The Ethics of Zarathushtra: The torture example!

Who said RESULTS are all we are after? I have said all along that EFFECTS is what we are after. Effects is a very different thing from results. Effects also includes WHO YOU BECOME TO YOURSELF by doing what you do. Zarathushtra's ethical triad of constructive thoughts, constructive words, constructive acts is CIRCULAR. The acts also affect the thoughts! Ushta Alexander 2012/8/4 Parviz Varjavand Is Zoroastrianism an ancient form of Machiavellianism? Ahriman is very intelligent and often can teach us tricks with which we can achieve fantastic results. If results is all we are after, then why call Ahriman names? --- On Fri, 8/3/12, Parviz Varjavand wrote: From: Parviz Varjavand Subject: Re: [Ushta] Asha and Ashavands To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, August 3, 2012, 11:20 PM Torturing is a fantastic tool for cutting down crime rates, so torture becomes Asha, and the more devious ways to administer torture becomes Asha-Vahishta? People like me should come out of the woods and smell the roses. Parviz --- On Thu, 8/2/12, Special Kain wrote: From: Special Kain Subject: Re: [Ushta] Asha and Ashavands To: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com" Date: Thursday, August 2, 2012, 8:37 AM Of course! Von: Parviz Varjavand An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com Gesendet: 16:57 Donnerstag, 2.August 2012 Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Asha and Ashavands Hi Dino, Will water boarding at Guantanamo Prison qualify as Asha? It works and gets results! Parviz --- On Thu, 8/2/12, Special Kain wrote: From: Special Kain Subject: [Ushta] Asha and Ashavands To: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com" Date: Thursday, August 2, 2012, 2:41 AM Dear friends, There are scholars who see Asha as righteousness, truthfulness, the cosmic order (= Logos), natural laws (physics, chemistry) and/or the truth. I see Asha simply as that which works best in any given situation. Thus Ashavands (as those who actively promote what is right) choose to do the right thing at the right time in order to contribute constructively and intelligently to civilization: education, gender equality, religious tolerance, ecological sustainability, ... As the enivornment in which we speak and act changes, Asha as "that which works best" will change with it. Asha unites Ahura with Mazda as their common denominator, as both Ahura and Mazda operate according to Asha. Therefore Zarathushtra's doctrine of Asha is monistic: there is only one Asha. Ashavands take Ahura (= existence, the world as it is) as their starting point in order to contribute to Mazda's growth here on Earth. Asha is long-term thinking based on one's constructive mentality, whereas Druj is one's willingness to cause damage, which will of course harm the short-sighted ones who willingly cause damage. But since their will to hurt others is so great, they will gladly hurt themselves if only the others will be hurt, too. Ushta, Dino

Why I turn my back on Ressentiment

Ronald Delavega is still Ronald Delavega - a man whose heart is so full of hatred it's unbelievable. Your problem is that I and my kind don't have time for bitterness of your kind in my precious life. I too much enjoy a life where you don't even exist to me and my friends. But feel welcome to keep your one-man-show of Pentacostal Zoroastrianism running. You even disagree with Ali Jafarey on the fundamentals of his and my faith these days. If you wanted to have a vulgarized religion of which you are the sole practicioner in the world ever, you have indeed succeeded. May you enjoy whatever remains of your bitter and resentful religious isolationism. Goodbye! Ushta Alexander 2012/8/1 Park East Security Ushta Alex First you have no idea Zero as a natter of fact as tro what I have or have not studied. second to claim that because you have studied Avesta, which by the way is not the correct name for the language of the Gathas , that being Old Avestan or Gathic, you and only you KNOW the meanings of words whose ACTUAL, as opposed to wished for, meaning is debated by professionals who have studied the language, its philology , grammar, syntax etc for decades while you were busy making $ with your rock band. What fits and how things words imply , to any one with an open mind and even a minor understanding of the nuances and intricacy of languages, not only Right, but Truth, What is correct, and What is Ordered.(or arranged) Furthermore, Zarathushtra was not born in an sterilized egg, kept away from the culture and world views of his fellow Aryans, to ignore he cultural context totally as you seem to do is ... well I rather not offend since it solves no problems. But the fact is, according to overwhelming historical evidence, that, CULTURALLY, to contemporary Aryan, Rta and Arta meant several things perhaps the most important being the Cosm9c Law underlying reality or reality itself It is in that context that it could be thought of , and was as right, truth, what fits what is correct May I humbly suggest, a little humility and tolerance before you pass judgment on what others that happen to be in the overwhelming majority of people PROFESSIONALLY QUALIFIED in the field and whose credentials as scholars far outweigh your own? The question of the meaning of Asha, whether you know it or not, or care to admit it or not, is far from being as easily determined as you state. In reality, considering the many varied opinions of scholars and the nuances of Old Avestan, its antiquity and isolation, its far more likely that Asha would need to be expressed by a number of different words in modern languages and its meaning established contextually. In other words, in some cases Asha might, primarily, be meant as Order, or even Law, in others, as Truth, in others as Correct, and yet in others as Right and/or Righteous As to objective truth and whether it existed or not for the Aryans we can argue a till the sun dies out and still not come to a conclusion there is a lot of evidence , which you conveniently either ignore or refuse to discuss, that in the Gathas there is a concept of subjective and objective truth. That Asha Vahista implies the Asha as conceived and perceived in the Mainyava existence and that it is devoid of falsehood, deceit, illusion and wrongfulness, that is, of Druj. And , at the same time, it is hinted at by Zarathushtra that we are to act choosing Asha as we perceive it here in this plane where Druj can exist, because we cannot fully perceive the nature of Asha Vahishta from House of Druj, that is, from the state of mind where Druj is possible. But then these nuances of the Gathas are lost on persons that claim to have sole possession of the truth. So be it Go ignore context, philology and the very Gathas if you wish , that is your choice Mine is different and both choices will have their consequences and its those that would tell which was Asha like and which one was not.. Ushta te Ron On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Alexander Bard wrote: Contrary to you, dear Mr Delavega, I have actually bothered to learn Avesta myself. So I don't have to depend on hundreds of "authorities" to make up my own mind as to what I believe, Asha means "that which fits" or "how things work". The concept of "objective truth" did not exist in neither Iranian or Indian philosophy but is a Babylonian concept built into the Abrahamic faiths. Zarathushtra is interested in how we deduct what is true, what is correct, from what we LEARN about the world we live in. Otherwise his RELATIVIST ethics would be impossible. It is consequently wrong and misleading to translate asha as "truth". If asha was truth, Zarathushtra and not the Judaists would have thrown the weight of The Ten Commandments on the world. But then again, yours was always a Judeo-Christian form of Zoroastrianism. The problem is Zarathushtra predates the Abrahamic faiths with at least 700 years. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/29 Park East Security Ushta Alex If you have not heard of scholars translating Asha as truth in the last 20 years then you have not read enough :) If you have not met a scholar in the last 20 years as truth then you have not met enough scholars :) If you mean to say that, in the past twenty years, scholars with new translations have not translated Asha as truth, you are still wrong, but more in line with what has happened. Unfortunately since Insler has concentrated in Sanskrit, and his expected revision or new version has not come forth as of yet, one of the best translators has been mute on the point since then. And the only translator worth his salt to have made a major translation, in the past 20 years is Humbach, who supports right for Asha. However, if you dig around his notes, you will find that he does concede that Asha could have a secondary meaning of truth I am now about to acquire the lattest Gatha translation (By an European ) 'The Hymns of Zoroaster: A New Translation by Professor ML West, and I am told, (the caveat is that I have not yet read the book) he openly advocates for an understanding of Asha that contains all the following meanings What is correct, that is what is right and true, the Universal Law of Creation and Maintenance of Existence immanent in everything that exists. Christian thinking, in the translation of Asha, has very little to do with translating it as Truth. It is far more present in the frequent translation of Asha as Holyness and or Holy by many early European translators. There is no so much emphasis on a truth as an independent or even immanent part of God in the Bible Yeshua ( The Salvationor Savior of/from Yah or God) presumably states I am (which literally means Yah) the truth the way and the life no ones comes to the father but through me. That is the main and 1 of the few statements as truth being a part of God in the Bible . The God is the Bible is first holy, then supposedly righteous and love. The God of the the Gathas Is a Supremely Wise Creator and Good Lord of Existence. .Asha is Her/His "son' ('Pta' means father in the original) so is Vohumanah Good Loving Thinking ( The Vo I believe with Taraporewalla, comes from a Sanskrit root meaning desire love, an Aarmaity Her/His daughter. This can more clearly be seen by Anglophone in the feminine of vo which is van and is a cognate of want) But the Bible never affirms that Truth is an imamnent part or Aspect of God, nor that there is an opposite deception/illusion chaos that opposes Truth/Right/Order. It merely says that Yah is truth and that the Salvation of Yah (that is Jesus, the Anointed) is the only way to the "Father". The Bible sees the world as 'fallen' the Gathas see the world as Joy Bringing. Early Xian influenced or Xian practicing scholars tended to more direct and crass errors thatn this, like Holy for Spenta and missing the connection between mainyu and mind. However some of them like, Maria Wilkins Smith, saw this connections Insler saw the conection to truth as well, The Greeks which were the most directly influenced my Medan-Achamenian era Zoroastrianism almost universally refered to Asha as truth. If it were a wrong definition of Asha, something that is not quite certain by far, then the blame would go to the Greeks not to Xian scholars. Then, it is important to know that Gathic has other words that mean right. Arta, for example, is a direct cognate of both English right and Sanskrit Rta. So if Zarathushtra wanted to say right, and only right or even right law, why on earth will he not use the word that is most closly related to right in Gathic, which is Arta instead of its derivative, Asha? Furthermore, when the Achaemenians found themselves with an Empire that extended from Ethiopia to China, they need a 'lingua franca', and they chose Aramean as such a language ,because as in English today, it was the most common language of international commerce. Well the word for truth, certainly, verily is amen. it cannot be denied that amen did not enter the Bible untill after the Persian period. Now if an Aramean speaker (and jews at that time were Aramean speakers) were to hear at least 5 times a day (the 5 Gahs) many re[petitions of Ashem Vohu, would it not then Amen which, at least according to the Greeks, meant almost the same as Ashem, become a prayer word for them? Finally, any Parthian-Sassanian era scholar worth his salt would know two things Pahlavi used a great deal of Aramean words and it used Amen ( called it mostly amin) and it used it as truth. So no I don't think we live in different worlds Alex I think that you are ignoring the linguistics because you think they might disagree with your ideas. THat is your choice, ,but if you cared to pay attention to them you will find many cases in which they could (interpretatively speaking) agree with you. What we disagree on is methodology , that leads us to different conclusions. However, neither you nor I can claim to posses the objective Truth; since that can only be known in the other side of the Chinvat. Or as the quasi Zarathushtrian ( in his better more spiritual moments) Paul said : ":...But when the Complete comes (disregard translations that say the Perfect, the Greek word means Complete) then, we will see as we are seen we will kno as we are known ..." The Complete, by the way, is a literal translation of Haurvatat. Hamazor Ron I have not met a single scholar in the past 20 years who translated "asha" as "truth" as the concept of "truth" clearly starts with Judeo-Christian thinking rather than in Iran 3,700 years ago, since people in Iran had a far more scientific approach to the world than in the Babylon where Judaism was born. We seem to live in very different social worlds, dear Ron! Very different worlds. And Zarathushra was concerned 100% with THE MIND and how it operates. He was interested in MENTALITY: so the mentality he describes is a mentality STRIVING FOR TRUTHFULNESS AND HONESTY. But truthfulness is NOT truth! Ushta Alexander 2012/7/25 Park East Security Ushta Alex The problem with your statement above is that Non-European scholars, Zarathushtrians most of them, mostly agree that Asha means truth at least that it is one of its meanings. You are indicting 99% of all Gatha scholars who, at the very least, consider Truth to be a secondary meaning of Asha. . I am sorry but, with all due respect, your credentials cannot be compared to theirs. Giving that fact, forgive me if i totally disagree with you on this issue.. Hamazor Ron On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Alexander Bard wrote: Christian scholars love to translate Zoroastrian texts to suit their fantasy of Zoroastrianism as a primitive prototype for Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/21 Park East Security Ushta Alex I would say that at least 100 translators of the Gaathas disagree with your statements below Asha by the way is translated as Truth by many if not most scholars. But hey what do they know right? Hamazor Ron On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Alexander Bard wrote: No, Parviz what you talk about is NOT truths but INTENTIONS. There are no truths in social contracts, there are only INTENTIONS. As in "Give me your most functional fantasy of how the world works" equals "Give me what is best for me according to your very best intentions". Social contracts are broken when people ON PURPOSE gove you something inferior to what they could have intended. Which is PRECISELY why asha and druj operate as INTENYIONS, as MENTAL conflicts. But Zarathushtra did not use the term truth even once in The Gathas. Nor did he ever speak of lies. Ushta Alexander

