Alexander Bard

Fate vs Asha in Zoroastrian philosophy

2012-01-26T04:40:00.001-08:00

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

Alain de Botton, Slavoj Zizek, and the ideas of a New World Religion Part 2

2012-01-23T14:01:00.001-08:00

Dear Kenneth and friends

The last time Zoroastrianism spread in the West was through Mithraism in the Roman Empire, a religion with Zoroastrian roots which was for a time the most widespread and popular religion in the entire empire. It was ultimately defeated by Christianity through imperial decree and mass prosecution of its practitioners. I actually believe it is in a new version that Zoroastrianism and its philosophy will take hold in the west again. At least Parsi Zoroastrianism is too frought with infighting and resistance to change to become a credible alternative. A Zoroastrian revival in a post-mullah Iran could however be extremely attractive to western masses (when they finally discover that Iranian philosophy is on an equal level with Indian and Chinese thought). But until then I keep my hopes for a Hegelian-style religion in the west, referring credibly back to Zarathushtra and his philosophy. The next ten years will decide.

Ushta
Alexander

Den 23 januari 2012 19:59 skrev Kenneth Christensen :

Interesting. I live in a College town in California. This city is quite a center for ideas. After reading the Gatha's I started discussing the philosophy to some friends and college professors. Many of them said how from what I've been describing Zarathustra's philosophy is very logical and compatible with science. One guy even told me after I described the philosophy that he wants to look into it because from what I told him, Zoroastrianism makes more sense than any other religious ideology he has heard. Zoroastrianism could have the potential to spread tremendously in the West because it is compatible with the western values of logic, reason, and the scientific method.

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

Alain de Botton, Slavoj Zizek, and the ideas of a New World Religion

2012-01-23T03:02:00.000-08:00

Dear Friends

I have some very interesting news to share.
The Swiss-British philosopher Alain de Botton has a brilliant new book out called "Religion for Atheists".
You can hear his presentation of the book at the latest TED conference here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0.html
Interestingly, it seems Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek's new massive "Less Than Nothing" - 1 200 pages of Hegel applied on contemporary society, argues along similar lines to de Botton: What society needs today is a new world religion which is monist and denies the existence of the supernatural but which in every other aspect acts as a religion-proper. And Zizek is probably the world's most reknown and influential philosopher today.
But isn't this precisely what Zoroastrianism already is and has been for 3,700 years? At least this is what I argued with my co-writer Jan Söderqvist when we wrote "Det globala imperiet" in Swedish in 2002 (this book is finally out in English later this year as "The Global Empire").
Maybe we should now seriously consider marketing Zoroastrianism as "The Religion for Atheists" in contemporary society as a radical departure from the Irano-centric presentation of an "ancient philosophical faith"? An alternative is of course to join and work towards a Religion for Atheists first (an "atheology") and then connect it properly to Zarathushtra's philosophy afterwards. After all, there are quite a lot of dualists and panentheists among Zoroastrians too, and they would disagree with RFA on basic fundaments.
I truly believe this is the big opening to present Zarathushtra's philosophy to the West that I have been waiting for for over two decades!!!

Ushta
Alexander

Zoroastrianism vs The Abrahamic Faiths

2012-01-22T03:14:00.000-08:00

Dear Kenneth

You're absolutely right.
The WORLD AFFIRMATION of Zoroastrianism (in opposition 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". So Zarathushra's question is: Who are you? Who do you want to be? To yourself?
Which is of course radically different from Abrahamism and its obsession with sin and The Judgment Day. ;-)

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

Zoroastrianism and Satan

2012-01-11T12:13:00.000-08:00

Dear Kenneth

I guess you have to ask Muslims and Christians what kind of devil they believe in. I have personally never grasped their beliefs as find them both contradictory and totally uncredible. But then again, I'm not a Muslim nor a Christian and that for very good reasons.

There is no such thing as a personal Satan in Zoroastrianism proper. Sure there are devils in folk religion in the Indo-Aryan cultures, but Zarathushtra does not believe in any satanic being. However, there are obviously stagnant or destructive minds around and this is what "Angra Mainyu" means. I would even stretch the concept and speak of "minds of bitterness" or "minds of ressentiment" as proper translations of Angra Mainyu. We all have to fight a daily struggle against such a mentality taking over our minds. But this is precisely what the life of a Zoroastrian proper is all about.

Ushta
Alexander

Den 11 januari 2012 20:03 skrev Kenneth C :

Hello

I am an Anthropology student who would like to focus his studies on a combination of Religious Anthropology and psychological anthropology. I am a practitioner of a religion that is a reinvention of an older Scandinavian religion called Asatru. In Sweden I think Alexander Bard might know it as Asatro. Alexander I hope you don't mind me saying. I grew up in the metal scene. Your music was music I found catchy and liked, but was embarrassed to admit it to my macho Heavy Metal friends. I do sincerely mean that as a compliment, so I hope you do not take offense.

Zoroastrianism and Indo-European thought in general if fascinating to me as it deals a lot with matters of mind, and consciousness. I have found that Zoroastrianism has the most emphasis on matters of the mind. After reading the Gatha's I came to the conclusion that Zoroaster was the first Psychologist. In Zoroastrianism there are thousands of years studying the mind and western culture is just starting. One reason why I am hoping to do ethnographic field work on Zoroastrianism.

Now because I do not think like my ultra conservative, American nationalist, evangelical family, I have been at war with myself between what my family told me I was not capable of (because I am on the autistic spectrum, what they wanted me to be, what am capable of, and what I really am. This has caused much mental stress which has lead to severe stomach problems. Because of this I often wondered if I was in fact a child of the devil, so to overcome this anxiety I considered the possibility. Then suddenly the voice of Terence Mckenna saying "Well if I am a disciple of Satan, it is an unknowing disciple." I felt at ease. A just parent would never punish a child for not knowing what he or she is doing is wrong. Therefore if God exist and God is just, why should I be punished for not knowing. That kind of God cannot be good.

It was then that I came to the conclusion that the devil is not real. The devil is nothing more that a cartoon character created by human thought as a way to scare people from thinking. Fascinating thing is I started reading more on Zoroastrianism and I am by no means trying to simplify Angra Manyu as a devil. However I remember reading that the two words translate to Dead Mentality or Stagnant mind. A ha! I am seeing synchronicity. So my question is could the devil as a concept in the Christian or Muslim in fact be something that promotes the Stagnant mind? It would appear that most Christian or Muslim motivation is from the concept of fear of the devil rather than a love for God. I remember reading in the Gatha's and this saying really hit me like a lighting bolt. What I read was "Do good for the sake of doing good, without fear of punishment or expectation of reward." This is the utmost way to practice altruism. Ayn Rand would not be proud. I do not consider myself a Zoroastrian because I don't feel that I live up to such an altruistic standard. For that reason I am not worthy to call myself that. Well back to the point. How many Christians or Muslims are doing good because the act of good gives a better quality life, or how many of them are doing it because of a combination of hopes for rewards in Heaven or Fear of suffering in Hell. One Muslim at my school said "Well if you aren't doing it to be in Heaven than what are you striving for?" In which my response was "but if you are striving for that, than does that not cheapen your action by intention?" I ended up stumping her with that.

I guess what I am getting at is I find the goal of Heaven, or fear of Hell is the leading cause in this world today of human strife, not advancing in science (like how in America people want to teach Intelligent Design in Schools) and people's inability to think outside their cultural conditioning. It seems that the fear of the devil is a bigger motivation in these religions, than a hope for reward. So are they really serving God, or are they really serving the concept of a devil? This would be an interesting discussion. I would like to know what the Zoroastrians here think.

Kenneth

The Zoroastrian call for secular democracy

2011-12-19T22:20:00.000-08:00

Dear Shahrooz

As long as Zoroastrianism is viewed as a religion rather than a philosophy, all talk about a Zoroastrian state will only do us enormous harm and not any good at all. It is better to speak of a secular and democratic state rather than a Zoroastrian state even if we all know that philosophically speaking Zoroastrianism is the INVENTOR of democracy.

We need to be clever now. The public demand for democracy heard across the Middle East and many other parts of the world (Russia, Congo, Kazachstan, only this week) is a demand for secular democracy with FREEDOM OF RELIGION as an integral part. Any talk of a Zoroastrian state in the midst of all this will just smack of another set of mullah or military dictatorship rule. Let's stop speaking such nonsense once and for all! We all need to be a part of this brand new movement, not be viewed as eccentric enemies of secular democracy!

Ushta
Alexander

Den 20 december 2011 05:35 skrev SHAHROOZ ASH :

Dear Alex,

Hope all is well and good.

As I stated before, a Zoroastrian-State will be compatible with secular society. The Zoroastrian-State will be based on Vohu-Khshathra, with true freedom and liberty for all; including any individual who is not Zoroastrian. This form of state does not exist in our world today. Because, in Vohu-Khshshthra the value is that which is right because it is right and not it is right if it makes money. This is the path to true freedom and liberation. Once we establish this liberation in our own state, then we begin to export it, and liberate the rest of our human brothers. The world is on the wrong path, the path of destruction.
And also, all nations have lead to disaster at some point in their history regardless to the form of the state. The level of success; that Zoroastrian Iran achieved far exceeds its recession.

Wishing you the best (Behesht),
Shahrooz Ash

To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: bardissimo@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:18:22 +0100

Subject: Re: [zoroastrians] Re: [Ushta] Encroachment of Zoroastrian properties in Yazd

Dear Shahrooz

Yes, I believe it would be much better if Israel was a secular state. I would never want to live in a Zoroastrian state where non-Zoroastrians would be treated as inferiors. Ideas should be fought for in democratic elections and not be forced upon people from a religious constitution. And every time there has been a Zoroastrian state, it has lead to disaster to Zoroastrianism as a religion. It was one of the reasons why the Arabs managed to invade Iran in the first place. It is a really bad idea. Zoroastrianism is not suitable to FORCE people to do anything, it is the religion of ethical choice! Zarathushtra would have strongly disagreed with you.

Ushta
Alexander

Den 17 december 2011 23:54 skrev SHAHROOZ ASH :
Hope all is well and good.

1. Israel is a Jewish-State. Should we dismantle this country because it is not a secular society?

2. A Zoroastrian-State, the way I see it can be, by definition a Zoroastrian-state & Secular at the same time; both ideas are compatible. And also, my view of secular is different than what people think secular is today. What this world calls secular today, I call it cultural destruction. I am against the secular system of the world today. Want nothing to do with it. It is a western capitalist scam.

The fall of Iran at the hands of Muslims had nothing to do with the Iranian government at the time. If bunch of invaders come to attack you for no good reason, for example; Changis Khan, and you lose the battle, then this does not necessary mean the government was bad. The fact that the Sassanians are being blamed for the fall of Iran, under the pretense of Zoroastrian Religion is propaganda of the: West, Jews, Christians & most of all the Muslims. I personally do not buy that story, never have & never will. I am not going to get fooled by the hands of the enemy. Zoroastrians have many enemies and not just one.

NO PERSON WILL EVER CHANGE MY MIND IN ANY OF THE ISSUES ABOVE, EVER. And, I will propagate my own position as much as I can and will work towards my own idea of a Zoroastrian-State as long as I am able. And the entire greater Iran must be a Zoroastrian-State. If any person disagrees, then can leave Iran and go some other place. The archeological evidences are all over the place.

Wishing you the best (Behesht),
Shahrooz Ash

To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: behnaz.larsen@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:08:16 +0300
Subject: Re: [zoroastrians] Re: [Ushta] Encroachment of Zoroastrian properties in Yazd

I understand your frustration.
A Zoroastrian Iran might be a possibility in the future but not by law, force, manipulation or mass conversions. We need to inspire people to be Good. If they conclude that being good requires a conversion, so be it. But in no way should we mix our religion/ideology with politics of how to govern a society. Politics in itself is a lie. It is based on how to manipulate the mass in order to guide them towards a common goal. As zoroastrians we cannot lie. Our way of influencing is everlasting and a lie, no matter how convenient, is not a sustainable approach. Our country should be governed by people we choose based on their abilities to tackle challenges and not based on their religious believes. And yes, they will need to lie here and there to get things moving.

God bless our mother land,

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 16, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:
Dear Shahrooz

No, we don't need any Zoroastrian state. We need a secular, democratic state in Iran where people are allowed to choose any religion they wish and where religion is separated from government. This is the proper Zoroastrian thing. When a religion takes over a state both the religion and the state become corrupt and totalitarian. This is what has happened in Iran now with Shia Islam. And this was the problem wtih Zoroastrianism in Iran before the Arab invasion. It was precisely when Zoroastrianismn became a state religion in Sassanian Iran that it begun to fail and lose its once widespread respect and popularity.

Ushta
Alexander

Den 16 december 2011 04:18 skrev SHAHROOZ ASH :

Hope all is well and good.

This is the reason why we need a Zoroastrian-State. We have paid with our lives for centuries.
The only way we are going to be safe and protected is to have a Zoroastrian-State.
Therefore Iran must become a Zoroastrian-State.

Wishing you the best (Behesht),
Shahrooz Ash

Zarathushtra's unique position in literary history

2011-11-19T17:15:00.000-08:00

Correct!

But I was referring to a LITERARY POSITION of which there is none in Zarathushtra's philosophy. Simply because he was one of the first literary authors ever (if at all, the original Zarathushtra may well have been an oral author, which explains why The Gathas is 100% poetic text). So he refers to positions he has understood in his own society but not to positions FORMALLY made by anybody else. His work is actually pre-historical in this sense, not referring to any other historical documents.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/11/19 Special Kain

Dear all,

Zarathushtra indeed refers to other people's beliefs and convictions, especially the Kaplans (priests) against which he puts forward his own beliefs and convictions about how things work. His opposition to superstition only makes sense against the religious background of his time. And he encourages people to question those priests' authority in matters of knowledge and wisdom.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 9:19 Montag, 14.November 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Importance and identities

Correct!
What is so wonderfully odd with Zarathustra is of course that he does not refer to anybody else in his texts. His texts create a context, they are not part of of any.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/11/13 Daniel Samani

Yes! Then I have confidence that I have comprehended what you had said. As we all know, there currently is competing narrative (even for texts written long time ago). ;)

2011/11/13 Alexander Bard
What is the reason? Why would Zarathushtra leave a reason? A reason may only be referred to if there is a COMPETING narrative. But with Zarathushtra being one of of the first authors of history, he never refers to anybody else's ideas. This is how the world works, according to Zarathushtra, he sees no reason for this besides understanding this is how things work.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/11/13 Daniel Samani

If I rephrase then, as I got the impression that you had the view that Zarathustra found ditto important. Whats the reason for this according too him? And how would you define an relationship? Does this include interpersonal relationships? Or maybe is it ONLY this we are talking about in this context?

Ushta
Daniel

2011/11/13 Alexander Bard

Whether something is important or not is really up to us. Nothing IS important in itself. Importance is not part of the substance of anything. It is a subjective attribute, nothing more, nothing less. And sure you can have as many identities as yoy like. As human beings we have at least as many identities as we have relationships with other human beings. Attaching only ONE identity to a person is nothing but a social convention. What is singular is not identity but BODY.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/11/12 Daniel Samani

Oh that is a very helpful replys indeed!

Dino: Could you please explain for the ones not initialized, what "socio-symbolic resources" means. As I have no actual grasp myself. Also can there be one or many identities in your view?

Alex: Me writing this and who I am at this very moment is the same thing? How is this something of great importance? Is the reason for this ("you and your behavior") that our behavior is what people judge me from? And also the way I can get an idea myself of who I am?

Ushta
Daniel

Obsession with Ethics

2011-11-12T23:18:00.001-08:00

Well, only if you disregard choice, which we as humans actually have.
If we remove a child from a parent, the parent is not going to be very important to that child's upbringing or identity. However this does not mean that the parent can or will not ascribe importance to the existence of his or her offspring. To the contrary, the parent is likely to be obsessed with the separation from his or her child, making it highly important in his or her life, GIVING it importance.
So while your suggestion is correct in nature it is inadequate to describe how human identity is produced (culture). Which is exactly Zarathushtra's point: You are your thoughts (to then fill that identity with your words and actions in a similar manner). You produce your world through subjective experience.
Plants and animals don't, but we do.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/11/13 osred90

Importance is not part of the substance of anything NOR is it a mentally subjective attribute.

Rather it is a property of a relationship between two things.

Something can only be said to be important in relation to something else. Something being important means it will have a BIG IMPORT for something else i.e. have a POTENTIAL BIG IMPACT on it.

A person who is a father will be important to their children because of the big impact they have on their lives. That same person is not important to unrelated people. But this is not just a subjective attribute (if subjective means mentally constructed). Of course people have the power to construct their own SENSE of IMPORTANCE (sense of what is important) which may or may not match the reality of the situation.

Similarly IDENTITY is a property of the relationship of a person or thing to the rest of the world. It is neither a property of a thing in itself not a mentally constructed thing.

A person's identity starts with their physical relationship to the world - what physical location their bodies occupy. From this springs the position they occupy in the complex dynamic web of actions and consequences that make up the activity of the world.

Again it is SENSE OF IDENTITY which has to be constructed. A good mental sense of identity will orientate a person effectively so that they know what are the actions worth doing.

A person has only ONE IDENTITY - i.e. they are only one person - but they may have multiple SENSES of IDENTITY - because each sense of identity only captures a partial aspect of their true IDENTITY.

Osred.

www.zoroastrian.org.uk

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Alexander Bard wrote:
>
> Whether something is important or not is really up to us. Nothing IS
> important in itself. Importance is not part of the substance of anything.
> It is a subjective attribute, nothing more, nothing less. And sure you can
> have as many identities as yoy like. As human beings we have at least as
> many identities as we have relationships with other human beings. Attaching
> only ONE identity to a person is nothing but a social convention. What is
> singular is not identity but BODY.
> Ushta
> Alexander
>
> 2011/11/12 Daniel Samani
>
> > Oh that is a very helpful replys indeed!
> >
> > Dino: Could you please explain for the ones not initialized, what "socio-symbolic
> > resources" means. As I have no actual grasp myself. Also can there be one
> > or many identities in your view?
> >
> > Alex: Me writing this and who I am at this very moment is the same thing?
> > How is this something of great importance? Is the reason for this ("you and
> > your behavior") that our behavior is what people judge me from? And also
> > the way I can get an idea myself of who I am?
> >
> > Ushta
> > Daniel

Importance and identities

2011-11-12T15:18:00.000-08:00

Whether something is important or not is really up to us. Nothing IS important in itself. Importance is not part of the substance of anything. It is a subjective attribute, nothing more, nothing less. And sure you can have as many identities as yoy like. As human beings we have at least as many identities as we have relationships with other human beings. Attaching only ONE identity to a person is nothing but a social convention. What is singular is not identity but BODY.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/11/12 Daniel Samani

Oh that is a very helpful replys indeed!

Dino: Could you please explain for the ones not initialized, what "socio-symbolic resources" means. As I have no actual grasp myself. Also can there be one or many identities in your view?

Alex: Me writing this and who I am at this very moment is the same thing? How is this something of great importance? Is the reason for this ("you and your behavior") that our behavior is what people judge me from? And also the way I can get an idea myself of who I am?

Ushta
Daniel

Spinoza - Kant - Hegel - Nietzsche - Zarathushtra Part 2

2011-10-16T10:19:00.001-07:00

Exactly!!!
And elegantly written it is too, dear Dino!
The point is that you either take the argument that all valuations are subjective (or rather intersubjective) and never objective seriously, or you don't. And if you do take it seriously, you're left to think in terms of processes where CREATION OF MEANING becomes everything since absolutely nothing is given.
And the canvas on which you then PAINT YOUR WORLD is indeed The Wall of Contingency.
I'm writing this sitting on the side of the volcano of Santorini in Greece. The volcano could literally explode any second. Sitting here reminds me of how utterly contingent life is.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/10/15 Special Kain
I agree. Spinoza's mistake was to promote "logical necessarism".
I see Zarathushtra as an existentialist thinker precisely because he addressed the issue of inescapable and random suffering in the same way as did Nietzsche.
It is the task of religion, political ideology and, more recently, self-help culture to explain random suffering - making it seem less random - and therefore "ease the pain": suffering as a necessary learning experience during one's journey towards self-actualization, one's sacrifice for a better future.
Existentialist thinkers like Zarathushtra, Epictetus and Nietzsche were a lot smarter than this. They believed in CONTINGENCY and therefore took random suffering for what it is. They didn't take it as theologically or psychologically necessary, but put their focus on one's ATTITUDE towards inescapable suffering and how we choose to REACT: what we choose to think, speak and act, and how our ATTITUDE eventually affects this issue. They put their focus on the FUTURE rather than the past, because we become the choices we make within a given environment. For Epictetus there was nothing good or bad about suffering: it was merely "preferred" or "dispreffered". But it is us who CREATE VALUES and therefore differentiate between good and bad as a medical rather than moralistic choice. That's why Nietzsche defined ethics in terms of physiology, dietary needs, climate and one's constitution.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 18:18 Freitag, 14.Oktober 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Spinoza - Kant - Hegel - Nietzsche - Zarathushtra

Yes, Hegel mistake was to be a determinist. What Nietzsche did was to take the Hegelian concept of "the mind observing the mind as pure mind" into the physical realm and turning it existentialist. And it is not so much idealism which is opposed to materialism as it is a matter of existentialism as opposed to determinism. What Hegel lacks is the concept "contingency", he is not a pragmatist.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/10/14 Special Kain

It is true that Nietzsche rarely mentioned Hegel. But Hegel's idealism is strictly teleological and dialectical, and Nietzsche was strongly opposed to teleology and dialectics. Hegel was the first to push Kant aside and discover a new path, but it was Nietzsche who took the first steps.

Spinoza - Kant - Hegel - Nietzsche - Zarathushtra

2011-10-13T04:31:00.001-07:00

Correct!
Although I would defend "idealism" in the Hegelian sense and claim (which I know is controversial) that Nietzsche and Hegel are united in this stance. Hegel's world is namely ALSO a world where we are to trust and refine our senses (his philosophy deals with how such a mind would work). So the BREAK WITH RATIONALISM really happens with Hegel as his "rationalism" is radically different from the classic rationalism of Kant (it is a transrationalism, a rationality knowing its own limits) and Nietzsche then builds on this as a sort of "post-Hegelian poet". Nietzsche did not openly oppose Hegel. The unfortunate opposition between the two thinkers was constructed much later by sloppy readers of the two (especially French Hegelians and French Nietzscheans opposed to each other in the 1950s).
Ushta
Alexander

2011/10/13 Special Kain

Nietzsche's point was to trust and refine our senses rather than blindly submit to rationality and all things abstract. He killed idealism in all its forms. As he knew, it takes courage to face reality and take things for what they are, as it takes courage to that which one knows (see his best text "Götzendämmerung"). Phenomenology as ontology!

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 15:41 Montag, 10.Oktober 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] Spinoza - Kant - Nietzsche - Zarathushtra

Immanuel Kant arrived after Spinoza but before Nietzsche.
The Kantian revolution means that we can no longer look at "the idea of reality" as anything but a more or less qualitative fantasy about the world. The real "noumenal" world that Kant discussed is out of reach. For good.
Spinoza had no clue about this and discussed realism and rationalism as if they were perfectly self-evident necessities. No such concepts survived the Kantian revolution. Not even the self-evident cogito of Descartes which Spinoza never really opposed either.
What Nietzsche ultimately then does is to put Kant against Kant himself and then throws the Kantian revolution into an historical context (showing the horrible consequences of Kant's achievement and the possible opening to a new affirmative nihilism this entails).
As for Zarathushtra, he didn't step into Spinoza's trap to begin with. So he neither had to deal with. His is a cogito of action and effects rather than reflection.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/10/10 Daniel Samani

If one is not an "logical necessarist" what is one then? Even if Spinoza have inherited ways of toughs from Descartes does this means that his idea of necessity dont apply to Nietzsches idea of necessity in any way, shape or form? How do they differentiate? How I have comprehended it is some sort of skepticism towards our minds ability to process reality itself.

Ushta
Daniel

Spinoza - Kant - Nietzsche - Zarathushtra

2011-10-10T06:41:00.000-07:00

Immanuel Kant arrived after Spinoza but before Nietzsche.
The Kantian revolution means that we can no longer look at "the idea of reality" as anything but a more or less qualitative fantasy about the world. The real "noumenal" world that Kant discussed is out of reach. For good.
Spinoza had no clue about this and discussed realism and rationalism as if they were perfectly self-evident necessities. No such concepts survived the Kantian revolution. Not even the self-evident cogito of Descartes which Spinoza never really opposed either.
What Nietzsche ultimately then does is to put Kant against Kant himself and then throws the Kantian revolution into an historical context (showing the horrible consequences of Kant's achievement and the possible opening to a new affirmative nihilism this entails).
As for Zarathushtra, he didn't step into Spinoza's trap to begin with. So he neither had to deal with. His is a cogito of action and effects rather than reflection.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/10/10 Daniel Samani

If one is not an "logical necessarist" what is one then? Even if Spinoza have inherited ways of toughs from Descartes does this means that his idea of necessity dont apply to Nietzsches idea of necessity in any way, shape or form? How do they differentiate? How I have comprehended it is some sort of skepticism towards our minds ability to process reality itself.

Ushta
Daniel

2011/10/9 Special Kain

Dear Daniel,

Nietzsche was not a Spinozist and therefore not a "logical necessarist". Spinoza was as much a rationalist and systematic philosopher as Kant and Descartes, and Nietzsche was strongly opposed to this philosophical obsession with systematicity.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Daniel Samani
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 6:37 Sonntag, 9.Oktober 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] How I have comprehended Asha

Dear Dino,

Thank you for your time and your careful reply it is appreciated. I don't disagree at all, even if this to my mind sounds so simple to the point that it almost renders meaningless. In my mind the general description of what exists is what we can observe and sense - now I am not sure this is what you have in mind. Spinoza talks about and divide between adequate and inadequate ideas. As I have comprehended it Spinoza argues that inadequate ideas are contingent while adequate ideas are necessary - I have not currently grasped the ramifications of this statement. But is this on these lines you are speaking of that which really exists? I also see an connection between Spinozas concept of adequate ideas and Nietzsches concept of Amor fati where Nietzsche writes “I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth!”.

Ushta
Daniel

2011/10/8 Special Kain

Dear Daniel,

Asha is that which fits with reality - that which really exists, which is Ahura. There are causes and effects. It is our attitude towards life that determines what we will choose. And we become the choices we make.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Daniel Samani
An: ushta
Gesendet: 13:12 Donnerstag, 6.Oktober 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] How I have comprehended Asha

Dear friends,

Asha or Arta is an very old concept, and is not without certain error translated to any given modern language. In both Sanskrit and Gathic Avestan, it literally means "what fits", in any and every situation. The Asha concept summarize Zarathustra's philosophy and it is not strange if one have to translate it differently in different contexts to minimize the loss of meaning when translating it too English. I have, one could say quite arbitrary categorized the different contexts in realms and dimensions. But this is too my defense how I have comprehended it.

In the material realm; in Mazdayasna also called Ahura - Asha means viewing the world as it is, the key concept here is what is probable in connection to the senses. When one talk about Asha in the mental realm the key concept is identity. What identities does currently work in the immediate space time environment one is experiencing. In Mazdayasna the concept Mazda could be equal of what I translate as the mental realm. Asha is then in this particular context what lenses (recall of memory) Mazda have too accurately fit together with Ahura.

Asha can also be spoken in the emotional dimension - if this is done the key word is desire in cooperation with an attitude of constructiveness. How can one act in an constructive and effective way that is in alignment with ones and others desires. The ethical choice can be called Asha and does then means the sum of all Asha and that which works best in the long perspective.

Where do we reach agreement - help me comprehend Asha correctly.

Ushta,
Daniel

Sacred fires

2011-10-09T23:29:00.000-07:00

The oldest fire temple in the world is currently being restored in Azerbaijan (the country, not the Iranian province). It is over 3,000 years old and is indeed built on a still active oil well. So the fire has been burning continously for over 3,000 years (!!!). Must be a bit irritating for Parsees in India who cllaim that all atash bahram fires should be taken from India when in reality there are still active sacred fires in Azerbaijan at least 1,700 years older than the oldest Zoroastrian fire in India. ;-)
Ushta
Alexander

2011/10/9 Hampus Lindblad

Yes, this is interesting. Would love to see the burning hillsides some time. This area is probably the region in the world where the power of fire through oil and natural gas was first experienced. Fitting then how the fire of Zarathustra also arose from there - as both things are so essential to our civilization, albeit on very different levels.

Ushta,
Hampus

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Alexander Bard wrote:

Yes, The Sacred Fire as idea was INVENTED by the Iranians (though not by Zarathushtra who never even mentions fire in The Gathas) and then later picked up by the Greeks. So the sacred fire is an Iranian/Zoroastrian innovation (the name Azerbaijan, both an independent country and a province in north-west Iran illustrates this perfectly as it means "The Land of Fire").

Ushta
Alexander

2011/10/9 Daniel Samani

Yes yes!! I have heard of metaphors and I find them really interesting and fascinating. I would really love to be able to read up about and understand further metaphors relevant to Zarathustra's philosophy. If you have any sources regarding this I would be really thrilled. Regarding Zarathustra's sacred fire - is there any connection that you are aware of with the olympic fire? If you know any change regarding the meaning in the abrahamic traditions that would be helpful to.

Ushta
Daniel

2011/10/9 Alexander Bard

Ever heard of metaphors?
Sky is a metaphor for infinity, the torch with the fire indicates that Zarathushtra carried the sacred fire to people (carried the sacred message to people), and wings indicate freedom, the freedom to create one's own identity. You will find these metaphors in all pagan Indo-European artistic traditions.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/10/7 Daniel Samani

Dear Alexander,

Thank you for the informative reply. Does this represent something, the sky and the torch with the sacred fire? And why does Zarathustra have wings? ;)

Ushta
Daniel

Restoring the Art of Thinking (was: The Subjective Consequences of Amor Fati as The Founding Concept of Zoroastrian Ethics)

2011-09-29T14:50:00.000-07:00

In plain English: Nietzsche goes on step further than Epictetus in not merely ACCEPTING but AFFIRMING his nihilism. He shares this pathos with Zarathushtra although Zarathushtra really PREDATES NIHILISM. Zarathushtra has not even started the historical journey that ends with Nietzsche. He does not even acknowledge such a journey. So in this sense, becoming a ZOROASTRIAN is to say that "Philosophy was right from the very start". What we do now is merely RESTORING the ART OF THINKING (Mazdayasna).
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/29 Special Kain

This is the WILL TO POWER: the liberation and sense of one's power involved in not only accepting our life histories, but actually WANTING them to be just as they are - including our most devastating and dreadful experiences. It is our wills that make this cycle complete.

