onsdagen den 20:e juni 2012

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

tisdagen den 19:e juni 2012

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

måndagen den 11:e juni 2012

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

onsdagen den 6:e juni 2012

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