has a lot of built-in limitations too.
What is interesting is not so much whether a statement is true or false but whether it is constructive and relevant rather than merely destructive and pointless.
Opening a copy of "Little Red Ridinghood" when asked about how the physics of the Universe works is not so much a matter of LYING rather than a matter of reading the wrong or rather irrelevant litterature for the task that is to be solved.
"Asha" literally means "the right thing in the right place to make something work". As its opposite "druj" does not really mean "lie" but rather "the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time to work". Literally: That which does not work.
Zarathushtra was simply the first Pragmatist, that is his stunning historical achievement.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/4/23 Daniel Samani

Dear Parviz Varjavand,

Indeed it's a quite radical statement. The kind of reasoning used by you, turns down to a play on words on your part. What is the lie you so fanatically disgust? I am interpreting it as you do the same mistake as all Abramatic religions. IT'S HOW YOU COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SOMETHING IS A TRUTH OR A LIE THAT MATTERS!!!!! Essentially to my mind Christianity also have this concept, it's called holy spirit!! The problem is however that, it's quite random and vage how you gain the ability (probably because the writers have no idea and could care less).

In your reasoning this far you are on the WHAT and WHY level. You call somthing to be false or a lie. But you don't provide HOW you came to that conclusion, it's the same as all other dogma but backwards. An dogmatic anti-dogma if you so will. It's not enough to know what and why something is true or false. The more valuable dimension is HOW something becomes true or false. At least this is my perspective!

Ushta,

Daniel

fredagen den 22:e april 2011

In defense of Mazdaism

I'm certainly not cutting down Mazdaism, Parviz, I'm merely cutting down your guruhood on the grounds that you defended it. I expect more from a guru than just negations of what other previous gurus have claimed. I want substance. I believe Mazdaism can deliver that substance. But Parviz The Prophet needs to sharpen his arguments. ;-) Let's try that together!
By the way, to say that "something can not be known" is unfortunately a self-contradictory statement. If something CAN NOT be known, then how come we can know for sure that this can not be known? Of course we can't.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/4/22 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alex,

First you say that you like Mazdaism and that you have found a new translation of Gatha that fits its mold and next you cut it down like this! I have posted plenty here on Ushta telling all about the many positive points of Mazdaism. In the post that I repeated "We Don't Know", pay attention that I did not say "I don't know". Here We stands for all of humanity, or at least, the four members that this new religion has ;-) There are questions to which We humans "Can not know the answer". A Mazdaist says "We Don't Know" to them and then finishes with them. This means a Mazdaist does not go chasing after new translations of Gatha that MAY say "We don't know if there is life after death", no more drooling at the mouth so that some sacred text may agree with us. We establish once and for all that if you are a Mazdaist, you have filed these questions in the dead file of "We Don't Know" and will not bother looking for an answer for them, not in this book, not under that rug, not in the corner of that cave in Damavand, nor anywhere any more. Finish, Khalass, No More Discussion. This is an answere in itself and not a question.

You can be a Zoroastrian Mazdaist, a Christian Mazdaist, a Budhist Mazdaist, an Atheist Mazdaist, Etc. Etc. As a Mazdaist, you refuse to look for an answere to Devyasna questions any more. In that way, you cut away all the dead weight of that school of thought and you concentrate on all the positive that may still be left in that mother religion after you have discarded the "We Don't Know" parts of it. This is an answere in itself, so do not belittle it.

Parviz Varjavand

--- On Fri, 4/22/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Re: What is Mazdaism?
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Cc: zoroastrians@yahoogroups.com, mithras@egroups.com
Date: Friday, April 22, 2011, 1:42 AM

Saying that you don't know is the easy way out, Parviz!
It doesn't say anything in itself.
Just that the other guys got it wrong (surprise!).
But in what way do you get it right then? Saying they're wrong doesn't make you right. A negation is just a negation, it's not an answer.
Why even bother with your religion if negation is all you can service?
The RELEVANT QUESTION in the world in 2011 is in what way can you serve people something that is better than just atheism with hedonism? No intelligent person cares about Abrahamic faiths etc anymore anyway.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/4/22 Parviz Varjavand

Alexander,

First of all, you do not say "Get It" to the G.G. (Grand Guru) of Mazdaism! He's "Got It", or else he would not be starting a new religion!

Second, by the time you go try >>> "Based on a constantly more intensive search of understanding reality and even critically understanding how our reality is produced by us. This is also how we can separate asha from druj"<<< by reading more and more translations of moldy books, your brain gets moldy, and you may come out of the closet some day calling yourself the G.G. of Mazdaism, or as you have done, the G.G. of some secret Mithraic sect.

Mehr Afzoon!
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Thu, 4/21/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard

Subject: Re: [Ushta] Re: What is Mazdaism?
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Cc: zoroastrians@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, April 21, 2011, 2:07 PM

Parviz

I believe you misunderstood Daniel's statement. With HOW statements are legitimized is precisely the question of how statements get their value: Based on a constantly more intensive search of understanding reality and even critically understanding how our reality is produced by us. This is also how we can separate asha from druj (and therefore also make an opposition against those who lazily adher to druj rather than asha and who thereby personify druj rather than asha). Get it?

Ushta
Alexander

2011/4/21 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Daniel Samani

Question: Are your values legitimized based on LIES?

Parviz

--- On Thu, 4/21/11, Daniel Samani wrote:

From: Daniel Samani
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Re: What is Mazdaism?
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, April 21, 2011, 6:05 AM

Essentially we are concerned with HOW values are legitimized, and NOT what values and why those values are valid.