This is the difference between Nietzsche and Epictetus (and Nietzsche was most impressed with Heraclitus and the Stoics as the only Greeks with whom he felt a certain kindship): Nietzsche's acceptance and will ("I want it the way it is and use it to playfully co-create my future self") versus Epictetus' mere acceptance and composure ("I accept it the way it is and make use of that which happens to me.")

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 19:18 Donnerstag, 15.September 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] The Subjective Consequences of Amor Fati as The Founding Concept of Zoroastrian Ethics

Please observe that the amor fati of Zarathushra, Epictetus, and Nietzsche, includes the amor fati of ourselves as subjetive beings, of our entire life histories as perceived by ourselves.
I believe that the most important aspect of amor fati is not its stoic and grandiose character of "accepting history for what it is" but the LIBERATION involved in the complete, utter, first logical and then emotional LOVING ACCEPTANCE of who we are to ourselves.
We couldn't be further removed from the massive internal guilt-tripping which is the MOTOR of the Abrahamic faiths and the moralisms of their bi-product of modern secular humanisms. No wonder that proper Mazdayasni never feel guilty about anything, in stark contrast to Christians, Jews, and Muslims who make personal guilt their dominant personal trait.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/15 Hampus Lindblad

Just ignore the ethical part and think logic instead. And it doesn't contradict emotion per se, but rather many of it's common affiliations. If all is interaction and relationships as process philosophy argues, then we apply logic to sever the destructive/unwanted relationships whilst we promote and strengthen the ones we prefer on a long term basis. It's all about balancing emphasizing and de-emphasizing without moralistic judgement.

Have you ever tried calming down a psychotic person, or someone looping in a bad trip? It's the same method you apply - at least that's what I have done quite successfully when I've found myself in that kind of a situation.

Ushta,
Hampus

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Daniel Samani wrote:
Could you explain what you ment by ethical logic - and how this logic
contradict emotion.
Ushta
Daniel

2011/9/15, Hampus Lindblad :

> Yes, but then enters the paradoxical dance of managing to actually bring the
> ethical logic alive with emotion. It truly is a dance! The logic is the
> cleansing tool, but it is not what fills the resulting void (which is of
> course completely full looking at it in terms of possibilities and possible
> interpretations). I don't believe one can turn off emotions, and repression
> always strikes back. The objective is rather to control them by restricting
> their movements whilst still allowing them enough space to roam in areas
> where they are constructive rather than destructive.
>
> Playing music is one of the more direct ways of doing it. You can never play
> truly great music strictly through logic. Or I definitely can't anyway...
> And I don't think musical geniuses like Bach played or composed without
> emotion neither.
> Bringing Frankenstein alive required the bolt of electricity in combination
> with the mad emotions of it's creator. It's the same with Zizek's ethical
> monster I believe.
> For me amor fati is an emotion, albeit a chosen one (to the extent that that
> is possible)..And that's what separates it from the rest for me.
>
> Daniel: Have you read Fredrika Spindlers books on Nietzsche and Spinoza? I'm
> pretty sure Alexander has so I won't even bother with asking him... :)
> I don't think they have been translated from Swedish yet so unfortunately
> it's of limited interest to the rest of the list. I'm planning to sink my
> teeth into them as soon as I have finished my current books.
>
> Dino: If you feel like discussing it I would be interested in hearing more
> about how you experience yourself as still bitter and nihilistic - either
> here or offlist.I find that difficult to believe given your persona here,
> but then of course our representations here are just a segment of our
> totalities.
>
> Ushta,
> Hampus

The Ethics of a Nihilism Overcome

2011-09-26T06:06:00.001-07:00

Exactly!!!
Which is why Nietzsche speaks of "overcoming nihilism", using Zarathushtra as "the originator of ethics" as his character, perfectly aware of what he is doing in "Also Sprach Zarathustra" (as Nietzsche consequently claims in his following work "Ecce Homo"). So Nietzsch'e historical achievement (in a European and post-Christian achievement) is REALLY the RETURN to the ethics of the original ethicist. How ironic indeed!
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/26 Hampus Lindblad

Best summary I've seen or heard so far!!! So easy and yet so elegant. You overcome nihilism by first acknowledging it and then moving beyond it. Just like how taking a look underneath the bed is the only way for the child to dispel the lurking monster.

Ushta,
Hampus

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Special Kain wrote:

I think Zarathushtra's existentialist philosophy is anti-nihilism in the best possible sense.
We believe that there is something rather than nothing (Ahura). We further believe that this Something is made up of causes and effects (Asha). And we see ourselves as part of this Something and therefore as ethically obliged to educate ourselves and interact intelligently with and contribute constructively to this Something (Mazda).
Think of Nietzsche who treated ontology and epistemology as ETHICS!

Zarathushtra vs Nietzsche

2011-09-26T05:56:00.001-07:00

The only thing Zarathushtra adds that Nietzsche did not have is the pantheistic turn.
In ethics, this means that where we choose pantheism (rather than say atheism) we also get ethical turn laxking with Nietzsche: We BECOME Mazda, we are the MANIFESTATIONS of Mazda in a world of Ahura.
You are your thoughts, your words, and your actions! What you choose is how you are by chossing how you think, speak, and act. This is Zoroastrianism at its purest.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/26 Special Kain

I think Zarathushtra's existentialist philosophy is anti-nihilism in the best possible sense.
We believe that there is something rather than nothing (Ahura). We further believe that this Something is made up of causes and effects (Asha). And we see ourselves as part of this Something and therefore as ethically obliged to educate ourselves and interact intelligently with and contribute constructively to this Something (Mazda).
Think of Nietzsche who treated ontology and epistemology as ETHICS!

Zoroastrianism in Iran

2011-09-18T22:56:00.001-07:00

You probably think of the controversial Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esfandiar_Rahim_Mashaei
He was vice president briefly but was forced by Ayatollah Khamenei to resign last year while he still holds enormous power and influence behind Ahmadinejad.
Mashaei plays the nationalistic card intensely, mainly to create a separate power center against the controlling mullahs and is widely seen as the biggest rival to Ayathollah Khamanei in the Iranian government as a whole.
Yes, I guess this is good for Zoroastrianism. But the support of Zoroastrianism, at least culturally, which Mashaei has provided has so far not been publicly supported by Ahmadinejad himself. We should remain skeptical while of course endorsing the productive support we can get for the Zoroastrian cause within Iran.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/19 Daniel Samani

Dear friends,
I have heard rumors that the vice president of Iran promote
Zoroastrianism in Iran. There looks as if its an ongoing trend here
with Z symbols. My question is if this simply is nationalism or
somthing else. Any information regarding this would be appreciated.
Ushta
Daniel

2011/9/19, Hampus Lindblad :
> And that should pragmatically be regarded as a relief... Just like amor
> fati. It's the same whenever you come back from some solipsistically tainted
> illusion of being God. Good fucking riddance every single time! The absolute
> loneliness "at the top" is unbearable. It's the "be careful what you wish
> for"-aspect of the classical longing for "Being One With
> Everything"-fantasy.
>
> Ushta,
> Hampus

The Subjective Consequences of Amor Fati as The Founding Concept of Zoroastrian Ethics

2011-09-15T10:19:00.001-07:00

Please observe that the amor fati of Zarathushra, Epictetus, and Nietzsche, includes the amor fati of ourselves as subjetive beings, of our entire life histories as perceived by ourselves.
I believe that the most important aspect of amor fati is not its stoic and grandiose character of "accepting history for what it is" but the LIBERATION involved in the complete, utter, first logical and then emotional LOVING ACCEPTANCE of who we are to ourselves.
We couldn't be further removed from the massive internal guilt-tripping which is the MOTOR of the Abrahamic faiths and the moralisms of their bi-product of modern secular humanisms. No wonder that proper Mazdayasni never feel guilty about anything, in stark contrast to Christians, Jews, and Muslims who make personal guilt their dominant personal trait.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/15 Hampus Lindblad

Just ignore the ethical part and think logic instead. And it doesn't contradict emotion per se, but rather many of it's common affiliations. If all is interaction and relationships as process philosophy argues, then we apply logic to sever the destructive/unwanted relationships whilst we promote and strengthen the ones we prefer on a long term basis. It's all about balancing emphasizing and de-emphasizing without moralistic judgement.

Have you ever tried calming down a psychotic person, or someone looping in a bad trip? It's the same method you apply - at least that's what I have done quite successfully when I've found myself in that kind of a situation.

Ushta,
Hampus

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Daniel Samani wrote:
Could you explain what you ment by ethical logic - and how this logic
contradict emotion.
Ushta
Daniel

2011/9/15, Hampus Lindblad :

> Yes, but then enters the paradoxical dance of managing to actually bring the
> ethical logic alive with emotion. It truly is a dance! The logic is the
> cleansing tool, but it is not what fills the resulting void (which is of
> course completely full looking at it in terms of possibilities and possible
> interpretations). I don't believe one can turn off emotions, and repression
> always strikes back. The objective is rather to control them by restricting
> their movements whilst still allowing them enough space to roam in areas
> where they are constructive rather than destructive.
>
> Playing music is one of the more direct ways of doing it. You can never play
> truly great music strictly through logic. Or I definitely can't anyway...
> And I don't think musical geniuses like Bach played or composed without
> emotion neither.
> Bringing Frankenstein alive required the bolt of electricity in combination
> with the mad emotions of it's creator. It's the same with Zizek's ethical
> monster I believe.
> For me amor fati is an emotion, albeit a chosen one (to the extent that that
> is possible)..And that's what separates it from the rest for me.
>
> Daniel: Have you read Fredrika Spindlers books on Nietzsche and Spinoza? I'm
> pretty sure Alexander has so I won't even bother with asking him... :)
> I don't think they have been translated from Swedish yet so unfortunately
> it's of limited interest to the rest of the list. I'm planning to sink my
> teeth into them as soon as I have finished my current books.
>
> Dino: If you feel like discussing it I would be interested in hearing more
> about how you experience yourself as still bitter and nihilistic - either
> here or offlist.I find that difficult to believe given your persona here,
> but then of course our representations here are just a segment of our
> totalities.
>
> Ushta,
> Hampus
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:
>
>> What is interesting here is how Zarathushtra, Epictetus, and Nietzsche
>> don't view attitude as an EMOTIONAL issue but actually as a LOGICAL issue.
>> Emotions are supposed to follow logical calculations. It is not for
>> wanting
>> to love the world and ourselves we should do it, but because it simply is
>> the only option left for us to consider. Amor fati is an ethical logic,
>> not
>> an emotion.
>> Ushta
>> Alexander
>>
>> 2011/9/14 Special Kain
>>
>>> It is a difficult lesson. And I'm not there yet. I still have a bitter
>>> and
>>> nihilistic attitude. But what Zarathushtra and Epictetus had in common is
>>> what I consider really, really clever and wise.
>>>
>>> Ushta, Dino
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *Von:* Daniel Samani
>>> *An:* Ushta@yahoogroups.com
>>> *Gesendet:* 20:39 Mittwoch, 14.September 2011
>>> *Betreff:* Re: [Ushta] Stoics, Ethics and Narcissism (was: Zoroastrian
>>> Ethics vs Narcissism)
>>>
>>> I agree, also to me suffering is an indication that we view the world
>>> not as it is! To view the world as it is means to see what one control
>>> and what one doesnt. And when one act on this one doesnt suffer.
>>> Ushta
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> 2011/9/14, Special Kain :
>>> > A few more words in this:
>>> >
>>> > I think narcissism is really boring. Narcissists are people who are
>>> deeply
>>> > disappointed by the world. They neurotically avoid everything that
>>> > would
>>> > make them happy or change their pessimistic outlook. They're not so
>>> > very
>>> > different from people who get a twisted thrill from self-victimization.
>>> I
>>> > guess most narcissists are quite cynical. They put their focus on
>>> themselves
>>> > and devalue the world around them.
>>> >
>>> > This is the difference between Stoic philosophers with an aristocratic
>>> > background, such as Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, and Stoic philosophers
>>> who
>>> > used to be slaves, such as Epictetus, Juvenal and Chrysippus. The Stoic
>>> > aristocrats praised INDIFFERENCE and told their students to kill off
>>> their
>>> > passions and desires. And their writings usually were much more
>>> extensive
>>> > than the slaves'. They were quite idealistic and obsessed with abstract
>>> > thought. They actually wanted to save their students from their love of
>>> life
>>> > - as if the world wasn't worthy of their love.
>>> >
>>> > The Stoic slaves instead praised PRAGMATISM and told their students to
>>> > control their convictions (dogmata) and their ideas about the world,
>>> because
>>> > it is the only thing they can control. The Stoic slaves were a lot more
>>> > sarcastic, their writings rather concise and short (if they wrote
>>> anything
>>> > at all), and they also used rude words in order to change the way their
>>> > students would organize their affections. They didn't want to save
>>> > their
>>> > students from their love of life, but instead wanted to save and
>>> > nurture
>>> > their love of life. So they deemed it necessary to help them be in
>>> control
>>> > of the only thing that could make them depressed and angry: their
>>> > convictions, ideas, opinions and value judgements. And yet they put
>>> their
>>> > focus on the world around them, because we're nothing but bodies in
>>> motion
>>> > that collide and react, collide and react, collide and react. The world
>>> is
>>> > as it is, and it is our attitude towards existence that makes a
>>> difference.
>>> >
>>> > So I see a lot of Zoroastrian ethics in the teachings of the Stoic
>>> > philosophers who used to be slaves, especially in the philosophy of
>>> > Epictetus.
>>> >
>>> > Ushta,
>>> > Dino

Stoics, Ethics and Narcissism (was: Zoroastrian Ethics vs Narcissism)

2011-09-15T04:34:00.001-07:00

What is interesting here is how Zarathushtra, Epictetus, and Nietzsche don't view attitude as an EMOTIONAL issue but actually as a LOGICAL issue. Emotions are supposed to follow logical calculations. It is not for wanting to love the world and ourselves we should do it, but because it simply is the only option left for us to consider. Amor fati is an ethical logic, not an emotion.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/14 Special Kain

It is a difficult lesson. And I'm not there yet. I still have a bitter and nihilistic attitude. But what Zarathushtra and Epictetus had in common is what I consider really, really clever and wise.

Ushta, Dino

Von: Daniel Samani
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 20:39 Mittwoch, 14.September 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Stoics, Ethics and Narcissism (was: Zoroastrian Ethics vs Narcissism)

I agree, also to me suffering is an indication that we view the world
not as it is! To view the world as it is means to see what one control
and what one doesnt. And when one act on this one doesnt suffer.
Ushta
Daniel

2011/9/14, Special Kain :
> A few more words in this:
>
> I think narcissism is really boring. Narcissists are people who are deeply
> disappointed by the world. They neurotically avoid everything that would
> make them happy or change their pessimistic outlook. They're not so very
> different from people who get a twisted thrill from self-victimization. I
> guess most narcissists are quite cynical. They put their focus on themselves
> and devalue the world around them.
>
> This is the difference between Stoic philosophers with an aristocratic
> background, such as Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, and Stoic philosophers who
> used to be slaves, such as Epictetus, Juvenal and Chrysippus. The Stoic
> aristocrats praised INDIFFERENCE and told their students to kill off their
> passions and desires. And their writings usually were much more extensive
> than the slaves'. They were quite idealistic and obsessed with abstract
> thought. They actually wanted to save their students from their love of life
> - as if the world wasn't worthy of their love.
>
> The Stoic slaves instead praised PRAGMATISM and told their students to
> control their convictions (dogmata) and their ideas about the world, because
> it is the only thing they can control. The Stoic slaves were a lot more
> sarcastic, their writings rather concise and short (if they wrote anything
> at all), and they also used rude words in order to change the way their
> students would organize their affections. They didn't want to save their
> students from their love of life, but instead wanted to save and nurture
> their love of life. So they deemed it necessary to help them be in control
> of the only thing that could make them depressed and angry: their
> convictions, ideas, opinions and value judgements. And yet they put their
> focus on the world around them, because we're nothing but bodies in motion
> that collide and react, collide and react, collide and react. The world is
> as it is, and it is our attitude towards existence that makes a difference.
>
> So I see a lot of Zoroastrian ethics in the teachings of the Stoic
> philosophers who used to be slaves, especially in the philosophy of
> Epictetus.
>
> Ushta,
> Dino

Zoroastrian Ethics vs Narcissism

2011-09-12T12:53:00.000-07:00

Very very interesting!!!
Isn't this also where Zoroastrian ethics is OPPOSED to Narcissism?
Narcissism is built on the illusion that one can affect EVERYTHING in one's surroundings (or even worse, that everything in one's surroundings is affected by the presence of The Narcissist).
When in reality 99% of what affects us is contingency, pure luck (or lack of luck).
So ethics is left with that which we CAN affect. This is where Zoroastrianism, Epictectus, and Nietzsche are in perfect agreement.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/12 Special Kain

What I consider most important is the difference between that which we can't control and that which we can control (our ethical choices in Zarathushtra's sense and what Epictetus called "prohairesis"). It is this difference that goes beyond individualistic ideology and this ideology's obsession with the narcissistic self. We live and act within social situations. And situations provide for resources, opportunities and restraints. So in order to provide ourselves with more freedom, we have to change the bigger picture collectively. Anything else leads to the typical narcissist's neurotic avoidance of happiness.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Special Kain
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 22:20 Sonntag, 11.September 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The issue of suffering

The difference between Zoroastrianism and Daoism is the difference between political activism and urban subsistence farming. While Zoroastrians strive to contribute to civilization, Daoists retreat and live their lives independently.

Von: Hampus Lindblad
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 16:02 Sonntag, 11.September 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The issue of suffering

Dear Dino,

This reminded me of the saying "Achieve more, or want less". I did a quick search to find out the origin and the first hit was from some "Daily Tao"-site which quoted the Tao 12:

"The five colors blind the eye.
The five tones deafen the ear.
The five flavors dull the taste.
Racing and hunting madden the mind.
Precious things lead one astray.

Therefore the sage is guided by what he feels and not by what he sees.
He lets go of that and chooses this."

Then I started looking for alternative translations of which there seem to be plenty. The interpretation of the first page differs somewhat from the one above. Very telling how much they differ from each other. Historically the Tao Te Ching seems to be a free for all in projection. Of course the same fate is shared by the Gathas and most other religious texts, which I guess is both a blessing and a curse - depending one the chosen attitude of the observer and holder of opinion...

There's also that Richard Feynman quote that "No problem is too small or too trivial if we can really do something about it". Now the other side of that same coin is that problems that have no solution ARE "too small" to worry about. I would even go so far as to rob them of their problem status and instead sort them under the must-be-integrated foundational structure on which we can start to make our choices and create - not free will - but a wider and exponentially growing array of choice.

By the way Feynman seems to have been very much into process philosophy:

"All matter is interaction"

And talked like a Mazdayasni too:

"Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which are there."

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

On a side note I think that Buddhism has gotten a lot of credit historically for the "why lament over the unchangeable" line of thought. It would indeed be satisfying to see some of that appreciation redirected back towards Mazdayasna if that indeed is a much earlier fountainhead. And talking about fountainheads; what is known about Zarathushtras influences?

Ushta,
Hampus

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Special Kain wrote:

Dear Hampus

I agree. As I said a few times before, we have to choose for ourselves what to do with that which happens to us. When we learn new skills, we possibly learn better ways of coping. New problems arise, old problems prove to persist, we simultaneously loathe and enjoy certain problems (what Lacan called "jouissance" as opposed to "plaisir"), we learn to live with a few problems still unsolved, etc. What matters the most is one's attitude (spenta mainyu vs angra mainyu): to make a distinction between medicine and poison. You have to decide for yourself what is the right thing to do, and then just do it as if it was a sacred law. This is what Aleister Crowley meant by saying: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." We have to live truthfully and be brutally honest with ourselves.

I personally love Epictetus. We have to distinguish between that which is within our power to control (and therefore can be useful and good or harmful and bad) and that which is not within our power (and is either 'preferred' or 'dispreferred'). Why lament over something that we can't influence nor change? We should keep our cool and focus on that which we can influence and change: our feelings and thoughts, our attitude and character, opinions and decisions, convictions and abilities, etc.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Hampus Lindblad
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 14:03 Sonntag, 11.September 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The issue of suffering

I think it is a matter of definition whether suffering can be said to contain learning potential as it's usually the overcoming of suffering that provides most of the insight. Indirectly the absence of suffering is of course also a good indicator that one has progressed i.e "I would previously have been suffering under these circumstances (facing infidelity or whatever) but now I'm not").

To a certain degree I agree with you regarding Spinoza though. New problems arise as old ones vaporize as a result of our growing knowledge. It's a little bit like how the problem of falling off the edge of the Earth was resolved by the realization that our planet is spherical. The new problem that took it's place was now how to spread that knowledge without being burned on a stake by fanatical flat-Earthers.

Fundamentally I don't think there's a static and permanent way of avoiding suffering. One has to adapt alongside the change. One of the few things that would be wise to upkeep always is of course the constructive Ashavan mindset. Do you agree with the above or do you have diverging perspectives?

Usha,
Hampus

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Special Kain wrote:

Zarathushtra talked about the courage and strength to do what is right and necessary, to live in accordance with "that which fits" and defend ourselves against those who act upon destructive mentalities. So it's a matter of what we choose to do with that which causes misery and pain, and whether or not long-term thinking and education may ease the pain.
According to Spinoza, all that is "harmful" is caused by our limited knowledge, and the more and better we educate ourselves, the less we will suffer. But I disagree with Spinoza's optimism here.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Hampus Lindblad
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 1:17 Sonntag, 11.September 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The issue of suffering

I would personally not state that "suffering is not a learning experience" or words to that effect. Instead I prefer to postulate that suffering - given a constructive enough attitude - can be a learning experience (just as any other type of experience). Nothing more and nothing less. Which is more or less exactly what Dino has written here below... I'm just bringing it up because I believe statements like "suffering is not a learning experience" can be easily misinterpreted unless they are given in a wider context like that of this thread. It would for example be unsuitable for a more concentrated Zoroastrianism 101 conversation I think.

With the right attitude I believe temporary suffering can be a very efficient learning experience. Similar to that of bliss and ecstasy, just on the other extreme of the spectrum. I find that strong contrasts are generally very useful tools to build understanding and constructive self-policy.

Ushta,
Hampus

Pity as Druj

2011-09-11T13:18:00.001-07:00

When confronted with the suffering of others, you either see things for what they are and act AFFIRMATIVELY (you do the right thing because it is the right thing to do and you are a person who do right things) for example by doing your best to alleviate the suffering but without any pity or mistaeking for being YOUR suffering (because it is not). Pity is instead the passive reaction when one is in DENIAL of what suffering truly is. It is a product of fear of conflict, precisely how people react who can't handle reality and are therefore escaping it whenever given a chance. Pity is therefore a product of druj and not of asha.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/10 Special Kain

I don't get you here. Could you please elaborate on this a bit? Where is the connection between pity and self-denial (or one's excess in conformity)?
Thanks!

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 13:06 Samstag, 10.September 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] The Problem with Pity

I agree!
The only reason why PITY exists is because most people are so afraid of the conflicts and other unpleasantries they may encounter from others if they actually tell the truth. Pity is therefore probably the lowest form of lying, the form of lying you get from people who refuse to see the world for what it is and only seek minimum resistance (and maximum likeability) in their entire behavior. These are the people who show pity. You can never trust them.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

Yes, this is where Zarathushtra, Nietzsche and Spinoza agree (even though I'm not a Spinozist and I strongly disagree with Spinoza's determinism, because I see the universe as probablistic in nature). And this is also where Nietzsche and Epictetus agree that PITY is unacceptable.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 18:25 Donnerstag, 8.September 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] The issue of suffering

I completely agree.
Zoroastrianism is also THE ONLY RELIGION or philosophical system which refuses to add meaning to suffering. Suffering is just bad (druj) and something we should fight. But this fight IN ITSELF does not have any meaning other than that the success of relieving suffering is its own reward. So both Zarathushtra and Nietzsche were right and here stress an important difference between Zoroastrian thinking and the philosophies of the east (where suffering is a learning experience, something it is not) and the religions of the deserts (which all claim that suffering is caused by sin and disobedience against God).
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

Dear brothers and sisters

As already discussed, Friedrich Nietzsche was philosophically interested in how different cultures and religions teach their members and followers how to cope with random suffering. Cultures and religions provide for ready-made explanations and interpretations that help people cope with random suffering: God walks in mysterious ways, and all your pain and misery will pay off in the future; those who suffer will be rewarded, and those who enjoy themselves will fall (we envy those who seem to be better off); there will be salvation and forgiveness; success requires hardship (see Max Weber's studies on the Protestant work ethic), etc.

Simply put, as long as we are able to explain and GIVE MEANING to our pain, this will ease the pain. But once our explanations fail, we are exposed to suffering in its full CONTINGENCY. As long as we see our pain as MEANINGFUL, we are able to cope with it. As soon as we realise that it doesn't actually make any sense (or any more sense than something else), we face the TRUTH OF NIHILISM. Suffering itself isn't that which scares us. It is the fact that suffering has NO POSITIVE SUBSTANCE and NO INTRINSIC VALUE.

So how did Zarathushtra address the issue of suffering? His take on suffering was brutally and uncharmingly existentialist: he simply states that there is random suffering and that it has no intrinsic value. In other words, it is pointless to suffer. He doesn't even think of suffering as a prerequisite for excellence and bliss. What he stressed is our ATTITUDE TOWARDS EXISTENCE and the choices we make when faced with suffering. How do we choose to react to this phenomenon? How do we choose to JUDGE it? And what will this choice make with us? Where am I, and who will I become once I've made my choice? Do I choose nihilism or fatalism or something more constructive and encouraging? How do I make us of it?

Ushta,
Dino

The Problem with Pity

2011-09-10T04:06:00.000-07:00

I agree!
The only reason why PITY exists is because most people are so afraid of the conflicts and other unpleasantries they may encounter from others if they actually tell the truth. Pity is therefore probably the lowest form of lying, the form of lying you get from people who refuse to see the world for what it is and only seek minimum resistance (and maximum likeability) in their entire behavior. These are the people who show pity. You can never trust them.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

Yes, this is where Zarathushtra, Nietzsche and Spinoza agree (even though I'm not a Spinozist and I strongly disagree with Spinoza's determinism, because I see the universe as probablistic in nature). And this is also where Nietzsche and Epictetus agree that PITY is unacceptable.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 18:25 Donnerstag, 8.September 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] The issue of suffering

I completely agree.
Zoroastrianism is also THE ONLY RELIGION or philosophical system which refuses to add meaning to suffering. Suffering is just bad (druj) and something we should fight. But this fight IN ITSELF does not have any meaning other than that the success of relieving suffering is its own reward. So both Zarathushtra and Nietzsche were right and here stress an important difference between Zoroastrian thinking and the philosophies of the east (where suffering is a learning experience, something it is not) and the religions of the deserts (which all claim that suffering is caused by sin and disobedience against God).
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

Dear brothers and sisters

As already discussed, Friedrich Nietzsche was philosophically interested in how different cultures and religions teach their members and followers how to cope with random suffering. Cultures and religions provide for ready-made explanations and interpretations that help people cope with random suffering: God walks in mysterious ways, and all your pain and misery will pay off in the future; those who suffer will be rewarded, and those who enjoy themselves will fall (we envy those who seem to be better off); there will be salvation and forgiveness; success requires hardship (see Max Weber's studies on the Protestant work ethic), etc.

Simply put, as long as we are able to explain and GIVE MEANING to our pain, this will ease the pain. But once our explanations fail, we are exposed to suffering in its full CONTINGENCY. As long as we see our pain as MEANINGFUL, we are able to cope with it. As soon as we realise that it doesn't actually make any sense (or any more sense than something else), we face the TRUTH OF NIHILISM. Suffering itself isn't that which scares us. It is the fact that suffering has NO POSITIVE SUBSTANCE and NO INTRINSIC VALUE.

So how did Zarathushtra address the issue of suffering? His take on suffering was brutally and uncharmingly existentialist: he simply states that there is random suffering and that it has no intrinsic value. In other words, it is pointless to suffer. He doesn't even think of suffering as a prerequisite for excellence and bliss. What he stressed is our ATTITUDE TOWARDS EXISTENCE and the choices we make when faced with suffering. How do we choose to react to this phenomenon? How do we choose to JUDGE it? And what will this choice make with us? Where am I, and who will I become once I've made my choice? Do I choose nihilism or fatalism or something more constructive and encouraging? How do I make us of it?

Ushta,
Dino
Svara
Alexander Bard till Ushta
visa information 13:06 (0 minuter sedan)
I agree!
The only reason why PITY exists is because most people are so afraid of the conflicts and other unpleasantries they may encounter from others if they actually tell the truth. Pity is therefore probably the lowest form of lying, the form of lying you get from people who refuse to see the world for what it is and only seek minimum resistance (and maximum likeability) in their entire behavior. These are the people who show pity. You can never trust them.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

Yes, this is where Zarathushtra, Nietzsche and Spinoza agree (even though I'm not a Spinozist and I strongly disagree with Spinoza's determinism, because I see the universe as probablistic in nature). And this is also where Nietzsche and Epictetus agree that PITY is unacceptable.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 18:25 Donnerstag, 8.September 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] The issue of suffering

I completely agree.
Zoroastrianism is also THE ONLY RELIGION or philosophical system which refuses to add meaning to suffering. Suffering is just bad (druj) and something we should fight. But this fight IN ITSELF does not have any meaning other than that the success of relieving suffering is its own reward. So both Zarathushtra and Nietzsche were right and here stress an important difference between Zoroastrian thinking and the philosophies of the east (where suffering is a learning experience, something it is not) and the religions of the deserts (which all claim that suffering is caused by sin and disobedience against God).
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

Dear brothers and sisters

As already discussed, Friedrich Nietzsche was philosophically interested in how different cultures and religions teach their members and followers how to cope with random suffering. Cultures and religions provide for ready-made explanations and interpretations that help people cope with random suffering: God walks in mysterious ways, and all your pain and misery will pay off in the future; those who suffer will be rewarded, and those who enjoy themselves will fall (we envy those who seem to be better off); there will be salvation and forgiveness; success requires hardship (see Max Weber's studies on the Protestant work ethic), etc.