How to translate "asha"

Contrary to you, dear Mr Delavega, I have actually bothered to learn Avesta myself. So I don't have to depend on hundreds of "authorities" to make up my own mind as to what I believe, Asha means "that which fits" or "how things work". The concept of "objective truth" did not exist in neither Iranian or Indian philosophy but is a Babylonian concept built into the Abrahamic faiths. Zarathushtra is interested in how we deduct what is true, what is correct, from what we LEARN about the world we live in. Otherwise his RELATIVIST ethics would be impossible. It is consequently wrong and misleading to translate asha as "truth". If asha was truth, Zarathushtra and not the Judaists would have thrown the weight of The Ten Commandments on the world. But then again, yours was always a Judeo-Christian form of Zoroastrianism. The problem is Zarathushtra predates the Abrahamic faiths with at least 700 years. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/29 Park East Security Ushta Alex If you have not heard of scholars translating Asha as truth in the last 20 years then you have not read enough :) If you have not met a scholar in the last 20 years as truth then you have not met enough scholars :) If you mean to say that, in the past twenty years, scholars with new translations have not translated Asha as truth, you are still wrong, but more in line with what has happened. Unfortunately since Insler has concentrated in Sanskrit, and his expected revision or new version has not come forth as of yet, one of the best translators has been mute on the point since then. And the only translator worth his salt to have made a major translation, in the past 20 years is Humbach, who supports right for Asha. However, if you dig around his notes, you will find that he does concede that Asha could have a secondary meaning of truth I am now about to acquire the lattest Gatha translation (By an European ) 'The Hymns of Zoroaster: A New Translation by Professor ML West, and I am told, (the caveat is that I have not yet read the book) he openly advocates for an understanding of Asha that contains all the following meanings What is correct, that is what is right and true, the Universal Law of Creation and Maintenance of Existence immanent in everything that exists. Christian thinking, in the translation of Asha, has very little to do with translating it as Truth. It is far more present in the frequent translation of Asha as Holyness and or Holy by many early European translators. There is no so much emphasis on a truth as an independent or even immanent part of God in the Bible Yeshua ( The Salvationor Savior of/from Yah or God) presumably states I am (which literally means Yah) the truth the way and the life no ones comes to the father but through me. That is the main and 1 of the few statements as truth being a part of God in the Bible . The God is the Bible is first holy, then supposedly righteous and love. The God of the the Gathas Is a Supremely Wise Creator and Good Lord of Existence. .Asha is Her/His "son' ('Pta' means father in the original) so is Vohumanah Good Loving Thinking ( The Vo I believe with Taraporewalla, comes from a Sanskrit root meaning desire love, an Aarmaity Her/His daughter. This can more clearly be seen by Anglophone in the feminine of vo which is van and is a cognate of want) But the Bible never affirms that Truth is an imamnent part or Aspect of God, nor that there is an opposite deception/illusion chaos that opposes Truth/Right/Order. It merely says that Yah is truth and that the Salvation of Yah (that is Jesus, the Anointed) is the only way to the "Father". The Bible sees the world as 'fallen' the Gathas see the world as Joy Bringing. Early Xian influenced or Xian practicing scholars tended to more direct and crass errors thatn this, like Holy for Spenta and missing the connection between mainyu and mind. However some of them like, Maria Wilkins Smith, saw this connections Insler saw the conection to truth as well, The Greeks which were the most directly influenced my Medan-Achamenian era Zoroastrianism almost universally refered to Asha as truth. If it were a wrong definition of Asha, something that is not quite certain by far, then the blame would go to the Greeks not to Xian scholars. Then, it is important to know that Gathic has other words that mean right. Arta, for example, is a direct cognate of both English right and Sanskrit Rta. So if Zarathushtra wanted to say right, and only right or even right law, why on earth will he not use the word that is most closly related to right in Gathic, which is Arta instead of its derivative, Asha? Furthermore, when the Achaemenians found themselves with an Empire that extended from Ethiopia to China, they need a 'lingua franca', and they chose Aramean as such a language ,because as in English today, it was the most common language of international commerce. Well the word for truth, certainly, verily is amen. it cannot be denied that amen did not enter the Bible untill after the Persian period. Now if an Aramean speaker (and jews at that time were Aramean speakers) were to hear at least 5 times a day (the 5 Gahs) many re[petitions of Ashem Vohu, would it not then Amen which, at least according to the Greeks, meant almost the same as Ashem, become a prayer word for them? Finally, any Parthian-Sassanian era scholar worth his salt would know two things Pahlavi used a great deal of Aramean words and it used Amen ( called it mostly amin) and it used it as truth. So no I don't think we live in different worlds Alex I think that you are ignoring the linguistics because you think they might disagree with your ideas. THat is your choice, ,but if you cared to pay attention to them you will find many cases in which they could (interpretatively speaking) agree with you. What we disagree on is methodology , that leads us to different conclusions. However, neither you nor I can claim to posses the objective Truth; since that can only be known in the other side of the Chinvat. Or as the quasi Zarathushtrian ( in his better more spiritual moments) Paul said : ":...But when the Complete comes (disregard translations that say the Perfect, the Greek word means Complete) then, we will see as we are seen we will kno as we are known ..." The Complete, by the way, is a literal translation of Haurvatat. Hamazor Ron

Truthfulness vs Truth

I haven't met a single scholar in the past 20 years who translated "asha" as "truth" as the concept of "truth" clearly starts with Judeo-Christian thinking rather than in Iran 3,700 years ago, since people in Iran had a far more scientific approach to the world than in the Babylon where Judaism was born. We seem to live in very different social worlds, dear Ron! Very different worlds. And Zarathushra was concerned 100% with THE MIND and how it operates. He was interested in MENTALITY: so the mentality he describes is a mentality STRIVING FOR TRUTHFULNESS AND HONESTY. But truthfulness is NOT truth! Ushta Alexander 2012/7/25 Park East Security Ushta Alex The problem with your statement above is that Non-European scholars, Zarathushtrians most of them, mostly agree that Asha means truth at least that it is one of its meanings. You are indicting 99% of all Gatha scholars who, at the very least, consider Truth to be a secondary meaning of Asha. . I am sorry but, with all due respect, your credentials cannot be compared to theirs. Giving that fact, forgive me if i totally disagree with you on this issue.. Hamazor Ron On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Alexander Bard wrote: Christian scholars love to translate Zoroastrian texts to suit their fantasy of Zoroastrianism as a primitive prototype for Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/21 Park East Security Ushta Alex I would say that at least 100 translators of the Gaathas disagree with your statements below Asha by the way is translated as Truth by many if not most scholars. But hey what do they know right? Hamazor Ron On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Alexander Bard wrote: No, Parviz what you talk about is NOT truths but INTENTIONS. There are no truths in social contracts, there are only INTENTIONS. As in "Give me your most functional fantasy of how the world works" equals "Give me what is best for me according to your very best intentions". Social contracts are broken when people ON PURPOSE gove you something inferior to what they could have intended. Which is PRECISELY why asha and druj operate as INTENYIONS, as MENTAL conflicts. But Zarathushtra did not use the term truth even once in The Gathas. Nor did he ever speak of lies. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/19 Parviz Varjavand Mats, Go back and read my previous posts, I am a consistent and logical writer. The truth behind "Natural Facts" is not that different from "Social Facts". When before a trip you go to a tire shop and ask the tire man "what is a safe air pressure I can put in my tire", you are after a relative truth that you feel he may know better than you. If you smell booze on his breath and feel that he may be intoxicated, you will not ask your question and go somewhere else. In effect, you are after the "truth of a contract" established by the police, the tire manufacturer, those who have monitored the highways for years, and so on. You are not after Science giving you "The Ultimate and Infallible Truth of what a TIRE IS". What Alex and Dino accuse me of trying to say is what is perverted, not what I am saying. Ushta, Parviz Varjavand --- On Thu, 7/19/12, Mats Andrén wrote: From: Mats Andrén Subject: Re: [Ushta] "Asha and Droj" To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, July 19, 2012, 6:44 AM Sorry. I fail to follow how this argument connects to your previous arguments. You are now suddenly talking about intersubjective agreements, which is certainly not what you seemed to be talking about before when using the word "truth". You seem to blend the quite different ideas of natural facts and social facts. ...or in fact, I am unsure whether you blend them or not (at different times you give different impressions). In short, I can't follow! Best, Mats On 2012-07-19 15.25, Parviz Varjavand wrote: > Hi Mats, > > First of all, I am not in a dialog with Alex or Dino any more, because they insult me as a spice of their conversation; they can get lost in whatever dimension of fantasy that turns them on these days. Alex acts like he owns Ushta and all ideas expressed in it, another Ronald Delavega. > > We live in a world that Mithra still rules and contracts are very important in it. What is any truth expressed in any contract? It is a relative truth, but a truth that both sides of a contract choose to agree upon (like tying your seat belts). When there is a problem in a contract and you take it to a judge, the judge asks you to raise your right hand and "Tell the truth, only the truth, and nothing but the truth". By that, he or she is not after "The Ultimate Truth in the Universe" that Alex and Dino accuse me of being on the lookout for. Yet the judge asks for the truth of "the contract" that civilized men tend to establish between themselves. He/She does not ask the guy "raise your right hand and depending on whatever hallucinogen you are taking these days, tell me where your fantasies are taking you." > > Zoroastrianism is a pro civilization religion and civilization moves forward by good contracts. Please read what I write more carefully and don't go on the same bandwagon that Alex and Dino tend to go on and accuse and insults me based on things that I have never said but they perceive that I am saying. > > Ushta, > Parviz Varjavand

