tisdagen den 31:e juli 2012

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

söndagen den 29:e juli 2012

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

onsdagen den 25:e juli 2012

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

fredagen den 20:e juli 2012

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

torsdagen den 19:e juli 2012

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

tisdagen den 17:e juli 2012

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

lördagen den 14:e juli 2012

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

fredagen den 13:e juli 2012

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

onsdagen den 11:e juli 2012

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