Simply put, as long as we are able to explain and GIVE MEANING to our pain, this will ease the pain. But once our explanations fail, we are exposed to suffering in its full CONTINGENCY. As long as we see our pain as MEANINGFUL, we are able to cope with it. As soon as we realise that it doesn't actually make any sense (or any more sense than something else), we face the TRUTH OF NIHILISM. Suffering itself isn't that which scares us. It is the fact that suffering has NO POSITIVE SUBSTANCE and NO INTRINSIC VALUE.

So how did Zarathushtra address the issue of suffering? His take on suffering was brutally and uncharmingly existentialist: he simply states that there is random suffering and that it has no intrinsic value. In other words, it is pointless to suffer. He doesn't even think of suffering as a prerequisite for excellence and bliss. What he stressed is our ATTITUDE TOWARDS EXISTENCE and the choices we make when faced with suffering. How do we choose to react to this phenomenon? How do we choose to JUDGE it? And what will this choice make with us? Where am I, and who will I become once I've made my choice? Do I choose nihilism or fatalism or something more constructive and encouraging? How do I make us of it?

Ushta,
Dino

Empathy without pity

2011-09-10T03:51:00.000-07:00

I believe a good starting point is to admit that ANOTHER PERSON'S SUFFERING is that person's suffering and not our own. "Oh, so you broke your leg and it hurts, well that's too bad for you but it doesn't mean that MY LEG hurts." Empathy then becomes an attitude of GRACEFULNESS more than a co-emotion (which it is not), almost like a gratitude that the suffering of others doesn't affect us. And from this point can we act to support MENTALLY and PRACTICALLY. And will want to do so as an act of affirmation of who we are. In Christianity, it is only God who is allowed to act with such freedom. But in Mazdayasna philosophy this choice comes to all of us. YOU ARE YOUR CHOICES and nothing but your choices.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

If we choose to pity someone who is frustrated and hurt - e.g. someone who has just been dumped by his girlfriend and now believes that he'll never be loved again -, we actually confirm their pessimistic outlook: "Yes, your situation truly is unbearably sad, you are a poor victim, you are helpless, and you don't have the strength nor the brains to change things." In other words, we simply refuse to see their potential.

But if we really want to actually help them, we would say something like: "Yes, it is perfectly OK to be sad; it is true that some people sometimes are lucky and others are unlucky; but your being a victim is your own choice; you have the potential to see things from a different angle and make the best out of whatever happens to you." In other words, pity is misanthropy at its most cynical.

This doesn't mean that we should be heartless and cruel to people who already suffer. It doesn't mean that we would disrespect their feelings or that we wouldn't take them seriously. We actually choose to see the good in people and their potential. I believe that it is our OBLIGATION and DUTY to help those in need, when necessary, and that we therefore should do away with pity.

Zoroastrianism on Suffering

2011-09-08T09:26:00.001-07:00

I completely agree.
Zoroastrianism is also THE ONLY RELIGION or philosophical system which refuses to add meaning to suffering. Suffering is just bad (druj) and something we should fight. But this fight IN ITSELF does not have any meaning other than that the success of relieving suffering is its own reward. So both Zarathushtra and Nietzsche were right and here stress an important difference between Zoroastrian thinking and the philosophies of the east (where suffering is a learning experience, something it is not) and the religions of the deserts (which all claim that suffering is caused by sin and disobedience against God).
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/8 Special Kain

Dear brothers and sisters

As already discussed, Friedrich Nietzsche was philosophically interested in how different cultures and religions teach their members and followers how to cope with random suffering. Cultures and religions provide for ready-made explanations and interpretations that help people cope with random suffering: God walks in mysterious ways, and all your pain and misery will pay off in the future; those who suffer will be rewarded, and those who enjoy themselves will fall (we envy those who seem to be better off); there will be salvation and forgiveness; success requires hardship (see Max Weber's studies on the Protestant work ethic), etc.

Simply put, as long as we are able to explain and GIVE MEANING to our pain, this will ease the pain. But once our explanations fail, we are exposed to suffering in its full CONTINGENCY. As long as we see our pain as MEANINGFUL, we are able to cope with it. As soon as we realise that it doesn't actually make any sense (or any more sense than something else), we face the TRUTH OF NIHILISM. Suffering itself isn't that which scares us. It is the fact that suffering has NO POSITIVE SUBSTANCE and NO INTRINSIC VALUE.

So how did Zarathushtra address the issue of suffering? His take on suffering was brutally and uncharmingly existentialist: he simply states that there is random suffering and that it has no intrinsic value. In other words, it is pointless to suffer. He doesn't even think of suffering as a prerequisite for excellence and bliss. What he stressed is our ATTITUDE TOWARDS EXISTENCE and the choices we make when faced with suffering. How do we choose to react to this phenomenon? How do we choose to JUDGE it? And what will this choice make with us? Where am I, and who will I become once I've made my choice? Do I choose nihilism or fatalism or something more constructive and encouraging? How do I make us of it?

Ushta,
Dino

Islam is not Asha

2011-09-02T12:49:00.000-07:00

Parviz Varjavand wrote:

Dear Alex,

I do not want to go into details, but in any religious system, the Nomenclature or the meaning you wish each word to have is everything. In Zoroastrianism, if in your Nomenclature you describe certain key words with certain meanings, you get an enslaving system of thought, same as any other religion. You choose to give the good Nomenclature to Zoroastrianism and the bad one to Islam and this is how you win your arguments. Now try giving the good nomenclature to Islam too and see what happens? Every good thing you wish for Zoroastrianism also happens to Islam.

No, they do not. I CHOSE Zoroastrianism because I believed it was a SUPERIOR CHOICE. I could easily have chosen Islam instead but since I found Islam to be inferior I did not.

A true Moslem is supposed not to surrender to anything that is not Hagh. Hagh has been translated as the equivalent of Asha. Shehadat is giving witness as what you think Hagh is, often at the cost of your own life. So a True Moslem is not one that just sits in a corner in a state of submission to faith, he/she will fight to death for what is Hagh/Asha against what is Batel/Droj. I will exit this argument for it can cause me enmities from all sides, but what I say CAN BE, in the same way that what our vision of True Zoroastrianism is also "CAN BE*"!

Zoroastrianism is much more than Asha, and islam is not even dealing with Asha but only with Obedience which is a completely alien concept to Mazdayasna. In islam, even if Allah is wrong, you must obey. In Zoroastrianism your Mind is superior to any divinity. Sacredness is a proper thought of your mind, not an external divinity. There is an enormous difference between Zoroastrianism and Islam. Period. You may suffer from guilt from having been born a Zoroastrian, but that has nothing to do with me or my choice of religious affiliation. Don't mx the two!

Ushta
Alexander

Islam and Asha

2011-09-01T01:22:00.001-07:00

Nietzsche never spoke of "surrendering to amor fati" any more than Zarathushtra did.
"Amor fati" is merely the STARTING POINT for Nietzsche's existentialism. As it is for Zarathushtra, when he claims that we do not become who we are merely by contemplating on our existence and ACCEPTING it (although this is necessary first, as one massive "reality check" before we act), but we achieve our very substance as ashavands through ACTIONS.
This is precisely why Zarathushtra was OPPOSED TO hermits and monks and nuns. His ideal is an ACTIVE ashavand, not an inward-looking holier-than-thou human.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/9/1 Parviz Varjavand

Islam and Asha,

We went over and over the meanings we wanted to give Asha and to ourselves as Ashavands, followers of Asha. I want to make a case that Islam also carries with it meanings as deep as Asha and a Muslim can be dedicated to concepts as vast and beautiful as an Ashavand.

Surrendering mind and body to that which is not Asha Vahishta can be ugly no matter what religion one follows. But surrender to Amor Fati or choosing the right Asha Vahishta is the key to the attainment of Oshta, is it not?

Could this way of looking at Islam be possible, with all the historic baggage that Islam carries with it? To a true intellectual, all things beautiful and complex should be a possibility. May some day come when I as an Ashavand can look a true Muslim (According to my definitions of who a true Muslim is, one who Taslims him/herself to that which is the highest Truth) in the eye and say "friend, we are looking for the same thing".

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

Islam vs Zoroastrianism - a philosophical exercise (and where to put Spinoza in this mix)

2011-09-01T00:41:00.000-07:00

Dear Parviz

There are many Sufi philosophers (are there are many great Sufi philosophers) who have tried to interpret Islam in an affirmative manner but this is where they ultimately fail.
What makes Zoroastrianism (Mazdayasna) distinctly different from Islam is the concept of asha-vahishta, the concept of an AFFIRMATIVE attitude towards fate FOLLOWING acceptance. It doesn't stop at understanding and accepting asha, it is not asha-ism.
Mazdayasna is not acceptance towards asha (they way Islam can be interpreted), it is never surrendering and even less so OBEDIENCE (the proper English translation of Islam) but rather DIALOGUE and CO-CREATION. So Mazdayasna is acceptance FOLLOWED BY AFFIRMATION. The same goes for Spinoza and Nietzsche: The acceptance is NOT an END IN ITSELF (rather this "slave morality" is what Nietzsche hated the most) but just a STARTING POINT for then moving into a state of AFFIRMATION of life and existence, to CREATE SOMETHING out of the raw material that is accepted fate. Islam stays with the raw material, it does not ENDORSE and make an ethical substance of what HUMANS CREATE THEMSELVES. No wonder it is a religion where human creation is a waste and God is supposed to do all creation.
Remember that Zarathushtra doesn't stop at creative thoughts, he MOVES ON to creative words to then COMPLETES THE CYCLE with creative deeds. All three levels conducted by humans are ourselves since we are the MANIFESTATIONS of Ahura Mazda when we do the right thing.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/31 Parviz Varjavand

Dear friends,

Please be a little into deep thinking when answering this question of mine.
Islam means Taslim or surrender, surrender to the flow, the flow of that which is the greatest.
Forget all you know about Islam, think about what it could be.
Can Islam not mean Amor Fati to the new Moslem intellectuals?

Against Islam stands Kofr. Kofr means to deny or to cover.
Against Asha stands Droj.
(Remember Dino describing Asha in the forest, how all is Asha when you reach out.)
I venture that a case can be made for Islam being the same as Amor Fati and Asha and Kofr beeing Droj and Dev.
Remember, close-minded Zoroastrianism can be ugly too, and we chose not to be for it and went abstract and went past it.
I think open-minded Islam can be a beautiful thing, (Please no long winded cries of pain in response, just go abstract and bypass all that) what says you?

Parviz

--- On Wed, 8/10/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Spinoza and Zoroastrianism
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011, 1:06 PM

Dear Sharooz

Thank you for a wonderful contribution on Spinoza.
However, I disagree on the interpretation of Spinoza's concept of will, I believe your interpretation is too deterministic. I find Spinoza's attitude to will similar to if not identical with Zarathushtra's. God's perfection according to Spinoza is only a phenomenon in hindsight (as it is with Hegel too), but never beforehand. In this, Zarathushtra is similar too, as is Nietzsche woith the concept of "amor fati" (the obligation to love fate).

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/10 SHAHROOZ ASH

[Attachment(s) from SHAHROOZ ASH included below]
SPINOZA

Shahrooz Ash

Spinoza was Jewish and came from a Spanish family, he eventually moved to Holland. He claimed, God had a physical body. And for this reason the Jewish community did not want to be associated with him, they did not want people to think that this was the view of the Jews, because this view was considered to be heresy. Spinoza's universe is very cold and impersonal, his system has one idea in its meta-physics, "God is the only thing that exists". According to Spinoza, God is perfect and the only thing that exists, apart from God there is nothing. We are all a part of God, and the world is a part of God, the world is physical and that's why God is physical. Everything is God.

We do not exist permanently, we die and turn into something else. Mind and Consciousness loses its nature, but, it does not disappear, our mind is part of God and our consciousness is part of God. The world and nature is a part of God, if this is the case, then, does this mean God is just nature? God is just thinking of nature, it's the conception of nature. But it’s even more than that, God is a substance, it is something that can exist independently. Hence God is the only existence.

God also has an Essence, and his essence has Attributes, God has an infinite number of attributes. Out of all the infinite attributes we only know of two.

1. Thought
2. Extension > (leads to)> Space.

God has no purpose, he is not making things more perfect or better for us. This is because God is already perfect. So, what is Thought, and, is Thought nature? And since we don't know the rest of the attributes, then we can never know it. It is beyond anything we can ever know. We exist among the attributes of Thought, Mind and Extension, which is body.

So you and I don't exist permanently, we pass away. We are modifications of the attributes. We are like waves in the ocean, and God is the ocean, God creates the waves and not us. Water will always be there in the ocean, that's God. But waves are gone, while the water is still there. God causes everything that happens in the world. Spinoza does not believe in free-will he is a Determinist, God does everything. This means no one is ever praise or blame worthy, Evil ultimately does not exist. He also likes Occasionalism, one of Descartes students came up with it, his name was Malbranche. Causes are not a cause, they are an occasion of the effect, God creates both of them.

Spinoza likes occasionalism and determinism. This is because of the Islamist theology which was around during his time in the Middle Ages in Spain and Holland. Why did Spinoza like this as a person? God is impersonal, and God does not care about us. It’s all good to God whatever that happens, but, how about us. There is another connection, this can be traced to the middle ages of Judaism and Islam. It is Mysticism, there is a mystical side to Spinoza, an Islamic parallel.

The Mutazilites (an Islamic school of thought) believed in free will and justice of God. But, by the Middle Ages we get the Ashrites (which is another Islamic school of thought), they opposed the existence of free will. They believed in the power of God and God’s free will. God does what he pleases, and if God leads a person stray then you just have had it. So, if God decides to mess you up, you have had it. The Ashrites believed, if God is to be Omnipotent (All Powerful), then God must be permitted to do anything. If God is to be all powerful, then this means God cannot be all good, because, this will limit God. Man cannot be free, because, our freedom will reduces God's freedom and power, and this would mean God will no longer be all powerful and free. It is selfish to look at things that affect us, to Spinoza we are nothing.

1. Free-will

a: Matazilites > freewill > justice of God

b: Ashrites > no freewill > power and freedom of God.

2. Occasionalism

a: Al-Ghazzali

3. Mysticism

a: Sufism > compare to God we are nothing > they want to obtain "Extinction" of self.

Sufism of the time had many similar beliefs; one such common belief amongst most of these different Islamic sects is this, a person should try and reach the state which enables one to get absorbed by God, so one becomes extinct. God is so overwhelming, we are nothing. According to Spinoza, you and I, do not exist apart from God. Spinoza was like Hallaj in Sufism. Hallaj said, "Extinction of Self". Spinoza wants to lose the sense of himself, and achieves extiction so that he can get absorbed by God. He has no separate freewill and his will becomes God's will.

God is free because of his nature, God could not do anything different. But, the fact that God could not do anything different becomes a problem, because, does this mean God is limited? Why do things exist? Why are things the way they are? And why is God the way he is? Spinoza's answer is, you would know this if you saw God. All the Mysticism was a big deal in the Medieval times, Islamic and in some cases even Jewish mysticism, (things like the Cabbala).

To Spinoza God is perfect, and individuals such as Hitler and Jesus are each a part of God, this means there is no difference between the two in terms of ethics. The interesting thing here is, despite the view that there is no difference between Hitler and Jesus in terms of ethics, Spinoza actually develops a system of ethics. How he explains this no one knows. However, the system of ethics which he developed is constructed like Geometry, he does Philosophy like Geometry which is what Aristotle would have expected. If we claim God's causes makes things happen, and his causes came from the past and the past makes things happen, then the future is determined by his causes of the past. Because of this we are not in control of the future events.

Human freedom will reduce and restrict God's power and he will no longer be all powerful. This idea is strange and foreign in Zarathushtrianism, one of the most important concepts introduced by Zarathushtra is free-will and choice by individuals. In Zarathushtrianism human free-will does not limit the power of God, in fact it increase god's power. So in terms of free-will Zarathushtra and Spinoza are not similar.

Ethics:

Since God has no purpose and all causes are Gods, then evil does not exist. Hitler and Jesus are a part of God and there is no difference between the two. God is not making things perfect and better, because he is already perfect. So, for a perfect God there cannot be any imperfection in terms of values, there is no wrong for a perfect being. God is already perfect, so it has no purpose. Thus, God has no ethical value per-say in terms of right and wrong. God does not have a will and does not act for a good, or an end, but for his nature. With the issue of there not being any difference between Hitler and Jesus in terms of ethics, Zarathushtra would disagree. In this respect the two are a world apart and not similar at all.

The Ecologism of Zarathushtra (was: The Worldview of a Mazdayasni)

2011-08-26T23:05:00.001-07:00

Dear Parviz

It is the other way round: The ecological disasters make it MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER to separate asha from druj. Because it is the only way to solve the problems involved. Asha is another word for SUSTAINABILITY, druj for DESTRUCTION THROUGH SHORTSIGHTEDNESS. Zarathushtra was the first ecologist. Listen to him.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/26 Parviz Varjavand

What we SEE and what we WISH to see.

I love my native Iran and some forty years ago I was in the Environmental Protection agency here working hard to protect the land. Now I travel often to the shores of the Caspian Sea and I can see day after day how this beautiful sea is dying. I do not want to go into details and bring tears to your eyes, but the size of the calamity is very large. Who is guilty of these crimes happening against nature? No one is and everyone is at the same time.

If global warming and the many other ecological disasters are killing our whole planet, is our situation one of Asha or Droj? Who were the Ashavands and who were the Drojvands who have brought us into this nightmare this far? I would venture that every Ashavand was a Drojvand at the same time, from the man who invented the wheel to the man who tamed the horse to the man who sent us into space. So the separation of Asha from Droj cannot be determined by how nicely everything FITS into one another, it takes religious commitments LARGER than the commitments of any other religion to be an Ashavand and a Mazdayasni. Can man actually do this? Civilization proves to me that man can’t; we are asking the termite to stop eating wood. Mithra cannot stop bleeding to death our mother the Cow.

Sorry for not being "constructive" here and the image of a bitter old man fits.

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Thu, 8/25/11, Special Kain wrote:

From: Special Kain
Subject: Re: [Ushta] The Worldview of a Mazdayasni (was: The Concept of Truth)
To: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2011, 4:52 PM

Dear Parviz
It has nothing to do with political opportunism, conformity or lawyers. Asha simply is that which fits with what it real (as in 'the laws of nature are real'). Druj is that which isn't real or which deceives us. Asha therefore has a lot to do with intellectual integrity. It is one's willingness to speak the truth at play here.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 23:52 Donnerstag, 25.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The Worldview of a Mazdayasni (was: The Concept of Truth)

Who said it was simple to separate asha from druj? Nobody did.
Parviz, I don't know what you think you can achieve by portraying yourself as some wise old man while treating everybody else like naive idiots? Dino and Hampus are anything but naive. So stop accusing them of naivety, please!
The number of lawyers has nothing to do with what is asha and what is druj. Nothing at all. There's no connection. The fact that something is asha or is druj doesn't determine which is chosen. Unless you're a sincere Mazdayasni, of course, but which few people are and we are merely WORKING towards becoming.
You should support that ambition instead of throwing your bitterness around here. It would be more, shall we say, constructive. OK?
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/25 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Dino and Hampus,

If separating Asha from Droj was as simple as you make it sound, then we would not have need for so many lawyers, would we?
Any good lawyer jokes?
Man in a cemetery sees this grave marked, "here lies a lawyer and an honest man", and he wonders to himself "How did they fit two corpses in one grave!/"

Purviz

--- On Thu, 8/25/11, Special Kain wrote:

From: Special Kain
Subject: Re: [Ushta] The Worldview of a Mazdayasni (was: The Concept of Truth)
To: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2011, 2:12 AM

I agree, dear Hampus.
Asha has nothing to do with opportunism and intellectual sluggishness. We are requested to live in accordance with "that which is true / which truly fits" (asha) and not with "that which deceives" (druj). People deserve to know the truth and that which works in the long run, and they also deserve to be free to base their choices on the actual facts and long-term thinking. Anything will prove to be destructive. Zarathushtra's doctrine of asha is all about the empowerment of people through education and civilization as its result. Even though the truth can be downright nasty at times.

Ushta,
Dino

Overcoming nihilism - the Zoroastrian way (Continued)

2011-08-26T22:52:00.000-07:00

Except that Nietzsche and Tanner meant radically different things.
What Nietzsche speaks of is acceptance of that which can not be changed or altered. His idea is identical to Zarathushtra's idea of asha (Zarathushra was of course the original Nietzschean). As a STARTING POINT for choices that CAN be made.
The only alternative would be to bitterly accuse the past for it being what it is. And I don't think Tanner would find that any more joyous. ;-
Having said this, I totally agree with you concerning Nietzsche's quote. It could have come straight from The Gathas.
And Parviz is a sweetheart and an excellent interlocutor.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/26 Special Kain

In "The Gay Science" Nietzsche wrote:
"I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a yes-sayer."

It is indeed a beautiful thought. We love our fate and do not want anything to be different. And this is from where we will create ourselves ("to give style to one's character"). We take all the bits and pieces that we encountered and create something - someone - out of it that is larger than the sum of its parts. This is most affirmative. It is our artistic tastes based on ethical choice that give meaning to our existence.

Michael Tanner once said that this "undifferentiated yes-saying" creates strangely boring and dull persons. ;-)

Von: Parviz Varjavand
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 3:35 Freitag, 26.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Overcoming nihilism - the Zoroastrian way

Dear Alex,

I wish I could present what I want to say as profoundly and well as you just did.
I could not agree with you more.

Mehr,
Parviz

--- On Thu, 8/25/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Overcoming nihilism - the Zoroastrian way
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2011, 7:21 AM

Dear Dino and Hampus

I believe Zarathusthtra's whole point - as with any process philosopher - is to leave the choice free (or rather explain that it always is) but then try to understand end explain the CONSEQUENCES of choices taken. It is quite easy for us to choose logically - and foresee the PRACTICAL and PHYSICAL consequences of our actions - but the really tough question which absorbed Zarathushtra is the question of WHAT OUR CHOICES DO TO US. Who am I before I choose? Who do I become after my choice? And who do I become after the consequences of actions taken become apparent? Which direction in my life are my actions taking ME as seen by myself?
This is a concern Zarathushtra shared with Nietzsche, but which does not seem to concern Zizek much (who doesn't speak of affirmation in his works). I believe it is the most important question of all. Nihilsim becomes AFFIRMATIVE the second it is properly thought through, and acted upon, this is when it becomes an AFFIRMATIVE nihilism and creates the opportunity for "amor faiti" or its result, "asha-vahishta".

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/25 Special Kain

@ Alexander:
I agree. The thing that comes next is CHOICE. To choose what to do with it next and how to do it. As Nietzsche pointed out, there are at least two sides to nihilism: nihilism out of strength and nihilism out of weakness.
This is different from Slavoj Zizek's take on Nietzscheanism: active nihilism (one's willingness to destroy everything in equal measure) vs. passive nihilism (one's willingness to surrender to relentless destruction).

@ Hampus:
I really don't understand what you mean. Could you please elaborate on your thoughts? Much appreciated!

The Holy Spirit - the only part of The Trinity which is Zoroastrian

2011-08-25T14:41:00.000-07:00

The beauty of the concept of Mazda is that it is not limited to a A mind, Mazda only becomes greater and greater by EXPANDING. Which means Mazda is not really some minds as opposed to others (such as in the rather wasteful Abrahamic religions where CONFLICT is always at the center of things, as if the most human trait of all is thugishness) but rather THE UNITY OF MINDS IN COLLABORATION. What infuriates Zarathushtra is the WASTE and STUPIDITY of choosing plunder over civilization. And what this in turn does to the people who do it (turns them into short-sighted zombies rather than lively humans). Zoroastrianism is like a Christianity without the Father or The Son but rather with just the Holy Spirit (as the manifestation of all believers acting as if one mind together). No wonder many historians believe the concept of The Holy Spirit was taken directly from the Zoroastrians in Palestine (the Essenites).
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/25 hampus lindblad

Dear Alex,

Yes! That is more or less what I tried to describe with my squash wall example! Let's say you are playing the game solo. You could just hit the wall straight on and thus give yourself a very easy time. It would allow you to tell yourself how good a player you are because you can just stand there for long periods never failing to return the ball to the wall. But after a while it will become boring and harder and harder to keep alive the illusion of your great skill as you are not taking any chances at all. Not pushing the envelope to the slightest degree. Then you may try to start adding some variation to the game, thus increasing the difficulty but also the enjoyment. The game is now completely different, but the wall remains always the same.

With a second player things start to become really interesting as the complexity increases exponentially. Assuming for the sake of argument that you have "perfect" skill and your opponent hasn't, then the choice stands between what type of game is the most constructive and enjoyable from a long term perspective. You could completely crush your opponent, but then every game will be very short and soon he or she might lose interest in playing against you whilst not learning anything due to a insurmountable learning curve. And what good does your control of the racket provide you with if in the end all it produces is the self-depreciation of others. You will end up playing a very lonely game, where no amount of variation in trajectories and energy will seem to amount to anything but masturbation.

So is it not wiser to lower the difficulty level and ignore the demands of your ego, thus keeping the ball alive longer, allowing your opponent to both find enjoyment as well as improvement of his or her skill? This so that future games will provide you with a increasingly more sophisticated resistance. Imagine a game where both of you are of equal skill and the beauty of your exchanges are practically transcendentally exquisite...

Ushta,
Hampus

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:

Dear Dino and Hampus

I believe Zarathusthtra's whole point - as with any process philosopher - is to leave the choice free (or rather explain that it always is) but then try to understand end explain the CONSEQUENCES of choices taken. It is quite easy for us to choose logically - and foresee the PRACTICAL and PHYSICAL consequences of our actions - but the really tough question which absorbed Zarathushtra is the question of WHAT OUR CHOICES DO TO US. Who am I before I choose? Who do I become after my choice? And who do I become after the consequences of actions taken become apparent? Which direction in my life are my actions taking ME as seen by myself?
This is a concern Zarathushtra shared with Nietzsche, but which does not seem to concern Zizek much (who doesn't speak of affirmation in his works). I believe it is the most important question of all. Nihilsim becomes AFFIRMATIVE the second it is properly thought through, and acted upon, this is when it becomes an AFFIRMATIVE nihilism and creates the opportunity for "amor faiti" or its result, "asha-vahishta".

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/25 Special Kain

@ Alexander:
I agree. The thing that comes next is CHOICE. To choose what to do with it next and how to do it. As Nietzsche pointed out, there are at least two sides to nihilism: nihilism out of strength and nihilism out of weakness.
This is different from Slavoj Zizek's take on Nietzscheanism: active nihilism (one's willingness to destroy everything in equal measure) vs. passive nihilism (one's willingness to surrender to relentless destruction).

@ Hampus:
I really don't understand what you mean. Could you please elaborate on your thoughts? Much appreciated!

Ushta,
Dino

Overcoming nihilism - the Zoroastrian way

2011-08-25T07:21:00.001-07:00

Dear Dino and Hampus

I believe Zarathusthtra's whole point - as with any process philosopher - is to leave the choice free (or rather explain that it always is) but then try to understand end explain the CONSEQUENCES of choices taken. It is quite easy for us to choose logically - and foresee the PRACTICAL and PHYSICAL consequences of our actions - but the really tough question which absorbed Zarathushtra is the question of WHAT OUR CHOICES DO TO US. Who am I before I choose? Who do I become after my choice? And who do I become after the consequences of actions taken become apparent? Which direction in my life are my actions taking ME as seen by myself?
This is a concern Zarathushtra shared with Nietzsche, but which does not seem to concern Zizek much (who doesn't speak of affirmation in his works). I believe it is the most important question of all. Nihilsim becomes AFFIRMATIVE the second it is properly thought through, and acted upon, this is when it becomes an AFFIRMATIVE nihilism and creates the opportunity for "amor faiti" or its result, "asha-vahishta".

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/25 Special Kain

@ Alexander:
I agree. The thing that comes next is CHOICE. To choose what to do with it next and how to do it. As Nietzsche pointed out, there are at least two sides to nihilism: nihilism out of strength and nihilism out of weakness.
This is different from Slavoj Zizek's take on Nietzscheanism: active nihilism (one's willingness to destroy everything in equal measure) vs. passive nihilism (one's willingness to surrender to relentless destruction).

@ Hampus:
I really don't understand what you mean. Could you please elaborate on your thoughts? Much appreciated!

Ushta,
Dino

Von: hampus lindblad
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 13:09 Donnerstag, 25.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Zoroastrian ethics and self-victimization

Dear Alex,

I couldn't agree more! This was the situation that I faced after my first major LSD trip at 18. Nihilism it is, but so is "something" observing it, and truly realizing that is the key. From that starting point just use the nihilism the same way you use a static wall in a squash game and off you go with a flying start towards the omega point (which you've just had a terrorizing yet somehow delicious taste of)! :)

It's a bit like always carrying Pandora's Box within you, but you already know what it contains so there is no longer any unbearing curiosity gnawing at your unwillingness to open it. You just let it sit in its place in a corner somewhere - maybe with a nice spotlight on it as a token of respect - and then go about your business trying to be creatively constructive and humorous.