Asha as "qualitative intersubjective agreement"

Exactly! And this is called INTERSUBJECTIVE AGREEMENTS rather than OBJECTIVE TRUTHS. Intersubjective agreements are consequently "more or less true" but never completely true and rarely completely false either (although sometimes they are, just being popular, Jesus having walked on water being a perfect example of such an obvious lie many consider intersubjectively agreeable anyway, although obviously not non-Christians like myself). Outside of such tautological agreements as 1+1=2 there are no verbal absolute truths. So "truth" in Zarathushtra's sense ("asha") is that which seems to work after having been tried and tested over and over by many and therefore become a functioning intersubjective agreement. Like a "scientific truth-agreement". Zarathushra understood Immanuel Kant thousands of years before Kant even lived. And Schelling is the giant of German philosophers of epistemology. Recommended reading! Ushta Alexander 2012/7/25 Parviz Varjavand Dear friends, When they say someone is "DERANGED", it usualy means that the person is psycotic or even mad. They keep the seriously Deranged persons in mental institutions and even in padded cells and under lock and key at times. A deranged person may act normal in many instencas, but it is a given that a "Deranged" person is not a "Normal" person. "Reality", "Truth", "Asha", "Sanity", "Sience", and many more key words in our culture and civilisation describe a "RANGE of Agreed Upon Norms". Outside that Range, many things do happen also, but When Not Deranged persons talk about them, it implies usualy that they are talking about things that fall whithin that range. In our discussions about "Asha" or "Truth",etc., many forget that we are talking about this "RANGE" of things and not about the absolute of them. Ushta, Parviz

Asha vs Druj (as mental phenomena)

No, Parviz what you talk about is NOT truths but INTENTIONS. There are no truths in social contracts, there are only INTENTIONS. As in "Give me your most functional fantasy of how the world works" equals "Give me what is best for me according to your very best intentions". Social contracts are broken when people ON PURPOSE gove you something inferior to what they could have intended. Which is PRECISELY why asha and druj operate as INTENYIONS, as MENTAL conflicts. But Zarathushtra did not use the term truth even once in The Gathas. Nor did he ever speak of lies. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/19 Parviz Varjavand Mats, Go back and read my previous posts, I am a consistent and logical writer. The truth behind "Natural Facts" is not that different from "Social Facts". When before a trip you go to a tire shop and ask the tire man "what is a safe air pressure I can put in my tire", you are after a relative truth that you feel he may know better than you. If you smell booze on his breath and feel that he may be intoxicated, you will not ask your question and go somewhere else. In effect, you are after the "truth of a contract" established by the police, the tire manufacturer, those who have monitored the highways for years, and so on. You are not after Science giving you "The Ultimate and Infallible Truth of what a TIRE IS". What Alex and Dino accuse me of trying to say is what is perverted, not what I am saying. Ushta, Parviz Varjavand --- On Thu, 7/19/12, Mats Andrén wrote: From: Mats Andrén Subject: Re: [Ushta] "Asha and Droj" To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, July 19, 2012, 6:44 AM Sorry. I fail to follow how this argument connects to your previous arguments. You are now suddenly talking about intersubjective agreements, which is certainly not what you seemed to be talking about before when using the word "truth". You seem to blend the quite different ideas of natural facts and social facts. ...or in fact, I am unsure whether you blend them or not (at different times you give different impressions). In short, I can't follow! Best, Mats On 2012-07-19 15.25, Parviz Varjavand wrote: > Hi Mats, > > First of all, I am not in a dialog with Alex or Dino any more, because they insult me as a spice of their conversation; they can get lost in whatever dimension of fantasy that turns them on these days. Alex acts like he owns Ushta and all ideas expressed in it, another Ronald Delavega. > > We live in a world that Mithra still rules and contracts are very important in it. What is any truth expressed in any contract? It is a relative truth, but a truth that both sides of a contract choose to agree upon (like tying your seat belts). When there is a problem in a contract and you take it to a judge, the judge asks you to raise your right hand and "Tell the truth, only the truth, and nothing but the truth". By that, he or she is not after "The Ultimate Truth in the Universe" that Alex and Dino accuse me of being on the lookout for. Yet the judge asks for the truth of "the contract" that civilized men tend to establish between themselves. He/She does not ask the guy "raise your right hand and depending on whatever hallucinogen you are taking these days, tell me where your fantasies are taking you." > > Zoroastrianism is a pro civilization religion and civilization moves forward by good contracts. Please read what I write more carefully and don't go on the same bandwagon that Alex and Dino tend to go on and accuse and insults me based on things that I have never said but they perceive that I am saying. > > Ushta, > Parviz Varjavand > > --- On Thu, 7/19/12, Mats Andrén wrote: > >> From: Mats Andrén >> Subject: Re: [Ushta] "Asha and Droj" >> To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com >> Date: Thursday, July 19, 2012, 2:28 AM >> Parviz, >> >> There are definitely many things in between complete >> relativism of the >> "anything goes" kind (which I, by the way, doesn't really >> know anyone >> who defends) and realism of the naive kind. No need to >> polarize. Don't >> confuse the idea of "truth" with a world painted in the >> black and white >> colors of formal logic: there are no experiential nor >> scientific >> evidence in favor of such a black/white world. I would also >> be careful >> to put my opponents in such black and white boxes. I have to >> say that I >> agree with Alexander that to argue the way you do is a very >> lazy way of >> tackling the problem: trying to hide it rather than facing >> it. ("I don't >> want the world to be difficult to grasp, so I stipulate that >> it isn't.") >> There is indeed a lot of philosophical literature on this >> topic. >> >> I think the word "fantasy" is misleading you, since part of >> its >> semantics implies that something "unreal" or "false" is >> going on, but >> just because a fantasy isn't "reality" per se, it doesn't >> need to be >> "false" in the simplistic sense of the binary true/false >> distinction of >> logic — the issue is far too complex for that. Perhaps a >> better choice >> of word, instead of "fantasy", would be something like >> "conception". >> ("Perception" is a too narrow term I think.) >> >> A somewhat amusing paper that I tend to think of whenever >> simplistic >> either/or debates between relativist/realist positions >> emerge is a paper >> called "Death and Furniture" by Edwards, Ashmore, and >> Potter. It is >> written in a quite bantering manner, and is perhaps not that >> well >> written in all respects, but it is somewhat funny. Among >> other things, >> you will find the (naive) realist in the guise of a magician >> who pulls >> out rabbits (truths) from nowhere: Look! No hands! It's just >> there! >> >> Best, >> Mats

Asha vs Druj - Zarathushtra as the first Pragmatist in History

To say that you are CERTAIN of something when in reality you are not, what is that if not the ultimate lie? How can you build truth ON LIES? What you don't seem to get, Parviz, is how Zarathushtra arrives at what is true and not a lie. You take truths for given when 1. They are not. 2. Zarathushtra never said they are given in advance. A truth BUILT ON A LIE, is not a truth. It's still a lie, an even worse lie. But Zarathushtra understood that THE VERY FIRST THING YOUR SACRED MIND HAS TO DO is to arrive at the truth again and again, questioning your very own PERCEPTIONS. This is what you refuse to see. Which is why you arrive at a vulgarized kindergarden form of Zoroastrianism and not the grown-up wise Mazdayasna variety which Zarathushtra - as the first Pragmatist in history - arrived at. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/19 Parviz Varjavand Dear friends interested in Zoroastrianism, Zoroastrianism tells us to be for Asha and against Droj. "Asha" has been translated as "The Truth" and also "The Law" "Droj" translates as "The Lie". Who is the judge of what is an ASHA and what is a DROJ? We humans using our Vohooman or "Good Mind" are. This is why we do not believe in any pie-in-the sky miracles for guidance. "Mithra" the lord of contracts and truthful behavior is also very concerned with what is True and what is a Lie. When someone works hard to erode the boundaries of what is True, they also erode the boundaries of what is a Lie. When these boundaries are well eroded, there comes a point that you can no longer know what is True and what is a Lie. This is what the Drojvand or followers of Droj want, we Ashavand (another name for Zoroastrians) do not want this. Example: Q- "Can we all be descended from two humans created just like ourselves rather than evolved from lower species?" A- "We don't know, we can't be sure, it is all in what the fantasy in your head tells you it is, because after all, we can not be sure of anything" "Our scientific tools are too crude to tell us what is what" This is the kind of answer many want us to come up with. They may not be conscious of this, but their argument works more for Droj to survive than for Asha to rule the day. Ushta to you, Parviz Varjavand