Ushta,
Hampus

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:

I believe the trick is not to fight against nihilism but TO BUILD FROM nihilism.
I always describe myself as a post-nihilist. I don't deny anything in my past or in the history of the people of the culture where I come from. Neither do I embrace the past out of love or some emotional attachment to it, but rather I embrace the past in the spirit of the Nietzschean "amor fati", as an OBLIGATION, a duty, out of an ethical logic.
I have therefore really in its deepest sense CHOSEN Zoroastrianism.
So the question is not if you are a nihilist and how you arrived there but rather WHERE DO YOU GO NOW FROM THIS UNDENIABLE STARTING POSITION.
The hardest thing with a history of bullying is usually not the history itself and certainly not the scars (yes, they are overrated and usually more a source of enjoyment more than anything else) but the fact that THE ORIGIN OF THE BULLYING REMAINS. The very reason why a person becomes a social outcast are still there (such as the odd personality type or the incapacity to read and understand social codes etc). This fosters hatred which according to Zarathushhtra causes a deep self-hatred too.
In this sense, the feeling of being an outsider is not a thing of the past but very real in the here and now and quite likely in the future too. Dealing with this in small step by steps is then the only way forward. But why should everybody be a social expert? We people need each other and being a social expert is just one of many talents where we humans can COMPLEMENT each other rather than compete with each other as we are fostered to think these days.
Ushta
Alexander

Zoroastrian ethics and Self-victimization Part 2

2011-08-25T03:11:00.001-07:00

I believe the trick is not to fight against nihilism but TO BUILD FROM nihilism.
I always describe myself as a post-nihilist. I don't deny anything in my past or in the history of the people of the culture where I come from. Neither do I embrace the past out of love or some emotional attachment to it, but rather I embrace the past in the spirit of the Nietzschean "amor fati", as an OBLIGATION, a duty, out of an ethical logic.
I have therefore really in its deepest sense CHOSEN Zoroastrianism.
So the question is not if you are a nihilist and how you arrived there but rather WHERE DO YOU GO NOW FROM THIS UNDENIABLE STARTING POSITION.
The hardest thing with a history of bullying is usually not the history itself and certainly not the scars (yes, they are overrated and usually more a source of enjoyment more than anything else) but the fact that THE ORIGIN OF THE BULLYING REMAINS. The very reason why a person becomes a social outcast are still there (such as the odd personality type or the incapacity to read and understand social codes etc). This fosters hatred which according to Zarathushhtra causes a deep self-hatred too.
In this sense, the feeling of being an outsider is not a thing of the past but very real in the here and now and quite likely in the future too. Dealing with this in small step by steps is then the only way forward. But why should everybody be a social expert? We people need each other and being a social expert is just one of many talents where we humans can COMPLEMENT each other rather than compete with each other as we are fostered to think these days.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/24 Special Kain

Perhaps this has nothing to do here, but the reason why I'd love to discuss this issue is indeed rather personal.
I was exposed to bullying and peer victimization at school and this is why I'm having a hard time developing a constructive and AFFIRMATIVE attitude. I refuse to use the terms "emotionally screwed" or "emotionally scarred", because I don't want to go emo. But there's a persistent nihilistic twist to my attitude.
They say that when you're going through hell, keep going. And we can get a really compelling thrill from being a victim.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 9:20 Mittwoch, 24.August 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] Zoroastrian ethics and self-victimization

Well, two things:

1. Self-victimization is never good in itself for the person concerned. Even the victims of horrific crimes like the Holocaust did much much better after being freed when REFUSING TO ACCEPT VICTIMHOOD which I believe should be seen as an ethical conscious act rather than as some kind of emotional issue. Films and books like "Sophie's Choice" have elaborated on this issue extensively. So did the philosopher Hannah Arendt.

2. Still, there is victimization that is relevant and has to be dealt with. There is then an enormous difference between the SOUGHT self-victimization which begins with an INNER URGE to find an EXCUSE for being destructive on the one hand and LEGITIMATE victimization (such as a bullied child in Sweden or a starving child in Somalia). We need to make a clear distinction between the two. The first should not be encouraged at all and even ridiculed. The second kind should result in POLITICAL ACTIVISM as its proper ethical response. The best response for example to famine in Somalia is not to give money to aid organisations but to engage in the democratization and political reforms movement of the area in question. Think long term REMOVAL of victimhood.

3. Rule of thumb: NEVER vicitmize somebody unless they have asked for it and their claims are legitimate. It is degrading to declare somebody a victim against their wishes, and it is CONSERVING always to declare somebody a victim even if legitimate. We can take people to court and judge them as perpetrators without making the victims concerned victims for ever. The longer you stay a victim (wth no alternative identity) the worse it is.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/23 Special Kain

Dear brothers and sisters

I would like to discuss the issue of self-victimization. Some play victims in order to attract other people's attention and gain power over them (also known as "psychic vampires"), others have been victimized and are stuck in a vicious cycle (the long-term consequences of school bullying and peer victimization).
I would especially love to hear Alexander's words on this issue, since he has properly addressed it in interviews and postings before.

Ushta,
Dino

Zoroastrian ethics and Self-victimization

2011-08-24T00:21:00.001-07:00

Well, three things:

1. Self-victimization is never good in itself for the person concerned. Even the victims of horrific crimes like the Holocaust did much much better after being freed when REFUSING TO ACCEPT VICTIMHOOD which I believe should be seen as an ethical conscious act rather than as some kind of emotional issue. Films and books like "Sophie's Choice" have elaborated on this issue extensively. So did the philosopher Hannah Arendt.

2. Still, there is victimization that is relevant and has to be dealt with. There is then an enormous difference between the SOUGHT self-victimization which begins with an INNER URGE to find an EXCUSE for being destructive on the one hand and LEGITIMATE victimization (such as a bullied child in Sweden or a starving child in Somalia). We need to make a clear distinction between the two. The first should not be encouraged at all and even ridiculed. The second kind should result in POLITICAL ACTIVISM as its proper ethical response. The best response for example to famine in Somalia is not to give money to aid organisations but to engage in the democratization and political reforms movement of the area in question. Think long term REMOVAL of victimhood.

3. Rule of thumb: NEVER vicitmize somebody unless they have asked for it and their claims are legitimate. It is degrading to declare somebody a victim against their wishes, and it is CONSERVING always to declare somebody a victim even if legitimate. We can take people to court and judge them as perpetrators without making the victims concerned victims for ever. The longer you stay a victim (wth no alternative identity) the worse it is.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/23 Special Kain

Dear brothers and sisters

I would like to discuss the issue of self-victimization. Some play victims in order to attract other people's attention and gain power over them (also known as "psychic vampires"), others have been victimized and are stuck in a vicious cycle (the long-term consequences of school bullying and peer victimization).
I would especially love to hear Alexander's words on this issue, since he has properly addressed it in interviews and postings before.

Ushta,
Dino

The Case against Cultural Relativism (and Atheism)

2011-08-22T04:39:00.000-07:00

Which is logically inconsistent: To say that there is no truth worth to hold on to is in itself to claim a truth one considers worthy holding to. It's like the inconsistency of atheism: To say that there is no God worth believing in means that there must be a very firm belief in what this God is, how could the concept otherwise be refuted? I can accept that somebody is A-Christian or A-Islamic, but atheism is a position that doesn't hold up to intellectual scrutiny. Cultural relativism is logically impossible to cling onto.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/22 Special Kain

Pragmatically speaking, we always hold something to be true. There always is something that we believe in. Even nihilists have faith in the fact that there is nothing worth to believe in. They believe that it is pointless to have any beliefs at all. Their truth is unbearably absurd, so they reject all truth there is. Why should we build from something that is cruel and unfair? It would make all things a lot worse and our lives a lot more miserable. Their favourite interpretation (!) has failed them, so they interpret the world as if there were no interpretations to be favoured over others.

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 11:59 Montag, 22.August 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] The Worldview of a Mazdayasni (was: The Concept of Truth)

Consequence: Parviz DOES HAVE FAITH in the fact that there is something fluid there (a constantly respelled Parviz Varjavand, if nothing else) which can not find a constant faith in anything. Which is in itself a lasting faith in SOMETHING to build from, to build a constantly changing, fluid but functional idea of a reality which in all its glory Parviz CHOOSES to hold sacred in its entirety. A Mazdayasni worldview!
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/22 Special Kain

@ Parviz:
I don't have much faith in anything.

@ Yazed and Alexander:
Given the constant renewal of the world, that which fits with our world always changes too.

Ushta,
Dino

The Worldview of a Mazdayasni (was: The Concept of Truth)

2011-08-22T02:59:00.001-07:00

Consequence: Parviz DOES HAVE FAITH in the fact that there is something fluid there (a constantly respelled Parviz Varjavand, if nothing else) which can not find a constant faith in anything. Which is in itself a lasting faith in SOMETHING to build from, to build a constantly changing, fluid but functional idea of a reality which in all its glory Parviz CHOOSES to hold sacred in its entirety. A Mazdayasni worldview!
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/22 Special Kain

@ Parviz:
I don't have much faith in anything.

@ Yazed and Alexander:
Given the constant renewal of the world, that which fits with our world always changes too.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 10:24 Montag, 22.August 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] The Concept of Truth

Dear Yazed

Parviz is right. And I disagree with him that hois position is only followed by a minority of Zoroastrians, I believe it is the other way round. At least her in Europe, there are hardly no followers of the idea that The Gathas is sacred book. It is just a smart book. As for your question: When you chill water below zero degrees centigrades it turns into ice. When you heat it above 100 degrees centigrades it turns into steam. No, truths are not valid everywhere and at all times, truths are always dependent on the cirumstances. Even physical truths. So even more so mental truths, including how we DESCRIBE the physical reality with a very non-physical thing, language! Since language is the tool with which to describe truth and language is fluid, then "truths must be considered fluid" too (this is the foundation for the philosophical school called "Pragmatism"). This is the major difference between Zoroastrianism and the Abrahamic faiths: We understand that the conditions for truth also regulate what truth is possible. The meat-truth decides what truth is possible. And the fact that Truth is not forever valid is actually a possibility for us, a POSSIBILITY FOR HUMAN FREEDOM and CREATIVE EXPRESSION, not a problem but a possibility.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/22 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Yazed,

Truths that are for all times and never change are written in sacred books that are for all times and no man is allowed to change them. These books are usually written not by man but by God. If you want to have Gatha or Vandidad be such books for you, there are a majority of Zoroastrians that will stand by you. Alex and Dino seem to be Mazdaists and they are writing the rules for what they wish to belive in. I am a Muzdaict and have my own school of thought all together. No shortage of crazy people when you choose to look at Zoroastrianism close up.

Mehr Ufzoon,
Purviz Vurjavund

The Concept of Truth

2011-08-22T01:24:00.000-07:00

Dear Yazed

Parviz is right. And I disagree with him that hois position is only followed by a minority of Zoroastrians, I believe it is the other way round. At least her in Europe, there are hardly no followers of the idea that The Gathas is sacred book. It is just a smart book. As for your question: When you chill water below zero degrees centigrades it turns into ice. When you heat it above 100 degrees centigrades it turns into steam. No, truths are not valid everywhere and at all times, truths are always dependent on the cirumstances. Even physical truths. So even more so mental truths, including how we DESCRIBE the physical reality with a very non-physical thing, language! Since language is the tool with which to describe truth and language is fluid, then "truths must be considered fluid" too (this is the foundation for the philosophical school called "Pragmatism"). This is the major difference between Zoroastrianism and the Abrahamic faiths: We understand that the conditions for truth also regulate what truth is possible. The meat-truth decides what truth is possible. And the fact that Truth is not forever valid is actually a possibility for us, a POSSIBILITY FOR HUMAN FREEDOM and CREATIVE EXPRESSION, not a problem but a possibility.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/22 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Yazed,

Truths that are for all times and never change are written in sacred books that are for all times and no man is allowed to change them. These books are usually written not by man but by God. If you want to have Gatha or Vandidad be such books for you, there are a majority of Zoroastrians that will stand by you. Alex and Dino seem to be Mazdaists and they are writing the rules for what they wish to belive in. I am a Muzdaict and have my own school of thought all together. No shortage of crazy people when you choose to look at Zoroastrianism close up.

Mehr Ufzoon,
Purviz Vurjavund

--- On Sun, 8/21/11, yazed kapadia wrote:

From: yazed kapadia
Subject: Re: [Ushta] The Meaning of Asha and The Concept of Truth
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 21, 2011, 8:18 PM

Can truth be dynamic? Should a truth not be a truth at all times?

Yezad

On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:

Dear Parviz

I agree, I agree, I agree!!!
However my point all along as been that if we are too afraid of making truth-statements (such as: I am actually right and you are actually wrong when the current situation actually is a fact) then we are just castrated beings and no more Mazdayasni then we would be as extremists and absolutists of the Ronald Delevaga or Usama bin-Laden type. It is about avoiding not one ditch but also about avoiding falling into the other ditch. Castrates are no better at living a full Mazdayasni life than absolutists.
To understand Zarathushtra here is not to be against Truth as an absolute but to claim that Truth does exist BUT IS FLUID RATHER THAN STATIC. It is the idea of static truth we are against, not truth as the utlimate horizon of our ethical being.
Being a Mazdayasni means also DARING to make the EXISTENTIAL ACT of pronouncing a truth when such a truth is evident to us, since this is what gives us SUBSTANCE as human beings, this is what manifests Mazda within us.
Zarathushtra's point is that THINKING the right thought is only the beginning. The full Mazdayasni identity also requires opur vocal statement of the truth of the moment and the ACTION accordingly. The silent proper thinker is not in itself a full Mazdayasni.
We can't oppose dictators like Assad in Syria by sitting silently in cafés thinking that in another era and another time Assad could have been a good guy (truth as always and only relative). As Mazdayasni, we have to cross the street and demonstrate against the likes of Assad making ourselves THE TRUTH of that moment although Truth in the long run is in flux. Act ethically to BECOME ETHICAL BEINGS!

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/21 Parviz Varjavand

Ushta Alex,

I gave the example of a vegetarian and one who eats meat also as the difference between Giti and Minoo, remember! I said in both cases we kill something living to eat, but since vegis are silent when we kill them while animals cry and bleed a lot more, we are justified to differentiate between the two realms.

What I all along objected to was Truth as an absolute, as one monolith in the Minoo against Droj as a Monolith. This I objected to because people who tend to think in black and white like that are more likely to write books such as Mein Kamph. Please read me more carefully and you will see that we are not far apart on this issue of what Asha is in the Minoo realm at all. If Asha was ONE THING in Minoo, we would have almost no choice at all. When we have many Ashas lined up in our mind Minoo, it is then that we can choose the Asha Vahishta or the best amongst them.

When I read my Ashem Vohoo over and over again, I get high, because it tells me this over and over. Ashem (Asha) is great, but Ushta goes to the one seeking the Vahishtayi Ashem or the Highest Asha. It never tells me what the Asha Vahishta is, (as in Semitic religions) it leaves it up to me to choose it. And why should I choose it? For the Ushta or ultimate Bliss that I will get as a reward if I do!
Show me any other religion with a Mantra this profound, and I will convert to it! Our Mantra is the most powerful there is.

Ashem Vohoo Vahishtam Asti.
Asha is good and is the best.
Ushta asti.
Is Bliss.
Ushta Ahmayi Heyad Ashayi,
Ushta upon whom seeking that Asha (which is),

VAHISHTAYI ASHEM.
THE HIGHEST (BEST OF) ASHA.

Mehr,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Sat, 8/20/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] The Meaning of Asha
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Dina McIntyre"
Date: Saturday, August 20, 2011, 10:43 AM

Very very good, then have settled on a great and important agreement!!!
If there was confusion on this topic it could be because I don't even talk of asha but of asha-vahishta when it comes to the ETHICAL aspect of asha which can of course only be PRECEIVED as an existential choice by minoo, not in itself as a physical phenomenon only, even though it could be proved to be such a thing deep beneath (pretty much ironically like physics is in itself always in flux, there is no such thing as fixed physics).
The important thing is that the laws are not the same. I would prefer to speak of THE MENTAL REALM as an EMERGENCE coming out of the physical realm, still 100% physical but PERCEIVED as a world of its own.
For example, we all know that the color yellow is a certain wavelength of light but we do not perceive it as such, we percieve the color yellow not for its wavelength but for its YELLOWNESS which our minds add to the wavelengths our sight picks up.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/20 Parviz Varjavand
Dear Alex,

This has been my point all along.
While Asha has hard laws applying to it in the Phisical or Giti realm, it does not have such laws in the Minoo or Mental realm. In the Minoo, you have to choose from amongst many Asha their best. So Asha in Giti and Asha in Minoo are not the same.

Parviz

--- On Fri, 8/19/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] The Meaning of Asha
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Dina McIntyre"
Date: Friday, August 19, 2011, 3:01 PM

Dear Parviz

I don't think anybody should sign any contract stating that they promise to follow asha.
That would be way too Abrahamic. We as Zoroastrians live with a fluid and flexible ethics, not with a fixed and assumed objectively valid moralism. We become our actions but we are not our actions in advance!
We have no commandments since it is the CIRCUMSTANCES that always determine what is the right thing to do (what is likely to be the best long-term outcome). And this can never be detailed in advance but rather has to always BE LIVED WITHIN THE MOMENT OF DECISION ITSELF.
Zarathushtra was indeed NOT an Abrahamist. So why would he ask us to behave as if we were?

Ushta
Alexander

The Meaning of Asha and The Concept of Truth

2011-08-21T08:25:00.000-07:00

Dear Parviz

I agree, I agree, I agree!!!
However my point all along as been that if we are too afraid of making truth-statements (such as: I am actually right and you are actually wrong when the current situation actually is a fact) then we are just castrated beings and no more Mazdayasni then we would be as extremists and absolutists of the Ronald Delevaga or Usama bin-Laden type. It is about avoiding not one ditch but also about avoiding falling into the other ditch. Castrates are no better at living a full Mazdayasni life than absolutists.
To understand Zarathushtra here is not to be against Truth as an absolute but to claim that Truth does exist BUT IS FLUID RATHER THAN STATIC. It is the idea of static truth we are against, not truth as the utlimate horizon of our ethical being.
Being a Mazdayasni means also DARING to make the EXISTENTIAL ACT of pronouncing a truth when such a truth is evident to us, since this is what gives us SUBSTANCE as human beings, this is what manifests Mazda within us.
Zarathushtra's point is that THINKING the right thought is only the beginning. The full Mazdayasni identity also requires opur vocal statement of the truth of the moment and the ACTION accordingly. The silent proper thinker is not in itself a full Mazdayasni.
We can't oppose dictators like Assad in Syria by sitting silently in cafés thinking that in another era and another time Assad could have been a good guy (truth as always and only relative). As Mazdayasni, we have to cross the street and demonstrate against the likes of Assad making ourselves THE TRUTH of that moment although Truth in the long run is in flux. Act ethically to BECOME ETHICAL BEINGS!

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/21 Parviz Varjavand

Ushta Alex,

I gave the example of a vegetarian and one who eats meat also as the difference between Giti and Minoo, remember! I said in both cases we kill something living to eat, but since vegis are silent when we kill them while animals cry and bleed a lot more, we are justified to differentiate between the two realms.

What I all along objected to was Truth as an absolute, as one monolith in the Minoo against Droj as a Monolith. This I objected to because people who tend to think in black and white like that are more likely to write books such as Mein Kamph. Please read me more carefully and you will see that we are not far apart on this issue of what Asha is in the Minoo realm at all. If Asha was ONE THING in Minoo, we would have almost no choice at all. When we have many Ashas lined up in our mind Minoo, it is then that we can choose the Asha Vahishta or the best amongst them.

When I read my Ashem Vohoo over and over again, I get high, because it tells me this over and over. Ashem (Asha) is great, but Ushta goes to the one seeking the Vahishtayi Ashem or the Highest Asha. It never tells me what the Asha Vahishta is, (as in Semitic religions) it leaves it up to me to choose it. And why should I choose it? For the Ushta or ultimate Bliss that I will get as a reward if I do!
Show me any other religion with a Mantra this profound, and I will convert to it! Our Mantra is the most powerful there is.

Ashem Vohoo Vahishtam Asti.
Asha is good and is the best.
Ushta asti.
Is Bliss.
Ushta Ahmayi Heyad Ashayi,
Ushta upon whom seeking that Asha (which is),

VAHISHTAYI ASHEM.
THE HIGHEST (BEST OF) ASHA.

Mehr,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Sat, 8/20/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] The Meaning of Asha
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Dina McIntyre"
Date: Saturday, August 20, 2011, 10:43 AM

Very very good, then have settled on a great and important agreement!!!

If there was confusion on this topic it could be because I don't even talk of asha but of asha-vahishta when it comes to the ETHICAL aspect of asha which can of course only be PRECEIVED as an existential choice by minoo, not in itself as a physical phenomenon only, even though it could be proved to be such a thing deep beneath (pretty much ironically like physics is in itself always in flux, there is no such thing as fixed physics).
The important thing is that the laws are not the same. I would prefer to speak of THE MENTAL REALM as an EMERGENCE coming out of the physical realm, still 100% physical but PERCEIVED as a world of its own.
For example, we all know that the color yellow is a certain wavelength of light but we do not perceive it as such, we percieve the color yellow not for its wavelength but for its YELLOWNESS which our minds add to the wavelengths our sight picks up.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/20 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alex,

This has been my point all along.
While Asha has hard laws applying to it in the Phisical or Giti realm, it does not have such laws in the Minoo or Mental realm. In the Minoo, you have to choose from amongst many Asha their best. So Asha in Giti and Asha in Minoo are not the same.

Parviz

--- On Fri, 8/19/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] The Meaning of Asha
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Dina McIntyre"
Date: Friday, August 19, 2011, 3:01 PM

Dear Parviz

I don't think anybody should sign any contract stating that they promise to follow asha.
That would be way too Abrahamic. We as Zoroastrians live with a fluid and flexible ethics, not with a fixed and assumed objectively valid moralism. We become our actions but we are not our actions in advance!
We have no commandments since it is the CIRCUMSTANCES that always determine what is the right thing to do (what is likely to be the best long-term outcome). And this can never be detailed in advance but rather has to always BE LIVED WITHIN THE MOMENT OF DECISION ITSELF.
Zarathushtra was indeed NOT an Abrahamist. So why would he ask us to behave as if we were?

Ushta
Alexander

Drives and Desires (was: Daoism vs Zoroastrianism)

2011-08-20T13:46:00.000-07:00

However, all of this needs to have a foundation - you need to also honestly respond to the question: "What is in it for me?". You owe this to yourself before you even make the choice to become a Mazdayasni.
Well, what is the motor of our personalities anyway? In the deepest sense it is drive, and in the immedaite sense it is desire. Zarathushtra fully understood this. Drives and desires motivate people both to live in general and to choose the things they choose for themselves in life. It is self-evident to all actors Zarathushtra portray in "The Gathas".
What he then did in "The Gathas" was to place the drives and desires of himself and others within a bigger and social context. His ethics places drives and desires where they should be as to be fulfilled in their deepest, most long-term, most fulfilling sense.
Not speaking of drives and desires risks losing out on the very foundation of a Zoroastrian ethics. It's like constructing the walls and the roof of a beautiful house while forgetting to build a basement. How do you then expect the house to stay in place?
This is all especially important when showing the differences between Zoroastrianism, Daoism and Buddhism: Zoroastrianism views drives and desires as productive and good in themselves. Daoism views them as possibly productive but equally damaging and problematic. favoring a balancing of drive and desire in themselves. Buddhism sees drives and desires as problematic in themselves, the idea of nirvana is an existence where none of them are left to roam. As do Christianity and Platonism too.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/20 Special Kain

I am not sure if this talk about drives and desires makes things unnecessarily more complicated.
As far as I understand The Gathas, we are encouraged to educate ourselves and then base our choices on long-term thinking. Plus we are requested to nurture good thoughts in order to become better persons, since it is our deeds that make us what we are. We must be brutally honest with ourselves and fully commit ourselves to the truth and contribute to civilization and all its benefits. Because civilizations will prove better in the long run.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 19:33 Samstag, 20.August11
Betreff: [Ushta] Daoism vs Zoroastrianism

I agree with Dino on the differences between Daoism and Zoroastrianism.
Zoroastrianism is pro-active in a sense that Daoism is not. And Zoroastrianism is not against any drives and desires other than it advocates the LONG-TERM drives and desires when these collide with short-term impulses.
Therefore Zarathushtra's focus on thinking BEFORE speaking BEFORE acting.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/20 Special Kain

Another difference between Zoroastrianism and Daoism is that in Daoism people want to become immortal and live forever. There were several meditation practices and chemical experiments that were devoted to this ideal. For example, there is one Daoist school that would have its followers create an "astral foetus" within their physical bodies in order to survive one's physical death.

Zoroastrianism: I believe there is a universe and I have DECIDED that this universe is sacred to me

2011-08-20T10:49:00.000-07:00

I would put it this way: Every man and woman who acts within wisdom is a MANIFESTATION of Ahura Mazda. Even more so, people coming together and acting wisely together are even more a manifestation of Ahura Mazda. When I see young people demonstarting for freedom, liberty and justice in the streets of Cairo and Damascus in 2011, I see manifestations of Ahura Mazda. And I agree with Yazed: To me, The Universe is God because The Universe does exist and is amazing and indeed sacred to me. I will believe this until The Universe itself tells me to believe something else. ;-)
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/20 SHAHROOZ ASH

Hope all is well and good.

The only god is the wise man/woman (Ahura Mazda), because a wise man/woman is a pure person. In terms of ethics a pure and wise person always acts with good intentions. Thus, never causing harm to any person and environment which supports human life because of greed or fear. A child also falls within this same category because children are pure. Ahura Mazda means; a being that is wise. A human is a being, and if wise, then you have a wise being (Ahura Mazda). The only thing that is praise worthy or worth worshiping is; children and wise persons. The only god (Ahura Mazda) is man.

Wishing you the best (Behesht),
Shahrooz Ash
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: ysk@airtelmail.in
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:58:02 +0530
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Zoroastianism: I believe there is a universe and I have DECIDED that this universe is sacred to me

There is a lot of debate about whether God exists. I have come to the conclusion, after listening to all arguments, that God could either be the Universe itself or your spirit or conscience. It is difficult to describe Him/Her!

Yezad

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Alexander Bard wrote:
Dear Behnaz
I believe there is a universe and I have DECIDED that this universe is sacred to me.
I don't care about all that God-talk and neither did Zarathushtra. He does not use the term God even once in "The Gathas".
If you share my belief, then you are a true Zoroastrian. And there is no need to look for something bigger and better than yourself or the world around you. Make the best of yourself and the world around you instead. You are divine. The world is divine. Which is precisely why you should be nice to yourself and those around you that you love.

Ushta
Alexander

The Meaning of Asha

2011-08-20T10:43:00.000-07:00

Very very good, then have settled on a great and important agreement!!!
If there was confusion on this topic it could be because I don't even talk of asha but of asha-vahishta when it comes to the ETHICAL aspect of asha which can of course only be PRECEIVED as an existential choice by minoo, not in itself as a physical phenomenon only, even though it could be proved to be such a thing deep beneath (pretty much ironically like physics is in itself always in flux, there is no such thing as fixed physics).
The important thing is that the laws are not the same. I would prefer to speak of THE MENTAL REALM as an EMERGENCE coming out of the physical realm, still 100% physical but PERCEIVED as a world of its own.
For example, we all know that the color yellow is a certain wavelength of light but we do not perceive it as such, we percieve the color yellow not for its wavelength but for its YELLOWNESS which our minds add to the wavelengths our sight picks up.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/20 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alex,

This has been my point all along.
While Asha has hard laws applying to it in the Phisical or Giti realm, it does not have such laws in the Minoo or Mental realm. In the Minoo, you have to choose from amongst many Asha their best. So Asha in Giti and Asha in Minoo are not the same.

Parviz

--- On Fri, 8/19/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] The Meaning of Asha
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Dina McIntyre"
Date: Friday, August 19, 2011, 3:01 PM

Dear Parviz

I don't think anybody should sign any contract stating that they promise to follow asha.
That would be way too Abrahamic. We as Zoroastrians live with a fluid and flexible ethics, not with a fixed and assumed objectively valid moralism. We become our actions but we are not our actions in advance!
We have no commandments since it is the CIRCUMSTANCES that always determine what is the right thing to do (what is likely to be the best long-term outcome). And this can never be detailed in advance but rather has to always BE LIVED WITHIN THE MOMENT OF DECISION ITSELF.
Zarathushtra was indeed NOT an Abrahamist. So why would he ask us to behave as if we were?

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/19 Parviz Varjavand
Dear Dina,

First, allow me to apologize for mixing your views and those of Dino, even though I think you are both very close in thinking of Asha as “that which Fits”. In philosophy, abstract thinking is what we need as a tool and not trying to figure out the minds of Mahatma Gandy, Mother Theresa, or Jesus Christ. (You know what I am trying to say here ;-). Mithra is the guardian of contracts and as a lawyer you know how important the precise language and the precise meaning of words are when written in a contract. I feel Mazdayasna in the modern world can be a religion for the intellectuals and as such I wish it to have precise meanings to the key nomenclature it uses. The meaning of Asha as you describe it, is clear in the physical (Giti) realm. It is how physical things behave and the laws that apply to them. Water runs down hill, and that is how it is.

But when we get to separating Asha from Droj in the mental world (Minoo), we as Ashavands need the two words described more clearly. If the way you describe what Asha and Droj are is satisfactory to all who are interested in Mazdayasna, then good for you all. I am the odd man out and to me the words are most confusing. I would not sign any contract in which one of the clauses is, “and Parviz Varjavand hereby promises to act according to Asha in the premises or else loose all the deposit money he has put down.”

There are religions that need the smoke and mirrors and the unclear language so that their Gurus will never be out of a job while sitting on a top of mountain answering the pilgrims what he thinks Dharma or Karma is. I do not feel Mazdayasna need to be one more such path. The old Magi would melt bronze and pour it on the chest of their victims in order to find if they were telling the Asha or Droj of a situation. This is also part of our heritage when it comes to the distinction between Asha and Droj in the mental world. I want the heritage to change so that we can write contracts that Mithra will understand and so will lawyers.

Mehr Afzoon,

Parviz Varjavand

Daoism vs Zoroastrianism

2011-08-20T10:33:00.000-07:00

I agree with Dino on the differences between Daoism and Zoroastrianism.
Zoroastrianism is pro-active in a sense that Daoism is not. And Zoroastrianism is not against any drives and desires other than it advocates the LONG-TERM drives and desires when these collide with short-term impulses.
Therefore Zarathushtra's focus on thinking BEFORE speaking BEFORE acting.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/20 Special Kain
Another difference between Zoroastrianism and Daoism is that in Daoism people want to become immortal and live forever. There were several meditation practices and chemical experiments that were devoted to this ideal. For example, there is one Daoist school that would have its followers create an "astral foetus" within their physical bodies in order to survive one's physical death.

Von: Special Kain

An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 12:47 Samstag, 20.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Tao and Asha

Dear Daniel

You are right. Daoism and Zoroastrianism put their focus on the physical world around us and encourage us to live in accordance with the flows and complexities of life. But Zoroastrian philosophy is also concerned with civilizations and therefore more proactivist in nature than Daoism. For example, I act as a Zoroastrian and I rest as a Daoist.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Daniel Samani
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 12:39 Samstag, 20.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Tao and Asha

Dear Dino,

Indeed I agree here. I don't know what "Daudejing" intention is when they talk about natural flows. I do like activism more, I just want to have a clear understanding of the difference. Both seem to focus on roughly the same thing to my mind.

Ushta
Daniel

20 aug 2011 kl. 11:47 skrev Special Kain :
Dear Daniel

There is no talk about our drives and desires in the "Daudejing". It is rather a practical guide concerning lifestyles that are in conformity with nature. As such, it states that we should not freeze and stiffen, but rather go with the flow of nature, because this flow overcomes all obstacles in time. So Daoist philosophy is more about surrendering to natural flows, rather than proactively change the way streams flow.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Daniel Samani
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 9:07 Samstag, 20.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Tao and Asha

Are you saying that Zoroastrianism is more clear when defining long term desires as the better choice. While Daoism use wage words as balance? To be against short term desires is to be against some sort of desire is it not? You just stated that Daoism wasn't negative towards restraint, so not pro-restraint then? How is Daoism and Zoroastrianism different in regard to productivity of drives and desires?

Ushta
Daniel

19 aug 2011 kl. 23:51 skrev Alexander Bard :
I agree fully with Dino and this is also most often mentioned as the reason for people choosing Zoroastrianism over Daoism. Daoism does not have the NEGATIVITY towards drives and desires that is so common in Buddhist philosophy. But neither does Daoism harbor the concept of PRODUCTIVITY of drives and desires inherent to Zoroastrianism. So while Daoism fosters an attitude of CONTROL and BALANCING, within Zarathushra's philosophy the act of balancing is never directed AGAINST DRIVE or DESIRE but rather Zarathushtra discusses the opposites of long-term drives and desires as SUPERIOR to short-term drives and desires. But in Zarathushtra's world drives and desire are good and productive in themselves. No wonder Zarathushtra was opposed to the cultures of monks, nuns, and hermits common to CULTURES OF RESTRAINT. Zarathushtra was opposed t restraint, but he was all for CLEVERNESS. I believe this is what Dino is at too when he points out the small but still existant difference between Zoroastrianism and Daoism, its possibly closest relative in philosophy, and also a dominant influence on Zen, just like Zoroastrianism.
Ushta
Alexander

Was Zarathushtra a teleologist? My answer is no!

2011-08-19T15:15:00.000-07:00

However, the one thing that DOES change over time is technological complexity.
This means that we both get wonderful new tools like computers and the internet that connects people productively and creatively around the world.
But technology also creates rampant pollution and atomic bombs.
But as far as human beings are concerned, we are the same people and have the same genes we did 100,000 years ago.
And I mustoffer friendly disagreement with Dina on the supposed teleology of Zarathushtra. I don't see any such traces in "The Gathas". Zarathushtra is an ETHICIST and not an historicist.
And if teleology was correct, then why would we listen to a man from 3,700 years ago. We should then all be infinitely smarter than him by now. Which I happen to think is obviously not true. ;-)

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/19 Special Kain

Dear Dina

As a sociologist I am very sceptical when it comes to teleology. My inner scholar tells me that we are not progressing towards a better state. We are not progressing towards The Ultimate Democracy (as in Hegel's "the end of history"). Times just change, and we change with them, for better or worse. What we can't deny is an increase in complexity and the creation of new and more efficient technologies. And if we're not completely deranged, we can learn from previous experiences. I would recommend "soft teleology" that does justice to the fundamental uncertainty of social change.

Ushta,
Dino

----- Weitergeleitete Message -----
Von: "dinamci@aol.com"
An: special_kain@yahoo.de; bardissimo@gmail.com
Gesendet: 16:10 Freitag, 19.August 2011
Betreff: Re: Reply to Dino The Meaning of Asha

Dear Dino

I hope that you are well and in good spirits. Thank you for your kind words. Your comment regarding 'teleological misunderstanding' sent me flying to the dictionary (so much for my 'brilliant mind' which I assure you is far from it!). According to my dictionary 'teleological' means 'exhibiting or relating to design or purpose', so yes, I do see that in Zarathushtra's thought, and I am inclined to agree with him.

You are indeed accurate when you say that social change is hard to predict. And I fully agree that our society is not 'objectively superior' (I really dislike the notion of 'superiority' in any event). But I (with due respect) do not agree that as a society we have not, slowly but surely, improved in many (though not all) respects over our past. Let me give you a few examples:

In the Middle Ages in Europe, people who dared to think differently from the established Church -- whether in matters of science, or 'morals' or philosophical belief, were condemned as heretics. Many of them were tortured by the Inquisition, imprisoned for long years, or burned alive at the stake. This kind of control also extended to secular rulers, with Protestant rulers burning Catholics, and Catholic rulers burning Protestants. And prisoners were routinely tortured to obtain 'confessions' which were admissible in court and used to condemn them. Today, it is true that religious authorities still exercise a measure of control over people's minds (witness the fundamentalist sects in various religions, and even in mainstream sects, the control that is exercised through fear of damnation and 'hell' ), but neither church nor state has such pervasive control over human thought as they did in the Middle Ages. It is true that we do take steps backwards, (witness the brutalities and controls of the Soviet Union and the Nazis), and it is also true that we do still have the torture of individuals to obtain information, some times by a government (as we know to our shame and sorrow), but again, not to the pervasive extent that was prevalent during the Inquisition. Then it was considered "right". Today it is condemned by most people. And most courts in our societies do not accept testimony obtained through torture. It is also true that we have terrorists who blow people up, but again not to the extent of the systematic and frequent (almost routine) burning at the stake of those who were 'different' in thought, word or action, that occurred in the Middle Ages.

So yes, I do think, that slowly, with many ups and downs, -- two steps forward, one step backwards -- we nevertheless are progressing towards a better society. According to Zarathushtra, (as I understand his thought) this occurs because of the way things have been ordered (asha) which includes many factors -- the law of consequences (that we reap what we sow), the ability to think / feel, and mutual loving help, which helps to break destructive cycles (such as the abused abusing others, cycles of injustice, hatred and revenge etc.). This ability to think/feel, is a part of asha (good thinking is the comprehension of the true (correct) order of things, however incrementally). This mutual loving help is also a part of asha. It is delivered through words and actions that embody the true (correct) order of things. Such words and actions which embody asha are (in my view) the concept of aramaiti.

So I do not think that in Z's thought there is any teleological misunderstanding. I think he did see a design and purpose in the experiences that engender an evolution in our thoughts, words and actions. And I have to say that I find his idea persuasive. But my dear friend, it is perfectly all right for you to disagree with me. Zarathushtra's whole idea of the freedom to think requires that we respect differences of opinion, or it would be a hollow freedom indeed.

You are welcome to forward this to the Ushta list if you think it appropriate.

Wishing you the best,

Dina.

-----Original Message-----
From: Special Kain
To: Ushta ; dinamci
Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2011 9:19 am
Subject: Re: [Ushta] The Meaning of Asha

Dear Dina

Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge and wisdom with us. I have always loved your brilliant mind!
If asha also applies to the mind, then should we see ourselves as progressing towards a better society built on wisdom? Isn't this a teleological misunderstanding? Frankly, I don't believe in teleology as a sociologist. Social change is hard to predict. Our future society isn't "objectively superior" to our current or any past societies.
What do you think?

Ushta,
Dino

Zoroastianism: I believe there is a universe and I have DECIDED that this universe is sacred to me

2011-08-19T15:08:00.001-07:00

Dear Behnaz

I believe there is a universe and I have DECIDED that this universe is sacred to me.
I don't care about all that God-talk and neither did Zarathushtra. He does not use the term God even once in "The Gathas".
If you share my belief, then you are a true Zoroastrian. And there is no need to look for something bigger and better than yourself or the world around you. Make the best of yourself and the world around you instead. You are divine. The world is divine. Which is precisely why you should be nice to yourself and those around you that you love.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/18 Behnaz Larsen

Dear Alexander
Right now I don't believe in much. Have a hard enough time believing in a God. Angels, I am afraid have taken a backseat and believing in them would simply be too much to ask.
I am though aware of a desire that I have which pushes me forward to find peace with something else, a bigger, better being. Believing in angles and gods and extra ordinary beings take practice. So far I haven't had the time or the desire for it but I want a God! I want to listen to my instincts and look for it. I might find myself after a long search but then I will believe in me!
I am afraid I am not as advanced in this as you are. I have just began but you are inspiring me with the words you write and I am finding a new path. I am afraid I can never be a blind follower but I do envy them. Life is just easier when you have another watching over you. Keep on writing. I am listening.

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 18, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Alexander Bard wrote:

Dear Behnaz

Folk religion has and probably always will exist.
In India, people make the clear distinction between those who believe in Hindu philosophy (Brahmanism) and those who believe in folk religions with gods, angels and all the other bits and pieces (who for example worship Ganesha The Blue Elephant God). A Brahmanist would never worship Ganesha as he or she does not even believe Ganesha exists. Still, the two cultures of Philosophy and Religion co-exist peacefully and to mututal benefit.
Iranian culture somehow lost this dual culture. What was left after Islam came into Iranian culture was the angel worshipping part while the Philosophy (Mazdayasna) went into hiding or even disappeared.
We are now trying to resurrect Iranian philosophy (Mazdayasna) as it was set out from the beginning from Zarathushtra (the original Zoroastrianism). And there is not a single word of angels anywhere in "The Gathas", Ahura Mazda is not Lord Wisdom (a male god figure with male genital organs etc) but rather a principle of existence on which a philosophical religion rather than a folk religion can be based (wherever there is supreme wisdom, this is a menifestation of Ahura Mazda etc).
The angels and other fluffy things are not Zoroastrian, those things are pre-Zoroastrian. But do you honestly believe in the existence of such things? If so, like Dino said, please go ahead! But on the Ushta List we are dealing with the philosophical religion Zarathushra invented which we have inherited and are trying to do something meaningful with. And if Zarathushtra did not believe in supernatural beings, why should we? What's wrong with NATURAL beings as a foundation for a religion. Asha means "that which exists" and not "that which we make up to tell each others as fairytales".

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/17 Special Kain

Dear Behnaz

There is nothing wrong with you. :-)
You are free to believe in a supreme being. You are free to focus on the big picture rather than the details. A good exercise for you would be to be totally honest with yourself and ask yourself why you have these desires. Not because there would be anything wrong with them, but because this means to live truthfully.
There are so many differences among Zoroastrians, because our faith is 3.700 years old. Zoroastrians have spread and lived among other cultures and religions, and they have adoped and creatively re-used the ideas and theories in their different cultural and religious environments. This perfectly explains the differences between Zoroastrians in Iran and their Parsi sisters and brothers in India. But there are a lot more beliefs that we share.

Ushta,
Dino

The Meaning of Asha

2011-08-19T15:02:00.001-07:00

Dear Parviz

I don't think anybody should sign any contract stating that they promise to follow asha.
That would be way too Abrahamic. We as Zoroastrians live with a fluid and flexible ethics, not with a fixed and assumed objectively valid moralism. We become our actions but we are not our actions in advance!
We have no commandments since it is the CIRCUMSTANCES that always determine what is the right thing to do (what is likely to be the best long-term outcome). And this can never be detailed in advance but rather has to always BE LIVED WITHIN THE MOMENT OF DECISION ITSELF.
Zarathushtra was indeed NOT an Abrahamist. So why would he ask us to behave as if we were?

Ushta
Alexander
- Dölj citerad text -

2011/8/19 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Dina,

First, allow me to apologize for mixing your views and those of Dino, even though I think you are both very close in thinking of Asha as “that which Fits”. In philosophy, abstract thinking is what we need as a tool and not trying to figure out the minds of Mahatma Gandy, Mother Theresa, or Jesus Christ. (You know what I am trying to say here ;-). Mithra is the guardian of contracts and as a lawyer you know how important the precise language and the precise meaning of words are when written in a contract. I feel Mazdayasna in the modern world can be a religion for the intellectuals and as such I wish it to have precise meanings to the key nomenclature it uses. The meaning of Asha as you describe it, is clear in the physical (Giti) realm. It is how physical things behave and the laws that apply to them. Water runs down hill, and that is how it is.

But when we get to separating Asha from Droj in the mental world (Minoo), we as Ashavands need the two words described more clearly. If the way you describe what Asha and Droj are is satisfactory to all who are interested in Mazdayasna, then good for you all. I am the odd man out and to me the words are most confusing. I would not sign any contract in which one of the clauses is, “and Parviz Varjavand hereby promises to act according to Asha in the premises or else loose all the deposit money he has put down.”

There are religions that need the smoke and mirrors and the unclear language so that their Gurus will never be out of a job while sitting on a top of mountain answering the pilgrims what he thinks Dharma or Karma is. I do not feel Mazdayasna need to be one more such path. The old Magi would melt bronze and pour it on the chest of their victims in order to find if they were telling the Asha or Droj of a situation. This is also part of our heritage when it comes to the distinction between Asha and Droj in the mental world. I want the heritage to change so that we can write contracts that Mithra will understand and so will lawyers.

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

From: Alexander Bard
To: Ushta
Cc: jafarey@aol.com; Dina McIntyre
Sent: Fri, August 19, 2011 5:39:54 AM
Subject: [Ushta] The Meaning of Asha

Dear Friends

We thank our dear friend Dina McIntyre for making this posting available to us all on the Ushta List.

Please read and feel free to comment!
Alexander

2011/8/18
Dear Alexander,

It is kind indeed of so many of you to copy me on these interesting discussions. I note that Zaneta mentioned in one of these emails that I had defined asha as 'what fits' although Dino seems to have got the blame for it in subsequent exchanges. I thought, in the interests of integrity, I should set the record straight, and I apologize for waiting for so long to do so. You are welcome to copy this email to any List that you think appropriate. The following represents my opinion on what meaning Zarathushtra ascribes to asha, based both on linguistics, and also on the ways in which he uses the word in the Gathas.

The literal meaning of asha (according to many first class linguists) is indeed 'what fits' as in what is ordered in a system. It corresponds to the Vedic rta, and the Old Persian arta, which have roughly the same meaning. The question of course arises (for anyone interested in Zarathushtra's ideas) what does Zarathushtra have in mind when he uses the word 'asha'. This question is relevant, not for the purpose of slavishly following Zarathushtra's ideas, but for the purpose of understanding his ideas. Before any of us can decide whether we agree or disagree with his ideas, we have to first understand what his ideas may have been in this (as in any other) instance.

Based on its Vedic and Old Persian cognates, Asha has been variously translated as 'truth' 'order' and 'righteousness'. It would be reasonable to question how one word could possibly have three such different meanings. Well, Zarathushtra did not think in English (or any other language in existence today). So to understand what he may have had in mind, we have to think outside of the box of the English language, and try to look at the matter through his eyes.

Zarathushtra sees (our) reality as the existences of matter and of mind, which (in our reality) are integrated, and asha 'what fits' applies to both existences.

In the existence of matter, 'what fits' is what is correct -- as in factually (physically, materially) correct -- the natural laws that order the universe, the laws of what today we call science -- physics, chemistry, biology, etc. So asha is the true, (correct) order of things in the existence of matter.

In the existence of mind, 'what fits' is also what is 'correct' -- as in what is right. But in the Gathas, what is 'right' is not a judgmental, puritanical rectitude. If we look at all the evidence of what Zarathushtra sees as 'right' we see that it comprises such notions as truth, goodness, beneficence, lovingkindness, generosity, solicitude, friendship, compassion, justice, being constructive, not being destructive, not being inimical, et cetera. In short, asha in the existence of mind includes all the good values we cherish which befit the true (correct, right) order of things in the existence of mind.

So in essence, asha means the true (correct) order of things in the existences of matter and of mind. There is no one-word equivalent in English that comes even close. The word 'truth', is an inadequate equivalent but the best one word equivalent I can think of.

And what I really like is that in speaking of this true (correct) order of things, Zarathushtra does not give us fact specific answers. Indeed, he endearing admits he does not have all the answers. He says "...As long as I shall be able and be strong, so long shall I search in quest of truth. Truth, shall I see thee as I continue to acquire ... good thinking..." Y28.4-5. In other words, he tells us to search for the true, (correct) order of things in the existences of matter and of mind.

This quest for truth, with good thinking, includes searching for the physical (factual) truths of our universe. Zarathushtra does not tell us, as an article of faith that the sun revolves around the earth. Instead, he demonstrates his quest for truth in the existence of matter, not by giving fact-specific answers, but by asking all sorts of questions pertaining to such things: "...Which man did fix the course of the sun and of the stars? Through whom does the moon wax (now) and wane later?" Y44.3; "...Which man has upheld the earth below and the heavens (above) from falling? Who the waters and the plants?..." Y44.4; "...which craftsman created the luminous bodies and the dark spaces? ... sleep and activity? Through whom does the dawn exist along with midday and evening?..." Y44.5. Gallileo would have been happy with this approach.

This quest for truth, with good thinking, also includes searching for what is correct (right) in the existence of mind. What is 'right' in one generation, or in one culture, may be very different from what is 'right' in another culture. So is Zarathushtra's idea of 'right' subjective? I do not think it is. I think it is our perceptions of 'truth' or 'right' that are subjective. But as we evolve or grow, through time and experiences, our perceptions change. A hundred years ago in the US, women were not allowed to have careers, own property, or vote. That was considered 'right'. Today no one (in the US) would consider that state of affairs as 'right'. Over time, through thinking, and experiencing, and debating, our perceptions change, and change, and change, until eventually, 'truth' and 'right' and our perceptions of it, are the same. And that is wisdom personified (mazda). I am persuaded by Thieme's view that mazda means not just wise, but wisdom personified. Mazdayasni (in my opinion) means the worship of wisdom. And in Zarathushtra's thought, we 'worship' with truth, good thinking, and embodying the truth with each thought, word and action. A living, loving worship. So (as in philosophy which means love of wisdom) in Zarathusthtra's thought, mazdayasni does indeed mean loving wisdom.

Also (for what it's worth) do not think there are two kinds of asha -- asha vahishta and just plain asha. Vahishta simply is the superlative degree of 'good' vohu. So asha vahishta simply means the most-good asha. Asha (truth) has also been called 'the most beautiful'. It is just a way of describing the nature of asha, bearing in mind that it applies to both the existences of matter and mind -- the physical and the abstract.

I hope that above clarifies any misunderstandings that may have occurred as to my views on asha, and especially I hope that it relieves Dino of any blame for what may not be his views at all.

Wishing us the best,

Dina G. McIntyre

Taoism vs Zoroastrianism

2011-08-19T14:52:00.001-07:00

I agree fully with Dino and this is also most often mentioned as the reason for people choosing Zoroastrianism over Daoism. Daoism does not have the NEGATIVITY towards drives and desires that is so common in Buddhist philosophy. But neither does Daoism harbor the concept of PRODUCTIVITY of drives and desires inherent to Zoroastrianism. So while Daoism fosters an attitude of CONTROL and BALANCING, within Zarathushra's philosophy the act of balancing is never directed AGAINST DRIVE or DESIRE but rather Zarathushtra discusses the opposites of long-term drives and desires as SUPERIOR to short-term drives and desires. But in Zarathushtra's world drives and desire are good and productive in themselves. No wonder Zarathushtra was opposed to the cultures of monks, nuns, and hermits common to CULTURES OF RESTRAINT. Zarathushtra was opposed t restraint, but he was all for CLEVERNESS. I believe this is what Dino is at too when he points out the small but still existant difference between Zoroastrianism and Daoism, its possibly closest relative in philosophy, and also a dominant influence on Zen, just like Zoroastrianism.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/19 Special Kain

Dear Daniel

The Chinese word "dau" means "road" in modern-day English. In Daoist philosophy, it is the flow and process of reality itself: the dynamic change between "the 10,000 things". The relationships between "the 10,000 things" are in constant flux, nothing is ever settled and fixed. Since these 10,000 things do not merge into one larger whole, but always retain their plurality, we cannot fully grasp "dau". Therefore we cannot name it nor comprehend it. The Chinese word "de" is often translated as "virtue", but it rather means "the order of things" or how things that come together (dau) are being ordered (de). Even though the basic characteristic of this world is change, the world is not merely chaotic.

So the pathos is similar: Daoists examine the nature of this world and then choose to live in accordance with it ("wu wei" as "acting naturally", since "not doing" is a misleading translation). However, the difference between Zoroastrianism and Daoism is PROACTIVITY. Zoroastrianism is much more activist than Daoism.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Daniel Samani
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 11:49 Freitag, 19.August 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] Tao and Asha

"Lao-Tzu considered that ‘When tao is lost only then does the doctrine of virtue arise’. As a practical philosophy Taoism is therefore based on the suppression of desire in favour of natural simplicity and tranquillity." - Oxford Dictionary

So what does this tells us about the diffrence between Asha and Tao? To my mind Zoroastrism talks about that with works for our and others desires in the long run. Does Taoistic Tao consider desires to be virtues? Any thoughts on this?

Ushta
Daniel

The Substance of Humanity (was: Asha and the Bikini)

2011-08-19T14:44:00.001-07:00

Dear Parviz

What a wonderful topic and discussion!
The answer to your most interesting question lies in the CONSEQUENCES of the actions. The long-term effects of the actions.
Even humans are known to eat their babies during extreme conditions of war and malnutrition. Even if this sounds horrible to us modern human beings it can still be "asha-vahishta" during extreme conditions when this is THE LEAST BAD ACTION POSSIBLE considering the long-term effects. I would even add that TRUE ETHICS is precisely to be able to take the leats bad option - even if it is horrible - during the most difficult conditions, This is what makes us proud to be humans. Zoroastrianism is not for softies. ;-)
The reason why we humans are ethical beings rather than just animals is precisely because we can speculate and take different possible outcomes into account (what you correctly describe as the realm of minoo). This is why Zarathushtra added the vahishta to the realm of the minoo. And not only did he point out that our mental capacity makes us ethical beings, the true radicality of Zarathushtra is his historically unique claim that OUR ETHICAL BEING IS OUR VERY SUBSTANCE. You minoo is IDENTICAL with your thoughts, words and actions.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/19 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Dino,

I think you are a poet as well as a philosopher and I like your views more and more as I go over them. I know that as men, we tend to purify things and that works at times against us, like making sugar out of beats, while if we ate the beat itself, it would be much more beneficial for us. Now about Asha in the woods, it is Asha in the state that the mind of men has not tried to extract its essence out of it. So if I reach out my hand in the woods and touch a poisonous snake and it bites me and I die, nothing BAD has happened to me, it is just Asha of how things are in the woods that has happened to me. When a cat gives birth, the mother cat is known to eat one or more of its kittens, this is just ASHA then and mama cat is not doing something BAD or DROJ. But if a mama human eats her baby, we do all sit up and shout DROJ, DROJ. So when does the Asha in nature become the DROJ? Qaddafi in Libya is like the snake in the woods, or is there a difference just because we assume that he is more of a human than an animal? How much of the consciousness of a Swede does Qaddafi need to poses before the laws of Alex can apply to him?

Mehr, Parviz

From: Special Kain
To: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Sent: Thu, August 18, 2011 1:13:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Asha and the Bikini

Dear Behnaz

Asha is not a state of mind. When you're in the woods, you can reach out your hand and touch asha everywhere. For better or worse, the world is as it is.

Ushta, Dino

Von: Behnaz Larsen
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Cc: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 20:36 Donnerstag, 18.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Asha and the Bikini

Dear Dino,
I have to read this a couple of times..... Is Asha then unreachable? I thought we have to strive to reach the state of Asha, as though it were there to be reached with our hands, thoughts, words and deeds. If Asha is there because it is, then cancer cells could also be Asha, assuming they are caused due to genetic irregularities. They are there and we have to decide what attitude we will have towards them.
I guess I should read your respond again.
Thank you

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 18, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Special Kain wrote:

Dear Behnaz

Asha has nothing to do with social norms. Asha is the truth as in "that which truly exists". It has more to do with natural phenomena such as plant growth than with socially accepted behaviors.
Asha as such is neither good nor bad. If we translate asha as "righteousness", it should not be mistaken for a moralistic imperative. It rather refers to the regularities in the natural world (the course of the sun and the stars, certain plants grow under different conditions, etc.). It is the habits that we can observe in the natural world.
There are indeed regularities in human behaviors that can be explained (neuro-)psychologically, physiologically, sociologically and so on. But it says nothing about ethics. The Greek word "ethos" means "Haltung" in German ("attitude" in English). Zarathushtra stressed vohu manah in relation with asha: it is one's attitude towards that which truly exists that matters ethically in this context. For example, one's willingness to live truthfully and in accordance with asha (asha-vahishta, "furthering asha").

As Parviz suggested, we should keep asha and asha-vahishta separate and not confuse them with each other. Asha has to do with the engine of your car, asha-vahishta has to do with the pollution of the environment and constructing eco-friendlier cars in order to protect the environment.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Behnaz Larsen
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Cc: Ushta ; zoroastrians
Gesendet: 1:21 Donnerstag, 18.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Asha and the Bikini

I am not an expert on Asha, but the Asha that I believe in, does not consider a nude person a criminal. You cannot call yourself a wise society when you spend your time and money on arresting people for being nude or ugly or eccentric etc. Not all laws and social norms are wise. Most of the time the laws are out of date. So if the norms are not wise then following them couldn't be according to Asha.

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 17, 2011, at 11:30 PM, Parviz Varjavand wrote:

Friends,

Let me explain why I think there is no fixed Asha when we are in the Minoo or
Mental realm.
How much of their body can they expose when ladies go swimming?
There are some nudist colonies where they can take all their cloths off and
swim in the nude.
Next, in most beaches in the West, ladies are allowed to wear a Bikini and swim.
In many European beaches, ladies can take the top part of their Bikini off and
no one will mind.

In America ladies will get arrested for taking the top part of their Bikini off
as it is considered "Indecent Exposure".
After reading so far you may ask "So what? What is your point?"
My point is that between going around in total nudity and where the women have
to go around totally covered and not allowed to swim in public beaches
altogether, all kinds of laws exists on the book. These laws are man made and
not absolute. One should fight the ones one feels are unjust, but to do the
right thing at the right time to achieve the right results depends on what beach
it is that you want to go swim in. The law that you will sink and suffocate if
your hands and feet are tied by hundred kilos of chain before you are thrown in
the sea is Asha and absolute, the laws of physics will kill you there and not
the laws of man. Laws of Asha in Physics are much more unyealding than man made
laws where you have a wide range of possibilities allowing you to bargain for
Asha-Vahishta or even make Asha Vahishta happen in the shape of changing the
law.

Parviz Varjavand

Zoroastrianism: The Difference between a Philosophical Religion and a Folk Religion

2011-08-18T00:34:00.000-07:00

Dear Behnaz

Folk religion has and probably always will exist.
In India, people make the clear distinction between those who believe in Hindu philosophy (Brahmanism) and those who believe in folk religions with gods, angels and all the other bits and pieces (who for example worship Ganesha The Blue Elephant God). A Brahmanist would never worship Ganesha as he or she does not even believe Ganesha exists. Still, the two cultures of Philosophy and Religion co-exist peacefully and to mututal benefit.
Iranian culture somehow lost this dual culture. What was left after Islam came into Iranian culture was the angel worshipping part while the Philosophy (Mazdayasna) went into hiding or even disappeared.
We are now trying to resurrect Iranian philosophy (Mazdayasna) as it was set out from the beginning from Zarathushtra (the original Zoroastrianism). And there is not a single word of angels anywhere in "The Gathas", Ahura Mazda is not Lord Wisdom (a male god figure with male genital organs etc) but rather a principle of existence on which a philosophical religion rather than a folk religion can be based (wherever there is supreme wisdom, this is a menifestation of Ahura Mazda etc).
The angels and other fluffy things are not Zoroastrian, those things are pre-Zoroastrian. But do you honestly believe in the existence of such things? If so, like Dino said, please go ahead! But on the Ushta List we are dealing with the philosophical religion Zarathushra invented which we have inherited and are trying to do something meaningful with. And if Zarathushtra did not believe in supernatural beings, why should we? What's wrong with NATURAL beings as a foundation for a religion. Asha means "that which exists" and not "that which we make up to tell each others as fairytales".

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/17 Special Kain
Dear Behnaz

There is nothing wrong with you. :-)
You are free to believe in a supreme being. You are free to focus on the big picture rather than the details. A good exercise for you would be to be totally honest with yourself and ask yourself why you have these desires. Not because there would be anything wrong with them, but because this means to live truthfully.
There are so many differences among Zoroastrians, because our faith is 3.700 years old. Zoroastrians have spread and lived among other cultures and religions, and they have adoped and creatively re-used the ideas and theories in their different cultural and religious environments. This perfectly explains the differences between Zoroastrians in Iran and their Parsi sisters and brothers in India. But there are a lot more beliefs that we share.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Behnaz Larsen
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Cc: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 22:50 Mittwoch, 17.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism is Philosophy as Religion

That is very clear to me. I don't believe in a God either, though I very much want to. However, this is another matter. What I find confusing is that I believed, from what I have read that mazdayasna is straight- forward and not easily misunderstood as for example a faith or philosophy such as Islam, which no one can understand. I cannot see why an idea could be considered and followed by millions, but be only understood by few. Your version and "their" version are not the same and I consider that a failure of the teacher. Yes, I guess that is what I am confused about. If the idea is brilliant, if the teacher was right, then why such differences among the followers? And where is there a place for people like me, people who only see the big picture and only focus on the result? People who want to believe, for the sake of their sanity, in a supreme being without banging their heads on a temple wall? If I am not an orthodox and don't want to be an atheist, then where will I belong to? Do I consult a Mobed for guidance or a philosopher? am I in the wrong forum?