Experience vs Reality: The differences in quality between fantasies

No, the experiences alone are not an end in themselves. The experiences are only of value to you if you can live with them aftwards and place them within a FUNCTIONING CONTEXT as Zarathushtra did. Which is precisely why hallucinations are hallucinations and not qualitative fantasies that you can USE. Hallucinations are not of much help when you're going to ride what you perceive the be a bicycle. But they can be highly enjoyable nevertheless. But only as hallucinations. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/17 Kenneth Christensen Ushta, Would it be in line with Asha if I were to say that the only thing I know is my experience and my observations? I am open to all possibilities but I think beliefs should be done away with and replaced with direct experience. I do not believe Jesus is alive because he has not come to my door and said "You are following the wrong religion, come follow me." All too often the wacko American evangelicals (who in my opinion are the most irrational Christians of them all) telling me that by them giving me Christ's message he is revealing himself to me. But no. The person preaching to me is revealing himself to me and not Jesus. Yes, I know you can quote a book, but what is YOUR experience? I do ascribe to the mystical (mysteries) because that is what I experience. I definitely know that there is a power of the mind to do awesome things. Why because I experienced it. I had an anxiety tick earlier in the year. I did some deep meditation and started sending thoughts of love to my left arm (where the tick was) and after the meditation the tick was gone. I see nothing supernatural about it. It's an issue of the mind and it's power to heal. This is experience though, not belief. Kenneth

Zarathushtra and Kant vs the Abrahamic religions

This is NOT A STUPID GAME! Go and get yourself an Immanuel Kant anthology and start reading. If whatever works when I use whatever to do whatever THAN IT WORKS. I don't need to know for sure there is telephone in my hand who somebody else decided is a telephone for the process to FUNCTION. And function is all there is. Period. You're a damn Abrahamist, Parviz. You believe in objective truth. You believe objects really ARE are the very objects you perceive them to be. This requires a God who made those forms before you could think them. A Yahweh, an Allah, or a God. You don't get Zarathushtra and you don't get Kant. That is the problem. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/17 Parviz Varjavand Dear Alex, The argument began when we talked about "not being sure there is REALITY". How can you be sure that the telephone you are holding in your hand and want to call Jesus with is REAL? How can you be sure the person you are talking to is real? You can not stop this game halfway and on your terms and win. The game of "how do we know anything is real?" frankly works much more to the advantage of persons of Faith than persons of Reason. Reason needs some solid ground of Logos to stand on while Faith is completely at ease in groundless Chaos. Mehr, Parviz --- On Tue, 7/17/12, Alexander Bard wrote: From: Alexander Bard Subject: Re: [Ushta] Fantasy as another name for Reality? To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2012, 2:23 AM Dera Parviz You need to make a difference between how real a perception FEELS and how real a perception IS. This is what Abrahamists don't do. "Because I FEEL Jesus is alive he must be alive. Because I FEEL Muhammed was right, the Qoran must be correct etc". This is of course just nonsense. How a perception feels is NOTHING BUT FEELING, it does not prove anything at all whatsoever. Your feelings might as well be pure hallucinations. Proof of external existence can only be achieved when the fantasy of your perception is TESTED against a reality which you bump into all the time, around you. Like I say to Jesus people who claim Jesus is alive: "Well, just give me his phone number and I'll call Jesus for verification." Since Jesus has no phone number, I can just disregard them and tell them I frankly don't care at all about their Jesus story until I can talk to the Jesus body in question myself. Until then, their fantasy i obviously false while my own fantasy seems to work, is in accordance with asha. THIS is what Zarathushtra meant with asha: "Does it work or not?". Ushta Alexander 2012/7/16 Parviz Varjavand Dear Alex, You say that " a perceptive reality, not a real reality. Whether it is valuable or not is decided on whether it works or not - THAT IS WHAT THE TEACHING OF ASHA IS! " I agree with you fully. I am grateful for your teachings. If you want to know what MY problem is, read on, if not, I salute you and Dino and exit the conversation in full friendship. I see that you are reading on, so here it goes. My problem is with the "REAL REALITY" that is being stressed here in your above quote and in so may words used by you and Dino. Obviously there is no REAL REAL REAL REAL REALITY out there. Yet the realities that work for us are VERY REAL and as you put it, ASHA. When I put on my seat-belt in a car, I am dealing with ASHA to protect myself, I am not looking for "The Ultimate Real Reality on par with the absolute perfection of the lord of the universe Mr. Jahova !". When the policeman catches me for not having put on my seat-belt, I can not get out of getting a ticket by arguing that since there is no absolute reality out there; that it is his perception within the fantasies in his head that putting on seat belts works. That in my perception of workable fantasies erroneously called reality, seat-belts do not work and I do not need to put them on! I use examples dear Alex not to torment you, but this is how I reason. Who uses most the argument that science is really helpless to explain it ALL? Every fundamentalist preacher that wants to prove that his brand of Tooth Fairy should not be dismissed because science does not know it ALL uses this argument. Their Tooth Fairy becomes legitimate because since no one can ABSOLUTELY prove that their Tooth Fairy can not exist, it keeps on existing. Forgive me for being long winded. Yours, Parviz

The Pragmatism of Zarathushtra (The Origin of Peirce's and Dewey's thinking)

Exactly, I could not agree more! Ushta Alexander 2012/7/14 Special Kain Of course! Everyone who reads John Dewey's texts, for example "Philosophy and Civilization", will suddenly realize that Zarathushtra was the first pragmatist thinker. You can read The Gathas next to Dewey's texts or Charles Sanders Peirce's texts published in "The Monist". The idea behind pragmatism was already there 3'700 years ago. Ushta, Dino Von: Alexander Bard An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com Gesendet: 11:05 Samstag, 14.Juli 2012 Betreff: [Ushta] The Pragmatism of Zarathushtra (was: Materia, Energy, Time, and Nature) And why not then also make the radical step and ask ourselves who was the first Pragmatist thinker? Zarathushtra of course. He may have shared a belief in some kind of after-life which we today would regard as illogical (and not very useful) but since this was BEYOND Zarathushtra's everyday life, to him this was an area of poetry and gameplaying but not a DOGMATIC TEACHING as in Abrahamism. Which is why we both can and should disregard this part of his speaking. To the contrary, Zarathushtra was interested in the here and now, understanding the human psyche, and focusing on what could be done, on wisdom and not on empty speculation or supramoralism. Which is why Pragmatism dates back all the way to a certain Zarathushtra. Just like Daoism and Zen are also later driven by Pragmatism and not Idealism. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/14 Special Kain I agree with Alexander. Parviz acts like a logical positivist here. I like John Dewey's instrumentalist take on scientific research which states that our fantasies are TOOLS rather than photographs or mirrors that need to be cleaned and polished in order to see the world as it is. Dewey's metaphor accounts for changes in our environment, so we always have to create new tools in order to navigate successfully. Because the tools we use and the reasons for which we use them - and the effects caused by social uses - will affect the environment in which we use them (= feedback loops). And one tool proves successful in one environment, while another tool proves successful in another environment. Simply put, not the truth but the situation decides. Which is trans-rationalism, because we have fantasies which are, logically speaking, mutually exclusive (= which contradict each other) and yet these fantasies work in different environments. As you enter the kitchen and prepare supper, you will "speak a language" that is different from the "language" which you "speak" at your workplace or which scientists "speak" at CERN - which makes perfect sense. And this isn't very far from Nietzsche's perspectivist take on epistemological issues. The world out there (= the nominal chaos) doesn't speak nor it is structured logically or rationalistically. Logic and reason (which both change over time) are tools. Ushta, Dino

Haoma the hallucinogenic drink

Haoma was a hallucinogenic, often dispersed in wine or eaten by bulls whose urine the Zoroastrians then drank to enjoy the hallucinogenic effects without having to vomit first (the bulls vomitted for them). Guess then why man and bull became a whole practice on its own: Mithraism. Contemporary Zoroastrianism is merely a bland theater, the acts without the underlying reasons for the acts. Empty. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/14 Parviz Varjavand Too Bad, I had a fantastic recipe for making Homa, but since you loathe Homeopathy with a vengeance, I will not share it with you. How about Vine? I consider that to be the best homeopathic remedy for depression that I have come across. Do you partake of vine? Next, Science then is the art of measuring fantasy to see which one is less of a fantasy and which one is more of a fantasy. So "Fantasy, Fantasy, all is Fantasy", is that the catch phrase of the new Mazdayasna since nothing is really reality? Ushta, Parviz

The Pragmatism of Zarathushtra (was: Materia, Energy, Time, and Nature)

And why not then also make the radical step and ask ourselves who was the first Pragmatist thinker? Zarathushtra of course. He may have shared a belief in some kind of after-life which we today would regard as illogical (and not very useful) but since this was BEYOND Zarathushtra's everyday life, to him this was an area of poetry and gameplaying but not a DOGMATIC TEACHING as in Abrahamism. Which is why we both can and should disregard this part of his speaking. To the contrary, Zarathushtra was interested in the here and now, understanding the human psyche, and focusing on what could be done, on wisdom and not on empty speculation or supramoralism. Which is why Pragmatism dates back all the way to a certain Zarathushtra. Just like Daoism and Zen are also later driven by Pragmatism and not Idealism. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/14 Special Kain I agree with Alexander. Parviz acts like a logical positivist here. I like John Dewey's instrumentalist take on scientific research which states that our fantasies are TOOLS rather than photographs or mirrors that need to be cleaned and polished in order to see the world as it is. Dewey's metaphor accounts for changes in our environment, so we always have to create new tools in order to navigate successfully. Because the tools we use and the reasons for which we use them - and the effects caused by social uses - will affect the environment in which we use them (= feedback loops). And one tool proves successful in one environment, while another tool proves successful in another environment. Simply put, not the truth but the situation decides. Which is trans-rationalism, because we have fantasies which are, logically speaking, mutually exclusive (= which contradict each other) and yet these fantasies work in different environments. As you enter the kitchen and prepare supper, you will "speak a language" that is different from the "language" which you "speak" at your workplace or which scientists "speak" at CERN - which makes perfect sense. And this isn't very far from Nietzsche's perspectivist take on epistemological issues. The world out there (= the nominal chaos) doesn't speak nor it is structured logically or rationalistically. Logic and reason (which both change over time) are tools. Ushta, Dino Von: Alexander Bard An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com Gesendet: 22:29 Freitag, 13.Juli 2012 Betreff: [Ushta] Materia, Energy, Time, and Nature I believe we are discussing very different things, Parviz! You can measure scientifically as much as you like but the things you measure will still be objects of your fantasy. There are no objects in reality. Fantasy is what our perception needs to MAKE SENSE of the chaos that is reality. Immanuel Kant called these fantasies PHENOMENA in opposition to the NOUMENA we can never experience as "they really are". But of course there are differences in QUALITY between fantasies. Some fantasies run well with science (seem trustworthy and even likely), others can be dismissed right away for being proven ouright wrong and impossible by science. Which explains why I for example loathe homeopathy with a vengeance. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/13 Parviz Varjavand Instead of REALITY versus FANTASY, I would say, "Measurable by Science" and " Not measurable by Science". "Giti" and "Minoo", "Physical" and "Mental". Most Giti or Physical things are "Science Measurable" and most things of the Minoo (Mind Realm) are not so perfectly measurable by Science. I like this simple division of Muzdayucna. My two cents worth, I stand to be corrected! Purviz