On Aug 17, 2011, at 10:23 PM, Special Kain wrote:

Dear Behnaz

What is it that you find confusing?
There are panentheists and pantheists. There are those who believe in a divine being that once created this world and those who don't. I don't believe in god - like most modern converts and western scholars. Ahura Mazda is a philosophical concept, above all else. It is Mazda that we worship and hold to be sacred, since Mazdayasna is the original name of our faith. And Mazda means "wisdom" in English.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Behnaz Larsen
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Cc: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 21:51 Mittwoch, 17.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism is Philosophy as Religion

Misleading? The very title of the supreme wisdom, or the very root of the idea of this ideology is Ahura Mazda! Since I am still a student here i will allow myself to ask the above question. I hope you'll understand that I am not criticising but I always thought that the way of the behdins was much more straight forward than the other ideologies.

However, now I am reading that even the Wise lord and righteousness are not what they seem to be and I don't know how to look at it any longer. The beauty of this straight-forward path is no more. I don't disagree with any of you but I am trying to find my place in this. There are the traditionalist, angel worshippers, who follow rituals more than the actual path and here you are entangled in words. Where do you think I could fit in?

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 17, 2011, at 1:32 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:
With one word being feminine and the other word being masculine, Zarathushtra clearly had no "male personality" such as "a lord" in mind when he coined the concept of Ahura Mazda. "Lord Wisdom" is therefore tragically misleadning. "Mind-on-Being-as-a-sacred-unity" is possibly the closest we can get to translating Ahura Mazda to contemporary English.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/17 Special Kain
Asha is the truth as in "that which truly exists" and "how it really works".
Ahura is a title that usually designates the divine as in "that which is divine" and "that which is sacred". It is commonly used for proper deities. Mazda is "wisdom" and "intelligence". So if we speak of Ahura Mazda, we speak of wisdom as sacred and divine. The translation "Lord Wisdom" is not necessarily wrong, but it is misleading. The original Avestan expression literally means that it is a sacred act to place one's mind (e.g. to be wise). ago.

Zoroastrianism is Philosophy as Religion

2011-08-17T02:30:00.001-07:00

Very elegantly put!
Philosophy AS religion = The celebration or worship of Philosophy.
That is what Mazdayasna, Zarathushtra's thought system, is all about.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/17 Special Kain

Asha is "that which truly exists". Ahura is "that which is divine". Mazda is "wisdom" (as in "having a wise mind"). Therefore Ahura Mazda means "the sacredness of wisdom" or "to have a wise mind is something sacred and divine". In other words, we hold wisdom and intelligence to be sacred. We take philosophy far more seriously than the Greeks did!

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 18:30 Dienstag, 16.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Asha vs Druj compared to Chaos vs Order

Correct!
Except I would add that for Ahura to be SACREDNESS it is actually Ahura WITH Mazda.
Ahura is what Asha becomes WHEN VIEWED THROUGH Mazda.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/16 Special Kain

Alexander is right.
Asha is that which exists and how it has come into existence (how things work properly), Ahura is the SACREDNESS of existence, druj is that which isn't real. Charles Darwin vs. ignorant creationists!

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 15:05 Dienstag, 16.August 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] Asha vs Druj compared to Chaos vs Order

Chaos and order are GREEK and not Iranian concepts.
I'm not interested in chaos or order, they don't exist as such but are rather just fantasies of our imagination.
Everything is chaos. Chaos only becomes order when we decide to make it order.
Zarathushtra's opposites are instead "that which has existence" versus "that which does not exist". Just like Nietzsche and Heidegger, actually, philosophers who were also against Plato's distinctions of chaos and order.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/16 Behnaz Larsen
Yes, Alexander, however I have a question about this nothingness: chaos versus order, where do they fit in? If druj is "nothing", and "the lack of" etc then chaos could not be categorised under druj. It has been said that in every chaotic situation there is beauty and order. Obviously these people have not seen my kitchen, so I think you are right not to translate these from one language to the next, since words keep failing us.
Behnaz

On Aug 16, 2011, at 2:46 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:
Two things:
1. The Oxford Dictionary has a VERY DIFFERENT understanding of real from Gilles Deleuze. Daniel mixes the two up, please don't.
2. The proper English word for druj outside of our minds is "nothingness". It is the LACK OF EXISTENCE which is druj in its purest sense in the Avestan language. In this sense "Asha" is "Something" or "Substance" or "How Things work" whereas Druj is "Nothingness" or "Lack of substance" or "Illusions of how things actually don't work".
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/15 Daniel Samani

Great! Then lie is a good translation to the Avestan concept druj, I guess that depends what aspect one empathise. People use the English language with different styles. Some more inflated by vitalism and absolutism then others. If one make the statement that the definition of a lie is that it's not true - it weight heavily on what one mean by truth (that can be coloured heavily on abramitic thought).

I am confident that we will reach an agreement on this matter. This will occur when I have grasped what you have a long time ago. ;) Too me the concept real in itself is confusing this is what Oxford says: "The term is most straightforwardly used when qualifying another adjective: a real x may be contrasted with a fake x, a failed x, a near x, and so on. To treat something as real, without qualification, is to suppose it to be part of the actual world. To
reify
something is to suppose that we are committed by some doctrine to treating it as a thing. The central error in thinking of reality and existence is to think of the unreal as a separate domain of things, perhaps unfairly deprived of the benefits of existence."

At least one thing I agree 100% with, asha is a rather complex concept.

Ushta
Daniel

Zoroastrianism vs General Pantheism

2011-08-16T09:26:00.001-07:00

The interesting thing with Zarathushtra's special brand of Pantheism (as I believed Arthur Pearlstein once pointed out, thereby differentiating it from all other forms of Pantheism; defending Zoroastrianism against General Pantheism) is that Zarathushtra never divinifies Existence (Ahura) as such on its own. There is no Ahura proper without Mazda, so the mind aspect of human existence is also at play. The Universe indeed has no divinity of its own, it only becomes divine through THE ACT OF THE MIND. It is indeed a proclamation, not so much through a choice of the mind but rather through the very existence of mind (as an affirmative and cheerful RECOGNITION of Asha rather than as a choice). Which also explains why we, as Parviz has often pointed out, are not Ahurayasni but Mazdayasni. We celebrate Mind first and Existence second. And all this WITHOUT making History a Necessity as Abrahamic determinism or historicism would have it (material existence exists as to make mind possible), History is still totally contingent according to Zarathushtra, even in itself truly miraculous, not at all Buddha's negation of existence. Like in Hegel's philosophy, Zarathushtra's meaning is always a meaning as after-thought, as a kind of CHOSEN NECESSITY, well after the Act that manifests Substance is established. It's all quite peculiar, but it is very very smart and obviously very truthful. I don't consider myself a Pantheist lightly anymore. ;-)
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/16 Special Kain

Dear sisters and brothers

Asha can mean different things depending on the context.

(1) It is "the truth" and "that which is true", as opposed to illusions, fraud and lies. The world as it is vs. the lies we have been told. Ashavahishta therefore is "the best truth", one's willingness to surrender to what it true, or "furthering the truth", one's willingness to live truthfully through thoughts, words and deeds.

(2) It also is "that which exists" and "that which is real" as in "something that actually exists", as opposed to that which is unreal (illusions, deception). Asha is that which is in conformity with reality. In Heideggerian terms, there is something (asha) rather than nothing (druj).

(3) Eventually, asha also is "that which fits (with what is real)" and "that which works", the mechanisms and laws of nature as discovered and studied by modern science - a rather technical and pragmatic approach towards this issue. Think of agriculture!

Ahura also is "that which exists", but in a different sense. Since "Ahura" also is a title usually given to deities ("supreme being" or "supreme power"), it could mean that existence is sacred - Existence with a capital E.

What do YOU think?

Ushta,
Dino

Zoroastrianism as the Opposite of Islam

2011-08-16T08:20:00.000-07:00

Dear Dino and Daniel

What Zarathushtra so vehemently opposes is the human desire to SEEK LEADERSHIP TO OBEY, to masochistically subordinate ourselves to the will of a God, a Father, a Big Other, The Others in a Society, political leaders, idols etc. Therefore he is against all "ought to's" that we possibly could come up with. There are no ought-to's from others, and if there are they should be ignored and overruled and crushed.
All of this to create the ETHICAL BEING that constantly reinvates and expands itself - THROUGH CREATIVE ACTIONS eminanting from creative thoughts and words - and time and space as the Zoroastrian IDEAL OF EXISTENCE. This is what Zarathushtra teaches in The Gathas: We do not BECOME Maxzdayasni by OBEYING (neither by obstructing) but by independently DO WHAT IS US COMING FROM WITHIN US.
You could not be further from the cult of subordination in the Abrahamic religions with their horrible "commandments". Islam for example literally means "Obedience". If anything Zarathushtra's reply should be called "Creation".

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/16 Special Kain

No, asha DOES NOT SPEAK - it DOES NOT tell us anything about how things ought to be. There is NO NORMATIVITY. Forget about "should do", "has to do", "ought to do", "shouldn't do", etc. here in this context. Asha simply is that which turns out to be real and true. Asha is existence as in "something that really exists" and also the rules that apply here (the laws of nature in the broadest possible sense). It therefore refers to a LEARNING PROCESS that will prove that asha (that which works in the long run) is fundamentally superior to druj (that which deceives us).

Von: Daniel Samani
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 16:11 Dienstag, 16.August 2011
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] Meaning of Asha

This makes sense, does asha tell us how things ought to be? Or does this materialise when we see existence for what it is and what it's not?

Ushta
Daniel

16 aug 2011 kl. 14:46 skrev Alexander Bard :

Two things:
1. The Oxford Dictionary has a VERY DIFFERENT understanding of real from Gilles Deleuze. Daniel mixes the two up, please don't.
2. The proper English word for druj outside of our minds is "nothingness". It is the LACK OF EXISTENCE which is druj in its purest sense in the Avestan language. In this sense "Asha" is "Something" or "Substance" or "How Things work" whereas Druj is "Nothingness" or "Lack of substance" or "Illusions of how things actually don't work".
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/15 Daniel Samani

Great! Then lie is a good translation to the Avestan concept druj, I guess that depends what aspect one empathise. People use the English language with different styles. Some more inflated by vitalism and absolutism then others. If one make the statement that the definition of a lie is that it's not true - it weight heavily on what one mean by truth (that can be coloured heavily on abramitic thought).

I am confident that we will reach an agreement on this matter. This will occur when I have grasped what you have a long time ago. ;) Too me the concept real in itself is confusing this is what Oxford says: "The term is most straightforwardly used when qualifying another adjective: a real x may be contrasted with a fake x, a failed x, a near x, and so on. To treat something as real, without qualification, is to suppose it to be part of the actual world. To reify something is to suppose that we are committed by some doctrine to treating it as a thing. The central error in thinking of reality and existence is to think of the unreal as a separate domain of things, perhaps unfairly deprived of the benefits of existence."

At least one thing I agree 100% with, asha is a rather complex concept.

Ushta
Daniel

Asha vs Druj compared to Chaos vs Order

2011-08-16T06:06:00.000-07:00

Chaos and order are GREEK and not Iranian concepts.
I'm not interested in chaos or order, they don't exist as such but are rather just fantasies of our imagination.
Everything is chaos. Chaos only becomes order when we decide to make it order.
Zarathushtra's opposites are instead "that which has existence" versus "that which does not exist". Just like Nietzsche and Heidegger, actually, philosophers who were also against Plato's distinctions of chaos and order.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/16 Behnaz Larsen
Yes, Alexander, however I have a question about this nothingness: chaos versus order, where do they fit in? If druj is "nothing", and "the lack of" etc then chaos could not be categorised under druj. It has been said that in every chaotic situation there is beauty and order. Obviously these people have not seen my kitchen, so I think you are right not to translate these from one language to the next, since words keep failing us.
Behnaz

On Aug 16, 2011, at 2:46 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:
Two things:

1. The Oxford Dictionary has a VERY DIFFERENT understanding of real from Gilles Deleuze. Daniel mixes the two up, please don't.
2. The proper English word for druj outside of our minds is "nothingness". It is the LACK OF EXISTENCE which is druj in its purest sense in the Avestan language. In this sense "Asha" is "Something" or "Substance" or "How Things work" whereas Druj is "Nothingness" or "Lack of substance" or "Illusions of how things actually don't work".
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/15 Daniel Samani

Great! Then lie is a good translation to the Avestan concept druj, I guess that depends what aspect one empathise. People use the English language with different styles. Some more inflated by vitalism and absolutism then others. If one make the statement that the definition of a lie is that it's not true - it weight heavily on what one mean by truth (that can be coloured heavily on abramitic thought).

I am confident that we will reach an agreement on this matter. This will occur when I have grasped what you have a long time ago. ;) Too me the concept real in itself is confusing this is what Oxford says: "The term is most straightforwardly used when qualifying another adjective: a real x may be contrasted with a fake x, a failed x, a near x, and so on. To treat something as real, without qualification, is to suppose it to be part of the actual world. To
reify
something is to suppose that we are committed by some doctrine to treating it as a thing. The central error in thinking of reality and existence is to think of the unreal as a separate domain of things, perhaps unfairly deprived of the benefits of existence."

At least one thing I agree 100% with, asha is a rather complex concept.

Ushta
Daniel

15 aug 2011 kl. 20:44 skrev Special Kain :

Dear Daniel

I have been actively involved in Zoroastrianism longer than you have. I have a profound knowledge of the history of philosophy. And I check my sources very carefully in order to accurately describe Avestan terms in English.
Druj means "lie" in English, but could also be translated as "that which deceives". It is all the things we believe to be there, even though they don't exist. Simply put, it is that which is not real. And no-one here has ever claimed that there are "more real" and "less real" things. A fleeting idea that we forgot the very moment it popped up in our mind is not less real than Mount Everest.
There are different translations of asha, since the concept is rather complex and means "that which exists" as much as "how it works properly". It refers to something that is in conformity with the workings of nature. Think of engineers, for example! It has nothing to do with the actual/virtual dichotomoy that I find useless in this context.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Daniel Samani
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 19:48 Montag, 15.August 2011
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] Meaning of Asha

So my point is that lies are a bad translation of druj. And that I'm highly skeptic about that stating that what is real is a good translation of asha.

Ushta
Daniel

15 aug 2011 kl. 18:48 skrev Special Kain :

No, LIES do NOT refer to something that is unlikely to happen or something that is irrelevant or even destructive. Lies refer to things that are NOT TRUE. It has nothing to do with probabilities, relevance or destruction. World War II was quite real, wasn't it? And even the most improbable and most irrelevant events are real. And that which is real and which fits with what is real is asha. As Alexander pointed out, there is NOTHING NORMATIVE about asha. The world is as it is. What we are now doing with the facts is a different story altogether.

If you choose to mix Zoroastrianism with Deleuzianism, you should not make things unnecessarily complicated and confusing. ;-)
Ahura is existence as such, but it's also a title usually given to deities (as in designating something as divine). Mazda is wisdom and "the mind". Ahura is the fact that existence is sacred, the universe is sacred, and Mazda is our capacity to think which we as Zoroastrians worship and celebrate.

Ushta,
Dino // is also deeply fascinated with Deleuzianism

Von: Daniel Samani
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 18:20 Montag, 15.August 2011
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] Meaning of Asha

Then we might be in disagreement. It's cause lies point to something not durable (as in low probability, low relevance, low effectiveness or destructiveness) that makes them unattractive. Could you define what you mean by real? To me something real is something part of the actual or virtual world. If it's not part of these worlds it can be classified unreal (can anything be classified unreal?).

How does we distinguish what is real from that which is not? Why not distinguish what is actual from what is virtual. And what in this world that are durable. That's my 50 cent.

Side note: Isn't the actual world Ahura and the virtual world Mazda?

Ushta
Daniel

15 aug 2011 kl. 17:48 skrev Special Kain :

Dear Daniel

Forget about Gilles Deleuze for a moment.
Druj is that which isn't real. Lies exist, but they refer to something that isn't true. The liar exists, his words exist, his words reach your ears, and so on - the whole process actually takes place and is 100% real. But not that something that the lie refers to. For example, the liar tells you that rabbits can fly, his statement exists. But there are no rabbits with wings. They don't exist, they are not real.
Got it?

Ushta,
Dino

Agreeing or disagreeing with Zarathushtra on Asha vs Druj?

2011-08-16T06:00:00.001-07:00

2011/8/16 Parviz Varjavand wrote:
There are parts of the Gathas that I do not enjoy, the parts that Zarathustra keeps referring to all that he is doing as pure Asha and accuses his opponents of engaging in pure Droj.

Dear Parviz

I actually strongly disagree.
I think it takes GUTS and COURAGE to tell the truth when one is doing the right thing and others are doing the wrong thing.
It was exactly this attitude from the Americans that made them join World War 2 and beat the horrors of fascism and nazism in Europe and Asia and gain a foothold for democracy in what was then properly established as the free world. This was the best and wisest decision ever made by the American presidents and congresses. It was Asha!
I admire Zarathushtra for his guts in telling the truth also when he chooses superior ways. However, I do not admire self-haters who believe they are superior by denying their superiority of decision-making when they actually are making the right decisions.
Self-hatred and fake humility is actually rather pathetic.
Furthermore, convicts in jail know exactly when and why they have done druj: It is when they were SHORT-SIGHTED and only saw to their own and immediate gains ignoring the long-term effects for all of their decisions. Sometimes things are actually not very complicated at all.

Ushta
Alexander

Pragmatism vs Stalinism

2011-08-13T04:03:00.000-07:00

Not at all.
Pragmatism would never defend a deceitful dictatorship like North Korea.
Because hardly any hypotheses even allowed to be promoted in North Korean society were ever maximally useful for the people of North Korea, not even for its dictator.
Haven't you grasped even the definition you just quoted?
Pragmatism is by far the most democarcy-promoting philosophy ever invented precisely because it does NOT recognize ultimate truths, only the meta-truth of conditions for truth, which in turn is an aggressive oponent of any form of closed society with a closed debate.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/13 Parviz Varjavand

"Pragmatism, as a tendency in philosophy, signifies the insistence on usefulness or practical consequences as a test of truth. In its negative phase, it opposes what it styles the formalism or rationalism of Intellectualistic philosophy. That is, it objects to the view that concepts, judgments, and reasoning processes are representative of reality and the processes of reality. It considers them to be merely symbols, hypotheses and schemata devised by man to facilitate or render possible the use, or experience, of reality. This use, or experience, is the true test of real existence. In its positive phase, therefore, Pragmatism sets up as the standard of truth some non-rational test, such as action, satisfaction of needs, realization in conduct, the possibility of being lived, and judges reality by this norm to the exclusion of all others."<<

So for the many persons who were born and died during the communist rule in North Korea, the norms, the rules, the tools used to enforce, and the results achieved by that state, should be Pragmatically, the Asha, the Truth and another name for God. Opposing that regime would bring all manners of harm upon them while obeying it would WORK for them. I do not know of any government who does not have Jails and Spy networks, so Jails and Secret Agencies are Asha, because they Work and everybody is using them. Who cares what the TRUTH may be and what DROJ might be, any DROJ that WORKS is the TRUTH and ASHA! Members of the CIA are the true ASHAVANDS then, because they care for nothing other than what WORKS for them. Is this correct according to you Dino, or am I mistaken here somewhere?

Also a student of philosophy,
Parviz Varjavand

Civilizations vs Hedonism (was: A Scientist and a Judge)

2011-08-13T03:55:00.001-07:00

Dear Parviz

I believe what you are missing is whether something IS asha or druj or whether we experience it as asha or druj.
Asha and druj are not substances or essences, things just ARE, they are NOT in themselves asha or druj.
Asha or druj is what things become to us depending on which attitude we confront phenomena with.
Zarathushtra does not even dicuss substances or essences, HE FINDS THAT NOT INTERESTING. He only discusses mentalities and what different mentalities RESULT IN. Think feedback loops. What does a thought result in? Which is its outcome? THAT is what concerns us as Mazdayasni.
Leave the rest to science to figure out.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/13 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Dino,

If .."There are no fixed meanings, because things mean what they cause".., then Asha or Droj are meaningless terms too. If a Droj can bring positive results for us, then it is an Asha.
I see your point, yet a feeling in me lingers that there is something missing here. What is it that I am missing?

Ushta,
Parviz

From: Special Kain
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, August 12, 2011 2:02:40 AM
Subject: Re: AW: [Ushta] Creating Civilizations vs Simple Hedonism (was: A Scientist and a Judge)

Dear Behnaz

It is important and healthy to be part of something larger than one's ego - whatever this may be - and manage the dynamic tensions between one's individuality and one's commitment to the cause. So it's not about totalitarianism or collectivism where you're told which meaning you should give to your life. Meaning does not only exist in one's head, but develops and changes between people. It is an open-ended process, work in progress, "under construction", it changes over time. There are no fixed meanings, because things mean what they cause.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Behnaz Larsen
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] Creating Civilizations vs Simple Hedonism (was: A Scientist and a Judge)
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
CC: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Datum: Donnerstag, 11. August, 2011 23:21 Uhr

Interesting, so a Chines busy bee is less melancholy than a middle-class, western individual!?

Asha and Ahura Mazda

2011-08-11T06:29:00.001-07:00

Exactly!!!

2011/8/11 Special Kain
Asha is "that which fits" or "that which works" (commonly translated as "the truth"). The laws according to which all events in our universe take place. The laws of nature in the broadest possible sense.

Asha as the laws of nature or rather the laws of physics. Independently of us. The principle of Ahura.

Ashavahishta is "furthering that which fits" (commonly translated as "the best truth"). One's duty to live in accordance with and actively promote asha, to live in harmony with the universe and to properly apply the laws according to which events take place. It therefore is REALIZATION in its proper sense.

Asha as ethics. Dependent on us as beings with minds. How we are to relate to Asha. The principle of Mazda.

Ushta
Alexander

Religion as a psychological necessity (was: The constant re-arrangement of atoms)

2011-08-11T02:39:00.001-07:00

I look at the issue the other way round: We have had individualism now for so long that have realised how tired we are of its consequences and are ready to try something new. Neither individualism nor collectivism worked because they were built on the wrong assumptions. They are not what being human is all about. This is why I believe in religion properply conducted as a psychological need and phenomenon. The historical parallell are the Mithraist congregations during the second half of the Roman Empire. And of course social Zoroastrianism in all its different forms. This is where we should look for creative inspiration today.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/11 Special Kain

Excellently put, dear Alexander!

I have always been looking for a way to think and express myself beyond the opposition between the self (egotism) and the community (altruism). A theory that would integrate both parts and thereby create a "third quality" or something that is larger than its two parts. But it seems that we've been fed with individualism for such a long time (centuries!) that it has become almost impossible to escape this trap.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am
Do, 11.8.2011:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] The constant re-arrangement of atoms (was: Creating Civilizations vs Simple Hedonism)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Donnerstag, 11. August, 2011 11:20 Uhr

I agree 100%.

I would much prefer not to promote altruism, the Judeo-Christian idea that "one should give onself up for a larger whole". It smacks of sacrifice, which we as Zoroastrians should be vehemently opposed to. Actually, the opposition between egotism and altruism is false, and rather disqualifies both as relevant ideals. I'm not an egotist and I'm not an altruist, I'm just a social being, an existence in flux, a brief phenomenon within the ocean of time and being that is Existence.

So I place Existence itself (Zarathushtra's Ahura or Spinoza's God) at the forefront, this is what is relevant and important, that there actually is a Something rather than just Nothing. And my existence as a subject with a sense of self-appreciation is a brief phenomenon in time and space which will always need to position itself in relation to this massive Ahura, a small individual or rather dividual expression of Mazda within Ahura. Dying as an individual is therefore just to leave space for new and different creative existences to make their mark on Existence. The re-arrangement of atoms!

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/11 Special Kain

Dear Alexander and Shahrooz

I wholeheartedly agree.

The Austrian psychiatrist and neurologist Victor Frankl was an expert in clinical depression, suicide and one's quest for meaning. He was also an inspiration for humanistic psychology (i.e. people deserve to live to their full potential). He taught his students and readers that meaning isn't something that we will be provided or rewarded with, but something that we give to ourselves and for which we are solely responsible.

One of his findings is that we get a sense of meaningfulness when we commit ourselves to and actively engage in something that is larger than one's ego. Simple hedonism doesn't work, and yet his theory on meaning is more than Christianity's uncritical praise of altruism. In other words, we have to manage the dynamic tensions between our individualistic needs and desires and our desire to contribute constructively to something larger (family, team, community, society at large etc.).

Our western societies have been radically psychologized (please see Eva Illouz). I'm all for sociologization, so everybody can learn for themselves that they are always part of social situations and that individuals and their surroundings cannot be separated. Think of the Moebius strip!

Ushta,
Dino

The constant re-arrangement of atoms (was: Creating Civilizations vs Simple Hedonism)

2011-08-11T02:21:00.001-07:00

I agree 100%.

I would much prefer not to promote altruism, the Judeo-Christian idea that "one should give onself up for a larger whole". It smacks of sacrifice, which we as Zoroastrians should be vehemently opposed to. Actually, the opposition between egotism and altruism is false, and rather disqualifies both as relevant ideals. I'm not an egotist and I'm not an altruist, I'm just a social being, an existence in flux, a brief phenomenon within the ocean of time and being that is Existence.

So I place Existence itself (Zarathushtra's Ahura or Spinoza's God) at the forefront, this is what is relevant and important, that there actually is a Something rather than just Nothing. And my existence as a subject with a sense of self-appreciation is a brief phenomenon in time and space which will always need to position itself in relation to this massive Ahura, a small individual or rather dividual expression of Mazda within Ahura. Dying as an individual is therefore just to leave space for new and different creative existences to make their mark on Existence. The re-arrangement of atoms!

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/11 Special Kain

Dear Alexander and Shahrooz

I wholeheartedly agree.

The Austrian psychiatrist and neurologist Victor Frankl was an expert in clinical depression, suicide and one's quest for meaning. He was also an inspiration for humanistic psychology (i.e. people deserve to live to their full potential). He taught his students and readers that meaning isn't something that we will be provided or rewarded with, but something that we give to ourselves and for which we are solely responsible.

One of his findings is that we get a sense of meaningfulness when we commit ourselves to and actively engage in something that is larger than one's ego. Simple hedonism doesn't work, and yet his theory on meaning is more than Christianity's uncritical praise of altruism. In other words, we have to manage the dynamic tensions between our individualistic needs and desires and our desire to contribute constructively to something larger (family, team, community, society at large etc.).

Our western societies have been radically psychologized (please see Eva Illouz). I'm all for sociologization, so everybody can learn for themselves that they are always part of social situations and that individuals and their surroundings cannot be separated. Think of the Moebius strip!

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Do, 11.8.2011:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Creating Civilizations vs Simple Hedonism (was: A Scientist and a Judge)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
CC: "Dina Mcintyre" , "Dr. Jafarey"
Datum: Donnerstag, 11. August, 2011 10:13 Uhr

Dear Shahrooz

I believe both Zarathushtra's and Spinoza's lesson is that there are other interests than those of The Individual. It is precisely when we begin to see Existence as a whole as sacred we also begin to see other interests than those of ourselves. We move beyond nihilism. Zarathushtra actually speaks very little about The Individual (other than as the causal and ethical process where thoughts become words become action), he is far more concerned with The World as a whole and holding it sacred, to point beyond our current existences, as Dino puts it: Zarathushtra is as corcerned with intersubjectivity as he is with subjectivity. His goal is not hedonism but Creating Civilizations.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/10 SHAHROOZ ASH

Hope all is well and good.

Yes Correct - Good and right for whom and according to whom. Things can only be good and right - I call it IDEAL (ASHA) for an individual.
And, if that individual compromises what is ideal because of others, then here is the conflict between; Singular & plural. However, sometimes,
IDEAL (AHSA) can be compatible with your choice and others - but in most cases it is struggle. Unless we all have our own individual universes.

Wishing you the best (Behesht),
Shahrooz Ash

Creating Civilizations vs Simple Hedonism (was: A Scientist and a Judge)

2011-08-11T01:13:00.000-07:00

Dear Shahrooz
I believe both Zarathushtra's and Spinoza's lesson is that there are other interests than those of The Individual. It is precisely when we begin to see Existence as a whole as sacred we also begin to see other interests than those of ourselves. We move beyond nihilism. Zarathushtra actually speaks very little about The Individual (other than as the causal and ethical process where thoughts become words become action), he is far more concerned with The World as a whole and holding it sacred, to point beyond our current existences, as Dino puts it: Zarathushtra is as corcerned with intersubjectivity as he is with subjectivity. His goal is not hedonism but Creating Civilizations.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/10 SHAHROOZ ASH

Hope all is well and good.

Yes Correct - Good and right for whom and according to whom. Things can only be good and right - I call it IDEAL (ASHA) for an individual.
And, if that individual compromises what is ideal because of others, then here is the conflict between; Singular & plural. However, sometimes,
IDEAL (AHSA) can be compatible with your choice and others - but in most cases it is struggle. Unless we all have our own individual universes.

Wishing you the best (Behesht),
Shahrooz Ash

To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
CC: dinamci@aol.com; jafarey@aol.com
From: bardissimo@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:44:40 +0200
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Re: [zoroastrians] A Scientist and a Judge

Correct, Parviz!
Which is precisely why I never speak of "good" or "right" in connection to asha since "good" or "right" are meaningless terms unless you specify "goof for WHOM?" or "right according to WHOM?". It's platitudes that mean nothing. Or rather they become CONSERVING terms of death rather than life.
Better to speak of "constructive thoughts", "constructive words", constructive actions" since this is what Zarathushtra spoke about. He was certainly not an idiot and he hated meaningless clichés that made people stop thinking rather than thinking new and fresh and creative ideas. Otherwise you just end up with "conservative thoughts", "conservative words", and "conservative actions" as Parsi isolationists and those with Islam-envy mistakenly interpret Zarathushtra's excellent concepts.
To this mistreatment of Zarathushtra's philosophy, we should of course respond with a "constructive and creative mentality" and be vehemently opposed to "conservatism". Asha does mean "the which fits" or "how things work". But Asha is not what we should do as much as how things work. How we then think, speak, and act in relation to Asha is an entirely different matter which the translation in itself is not enough to answer.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/10 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Ostad Jafarey,

I thank Ms. Zaneta for coming to my rescue. I do not keep a files on you as I do not feel that I am in a legal battle with you. We are discussing philosophical issues here and what you say “Asha is the right thing to do, at the right time, at the right place and with the right means to have the right result” and what Mr. Dino Kane says Asha is “That which FITS” sounds pretty much the same to me. Can you see someone using “..the right thing to do, at the right time, at the right place and with the right means to have the right result” and producing a result that does not “FIT” the situation at hand? I rest my case and promise to try and not mention you by name again in any non substantiated reference

Your very dumb ex-student,
Parviz Varjavand

From: Zaneta Garratt
To: jafarey@aol.com; solvolant@yahoo.com; group
Sent: Tue, August 9, 2011 4:13:34 AM
Subject: RE: [zoroastrians] A Scientist and a Judge

My best wishes to everyone, As i recall, I think it is Dina who explains Asha in a simple way to make it easier to understand as "that which fits"
best wishes from zaneta

Zarathushtra - The Anti-Esseentialist!

2011-08-10T05:46:00.001-07:00

Correct!!!
Zarathushtra is an anti-essentialist too. Or rather, he is historically PRIOR to essentialism.
Zarathushtra reveals this when he argues for CHOICES to be made prior to speaking and acting. He is fascinated with the process of choice, IN ITSELF, not as a result of some nature of some inner soul (an essence).

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/10 Special Kain

Perhaps this is off-topic, but the discussion on Nietzsche's Zoroastrian attitude towards meaning "forces" me to bring up this topic: the anti-essentialist self.

Nietzsche was totally against essentialism - much like his many followers, from French existentialists to postmodernists to the new pragmatists like Richard Rorty. There is no essence to begin with. There is no "true self" hidden underneath multiple layers (socialization, conditioning and so on). There are habits only. And we are what we repeatedly do - we are the total sum of our habits (see also Aristotle, David Hume and Gilles Deleuze). The "true self" doesn't exist.

What we have instead is "inner plurality": a multitude of forces and counter-forces such as urges, desires, interests and convictions. These forces bond and create "sub-personas" that can be in peace or in conflict with other inner "sub-personas". But there is still no HOLISTIC SELF.

Nietzsche wrote in "Die fröhliche Wissenschaft" (The Gay Science) that one should give style to one's character ("seinem Charakter Stil geben") - I don't know if there's a better English translation. That is, we are requested to integrate and coordinate this inner plurality in order to create such a holistic self. In other words, we become the choices we make, we are the habits we take. And the holistic self is therefore always "under construction", since there is no closure (please see Deleuze). So there are two communities to deal with: the outer community (society) and the inner community (the self). And different members from the inner community correspond with members from the outer community, and vice versa. And, of course, there are conflicts between inner members and outer members as well.

Ushta,
Dino

Constructive thoughts, constriuctive words, constructive actions (not good thoughts, good words, good actions)

2011-08-10T02:44:00.000-07:00

Correct, Parviz!
Which is precisely why I never speak of "good" or "right" in connection to asha since "good" or "right" are meaningless terms unless you specify "goof for WHOM?" or "right according to WHOM?". It's platitudes that mean nothing. Or rather they become CONSERVING terms of death rather than life.
Better to speak of "constructive thoughts", "constructive words", constructive actions" since this is what Zarathushtra spoke about. He was certainly not an idiot and he hated meaningless clichés that made people stop thinking rather than thinking new and fresh and creative ideas. Otherwise you just end up with "conservative thoughts", "conservative words", and "conservative actions" as Parsi isolationists and those with Islam-envy mistakenly interpret Zarathushtra's excellent concepts.
To this mistreatment of Zarathushtra's philosophy, we should of course respond with a "constructive and creative mentality" and be vehemently opposed to "conservatism". Asha does mean "the which fits" or "how things work". But Asha is not what we should do as much as how things work. How we then think, speak, and act in relation to Asha is an entirely different matter which the translation in itself is not enough to answer.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/10 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Ostad Jafarey,

I thank Ms. Zaneta for coming to my rescue. I do not keep a files on you as I do not feel that I am in a legal battle with you. We are discussing philosophical issues here and what you say “Asha is the right thing to do, at the right time, at the right place and with the right means to have the right result” and what Mr. Dino Kane says Asha is “That which FITS” sounds pretty much the same to me. Can you see someone using “..the right thing to do, at the right time, at the right place and with the right means to have the right result” and producing a result that does not “FIT” the situation at hand? I rest my case and promise to try and not mention you by name again in any non substantiated reference

Your very dumb ex-student,
Parviz Varjavand

From: Zaneta Garratt
To: jafarey@aol.com; solvolant@yahoo.com; group
Sent: Tue, August 9, 2011 4:13:34 AM
Subject: RE: [zoroastrians] A Scientist and a Judge

My best wishes to everyone, As i recall, I think it is Dina who explains Asha in a simple way to make it easier to understand as "that which fits"
best wishes from zaneta

To: solvolant@yahoo.com; zoroastrians@yahoogroups.com
From: Jafarey@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 21:22:36 -0400
Subject: Re: [zoroastrians] A Scientist and a Judge

My dear Mr. Parviz Varjavand

Dorud!

Although with what I have experienced and am observing, the best way is not to enter into, what I have been saying for years, <> arguments, your statement ascribed to me, has made me to post this. You state: <>

I do not recall any statement of mine to resemble this. I have, in my 200+ essays published in books and magazines since 1960s, defined Asha, more or less, as <> and have always emphasized that it should be done with Vohu Manah, Good Mind. This is what I have stated. Will you, please, now provide me with the evident as to where I have stated, in English or Persian, that it means <>? I will be obliged and correct my statement.

Let me emphasize here that we, the followers of the Pristine Divine Doctrine of Zarathushtra, well defined by us in 1990, are going on our way, and you have chosen your way and have begun defining it. Let us go each our way and give up finger-pointing at the other.

Awaiting your reply,

Ali A. Jafarey

In a message dated 8/8/2011 8:09:52 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, solvolant@yahoo.com writes:

If you go in a lab that some scientists are experimenting on some physical i.e
Gitik phenomenons, you call them "scientist", what they are doing has to be
endorsed by the scientific method for them to be paid at the end of the months.
Here, they are using the Asha or laws of nature to do their work.

If you go into a court of law, a Judge sits there passing Judgments on others. A
judge is not a scientist, he/she uses a softer kind of Asha, a relative Asha
called Asha-Vahishta. Druj and Asha are mixed in the mental world, so a judge
has to find out not an absolute Asha but who has Asha-Vahishta or more Asha in a
mix of Asha and Druj that is being presented in his court. Those who say that in
a Monist sense a Judge is also a Scientist and a Judge and a Scientist both use
Asha in order to do their work do not convince me that they are right. Jafarey
first came up with calling Asha as "that which fits" and that definition has not
fitted in my mind too well ever. Anything can be called "That Which Fits"
depending on who is writing the review on what it is that has to FIT what.

Parviz

The Spinoza-Nietzsche Connection

2011-08-10T02:33:00.001-07:00

Dearest Dino

I believe you are a formidable thinker and understand both Spinoza and Nietzsche extremely well yourself.
Yes, I agree, the major BREAK with the idea that Philosophy is a discipline of Constructing Systems was all Nietzsche's efforts. Nietzsche wrote "Human, All Too Human" for a reason: Not only the book but the title reflects his utter conviction that humans can and should do only what they and their language is capable of. So understanding those LIMITATIONS is the first and most important job of Philosophy. In this, Nietzsche is the philosopher par excellence of both subjectivism, extistentialism, pragmatism, process philosophy (Mobilism),and transrationalism (the overcoming of rationalism). This is what he really means with the idea of "The Death of God". He is not an atheist as he is an opponent to the ambition of creating closed and complete systems (Totalism).
Spinoza laid the ground for Nietzsche in Western Philosophy, but Spinoza was still GROUNDED in the idea of creating a complete system of human understanding as reality, he was actually one of the most aggressive and BELIEVING of the rationalists. Spinoza was actually a rationalist as much as Kant. If anybody questioned the conditions of rationalism before Nietzsche and started to move things around it was rather another one of Deleuze's other old heroes, David Hume, who set that ship afloat. Hume was an early process philosopher in this sense.
Zarathushtra is interestingly enough, like his Greek friend Heracleitus, outside all of this, since the whole ambition of creating a complete system did not exist at his time. It was, as Nietzsche has pointed out, originally an Egyptian idea infused into the Abrahamic faiths, the idea that humans were capable of understanding and comprehending Existence in full. Zarathushtra would probably thought of the whole ambition as crazy.
So Nietzsche is not so much an historical inventor of transrationalism but rather its resurrector!
And who was the last of the totalists? Hegel of course. And if Nietzsche "mourned the death of God and dealt with it" then his follower Hediegger "mourned the death of Hegel and dealt with it". No wonder Slavoj Zizek today began his philosophical career was an expert on Heidegger rather than Hegel. ;-)

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/10 Special Kain

Here's an article on the connection between Spinoza and Nietzsche in German:

http://www.c3.hu/~prophil/profi013/kisendre_4_4.html

It states that Nietzsche's Zarathustra character from "Also sprach Zarathustra" owes a lot to Baruch Spinoza the person.

And here's a postcard that Nietzsche once wrote to his dear friend Franz Overbeck where he sees Spinoza, "this most unusual and loneliest thinker", as his precursor and that they share the same tendency: to make all knowledge the most powerful affect.

http://dontdontoperate.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/nietzsche-on-spinoza-to-overbeck/

I like Spinoza, Nietzsche and Deleuze, but Nietzsche is still my favorite. I agree with his criticism of systematization in philosophy. And Spinoza pushed and squeezed everything into one system, his "Ethics". So we need Deleuze to balance out the tensions between Spinoza and Nietzsche.

But our dear brother Alexander has a much better understanding of Spinoza and Deleuze than I do. Perhaps he can share his pearls of wisdom with us?

Ushta,
Dino

--- Special Kain schrieb am Mi, 10.8.2011:

Von: Special Kain
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Equal opportunities (was: The Zoroastrian Revolution in Ethics)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Mittwoch, 10. August, 2011 08:51 Uhr

Dear Behnaz

You should start with Spinoza's "Ethics".
It was Gilles Deleuze who saw the connection between Spinoza und Nietzsche.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3800/3800-h/3800-h.htm

Ushta,
Dino

--- Behnaz Larsen schrieb am Di, 9.8.2011:

Von: Behnaz Larsen
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Equal opportunities (was: The Zoroastrian Revolution in Ethics)
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
CC: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Datum: Dienstag, 9. August, 2011 22:50 Uhr

On a different note, I am getting curious about Spinoza, have heard his name mentioned a couple of times, believe he was a philosopher about the same caliber as Nietzsche. Am I right? Could you recommend a book by him? I am not very smart in the art of philosophy so perhaps a document written about his work which summarizes his work?
Thank you
Ushta
Behnaz

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 9, 2011, at 1:23 PM, Special Kain wrote:

And this is exactly why people deserve to have equal opportunities, dear Behnaz! According to Zarathushtra, people deserve to be free and live life to the fullest.

Decision management isn't easy. There's an increasing number of options in western societies. And the outcomes of our decisions are hard to predict. So we are requested to educate ourselves in the art of managing and assessing information and choices. Those who can manage, sort, manipulate, share and distribute information are the kings and queens of tomorrow. Primus inter pares!

And if people choose to remain stupid, then so be it. Unfortunately, we can't open their skulls, push a few buttons and make them smarter. There is no button for "instant intelligence". So people should be free to choose which path they want to go. And smart people make better choices.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Behnaz Larsen schrieb am Di, 9.8.2011:

Von: Behnaz Larsen
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] The Zoroastrian Revolution in Ethics (was: Learning what is right and wrong (as opposed to the idea of a human essence))
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
CC: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Datum: Dienstag, 9. August, 2011 13:08 Uhr

Zarathustra stressed choice. How beautiful the world could be if people would learn to choose. In some cultures this is close to an impossible dream because children never learn to choose and the elders decide everything. The kids leave home after getting married and then if their spouse lets them they begin to choose. How frustrating for a woman to figure out the dinner menu when all she has done until that day was to eat. I am from a culture where most people considered my mother not a good parent because I, as an unthankful daughter, decided for myself. Our way of being was not due so much to an impulse but rather a sick routine. In this situation you can not think, neither can you act upon impulses because both your thoughts and impulses are over-shadowed by your mothers/father's/grandmother's voice. The children of Zarathustra are being destroyed body and soul in Iran because they cannot choose. Neither can they exercise their impulses. They have to submit to the shadows and just try to stay alive.
Imagine if we could act upon our impulse in Iran!
Behnaz
Sent from my iPad

On Aug 9, 2011, at 10:22 AM, Special Kain wrote:

Sociobiology can't explain cell phones, laptop computers, the printing press, rituals, pop culture or why many women favour their careers over having kids, for example. It is fairly limited. And its basic premises are wrong, as biological research proves.

Zarathushtra's revolutionary take on ethics is based on two principles: (1) long-term thinking and (2) existence as a chain of causes and effects. This is why he stressed choice. I still believe that Zoroastrianism is existentialism without Jean-Paul Sartre's "gloom and doom" scenarios. ;-)

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Di, 9.8.2011:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] The Zoroastrian Revolution in Ethics (was: Learning what is right and wrong (as opposed to the idea of a human essence))
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Dienstag, 9. August, 2011 08:43 Uhr

However, sociobiology is not an ethical guide.

Sociobiologists can explain why plundering your neighbor, killing homosexuals, and racism, are all sociobiologically motivated. But they are druj rather than asha since they don't endorse life or civilization in the long run but are rather just impulses endorsing short term individual gains and are emotionally rather than logically motivated.
Especially when we change our living conditions, this is when we have to control our impulses and THINK rather than act by instinct. This is actually the most dramatic difference between Zarathushtra's ETHICS OF LOGICS and the instinctual moralism of the Abrahamic faiths (which all claim that God has planted homophobia and racism "in your heart" which is why you should act accordingly).
I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying that Zarathushtra always places LOGIC before IMPULSE. This is the most important implication of the Zoroastrian revolution in Ethics. Which is why I oppose the idea of a "human substance". There is no such thing to Zarathushtra, our "human substance" is what we create within our selves. The program we ourselves program to then speak and act according to who we want to be.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/9 Special Kain

Dear Behnaz

Ushta means "ecstasy" and "radiant happiness" in English. :-)
As discussed earlier, there are "moral instincts". I prefer to call them "social instincts". These are basic rules of living together in groups and herds that have evolved by means of natural selection. These basic rules can be found in almost all known cultures and tribes. They are truly universal.
I guess that we owe all other rules to language. There must therefore be diversity, and history can explain similarities.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Behnaz Larsen schrieb am Di, 9.8.2011:

Von: Behnaz Larsen
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] Learning what is right and wrong (as opposed to the idea of a human essence)

An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
CC: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Datum: Dienstag, 9. August, 2011 00:32 Uhr

You are both right. One needs to learn and as Zarathustra has advised progressive mentality is good, right, advised. What I am stressing is not a stand-still or a contentment with the past. What I like to do is to focus on what we know already to be the right, the good, the Asha. Alexander you mentioned before that druj in every society is the same. Killing someone for no reason has never been advised by any religions. These GOOD values are taught to us by the moral of the society in which we live and we should not ignore them. I guess what I mean to say is that when you say Ushta, I know it is a type of well wishing or a nice way to say take care or even "may the force be with you"! All GOOD and pleasant. I don't need to look it up but I am glad there are people who do. Otherwise we could never translate anything. I guess we are all different but what I will refuse to do is to fight over a definition, which I have witness on many sites, while doing research about the Good faith. I wouldn't mind though getting a good definition of the word Ushta :-)

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 8, 2011, at 10:45 PM, Special Kain wrote:

I agree 100%.
The opposition between asha and druj refers to a learning process, as I already discussed in my brief summary on Zoroastrianism. According to Zarathushtra, we are requested to educate ourselves. The world deserves better than blind faith and stupidity. Smart texts are weapons!
Existence precedes CHOICE precedes essence - if there is any essence involved at all.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Mo, 8.8.2011:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Learning what is right and wrong (as opposed to the idea of a human essence)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Montag, 8. August, 2011 22:10 Uhr

Actually there is nothing to prove that we "have what is right within us". Rather, we learn what works in the long run and what merely works in the short run through experience 8which is what asha vs druj really is), it is not something we are born with. Both psychologists and Zarathushtra would agree on this. Which is why Zarathushtra was opposed to the idea of a "human essence" as in the Abrahamic religions. Rather, Zarathushtra clearly believes in processes through which we LEARN and then CHOOSE what we want to be, to ourselves, as ethical beings. This is almost his obsession as a spiritual teacher. And I fully approve.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/8 Special Kain

Dear Behnaz

Things are much more complicated. We have to critically assess the value system into which we were born and see if we can still use any of it and/or if we have to create new values.

Your conclusion is that the status quo is good in itself. But is this really the case? I don't think so. I wouldn't confuse asha/druj with ethics. The fact that something works doesn't make it good. It merely makes it useful. We sometimes have to lie in order to protect our loved ones!

Moralism states that the status quo is good and should be preserved and defended against everything that is different. But ethics is different: it is concerned with one's attitude and mentality such as universal openness vs. "othering", and how this affects the world around us through our words and actions.

My two cents,
Dino

The Zoroastrian Revolution in Ethics (was: Learning what is right and wrong (as opposed to the idea of a human essence))

2011-08-08T23:44:00.001-07:00

However, sociobiology is not an ethical guide.
Sociobiologists can explain why plundering your neighbor, killing homosexuals, and racism, are all sociobiologically motivated. But they are druj rather than asha since they don't endorse life or civilization in the long run but are rather just impulses endorsing short term individual gains and are emotionally rather than logically motivated.
Especially when we change our living conditions, this is when we have to control our impulses and THINK rather than act by instinct. This is actually the most dramatic difference between Zarathushtra's ETHICS OF LOGICS and the instinctual moralism of the Abrahamic faiths (which all claim that God has planted homophobia and racism "in your heart" which is why you should act accordingly).
I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying that Zarathushtra always places LOGIC before IMPULSE. This is the most important implication of the Zoroastrian revolution in Ethics. Which is why I oppose the idea of a "human substance". There is no such thing to Zarathushtra, our "human substance" is what we create within our selves. The program we ourselves program to then speak and act according to who we want to be.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/9 Special Kain

Dear Behnaz

Ushta means "ecstasy" and "radiant happiness" in English. :-)
As discussed earlier, there are "moral instincts". I prefer to call them "social instincts". These are basic rules of living together in groups and herds that have evolved by means of natural selection. These basic rules can be found in almost all known cultures and tribes. They are truly universal.
I guess that we owe all other rules to language. There must therefore be diversity, and history can explain similarities.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Behnaz Larsen schrieb am Di, 9.8.2011:

Von: Behnaz Larsen
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] Learning what is right and wrong (as opposed to the idea of a human essence)

An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
CC: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Datum: Dienstag, 9. August, 2011 00:32 Uhr

You are both right. One needs to learn and as Zarathustra has advised progressive mentality is good, right, advised. What I am stressing is not a stand-still or a contentment with the past. What I like to do is to focus on what we know already to be the right, the good, the Asha. Alexander you mentioned before that druj in every society is the same. Killing someone for no reason has never been advised by any religions. These GOOD values are taught to us by the moral of the society in which we live and we should not ignore them. I guess what I mean to say is that when you say Ushta, I know it is a type of well wishing or a nice way to say take care or even "may the force be with you"! All GOOD and pleasant. I don't need to look it up but I am glad there are people who do. Otherwise we could never translate anything. I guess we are all different but what I will refuse to do is to fight over a definition, which I have witness on many sites, while doing research about the Good faith. I wouldn't mind though getting a good definition of the word Ushta :-)

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 8, 2011, at 10:45 PM, Special Kain wrote:

I agree 100%.
The opposition between asha and druj refers to a learning process, as I already discussed in my brief summary on Zoroastrianism. According to Zarathushtra, we are requested to educate ourselves. The world deserves better than blind faith and stupidity. Smart texts are weapons!
Existence precedes CHOICE precedes essence - if there is any essence involved at all.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Mo, 8.8.2011:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Learning what is right and wrong (as opposed to the idea of a human essence)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Montag, 8. August, 2011 22:10 Uhr

Actually there is nothing to prove that we "have what is right within us". Rather, we learn what works in the long run and what merely works in the short run through experience 8which is what asha vs druj really is), it is not something we are born with. Both psychologists and Zarathushtra would agree on this. Which is why Zarathushtra was opposed to the idea of a "human essence" as in the Abrahamic religions. Rather, Zarathushtra clearly believes in processes through which we LEARN and then CHOOSE what we want to be, to ourselves, as ethical beings. This is almost his obsession as a spiritual teacher. And I fully approve.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/8 Special Kain

Dear Behnaz

Things are much more complicated. We have to critically assess the value system into which we were born and see if we can still use any of it and/or if we have to create new values.

Your conclusion is that the status quo is good in itself. But is this really the case? I don't think so. I wouldn't confuse asha/druj with ethics. The fact that something works doesn't make it good. It merely makes it useful. We sometimes have to lie in order to protect our loved ones!

Moralism states that the status quo is good and should be preserved and defended against everything that is different. But ethics is different: it is concerned with one's attitude and mentality such as universal openness vs. "othering", and how this affects the world around us through our words and actions.

My two cents,
Dino

Learning what is right and wrong (as opposed to the idea of a human essence)

2011-08-08T13:11:00.001-07:00

Actually there is nothing to prove that we "have what is right within us". Rather, we learn what works in the long run and what merely works in the short run through experience 8which is what asha vs druj really is), it is not something we are born with. Both psychologists and Zarathushtra would agree on this. Which is why Zarathushtra was opposed to the idea of a "human essence" as in the Abrahamic religions. Rather, Zarathushtra clearly believes in processes through which we LEARN and then CHOOSE what we want to be, to ourselves, as ethical beings. This is almost his obsession as a spiritual teacher. And I fully approve.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/8 Special Kain

Dear Behnaz

Things are much more complicated. We have to critically assess the value system into which we were born and see if we can still use any of it and/or if we have to create new values.

Your conclusion is that the status quo is good in itself. But is this really the case? I don't think so. I wouldn't confuse asha/druj with ethics. The fact that something works doesn't make it good. It merely makes it useful. We sometimes have to lie in order to protect our loved ones!

Moralism states that the status quo is good and should be preserved and defended against everything that is different. But ethics is different: it is concerned with one's attitude and mentality such as universal openness vs. "othering", and how this affects the world around us through our words and actions.

My two cents,
Dino

--- Behnaz Larsen schrieb am Mo, 8.8.2011:

Von: Behnaz Larsen
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] A Sientist and a Judge
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
CC: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Datum: Montag, 8. August, 2011 17:48 Uhr

Yes therefore I consider all these definitions of asha and droog ( in Persian, lie) the good and the bad. They are the opposite, so if one is, that which works the other is the opposite etc. Why use words when they are so limiting? We have our morals imprinted in us, let's do what our moral dictates us and if that is the way of Asha then so be it. Am I totally off here? Are we not saying the same? That which works is GOOD. That which is sustainable in it's quality, is good. Good is Good and anything other is its opposite is bad, druj, droog.
B

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 8, 2011, at 5:28 PM, Special Kain wrote:

So what is your definition of asha, dear Parviz?
And what is your definition of ashavahishta?

As far as I know, asha is "the truth" or "that which is true" and ashavahishta is "the best truth", while druj is "illusion", "deception" and "lie".

It is difficult to tell whether the physical world and the mental world are substantially different and deserve different approaches in order to be dealt with appropriately. It is just a matter of taste which ontology or which concept we prefer. And the descriptions we use in order to make sense of what's going on are WITHIN LANGUAGE and NOT "OUT THERE" in the real world. The real world doesn't know any descriptions - it doesn't speak. And vocabularies come with their own resources, opportunities and restraints.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Parviz Varjavand schrieb am Mo, 8.8.2011:

Von: Parviz Varjavand
Betreff: [Ushta] A Sientist and a Judge
An: "Ushta"
CC: "zoroastrians"
Datum: Montag, 8. August, 2011 15:52 Uhr

If you go in a lab that some scientists are experimenting on some physical i.e
Gitik phenomenons, you call them "scientist", what they are doing has to be
endorsed by the scientific method for them to be paid at the end of the months.
Here, they are using the Asha or laws of nature to do their work.

If you go into a court of law, a Judge sits there passing Judgments on others. A
judge is not a scientist, he/she uses a softer kind of Asha, a relative Asha
called Asha-Vahishta. Druj and Asha are mixed in the mental world, so a judge
has to find out not an absolute Asha but who has Asha-Vahishta or more Asha in a
mix of Asha and Druj that is being presented in his court. Those who say that in
a Monist sense a Judge is also a Scientist and a Judge and a Scientist both use
Asha in order to do their work do not convince me that they are right. Jafarey
first came up with calling Asha as "that which fits" and that definition has not
fitted in my mind too well ever. Anything can be called "That Which Fits"
depending on who is writing the review on what it is that has to FIT what.

Parviz

The Civilizationism of Zarathushtra (was: The Secret of Ethics - trial and error)

2011-08-03T11:39:00.000-07:00

Excellently put!!!
In other words: The possibly BEST translations to English of "asha" and "druj" are Longsightedness versus Shortsightedness.
Zarathushtra detests the tribes who plunder open villages in Central Asia because they destroy civilization and also themselves ethically in the process. What he detests is not the destruction itself (that would be tantamount to moralizing which he is careful not to do) but the shortsightedness of the whole behavior, the historical backwardness of the whole thing.
Pure ethics in other words. I would even call it "Civilizationism".

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/3 Special Kain

Dear Daniel

Please ignore my previous posting. :-)

As a matter of fact, our closest relatives in the animal kingdom share the same "moral instincts" with us. And there are a few basic rules that we share with all other human beings whether they live in modern metropolises or still in small tribes in exotic forests. These "moral instincts" are a result of evolution by means of natural selection. They must be several 100,000 years old. They are adaptations to the natural and social environments in which certain species developed. For example, altruism is a widespread phenomenon.

Of all animals on this planet, we human beings have always been one of the nastiest. When moaning about the current pollution and destruction of our environment, we have to remember that human beings have always been harmful and destructive. Now we have new technologies to destroy our environment more efficiently and effectively.

It has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between cultural evolution and biology. However, biologists are not able to explain cultural evolution. They recently tried memetics, but ironically memetics hasn't made a big dent in the scientific community.

What matters here is complexity. Civilization has become more and more complex over time. Natural selection hasn't prepared us for this dramatic increase in complexity and contingency. The few basic programs that we share with our ancestors don't help us here. Also, we developed LANGUAGE and the CAPACITY TO SPEAK which changes the whole picture. What postmodernists and poststructuralists got wrong is their belief that language was everything that matters. They completely ignore our natural heritage such as the few "moral instincts" and behavioral patterns that are part of our personalities. And communication isn't all about sending out and receiving messages. The very act of communication is part of communication. Any purely strategic take on communication describes sociopathy.

What comes with greater complexity is CHOICE. Zarathushtra said in Yasna 48 - Verse 4 that the outcomes of our words and actions are different according to the NATURE of our thoughts (constructive thoughts lead to good changes, destructive thoughts lead to bad changes). He applied LONG-TERM THINKING to his contemporaries' ways of life. So it isn't only language that is crucial, it is also our capacity to think for the long term and base our choices on long-term thinking. This is where ethics steps in and assesses our heritage.

Seen from this perspective, morality is concerned with preservation and ethics is concerned with selection. Morality is directed at the past, whereas ethics is directed at the future. This explains why Zarathushtra's philosophy is at the very heart of CIVILIZATION and CULTURAL EVOLUTION. It is a primary force within the forces of nature - in Nietzschean and Deleuzian terms: it is an active force within reactive forces.

Now please correct if I make things seem less complex than they are.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Special Kain
Betreff: AW: [Ushta] The Secret of Ethics - trial and error
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Mittwoch, 3. August, 2011 13:30 Uhr

Dear Daniel

As a matter of fact, our closest relatives in the animal kingdom share "moral instincts" with us. There are a few basic rules that we share with almost all other human beings, whether they live in modern metropolises or still in small tribes in exotic forests. These "moral instincts" are a result of evolution by means of natural selection. They are adaptations to the natural and social environments in which certain species developed. For example, altruism is a widespread phenomenon.

Of all animals on this planet, we human beings have always been the nastiest. When moaning about the current pollution and destruction of our environment, we have to remember that human beings have always been harmful and destructive. It has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between cultural evolution and biology. However, biologists are not able to explain cultural evolution. They recently tried memetics, but ironically memetics hasn't made a big dent in the scientific community.

Morality is concerned with preservation. We have always done it this way, we will keep on doing it this way. We follow our ancestors' path. The only way to survive and be successful is SUBMISSION. We will not accept any deviations, since they can lead to harm. Danger is evil.

Ethics is concerned with attitude. For example, Zarathushtra said in Yasna 48 - Verse 4 that the outcomes of our words and actions are different in accordance with the NATURE of our thoughts (constructive thoughts lead to good changes, destructive thoughts lead to bad changes). He applied LONG-TERM THINKING to his contemporaries' ways of life. So danger might be necessary in order to achieve something that will be more beneficial for everybody.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Daniel Samani
Betreff: [Ushta] The Secret of Ethics - trial and error
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Dienstag, 2. August, 2011 09:44 Uhr

To my mind this video reflects the diffrence between an ethical and an moral approach. To admit to ourselfs that we don't know - let's focus to make our minds see the diffrence between asha and druj. Or that which works between that which does not work. This is the ethical way of life - as i have understod it.

http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_harford.html

Decision Management and Human Freedom

2011-08-01T15:25:00.001-07:00

Excellent texts, Dino!!!
The really really weird thing is that Zoroastrians haven't understood that this whole line of thinking was PIONEERED by a certain Zarathushtra 3,700 years ago. We are all more or less becoming Zoroastrians. And because Zoroastrians live within the ethics of Zarathushtra (albeit with all kinds of metaphysical mumbojumbo added, it is still the pathos of Zarathushtra which drive their lives) they are so smartly adapted for the contemporary age. No wonder they do so well now.
What we need to do is to educate Zoroastrianism on how smart Zarathushtra actually was. They seem to believe any story about Zarathushtra except the real one, as if they are scared of having lived closest of all to reality for centuries. He was an early Nietzsche or Habermas, he was however NOT en early Jesus or Muhammed. And we need to educate soicologists that Pragmatism was not invented in the West in the 19th century but actually has a history dating back 3,700 years.
It's just so weird that people haven't seen this connection before. Zoroastrianism is tragically the blind spot of the history of ideas.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/31 Special Kain
What we can see now is that there is no closure: we are never 100% in control over our social identities. With every new player and with every change in our social environment our current identities may undergo a dramatic change, such as other people who do not assess our identities as we do or a dramatic shift in information flows. Change one factor, and the whole picture will change.