Materia, Energy, Time, and Nature Part 2

I believe we are discussing very different things, Parviz! You can measure scientifically as much as you like but the things you measure will still be objects of your fantasy. There are no objects in reality. Fantasy is what our perception needs to MAKE SENSE of the chaos that is reality. Immanuel Kant called these fantasies PHENOMENA in opposition to the NOUMENA we can never experience as "they really are". But of course there are differences in QUALITY between fantasies. Some fantasies run well with science (seem trustworthy and even likely), others can be dismissed right away for being proven ouright wrong and impossible by science. Which explains why I for example loathe homeopathy with a vengeance. Ushta Alexander 2012/7/13 Parviz Varjavand Instead of REALITY versus FANTASY, I would say, "Measurable by Science" and " Not measurable by Science". "Giti" and "Minoo", "Physical" and "Mental". Most Giti or Physical things are "Science Measurable" and most things of the Minoo (Mind Realm) are not so perfectly measurable by Science. I like this simple division of Muzdayucna. My two cents worth, I stand to be corrected! Purviz --- On Wed, 7/11/12, Alexander Bard wrote: From: Alexander Bard Subject: [Ushta] Materia, Energy, Time, and Nature To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2012, 4:04 AM Let me just add that the idea that "materia and energy" are either eternal or created are both incorrect. Materia and energy are INTERTWINED with time in physics. So there can not be any time before materia and energy, neither can we say that materia ane energy are eternal as if there was some kind of meta-time, because there is no such thing. And if the supernatural does exist, it is natural. There is no point in talking of something being supernatural. If somehting does exist IT IS PART OF NATURE, part of Ahura. So just skip all talk of the supernatural. What we should discuss is instead reality versus fantasy, Ushta Alexander 2012/7/9 Special Kain Dear Kenneth Zoroastrianism is indeed an ethical rather than moralistic religion: we become the choices we make. There is nothing wrong with monotheism as such, as it is compatible with monism: there is one world, and one world only, which we hold sacred (= Pantheism). Ahura (Being) and Mazda (Mind) are sacred when combined. But you will also find many Zoroastrians who believe that Ahura Mazda is the one supreme being that once created the universe (= Abrahamitism). Ushta, Dino

Materia, Energy, Time, and Nature

Let me just add that the idea that "materia and energy" are either eternal or created are both incorrect. Materia and energy are INTERTWINED with time in physics. So there can not be any time before materia and energy, neither can we say that materia ane energy are eternal as if there was some kind of meta-time, because there is no such thing. And if the supernatural does exist, it is natural. There is no point in talking of something being supernatural. If somehting does exist IT IS PART OF NATURE, part of Ahura. So just skip all talk of the supernatural. What we should discuss is instead reality versus fantasy, Ushta Alexander 2012/7/9 Special Kain Dear Kenneth Zoroastrianism is indeed an ethical rather than moralistic religion: we become the choices we make. There is nothing wrong with monotheism as such, as it is compatible with monism: there is one world, and one world only, which we hold sacred (= Pantheism). Ahura (Being) and Mazda (Mind) are sacred when combined. But you will also find many Zoroastrians who believe that Ahura Mazda is the one supreme being that once created the universe (= Abrahamitism). Ushta, Dino > --- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, "Kenneth C" wrote: > > > Ushta! > > > I read the Gatha's years ago and really thought on an ethical level the religion was spot on. I come from a background of Nordic paganism. At the time the only thing keeping me from being Zoroastrian was the stigma that it is labeled "monotheism". However looking at the linguistics and meanings of words in the Gatha's, calling it "monotheism" might be over simplifying the view of Ahura Mazda. This is not some concept of some being that is separate from nature, but a consciousness that is within nature or is nature itself. Not too different to how I view my gods. I do not see Odin as a the one who created wind, but wind itself. To me the images and names of these god's are cultural perceptions and imaginations of nature. I just think that the imagination is a powerful thing. As I read the Gatha's closer I realized that Zoroaster seemed concerned more with unethical behaviors that may have been associated with the belief in these gods or the > supernatural, not the beliefs themselves. Even though I am a big time skeptic because I am training to be a scientist, I do accept certain things that could be called supernatural, but feel uncomfortable calling it supernatural and say it is just natural. Spending time with some Native American tribes in my area, I have seen Healings and they may not be explained by modern science. Does not mean there will never be an explanation. Though I think a lot of these New Agers that charge ridiculous money for psychic readings and do not even use intuition but educated guesses, I am opposed to. Why? Because it is unethical to take advantage of unfortunate people. Even though I accept a possibility to certain things that could be called supernatural (won't believe it till I see it) I will take issue with it when the beliefs cause chaos in people's lives. James Arthur Ray who was in the Secret, and Killed 9 people in a sweat lodge is one example of where > I will take a stance against it. > > > Anyway, I am rambling. I asked a Zoroastrian "Would it disqualify me from being Zoroastrian if I do have certain beliefs that may be called supernatural" The response was "Being Zoroastrian is about your own experience and your own way of reasoning, not Zoroaster's. If you have those beliefs becoming Zoroastrian, most might disagree with those views, but they would not say you are not Zoroastrian." Basically what I have been told and it seems compatible with the Gatha's is that it is not belief that makes you Zoroastrian, it is ethics. > > > > Does this seem about right? > > > Kenneth

This is Syntheism!

Of course it is still stuck in the "theos" game but as in a consequence of necessary overcoming: We NEED a metaphysics, but one that is RELEVANT and PRAGMATICALLY CREDIBLE to our day and age. Syntheism is simply the ideology of "overcoming the theism vs atheism divide", not at all as a hybrid, but precisely as an "overcoming", as a POST-ATHEISTIC position. There is very little on Syntheism online yet. On purpose.
But here is a Facebook forum Dino and I much recommend:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/109834425805191/
and of course the Syntheist Movement homepage at www.syntheism.org
Ushta
Alexander/Nietzschean, Hegelian, Spinozist, Zoroastrian, and Syntheist

Zoroastrianism, Syntheism, Zen, and Daoism

Dear Mats The main thing Zarathushtra's philosophy has in common with Daoism and Zen is that they are all PROCESS philosophies (mobilism) as opposed to philosophies assuming objects and fixations (eternalisms). Chan, the common thread between Zen and Daoism in China, also has Persian roots (it was brought to China by Persians rather than Indians, all Indian philosophical texts were actually first translated to Persian before arriving in China). And as for theory and practice, needless to say, all philosophies include both. It's just that Ushta if a forum where we often thrive on theory as very little else in Zoroastrian culture is theory, almost everything else deals with 100% practices. But one does not exclude the other. Ushta Alexander 2012/6/14 Mats Andrén > > Hi! > > From time to time Alexander mentions a connection between Zarathustra's thoughts and Daoism. It would be interesting to hear a bit more on this. I am certainly no expert on religion and I know quite little about Zarathustra, so correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the Syntheism argued for here by Alexander/Dino is a substantially more intellectually, and rationally, oriented kind of endeavor than Daoism (and Zen). The talk I have been hearing here has mostly been of a quite theoretical kind, relating to ideas of Nietzsche, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and so forth — orbiting around traditional western philosophical issues of truth and reality — and quite little about the practical directness of Daoism — which is, I would say, more about ways of living (a practically oriented kind of wisdom which is skeptical of the discriminating powers of the "mind") than ways of thinking about how to live (a more theoretically oriented kind of wisdom, which encourages "thinking" and rationality in a more detached, or "pure", form). Just to give one example of what I mean with a more practically oriented kind of wisdom one might mention Masanobu Fukuoka's ideas about (or rather ways of doing) farming: a hybrid of philosophy and (actual) practice with clear connections to Daoist philosophy (even though he didn't call himself "Daoist"). > > Not sure if you agree with what I wrote above, but in either case, the fact that there might be differences between Zarathustra's thoughts (at least in the form conceived by Syntheists/Syntheism) and Daoist thought is of course no argument against the idea that there might also be connections and similarities: I am sure there is. So, to summarize, I have two questions: > > 1. Do you agree with what I write in the first paragraph about a possible difference in orientation between Syntheism and Daoism when it comes to the conception/role/value of rationality? If not, are there other differences? > > 2. What do you perceive the most salient connections/similarities to be between Zarathustra's thoughts and Daoism? > > (To clarify, when I talk about "Daoism" here I am of course not talking about later "alchemist ideas", relating to eternal life, supernatural powers, and stuff like that, but mainly about Lao Zi, Chuang Tzu, and Lieh-Tzu etc — but it seems fairly clear that this is what Alexander refers to too, when he talks about about Daoism.) > > I wish you all a good day. > > /M

Syntheism is the word!

I agree. Syntheism is the word. And Zarathushtra was the FIRST Syntheist. Now we need to write books and finally place Zarathushtra in his proper place historically. Just like we need to do with Zoroastrianism as a whole and its spin-offs Mithraism, Chan and Zen. Ushta Alexander 2012/6/11 Special Kain We are Syntheists! Syntheism as the religion of spiritual atheism is beyond the tiresome "theism vs. atheism" debate and therefore the next Hegelian step after atheism. Ushta, Dino

Zoroastrianism transformed into Syntheism

Dear Parviz and Dino Dino is 100% right. And we can't make up a FALSE "truth" just because we are uncomfortable with the presumed outcome. That is PRECISELY Zarathushtra's point. As is the starting point for both Hegelian and Pragmatist ethics. So instead of focusing on the presumed consequences you HAVE TO LOOK at the starting point, Parviz, what is true? How can we know what is true? And this is precisely where Dino is right. Coruts of law don't have to judge people because they are evil. They can judge 100% on assumed outcome of the judgment. What are the effects of judgment on the person in question? On the rest of society? And does a judgment act as protection for society? Those are perfectly valid grounds for judgment in modern courts. And Nazis built their ideology on a hatred that was deep down self-loathing. Hitler also took the ethical consequences of this destructive ethics by killing himself precisely as "an inferior" at the end of the war. The pity is that he took 40 million lives with him into his psychopathic death. So no, Nazism is most definitely incompatible with all things Mazdayasni. Ushta Alexander 2012/6/10 Parviz Varjavand Dear Dino, Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me. It took me multiple readings and a few days to digest what you are saying. You are right, and one is not impoverished mentally by digesting your point. It just makes it so much harder to stand on ones own feet, mentally and philosophically speaking, and choose what righteousness means to the self. I agree that this is truly Mazdayasna also. The Nazis or the Khmer-rouge did not surrender easily, they fought to the last ditch and preferred to be killed or commit suicide rather than surrender. Was that not because they were convinced that they were right and their path was a righteous one? What is one to do with systems of thought that are destructive, but time has been on their side and has allowed then to make their perverted version of reality an integral part of the education of their young to the point that they rather die than let that reality change? The planet is in the hands of "True Believers" of all shade, Cyrus Cooper is not alone by any means, it is we the true Mazdayasni who are alone. I know there are no easy answers, but that is what we are up against, are we not? Mehr Afzoon and thanks, Parviz Varjavand --- On Sat, 6/9/12, Special Kain wrote: From: Special Kain Subject: edited // Re: [Ushta] Zizek and Rorty on the Real To: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com" Date: Saturday, June 9, 2012, 6:38 AM Dear Parviz I have edited my text to make myself much more clear. :-) In sociology the Thomas theorem teaches us: "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." We will never find out whether our theories are right or wrong ontologically, but can only test our theories systematically and then assess the empirical outcomes. This is what science does. This isn't relativism precisely because it is the empirical consequences that matter in this context. Plus, science prefers simple and strong theories which explain more phenomena and yet depend on less premises than other theories. Does this teach us anything about the truth? Well, we can now move on from objectivity to intersubjectivity and humbly accept that, pragmatically speaking, we're dealing with interpretations rather than with facts. This is the context in which we make ethical choices: we don't know whether our value judgments are right or wrong ontologically, because the only thing we see and share socially are the empirical outcomes of our value judgments. Simply put, things mean what they cause. So if your interpretations cause you to undertake large-scale destructive actions, then this is who you are: someone who is willing to act destructively. Which says a lot about your attitude towards existence - and yourself. And this is why I ethically choose to be a pantheist, a Spinozist and a Zoroastrian (and of course a Syntheist): I don't believe in god, but I choose to see The Universe as sacred, because this ethical choice will make me do better things ("better" as in "long-term constructive") and help me get rid of nihilism and neuroticism. Ethics has a lot to do with medicine and diets, as Nietzsche, Deleuze and the Austrian philosopher and psychoanalyst Robert Pfaller pointed out. So the idea that we're not dealing with actual facts but rather with socially shared interpretations doesn't turn everything into relativism. Pragmatism is fallibilism without relativism. We can still discuss any issues related to the truth and lies. Ushta, Dino Von: Special Kain An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com" Gesendet: 12:57 Samstag, 9.Juni 2012 Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Zizek and Rorty on the Real Dear Parviz In sociology the Thomas theorem teaches us: "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." We will never find out whether our theories are right or wrong ontologically, but only test our theories multiple times and then assess the empirical outcomes. This is what science does. Does this teach us anything about the truth? Well, we can now move on from objectivity to intersubjectivity and humbly accept that we're dealing with interpretations rather than facts. And this is the context in which our value judgments and ethical choices matter. Pragmatically speaking, we don't know if the Nazis were wrong, but we see that their racist and fascist interpretations caused large-scale destructive actions. So you have to ethically decided who you want to be to yourself: someone who's willing to undertake large-scale destructive actions? Or someone who's willing to undertake long-term constructive actions and therefore stand up against destruction? Ushta, Dino Von: Parviz Varjavand An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com Gesendet: 7:08 Samstag, 9.Juni 2012 Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Zizek and Rorty on the Real Dear Dino, The argument you present is sound, but I smell something fishy going on also. According to your argument, then no court of law should be able to try another person because after all, we all are crazy to some degree or another. When Gatha says "may we give the Lie into the hands of the Truth", according to your outlook one can snap back "what Lie? what Truth? It is all Lies or all Truths depending on how you look at it". The Nazis thought that Jews should be exterminated from the face of the earth. This was Truth to them. Were they not WRONG? In special cases in courts, one may plea insanity, and to the insane no laws apply. Now according to your philosophy, all mankind can plea insanity of one degree or another, and there is no distinction between right and wrong here. Zoroastrianism is very concerned about the Truth and the Lie. If Reality evaporates, the distinction between Right and Wrong also evaporates. How are we to deal with that? Mehr Afzoon, Parviz Varjavand --- On Fri, 6/8/12, Special Kain wrote: From: Special Kain Subject: Re: [Ushta] Zizek and Rorty on the Real To: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com" Date: Friday, June 8, 2012, 12:39 PM Dear Parviz The only reality we know is the reality which we create in our minds and that we share with the people around us. Think of photography! We freeze the relentless chaos around us in order to navigate successfully and meaningfully - to make sense of it all. And this virtual world is constantly "interrupted" by The Real. How do you react when you climb the stairs and accidentally miss one step because you didn't know it was there? Ushta, Dino Von: Parviz Varjavand An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com Gesendet: 15:38 Freitag, 8.Juni 2012 Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Zizek and Rorty on the Real Dear Alex, Can't you see what a huge empire FAITH has built??? Faith is the other side of the coin from Reason. Faith means making REAL that which IS NOT REAL. God having a Son is RREEEAAALLL to so many based on their FAITH in this long winded story. When you compare that to a cat that has just been run over by a car, THEY ARE NOT AS REAL OR UNREAL AS ONE ANOTHER. Can you shoot someone and then claim that you were not so sure they were REAL and get out of a murder rap??? (in Sweden you perhaps can, with a good philosopher-lawyer by your side) Not lecturing but wanting to learn, Parviz --- On Thu, 6/7/12, Alexander Bard wrote: From: Alexander Bard Subject: Re: [Ushta] Zizek and Rorty on the Real To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, June 7, 2012, 7:07 AM No, you just reply that angels COULD be real. But until they show up to your very face, you will not believe they exist. Zoroastrianism does not preach that which exists has relevance, but that which has relevance exists! It's phenomenology as religion par excellence. The problem with angels is not realy whether they exist or not. The problem is what do we need them for? Ushta Alexander 2012/6/7 Parviz Varjavand Dear Alex, This topic is not as innocent and purely philosophical as you think. Many "Faiths" are based on spoofy far out ideas made real to the followers of that Faith. If you enter a dialog with a member of one of these Faiths challenging the validity of one of their basic unrealistic tenants, be prepared to get an earful as to the validity and reality of almost anything else around you. " So you stupid unbelievers do not think that Angels are real, tell me then, how do you know that YOU are real or actually do exist? How do you know that your head exists?, let alone your hat?" On and on they go until you surrender and admit that "Yes, you are right, Angels must be as real or unreal as the nose on my face". This is the way Faith based beliefs such as Christianity try and come out even with Reason-bassed views such as those of Mazdayasna. Mehr, Parviz --- On Thu, 6/7/12, Alexander Bard wrote: From: Alexander Bard Subject: Re: [Ushta] Zizek and Rorty on the Real To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, June 7, 2012, 1:45 AM Giti = The Noumenal, Minoo = The Phenomenal, Zarathushtra was spot on already. The concept of The Real however is something that developed within psychoanalysis in relation to how we DEAL with this dichotomy. The Real is our idea of Giti FROM WITHIN Minoo. Ushta Alexander 2012/6/7 Parviz Varjavand Dear Daniel, Here goes my two cents worth on the subject. Mazdayasna makes a distinction between Phisical Reality (Giti) and Mental Reality (Minoo). Reality in the Giti realm is very differant from the reality in the Minoo world. Horses can not fly in the Giti realm but Pegasus can easely fly because it belongs to the Minoo realm (Our MINDS have created Pegasus). I am sure when Zizek or Rorty are sent out to buy a fresh head of lettuce by their wives, they DO know how to pick a fresh one and not a withed one. Ha Ha, why do they not pass out in the supermarket saying "what is the reality of a head of lettuce and how can distinction be made between a fresh head of lettuce and a withed one?". This is because the Giti (Guitig) reality is easy to get a hold of. When a pebble is in your shoe, you take your shoe off and get rid of the pebble, you do not get into quantum physic theories of what is the reality of a pebble or my shoe or my foot. Science also has an easier time when dealing with the Giti (Physics) side of reality. Most persons who challenge the reality of all things have an axe to grind, they want to prove that the existence of the Soul or an Afterlife or the Jinn is also as real or unreal as the existence of a fresh head of lettuce or flying horses. This is the Big Gimmick. More on this if I get the time to write it down on Ushta. Parviz Varjavand --- On Wed, 6/6/12, Daniel Samani wrote: From: Daniel Samani Subject: [Ushta] Zizek and Rorty on the Real To: "ushta" Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2012, 7:12 PM I am trying to understand the distinction between Zizek and Rortys concepts on the real. Essentially Rorty says that we all need to have it to justify our believes (but the really real doesn't exist), and his solution is to simply avoid talking about it in conversations. To be an ironist as he puts it. Zizek on the other hand goes even further, claiming that precisely this nothingness is something which we can observe by the structure of our behavior. What he calls ideology. Would you agree here? Or how would you make the distinction if any? What does the Gathas say about the Real? Ushta Daniel

The Universe and The Mind - The Two Aspects of The Divine

BOTH are right in Zoroastrianism! The Universe is AHURA, The Mind of Man is MAZDA! Therefore the geniality of Zarathushtra's concept of Ahura Mazda: When The Universe and The Mind meet, divinity appears! And as human beings we are of course obsessed with Mind and our capacity to develop Mind. This is why we are MAZDAYASNI! Ushta Alexander 2012/6/5 SHAHROOZ ASH Dear Parviz/Ahura-Mazda & Alex/Ahura-Mazda The universe just supports God/Ahura-Mazda(Wise-Humans). The universe is not God. The only God is MAN and not the universe. Hence, Spinoza was wrong, if he claimed the universe was god. Zarathushtra in explicit language claims the only God is Man. I am writing a book right now that I have been working on for over 2 years. This book will articulate this fact. I have not decided on the title of the book. Maybe: the only god is man, or, baby worship. And also, I have started a movement with this form of Zoroastrianism & have many followers. Wishing you the best (Behesht), Shahrooz Ash To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com From: bardissimo@gmail.com Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:42:12 +0200 Subject: Re: [Ushta] KISS Yes, I'm perfectly happy and convinced I'm the Satan of the Abrahamic religions. I ENDORSE The Snake in The Garden of Eden. When Eve accepted the offer from The Snake to eat the fruit of knowledge (forbidden by the Abrahamic faiths, certainly not by us) she became THE FIRST MAZDAYASNI in history! Ushta Alexander 2012/6/5 Parviz Varjavand Dear Alex, I would like to ask you a frank question. You say>> " God and The Universe are one and the same and not in opposition to each other"<<. Are you aware that this statement alone classifies you as a worshiper of Satan rather than God in the three Abrahamic religions? This is a simple question I am asking, so do not lecture me back or try to teach me. All I am trying to find out is to see if you are aware of this fact or not. According to them, you are teaching Satanism and not Zoroastrianism. (Please don't get angry at me, this is important information I am trying to share). I think one of the most educational literature that we should be looking for is the court procedures by which the Jews excommunicated Spinoza. I am sure this must have come up there branding him as a Satan Worshiper. Yours Parviz --- On Tue, 6/5/12, Alexander Bard wrote: From: Alexander Bard Subject: Re: [Ushta] KISS To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2012, 6:21 AM Very to the point, excellent! May I add that "The Universe is our friend and not our enemy." Because God and The Universe are one and the same and not in opposition to each other? Ushta Alexander 2012/6/4 Parviz Varjavand Dear Alex and friends, When it comes to looking at the core of any religion, the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) is what betrays them. Otherwise when it comes to long-winded and dragged out lectures, religions are masters of deceit and misrepresentation. The KISS about Christianity is that "everyone is dirty and born in sin and there is no other way to be cleansed other than by the blood of Christ". But it takes a lifetime to get to this KISS because Christianity masks this basic twisted view and knows how to drag you on and on. So, one KISS about Zoroastrianism is that "We are born clean and good and we need no-one to cleanse us with mambo-jumbo". We just have to work on our Good Thoughts and not let Bad Thoughts lead us astray. Mehr, Parviz --- On Mon, 6/4/12, Parviz Varjavand wrote: From: Parviz Varjavand Subject: Re: [Ushta] Pundolism and a thousand other forms of Zoroastrianisms To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, June 4, 2012, 1:16 PM Dear Alex, Most persons lost in their spiritual search what a Guru who has been there, done that, and now can give them a KISS (KISS means Keep It Simple Stupid !). I know the complex Alex, and you have great achievements in the vast and complex side of philosophy. What I have always wanted out of you is that you be the Guru with a KISS when it comes to Zoroastrian thoughts. Other than that, I have never wanted to co-author anything with you and I don't understand what you mean by "Persian Nationalism" in trying to put me down. Zoroastrianism has nothing to do with Persian Nationalism as it is a Universal Daena or Point of View. Understand that I am an admirer of you and not one who tries to put you down or underestimate your achievements. But I do admit, even when wanting to show admiration, my forked snake tongue does gets in the way. Mehr Afzoon, Parviz Dear Cyrus, Pundolism is not Zoroastrianism, even though you Pundolists like to stick your religion to Zoroastrianism like glue. Crazy End-Time fringe cults like that of Pundol exists in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity too. They give all those religions bad names just like yours is giving Zoroastrianism a bad name. This is the truth as far as I am concerned and forgive me if it hurts your feelings. You also hurt our feelings very much when you attach such utter nonsense gibberish to the most logical and wholesome religion of Mazda Yasna that we are trying to believe in and evangelize. Yours, Parviz Varjavand

The meaning of Ahura and Monism vs Dualism in Neuroscience

Dear Thomas I'm neither a materialist nor an idealist, I believe those definitions are dated. I'm a monist. There is one substance but it can come in an infinite number of attributes. As Spinoza so cleverly said. And I don't see in what way science should be any different? Why should we take dualism as a given in some pathetic post-Carteisan way when it is perfectly feasible that the mind is the by-product of a brain's activity to secure its own survival and reproduction? Thoughts are proven to affect materia and vice cersa. So what is ths problem with declaring them all as one substance? Why go for hocus-pocus when it is completely unnecesseray? For what reason? And we still have the one problem left with dualism that it never overcomes: If there were indeed two substances, how would they communicate with each other? THROUGH WHICH SUBSTANCE? Just like two parallell universa can't communicate with each other, neither can two separate substances. Body and soul never meet anywwhere and can therefore not interact. So philosophically speaking, you will always be thrown back to the ONE substance, and I don't understand what's so upsetting about that, unless you're desperate to save an Abrahamic-Platonist paradigm which is dying anyway? As for the meaning of "Ahura" as "source", I guess you will have to go with source (or "supreme being") and not with lord if the word is used in a context which is still pre-written language and pre-permanent settlements and therefore pre-feudal. Which is what Zarathushtra's society in Central Asia was, since his words were written down much later long after he was gone. Later meanings of the term are after all meaningless if we what we set out to do is to understand HIM and HIS TEXT. And that is the basis to which contemporary Zoroastrianism is returning to after all. Don't you agree? Ushta Alexander 2012/5/17 Thomas Mether The specialization of knowledge in the sciences does not allow an expert in one filed to decide what the implications are their science implies in another filed. Neuroscience is a separate filed of expertise. The materiliast version of it holds that when physicists claim mental exists and just exists physically, they ar either confused or speaking outside their area of expertise and that the SCIENCE of neurosocience states there IS NO such thing as "mental" at all. I'm sorry people who claim materialism are not science literate in the primary field defining contemporary scientific materialism. It is not physics. In fact, world-class physicists are divided over the issue of whether the mental is an indiependent reality from the physical (standard interpretations of how the wave function collapses and breaks the von Neumann chains as implied in the mathematical foundations of quantum theory in von Neumann's "bible" of quantum theory the Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics and by those like Nobel laureate Brain Josephson in England and the quatum cosmologist Nesteruk at Cambridge) or whether if monism is true it must somehow be a mind-only monism (Bohm) or neutral monism. The majority of working physicists just don't want to get into the issue. So, from the standpoint of physics, if one is a materialist it is not on scientific grounds. And if one IS a materialist on the basis of the primary science responsible, then one must be on neuroscience grounds, of course, then, not only is there no "mental" - you also have no materialist "viewpoints" or can be a "convinced" monist. And to several, yes, I know Ahura/Asura means "source". What kind of source is meant depends on the outcome of the as yet not fully settled genealogical relationships between Proto-Indo-European 1, whether or not there is also a Proto-Indo-European 2, which depends on when and how Indo-Anatolian split off early, which leads to the internal evolution of Proto-Indo-European into either PIE 2 or PIE 3 (if PIE 3, it is also called by some linguistists "Mature Proto-Indo-European" or simply "Indo-European"). From that last base, one then gets the descendent Western Indo-European, North Central Indo-European, and Eastern Indo-European (also called by linguistists "Eastern Graeco-Aryan" or "Graeco Indo- Iranian"). At issue is the original meaning of the PIE root for "ahura" depending how one weighs the evidence between the Indo-Anatolian languages of Hittite, Luwian, Palaic, and Etruscan and the Eastern Graeco-Indo-European languages of Greek, Phyrgian, Armenian, and Indo-Iranian (from which Avesta and Vedic Sanskrit come). If weight is goven to Indo-Anatolian languages as a more ancient branch that broke away earlier and how the issue is solved for whether Armenian for ahura that is not a Persian loanword comes is indeed an Armenian word and not an earlier loanword imported from the Indo-Anatolian group, then "source" as the original meaning or ahura/asura means two very different things.It is either "source" related to breathe or exhale or it is, reflecting Indo-Anatolian meanings, "source" in the sense of authoritative distributor or apportioner (thus close in meaning to bhaga). If it is the latter, it is roughly synonymous to the Semitc "lord". Otherwise, it is the ahu- exhale as source. At the present time, the issue is undecided because we don't know if what appears to be the indigenous Armenian word for ahura (that is , not a Persian loanword) really is or not (if not, an Indo-Anatolian loanword). If Armenian had stayed with the eastern groups and not ended up in Anatolia at an early date, the the evidence would lean towards "source as exhalation". But since Armenian ended up inside the Luwian-Hittitee world, it is hard to tell if the Armenian word means "source as authoritative distributor" (akin to bhaga) and Hittite hassus (king, lord as distributor of food, grain, wealth). But since Indo-Anatolian is also the earliest branch and Indo-Iranian is comparatively late, some linguists give weight to the Indo-Anatolian meaning regardless of the Armenian issue. Others will concede that but claim that since PIE developed into Mature IE and Eastern Graeco-Aryan after that split, the original word may have evolved and changed in meaning so that the ahu of Indo-Iranian should be taken as normative for Indo-Iranian languages even if there was a change in meaning. Others still, however, counter that since Armenian is the older member of the Graeco-Indo-European family as an actually attested and existing language while Indo-Iranian is a hypothetical reconstruction that may never had existed, "lord as distributor" may well be the normative meaning for that group as well unless it can be shown that Armenian got it from the Indo-Anatolian branch. Unfortunately, the chart of the latest view of the genealogy of these languages from Oxford's textbook on Proto-Indo-European linguistics won't cup and paste into this email. I suppose I could upload it to the file section. Anyway, the meaning of ahura as "source" is in the middle of a lingustic debate as to "source as lord who distributes" from the Indo-Anatolian or as "breathe, exhalation" depending on the origins of the Armenian word for it. From: Alexander Bard To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:15 PM Subject: Re: [Ushta] Materialism Two things: Ahura means "being" rather than the Abrahmic "lord". Possibly "being in a supreme state". The term lord however makes non sense since the word is obvioouly far older than agriculture and there are no "lords" in the English sense prior to agriculture. And no, contemporary physics does not deny mental life. It just places mental life within the physical realm. The brain makes us believe "we exist" in a Cartesian sense, creating a mental life the same way "we see rainbows". You may not like this, but there is no other plausible theory. Feel free to read Thomas Metzinger's "Ego Tunnel" or my own work with Jan Söderqvist, "The Body Machines" now available from Amazon and lulu.com. Or take ayahuasca to see what the brain is really capable of! Have a good read! Alexander/firmly and happily convinced monist 2012/5/15 Thomas Mether P.S. Of course, if materialism (only matter exists) is true, there also is either no Ahura Mazda (there is no nonmaterial spiritual stuff - only matter exists) or Ahura Mazda is a material and nonconscious "zombie" biounit. But then, the name becomes problematic since "ahura" meaning something like "lord" denotes a social or interpersonal status between superior and subordinate persons, and ex hypothesi, there are no such things as persons or statuses and a nonconscious zombie also would not have another nonexistent property of wisdom, hence the "mazda" part also goes by the wayside since there is no such thing if materialism is true. From: Thomas Mether To: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 1:26 PM Subject: [Ushta] Materialism In light of others outside this forum who have no clear idea of what contemporary scientific versions of materialist neuroscience means in all its ramifications, it probably shouldn't be surprising some here have not read enough of the research literature or even just thought through the implications of their half-thought out and mostly unexamined materialist outlook. Contemporary materialism is not a denial of the existence of the soul or an afterlife, it is a more thorough denial. It comes in two main flavors: eliminative and functionalism materialist neuroscience. In both versions, it is not only the existence of an immortal soul that is denied, it is a thorough-going denial of any mental life at all. There is no such thing as subjectivity, inner psychological life or interior life. There is no inner I as my subjective identity, no desires, beliefs, viewpoints, ideas, opinions, inner psychological states of any kind, no first-personal experience, and no consciousness. Death is just a transition from a nonconscious biological state maintaining a biological organism to another nonconscious biological state where the organism breaks down and is assimilated to the eco-sytems. Contemporary scientific materialism in neuroscience in both its forms agrees with nonmaterialists that a very long history of trying to "reduce" mental states to neural brain states has failed and is probably impossible. So, they deny the existence of any alleged "mental states" that need to be "reduced" to neural states at all (which means death is a nonevent since you were never conscious or psychologically alive in the first place). Eliminative materialism in contemporary neuroscience is probably most well-known and represented by Paul and Patricia Churchland, authors of the neuroscience textbook The Computational Brain, and who recently retired last summer from the Salks research center in San Diego, CA. They are trained both as neurosicnetists and philosophers. Functionalism is also known as token-identity theory. It arose because its earlier theoretical predecessor collapsed and was experimentally disconfirmed. Its predecessor was type-identity theory. It asserted that mind states just were neural states (we will get to what identity theorists generally mean when they use "mental" since they deny like the eliminative materialists that "mental" as most people does not exist) and that for every type or kind of "mental state" there was a corresponding type or kind of "neural state" in the brain. This turns out to be experimentally false. Luckily, computer science saved the day for this model. Software states just are hardware states; software processes just are harware processes but they have "multiple realizability". By "multiple realizability", a single computer can on two occasions be in the same computational software state but not in the same hardware state and any two or more computers can be in the same computational software states while being in different hardware states of even have different hardware. This means that every "token" instance of a software state or process is identical to a "token" hardware state even though every type of software state does not have a corresponding type of hardware state. So, the identity theorists revamped type-identity theory in light of these findings into token identity theory. Now, by mental they do not mean what we typically mean about it. They also deny the existence of consciousness, subjectivity, beliefs, desires, any "inner psychological states" (usually referred to in the professional literature as a denial of "inner qualia" or "privileged access" - the last means you have no inner private life only you have access to because apart from your body, "you" don't exist.) Thus, as one of the leading token-identity functionalists has famously put it, we are nonconscious "zombies". "Mental" states as a technical term means nonconscious "software" or "computational" states: just as a computer has more going on than just its hardware's electrical states and processes but is not conscious, so are people. Functionalism holds that the older behaviorism was inadequate because external behavior can't account for the complexity of the input and output conditions in the brain. So, as Heil (in his book on contemporary materialist models of "mind") puts it, functionalism posits "inner behavior" to supplement external behaviorist approaches. Thus, token-identity functionalism is also called "inner black-box behavorism". Ethical, political, social consequences of these two versions of contemporary materialism in neurscience: if there is no inner private subjective life, no mental life, no personal identity or inner subjective I, then everything that presupposes the existence of such things is to go by the wayside as part of a superstitious "folk theory" that needs to also be eliminated. Thus, there are no ethical concepts (since there are no persons, there are no rights, no responsibility or obligations, no justice nor appeals to justice, no injustice or moral evil -- the Holocaust was not a moral horror but just a population reduction of biounits, heterosexuals and homosexuals have no rights nor has any rights been suppressed or denied by one group for another because there is no such thing,). Politically, since there are no persons and no rights, a cyber-technocracy should be put in place to "program" the biounits, eliminate defective biounits. There is no educational institutions because they maintain and foster the superstitious "folk theory" that there are persons that learn; rather programing of biounits is the replacement. Those biounits with interests in religion, spirituality, arts, social justice, and ethics will either be re-programed or eliminated as defective biounits. No criminal justice systems because they foster and continue the illusion of their being such things as persons, ethical responsibility, and right and wrong. Criminal behavior is defective biounit. Oddly, sometimes this contemporary materialism looks like it is "green" in what looks like a concern with the natural environment but it really turns out that since there are no such things as persons with intrinsic worth or rights, since there is no such thing as having "moral standing", a human biounit does not count for more than a rock or tree. Probably another population reduction of such defective biounits that breed until they are a pestilence on the planetary eco-system and whose activities have toxic side-effects is called for. Finally, if you happen to disagree with these versions of materialism, or even, have just a comment or opinion, you really don't because there is no such thing as a "disagreement" or "opinion" or "you" you malfunctioning and defective biounit. A fairly lengthy bibliography is available (except for those who are materialists since there is no such thing as "reading further" or "investigating further" or "learning".

Fate vs Asha in Zoroastrian philosophy

Exactly!
And to Zarathushra Asha also IMPLIES an ethics (not a morality) based on a life in accordance with truth, honesty, science, the here-and-now rather any fantasy place somewheer distant in time and space.
All of this taught by Zarathushtra remarkably 3,600 years ahead of Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger.
The Scandinavian Wyrd (Ödet in contemporary Swedish) is probably more pre-Zoroastrian by nature. Something to confront and deal with, rather than Zarathushtra's EMBRACING and more Spinozist attitude towards "Asha".
Ushta
Alexander

Den 24 januari 2012 00:07 skrev Special Kain :

Dear Kenneth

Asha is that which exists, which is real, the facts. It is what is "right" in the sense that it works and fits with reality. You can think of scientists as Ashavands: as those practising and promoting Asha through thoughts, words and actions. Think of methodologists, for example. Whereas Druj is that which deceives (see the German word "Trug" which is rooted in the Avesta word "druj") or that which simply isn't true.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Kenneth Christensen
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 19:43 Montag, 23.Januar 2012
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism vs The Abrahamic Faiths


Interesting. This brings up another topic. I am fascinated with the concept of Asha. It seems very complicated. Maybe Alexander having grown up in Scandinavian culture might be able to elaborate on this. From what I read Asha seems to be similar to a concept in Scandinavian cosmology called Wyrd. Modern English will translates it to mean Fate. I think that is an injustice to the word as the word has nothing to do with pre-destiny. The best way I can explain it is that it deals with what everything in the universe is becoming. This could a concept dealing with the way of the world as you described Asha. It would make sense that both religions would have similar concepts since the languages in both those religions have a common ancestor. Like Wyrd does Asha deal with accountability for one's actions?

Kenneth

"Life-- The opposite of life is not death, but non-existence. To die means having lived-- but to not exist means being nothing! To live means to influence the cosmos! Ones actions-- ones presence-- changes every being he meets! The cosmos is everything! To affect any part of the cosmos is to affect the totality! Life is the most precious gift the cosmos can bestow....." --Steve Englehart: Marvel Premiere Featuring Doctor Strange # 12

--- On Sun, 1/22/12, Special Kain wrote:

From: Special Kain
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism vs The Abrahamic Faiths
To: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Date: Sunday, January 22, 2012, 11:14 PM


Dear Kenneth

There are pantheists as well as panentheists in Zoroastrianism. Either way our world is regarded as that which we should hold sacred. People are defined as co-creators and not as God's subordinates and servants. We are ethically obliged to live in accordance with asha which is nothing less than The Way of The World.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 12:14 Sonntag, 22.Januar 2012
Betreff: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism vs The Abrahamic Faiths


Dear Kenneth

You're absolutely right.
The WORLD AFFIRMATIONCition to the Abrahamic faiths) has a very obvious origin: Zarathushtra does NOT believe in sin!!!
The idea of sin, of original sin, of a gap between God and Man created by Man, which is at the very ROOT of all Abrahamic faiths, has no bearing within Zoroastrianism at all. There is not even a word for sin in Avesta.
Instead. Zarathushtra is completely focused on THOUGHT and HOW THOUGHT WORKS. It is in this process that he separates between Asha (constructive mentality) adn Druj (destructive mentality).
The result is an ETHICAL FAITH without moralism. There are no rules to break. But there is a firm belief that "you are your thoughts", "you are your words" and "you are your actions".
Which is of course radically different from Abrahamism and its obsession with sin.

Ushta
Alexander

Den 22 januari 2012 04:23 skrev Kenneth C :

Hello

I am starting some Ethnographic field work research on Zoroastrianism. I have been very inspired by the Gathas. I am a Danish American and have studied a lot of Scandinavian spirituality and that is my background. Even though Zoroastrianism is often associated with Judeo-Christian thought, from what I read it seems to be a completely different thought process all together.

One of the major things that impresses me about Zoroastrianism and where I think it is way different than the Abrahamic religions and in this regard there would be more similarity to older Scandinavian religion, is that from my understanding Zoroastrianism is very world affirming. In other words it seems to promote a spiritual view of the here and now and what should be done on this earth without hoping for a better afterlife in another reality which is intangible. One of the major things that upsets me about the desert religions is that they use phrases like "earthly" or "of the flesh" in the negative. Even more tolerant religions like Gnosticism can use those terms in a negative light. It's as if suggesting that while we're here on this earth in our bodies we are trapped. I find that ideology ultimately destructive and in many ways can be harmful. One example of how harmful world rejecting dualistic ideology can be is if you go back to 1996 when the Heavens Gate cult committed mass suicide because they felt they were trapped in this lower dimension and in their physical bodies. Anyone who believes that the earthly is something we're trapped in and that we must attain somewhere higher that we cannot even see is not being honest with themselves. If the flesh or the earthly is bad than why did I come out of my mother's womb? And since I am a firm supporter of evolution where did all life come from down to the very first ancestor on this planet. To me these world rejectors are making something up and saying that it comes from something intangible that we can never put a finger on.

I remember one part of the Gatha's where Zarathustra pays respect to the waters and earth. So there seems to be quite a bit of world affirming ideology in the philosophy. Now I don't know, but from my interpretation, would you as Zoroastrians even say that Ahura Mazda is not separate from nature. If so, I find Zoroastrianism hard to disagree with.

btw my next post will be a question regarding my field work research. I want to do a study on Zoroastrianism and how it relates to Psychology.

Kenneth