Starting from modern sociology, we can see that Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist were right when they predicted that the new social environment as created through new media technologies will foster new social identities. Smartphones, the internet, apps and webstreaming services are not mere additions to the social environment, but rather co-create a new environment in which people live and with which we now interact. This new environment comes with new resources, opportunities and restraints. And it is our uses of these new technologies that will greatly shape our social environment and our future identities.

DECISION management entails INFORMATION management as well as FREEDOM management. Larger amounts of information and new information flows through new channels allow for a larger number of resources and opportunities. But it also means that we have to cope with a larger number of choices. The smarter we manage information and choices, and the better our chances at co-creating the new environment, the more freedom we have.

--- Special Kain schrieb am So, 31.7.2011:

We become the choices we make. The thoughts we choose to think foster the words we will speak which in turn foster the actions we will undertake. Decision management is therefore the art of managing and assessing choices. And freedom is something we provide ourselves with.

What we can learn from social philosophers like Jürgen Habermas is that subjectivity and intersubjectivity presuppose each other.
Technically speaking, it is COMMUNICATIONS that create and foster social communities as well as social identities. It is people who gather and interact with each other in order to build communities, and it is this communicative environment that provides the resources for identity production.
They will then interact and further influence their social environment based on their social identities (acceptance, defiance, creative adaptations and deviations thereof etc.).
We have to see the FEEDBACK LOOP at work here. It is a sequence of re-actions embedded within environments and their resources, opportunities and restraints.

The choices we make and the identities we therefore co-create cannot be separated from their social environments. With larger amounts of information comes greater responsibility for WHO WE CHOOSE TO BECOME. Simply because identities and the ecology of choice have become increasingly CONTINGENT in our global internet environment where we're requested to manage, assess, sort and manipulate information.

Crime and punishment (was: Free will)

2011-07-27T14:56:00.001-07:00

I believe it is a lot easier than that, we just have to skip the 19th century assumption that there is LOGIC involved in human behavior, there rarely is. Rather what we have here is HABITS (which ironically is what "ethos" means in Greek). This is how I locked my front door yesterday so if nothing new under the sun has happened, this is the way I will lock my door tonight as well etc. We act by using assumed default assumptions which we, just like other flock animals, have LEARNED from older members of our own tribe. Elephants and dolphins and apes do the same thing. The only time we possibly apply logic is when we encounter a brand new situation we have never encountered before. But we will still assume models of behavior we have practiced before as default options. This is how I do things so this is who I am, would be the proper Zoroastrian conclusion from this.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/27 Special Kain

Agreed, but it still doesn't solve the issue I was addressing: WHY do people act according to a common metaphysics? This is the key sociological question for which there are lots of different answers, both from sociologists as well as from criminologists.

So we agree on the basic notions: people expect others to act "as if", knowledge is what makes societies collapse etc., but the key sociological question is still open to debate. One of the answers that we often encounter in psychology and biology is that human beings are social animals and their existence requires cooperation. Because it is cooperation and win-win games that make the human race flourish and expand.

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am
Mi, 27.7.2011:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Crime and punishment (was: Free will)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Mittwoch, 27. Juli, 2011 22:02 Uhr
I disagree with that cynical notion. We know perfectly well that lots of nasty things are going on all the time. The reason why we trust strangers has a lot more to do with a common metaphysics which permeats civil society, a kind of trust which in Zarathushtra's world is "Civilization": For example, a 100 euro-note is actually PHYSICALLY worth about three cents. But we expect others to accept it as worth 100 euros so we BEHAVE as if it is worth 100 euros. Which works. It is precisely when we start behaving according to our KNOWLEDGE that society collapses and falls into paranoia and distrust. Paranoid people are usually right about the facts, what makes them unhealthy is that they think people will be behave in accordance with knowledge rather than in accordance with an ETHICS which they sympathize and identify with. Ethics doesn't pay attention to what OTHERS do or think, it starts and ends with the question: "What would I do, what in all of this is me?". Places that obsess Parviz like Auschwitz are precisely places that LACK ETHICS, this results in the absence of asha as principle, replaced by druj (I kill you because I have already killed myself). Nietzsche used the word "ressentiment" for this.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/27 Special Kain

Even sociology and criminology cannot fully explain why people act according to social norms.
Some criminologists argue that it is "blissful ignorance" that keeps people from distrusting their neighbours and fellow citizens. Because people are less friendly and less polite when feeling unobserved. If we knew what happens behind doors, we would be a lot more distrustful.
It is a rather pessimistic and Machiavellian take on human nature: social order (norm conformity) requires "blissful ignorance", people need their fellow human beings as moral police officers, etc.
Isn't this exactly the struggle that Zarathushtra was addressing in The Gathas?

Ethics, or blissful ignorance?

2011-07-27T13:02:00.000-07:00

I disagree with that cynical notion. We know perfectly well that lots of nasty things are going on all the time. The reason why we trust strangers has a lot more to do with a common metaphysics which permeats civil society, a kind of trust which in Zarathushtra's world is "Civilization": For example, a 100 euro-note is actually PHYSICALLY worth about three cents. But we expect others to accept it as worth 100 euros so we BEHAVE as if it is worth 100 euros. Which works. It is precisely when we start behaving according to our KNOWLEDGE that society collapses and falls into paranoia and distrust. Paranoid people are usually right about the facts, what makes them unhealthy is that they think people will behave in accordance with knowledge rather than in accordance with an ETHICS which they sympathize and identify with. Ethics doesn't pay attention to what OTHERS do or think, it starts and ends with the question: "What would I do, what in all of this is me?". Places that obsess Parviz like Auschwitz are precisely places that LACK ETHICS, this results in the absence of asha as principle, replaced by druj (I kill you because I have already killed myself). Nietzsche used the word "ressentiment" for this.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/27 Special Kain

Even sociology and criminology cannot fully explain why people act according to social norms.
Some criminologists argue that it is "blissful ignorance" that keeps people from distrusting their neighbours and fellow citizens. Because people are less friendly and less polite when feeling unobserved. If we knew what happens behind doors, we would be a lot more distrustful.
It is a rather pessimistic and Machiavellian take on human nature: social order (norm conformity) requires "blissful ignorance", people need their fellow human beings as moral police officers, etc.
Isn't this exactly the struggle that Zarathushtra was addressing in The Gathas?

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am
Mi, 27.7.2011:

Yes, consequences are often hard to predict. To practice asha as principle was never easy. But it is the true and proper way to go since everything else is based on faulty assumptions. Yes, situational approaches are often useful but sometimes they infringe negatively on the long-term effects of a society too. For example, when taken to extremes we stop trusting our fellow neighbors and civil society deteroriates. So this has to be taken into account as well. It is a hard but necessary balancing act which decisions to make.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/27 Special Kain

I'm not sure if I can follow you here, because the consequences are never easy to predict, unless you're talking about severely disturbed people such as psychopaths who are likely to harm other people. As a criminologist I know some criminals that should be locked away for the rest of their lives, because they are not able to learn and train less harmful behaviours.
The situational approach has taken over criminological thought. If you don't want people to steal bicycles, you invent and use bicycle locks. If you don't want people to rob other citizens at night, you invent and use credit cards and street lamps. So rather than dig deep into a criminal's psychological past you strategically reshape the environment. An open door may tempt a saint! The situational approach works in general prevention as well as in individual prevention, especially since criminals start their careers by seizing little tempting opportunities and refining their skills.

Free will and decision management

2011-07-27T11:58:00.001-07:00

Excellently put!!!
This is a statement of literature, Dino! Spot on!
I much prefer the term "decision management" to the old dualist dilemma of "free will". It deals with what we actually do, not with whether there is a soul to begin with which can either do or not what we obviously do anyway.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/27 Special Kain

So freedom isn't simply there, it is something we provide ourselves with.
This learning process is two-folded: the freedom-from (we break free from restraints) and the freedom-towards (we co-create a larger number of choices).
Freedom of choice entails the ability to MANAGE AND ASSESS CHOICES much like we're requested to manage and assess information in our global internet environment. It is decision management that matters in this context.
In Zoroastrian and existentialist terms, we become the choices we make. This is perfectly in tune with Nietzschean ethics: self-enrichment and self-enlargement. Identities become works of art!
Since we're smarter than individualists, we already know that social identities and their social environment are part of the same feedback loop. This is why Zarathushtra was addressing persons (men and women) as well as communities! And this is why ethics is situational and not absolutistic, addressing the players involved and their interactions simultaneously.

Free will

2011-07-27T11:52:00.001-07:00

Excellent choice of issue!!! I agree with you and Dewey on this issue.
The problem with the debate on "free will" is that it takes it starting point in Christian or Humanist dualism. What we need to do is to restart the discussion on "will" and "freedom" from a MONIST perspective instead. We will then likely end up in a very different place compared to the endless tug-of-war between dualists and determinists. Both those camps are wrong.
For example: "Holding a criminal responsible for his or her acts" assumes dualism to begin with. As if the body of the person and the action of the person are two different things. In Mazdayasna, they are one and the same thing. The history of a body is just another dimension of the body itself, as viewed back in time and towards the future.
So justice should not be about holding people responsible for whatever but is rather an issue of what the expected consequences are of a certain body being in a certain place (for example roaming about or being locked up) both for that body and for other bodies it will encounter. Including how other bodies may act if a certain action is followed by a certain "punishment". Think asha, not revenge!
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/27 Special Kain

Dear brothers and sisters

I'd like to discuss the issue of "free will" vs. determinism since it has recently popped up here on The Ushta List. Also, freedom of choice is key in Zoroastrian philosophy.

This debate is obviously about absolutes: radically free will vs. every act is pre-programmed. Genetic determinism has been quite popular because it gives simplistic explanations for complex issues. It is something that the media can easily present to their audiences and with which ambitious politicans can justify the current power structure. Luckily, it is quite controversial and shakes the very foundations of our modern societies: the law. How do we punish criminals if no-one can be held responsible for their actions?

In fact, genetic determinism has never been widely accepted within the scientific community. We are genetically pre-programmed to develop certain character traits or get certain diseases, but it is our lifestyles and our environment which also influence the outcome: our current "self". And there is still no answer to the question which forces have a stronger influence on who we are than others. Both sociobiology and evolutionary psychology have failed. There is empirical evidence that things work differently.

We can reduce this debate to the question whether "we" make decisions or if something else (our genes, the Freudian subconscious, etc.) make these decisions for us.

So far all scientists agree that contingency comes with complexity. As complex beings, we're constantly forced to cope with contingency which means means that things aren't necessarily the way they are - they could have been different. And history has proof that people have done improbable things (please see Peter Sloterdijk: "Du musst dein Leben ändern").

The pragmatists define "free will" in terms of learning experience and self-control. The better we are at coping with complexity, the more we know and the more options we co-create, the more freedom we have. Freedom is something we give ourselves by increasing our intelligence. As John Dewey would say,freedom and intelligence come hand in hand. So the smarter we are, the more choices we have and the better we can cope with the ever increasing number of choices. Our environment gradually turns from restraints into an "ecology of choice".

So the question is not whether there is "free will" but if we're creative and smart enough to do things (the freedom-towards vs. the freedom-from). This freedom is directed at THE FUTURE. While "free will" is an entity with which we're provided irrespective of our environment, this positive and future-oriented freedom (in terms of intelligence and the ecology of choice) refers to a PROCESS.

Ushta,
Dino

Overcoming relativism

2011-07-26T15:40:00.001-07:00

Correct! This is a philosophy of "action" rather than "observation", again, this is why we speak of "process philosophy".
I would refer to this as "The Overcoming of Relativism". As in overcoming nihilism etc.
Coming from cultures embedded in Abrahamic thought, this is what we have to proceed with and battle against. Zarathushtra meets us at the other end, as the original pragmatist PRIOR to the development of dualist, hierarchical Abrahamic and later post-Abrahamic thought. Showing us and proving that none of that was ever needed.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/26 Special Kain

So affirmative nihilism would be the liberal ironist's worldview that is based on the belief that no vocabulary (theory, religious faith) is objectively superior to other vocabularies, but that the MULTITUDE of vocabularies is in itself sacred.
What Zarathushtra and the pragmatists can teach us and our contemporaries is how to avoid RELATIVISM. It is so fascinating that Zarathushtra never speaks about the past in The Gathas. He is only interested in THE FUTURE. And this is where our words and actions have their consequences. It is the outcomes of our words and actions that eventually smash relativism. People just need a broader perspective, because from their point of view all values are relative in an utterly relativistic sense: their values relate to outdated institutions such as the nuclear family and nationalism.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am
Di, 26.7.2011:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Overcoming nihilism (was: Pantheism as the thinking man's atheism)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Dienstag, 26. Juli, 2011 22:55 Uhr

Yes, you're absolutely correct.

In my books with Jan Söderqvist, I have even differentiated between THREE forms of nihilism post-Nietzsche: Naive niihlism (I am not consciously aware that I no longer believe in objective truth), cynical nihilism (I am aware that I no longer believe in objective truth but I still BEHAVE as if I did) and affirmative nihilism (I have overcome the mere idea of objective truth and endear myself to subjective including inter-subjectice truths instead).
Zarathushtra is of course already at Step 3 since he never had to deal with Abrahamic faiths and go through the first two. ;-)
Ushta
Alexander

Overcoming nihilism (was: Pantheism as the thinking man's atheism)

2011-07-26T13:55:00.001-07:00

Yes, you're absolutely correct.
In my books with Jan Söderqvist, I have even differentiated between THREE forms of nihilism post-Nietzsche: Naive niihlism (I am not consciously aware that I no longer believe in objective truth), cynical nihilism (I am aware that I no longer believe in objective truth but I still BEHAVE as if I did) and affirmative nihilism (I have overcome the mere idea of objective truth and endear myself to subjective including inter-subjectice truths instead).
Zarathushtra is of course already at Step 3 since he never had to deal with Abrahamic faiths and go through the first two. ;-)
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/26 Special Kain

Dear Alexander and Hampus

There are different nihilisms out there.
When speaking of Nietzsche's philosophical inquiries, we have to recall that Nietzsche was a huge fan of Russian literature. There was a literary nihilism in the 19th century (Turgenjev, Dostojevskij) of which Nietzsche was perfectly aware and which strongly influenced his take on nihilism.
For example, Nietzsche differentiates between passive nihilism ("Everything has been in vain!" - "Our Christian interpretations have failed us, so no interpretation could ever be valid!") and active nihilism (those strong characters who nolonger need such crutches as god, governments, etc.).
Also, pragmatists were sociologically smart enough to see that there are not only subjective values, but also inter-subjective values that we share with our social surroundings and had already existed long before we were born. What is so fascinating about pragmatists and their influence on modern social sciences is that they studied how such intersubjective values are being co-created in social situations. So they - like Nietzsche - were scientifically and philosophically concerned with the CONDITIONS OF VALUE PRODUCTION in modern societies where god nolonger has anything to say.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Di, 26.7.2011:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Pantheism as the thinking man's atheism
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Dienstag, 26. Juli, 2011 22:25 Uhr

The term "nihilism" is HISTORICALLY linked to the adieu of Christianity in Western thought. What Nietzsche referred to as "The Death of God". Nihilism means "world without meaning". However, there is already with Nietzsche and with the other Pragmatists then a MOVEMENT away from outright nihilism to SUBJECTIVE values which they all celebrate, Nietzsche especially in "Also Sprach Zarathustra". So nihilism is OVERCOME by the very thinkers who created it in the first place. Or to use Hegel against nihilism: To state that there is and can be no value is IN ITSELF the establishment of a value. As Dino would say: It is impossible to LIVE and to THIK without any values whatsoever. Already the newborn child sets prioritities. Zarathushtra's point is that we should understand that these values become our actions which then become our histories and thereby become WHO WE ARE. I would even add that atheism needs to be overcome in the same way. Atheism is an impossible position. The way out is pantheism, which is just another term for taking a religious or post-religious position in regards to the something that exists rather than nothing (religious monism). Pantheism is consequently the thinking man's atheism.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/26 hampus lindblad

Dear Alex and Dino,

Thank you for your thoughts!

Dino, what's your definition of being a full-time nihilist? I'm probably using the terms sloppily too, but I'll try to improve my accuracy as we go along. And what's the significant difference between existential nihilism and existentialism in your view?

Now I'm just going to try taking a mental dump right here, hoping it won't stink so much as to make it unbearable for all you innocent bystanders.

Here goes:
Maybe I should have written fatalism instead of determinism. Or would that just bring in more confusion? But I think nihilism gives us the freedom to genuinely "create". It sort of sets the stage (by not setting it).
Then enters consciousness, eventually followed by self-consciousness, beginning to stare into the abyss. And suddenly that strange loop that we have woken up into. Now we can't create independent meaning for the same reason that there can be no independent matter, all is process, so what we are left with is "taste" for lack of a better word. Ethics is a form of taste. Decoration, both of the interior and the exterior. So we obviously don't have power over what physically happens to us, but through thought it is at least possible to achieve the power to shape what those events and experiences MEAN TO US. What mirrors back. And that is enough to turn everything on it's head. And maybe even trigger similar thought patterns in others happening to be in our vicinity. From microcosm to macrocosm. Like meme propagation. Basically I think that if we focus on the awareness of the strange loop, within the moment, then we create for ourselves at least some degree of movement in regards to surfing the causal wave of process. Or maybe I'm just full of it? :)

Ushta,
Hampus

Zoroastrianism vs Utilitarianism

2011-07-26T13:30:00.000-07:00

The reason why utilitarianism does not work is indeed because utility can not be measured. So alternatives can not be empirically compared. Utilitarianism is also weakened by social psychology. People tend NOT to choose utility when given the choice between alternatives. Instead they tend to do as Zarathushtra predicted: They choose according to who they see themselves as, rather than according to maximum utility. The movie "matrix" showed this with maximal effect.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/26 Daniel Samani

Dear Alexander,

It start to sound more like utilitarianism, with the fine but yet important distinciton that it's asha and not utility that's being summed up. How can one count or measure ether one? Asha as explained here is alteast more honest - in that it agree that it's our desires that drives what we consider asha (and therefore point to causality of subjects). Could you please clearify the term superstition - as in delusional druj perhaps or/and lack of irrelevant metafysics?

I am aware that with few reference points the closest that come to mind are utilitariansm. I must admit that I'm not a big fan of that line of tought. To me it's an immature way to cope for lack of objektive absolutism in an nihilistic reality. To calculate course of action is not intressting to my mind. To my mind when one develop asha one can't choose durj - character is destiny as Sigmund Freud put it.

Zoroastrism to my mind is character based - and does therefore not think there is a free will as widely held in the west.

Ushta
Daniel

2011/7/25 Alexander Bard

If I blow you up with a gun, it is asha that the gun works.

However, the consequences of me blowing you up, the fact that I lose a friend who I will dearly miss, is also asha.
Asha USED is of course always the sum of all possible ashas.
Zarathushtra's point being to construct a concept ENTIRELY FREE FROM SUPERSTITION. It is the world of superstition which is ultimately the world of druj. Parvuiz is right: Asha is the laws of physics in their widest possible monist sense.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/25 Daniel Samani

Dear Alexander,

So with historical facts you mean that aggression leads to blowback if one look at history? And that liberalism have worked in the past ;) Could you make it more clear in what way these examples work - do you mean data for reference? How is weapons and ammuniton somthing that works? You mean that in the right time and situation, one can use weapons to do somthing constructive?

Ushta,
Daniel

Pantheism as the thinking man's atheism

2011-07-26T13:26:00.001-07:00

The term "nihilism" is HISTORICALLY linked to the adieu of Christianity in Western thought. What Nietzsche referred to as "The Death of God". Nihilism means "world without meaning". However, there is already with Nietzsche and with the other Pragmatists then a MOVEMENT away from outright nihilism to SUBJECTIVE values which they all celebrate, Nietzsche especially in "Also Sprach Zarathustra". So nihilism is OVERCOME by the very thinkers who created it in the first place. Or to use Hegel against nihilism: To state that there is and can be no value is IN ITSELF the establishment of a value. As Dino would say: It is impossible to LIVE and to THIK without any values whatsoever. Already the newborn child sets prioritities. Zarathushtra's point is that we should understand that these values become our actions which then become our histories and thereby become WHO WE ARE. I would even add that atheism needs to be overcome in the same way. Atheism is an impossible position. The way out is pantheism, which is just another term for taking a religious or post-religious position in regards to the something that exists rather than nothing (religious monism). Pantheism is consequently the thinking man's atheism.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/26 hampus lindblad

Dear Alex and Dino,

Thank you for your thoughts!

Dino, what's your definition of being a full-time nihilist? I'm probably using the terms sloppily too, but I'll try to improve my accuracy as we go along. And what's the significant difference between existential nihilism and existentialism in your view?

Now I'm just going to try taking a mental dump right here, hoping it won't stink so much as to make it unbearable for all you innocent bystanders.

Here goes:
Maybe I should have written fatalism instead of determinism. Or would that just bring in more confusion? But I think nihilism gives us the freedom to genuinely "create". It sort of sets the stage (by not setting it).
Then enters consciousness, eventually followed by self-consciousness, beginning to stare into the abyss. And suddenly that strange loop that we have woken up into. Now we can't create independent meaning for the same reason that there can be no independent matter, all is process, so what we are left with is "taste" for lack of a better word. Ethics is a form of taste. Decoration, both of the interior and the exterior. So we obviously don't have power over what physically happens to us, but through thought it is at least possible to achieve the power to shape what those events and experiences MEAN TO US. What mirrors back. And that is enough to turn everything on it's head. And maybe even trigger similar thought patterns in others happening to be in our vicinity. From microcosm to macrocosm. Like meme propagation. Basically I think that if we focus on the awareness of the strange loop, within the moment, then we create for ourselves at least some degree of movement in regards to surfing the causal wave of process. Or maybe I'm just full of it? :)

Ushta,
Hampus

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Special Kain wrote:

Dear Hampus

I don't think that there ever is nihilism and determinism combined. Personally, I think that it is impossible to be a full-time nihilist, because there always is something that we hold to be true.

The same goes for Descartes' radical doubts, for example. Even such radical Cartesian doubts require LANGUAGE, and language requires SOCIAL MEANING: socially shared practices and uses of SIGNS that already existed long before I was born. This is where I agree with Peirce's radically pragmatic critique of Cartesianism.

What you probably meant was existentialism. We were thrown into this world - without ever been asked - and we will be kicked out one day. There is misery and random suffering for no reason at all. There is no god, there is no greater purpose in life, there is no life after death. And yet we're technically doomed to give meaning to existence and co-create values. This is where such great thinkers as Zarathushtra, Nietzsche, Rorty and - to a lesser extent - Derrida step in!

Ushta,
Dino

--- hampus lindblad schrieb am Di, 26.7.2011:

Von: hampus lindblad
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Asha, Druj, and Ashavahishta
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Dienstag, 26. Juli, 2011 15:13 Uhr

What I don't understand, and still would like an answer to, is what sentences of mine there are that warrant these explanations? Where and how did I trivialize the concept of asha? Or suggest that Mazdayasna has anything to do with detailed divine recipes of what to do, when to do it, and wearing what type of silly hat? Without a clear answer to that the sum of this thread will not add up and make sense to me, despite the fact that I feel that I completely agree with most of it's parts.

Sorry if I seem sensitive but I just want to get this right. Well, that and the suspected fact that my dopamine levels are probably fairly low at the moment.

If we act according to who we are, or rather who or what we identify ourselves to be, how do we then go about being as creative and constructive as possible in the process of identifying ourselves? I feel that the koan boils down to the relationship (of the relationships, of the the relationships...) between self-consciousness and what process philosophy tries to describe. I want nihilism without determinism. GIMME!

Ushta [in theory],
Hampus

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Special Kain wrote:

Correct!!!

The Gathas talk about WHAT we should do (contributing to progress, developing a constructive mentality, being righteous etc.), but never about HOW we should do it. Such formalisms are for other religions where you're being told what to do in different specific situations.
Instead, The Gathas are full of Zarathushtra's questions. He was seeking answers. And yet he suggests every person make up their own mind and decide for themselves which path they want to go.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Mo, 25.7.2011:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Asha, Druj, and Ashavahishta
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Montag, 25. Juli, 2011 21:50 Uhr

There is not a single example in the entire Gathas of "what is the right thing to do".

Zarathushtra is correctly not interested in specific choices but in "mentalities" and thereby in "self-identities". His idea of a society of asha is simply what we would refer to as a "civilization".
To him, there are no indepedent choices, choices are the results of contemplation first and foremost concerning "who we are to ourselves". As ethical beings.
So you don't become your acts as much as you act according to who you are: Thoughts, words, actions...
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/25 hampus lindblad
I agree, and have in reality never stated anything differently... You are reading into my text something I didn't express.
Decisions are often collective and complex and made within a large frame, yet it is the sum of the myriad of individual "decisions" based on that cluster effect that shapes the world both around and within us. What matters is not who is to blame - or to be credited - for the "choice" in a particular situation, but that the "choice" is asha.

Ushta,
Hampus

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:
I don't think we should trivialize a concept like asha by making it an issue of individual choice, that in itself is quite 18th century bourgeoise to be honest. Decisions are often collective and complex and made within a large frame. If there ever is to be peace between Israel and Palestine it will never come about through just one decision by one person in one situation but must be organized on a far higher level, especially politically.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/25 hampus lindblad

Yes, but then the next question arises about how to pragmatically break the druj chain of causality. How to insert asha awareness into the mind of the Hamas member about to launch the katyusha rocket, or the IDF soldier with his finger on the trigger, just about to squeeze off a shot whilst aiming at a group of protesters? There's a quite staggering amount of forgiveness needed in order to even begin to turn this positive feedback loop around.

Words might be the origin of actions, but that doesn't diminish the truth in the saying that actions speak louder than words. And I'm sure you agree.

Ushta,
Hampus

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:

Israel vs Palestine is quite simple:

Any worldview which starts with the assumption that one belongs to a superior race or religion which motivates the stealing from and even killing of other races or religions is druj at its very heart.
Living in peace with and respect of your fellow human beings is asha.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/25 hampus lindblad

Dear Parviz,

I confess to still not being able to follow you. Do you not think it somewhat unfair to belittle the social scientist's aspirations to increase the level of understanding within his or her field of research? It's very natural that one, generally speaking, can not come to the same type of "hard" facts and conclusions within the social sciences as is possible within research dealing with the strength of materials or the atomic weight of chemical elements. The reason for this I would say is simply a problem of potential precision in measurement and the extreme complexities associated with experiments in social science; thus resulting in a much wider margin of error. But that does not make social science any less scientific nor the exploratory ambitions of social scientists any less noble than those of let's say nuclear physicists or chemists. In other words, they do the best they can with what data is available to them...

And I disagree with your tango example as well. Asha could never dance passionately with Druj. When Asha would lead right, Druj would go in the opposite direction. Or perhaps even knee Asha in the balls and thus put a swift end to the dance altogether. Asha only dances with Asha.

I would rather say that the mental image you conjure up with the highly skilled and passionate dancers is actually a very effective metaphor of Asha in action. If we could only somehow force all Israelis and Palestinians to regularly dance tango with eachother then I'm sure the troubles there would soon be over. Dancing is all about making things work, and ideally work in a way that is beautiful to behold or partake in. What is that if not Asha?

Ushta,
Hampus

Why the questions are more important than the answers

2011-07-26T05:42:00.001-07:00

EXACTLY!!!
The Gathas is full of questions (mostly without answers) for a very good reason.
To Zarathushtra, life is a process, and the important thing is to CHOOSE THE RIGHT QUESTIONS and then answer those questions according to one's self-identity regardless of the opinions of others. Just like process philosophy from the pragmatists to Gilles Deleuze.
The Abrahamic religions (and Western philosophy before the pragmatists) instead assume that the questions are given (and then always refer to how you can serve and not question the current power structure) and focus on the right answers (which is why if you answer the question wrongly you go to hell). This is why Zoroastrianism is completely incompatible to Abrahamic faiths the same way that process philosophy is the opposite of Descartes. The neighbors of Mazdayasna in the world of religion are instead Brahmanism, Taoism and most of all Zen.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/26 Special Kain :
As a question-based philosophical religion, Zoroastrianism is radically different from all answer-based religions where you're supposed to keep your mouth shut and just act in accordance with the given answers.
We are encouraged to raise questions and seek the answers for ourselves - with the explicit aim of acquiring knowledge and a far-sighted perspective. This also explains why Zoroastrianism is an essentially egalitarian religion where all creatures within the biosphere are seen as equals.

Civilization or The Society of Asha

2011-07-25T12:51:00.000-07:00

There is not a single example in the entire Gathas of "what is the right thing to do".
Zarathushtra is correctly not interested in specific choices but in "mentalities" and thereby in "self-identities". His idea of a society of asha is simply what we would refer to as a "civilization".
To him, there are no indepedent choices, choices are the results of contemplation first and foremost concerning "who we are to ourselves". As ethical beings.
So you don't become your acts as much as you act according to who you are: Thoughts, words, actions...

Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/25 hampus lindblad
I agree, and have in reality never stated anything differently... You are reading into my text something I didn't express.
Decisions are often collective and complex and made within a large frame, yet it is the sum of the myriad of individual "decisions" based on that cluster effect that shapes the world both around and within us. What matters is not who is to blame - or to be credited - for the "choice" in a particular situation, but that the "choice" is asha.

Ushta,
Hampus

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:
I don't think we should trivialize a concept like asha by making it an issue of individual choice, that in itself is quite 18th century bourgeoise to be honest. Decisions are often collective and complex and made within a large frame. If there ever is to be peace between Israel and Palestine it will never come about through just one decision by one person in one situation but must be organized on a far higher level, especially politically.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/25 hampus lindblad

Yes, but then the next question arises about how to pragmatically break the druj chain of causality. How to insert asha awareness into the mind of the Hamas member about to launch the katyusha rocket, or the IDF soldier with his finger on the trigger, just about to squeeze off a shot whilst aiming at a group of protesters? There's a quite staggering amount of forgiveness needed in order to even begin to turn this positive feedback loop around.

Words might be the origin of actions, but that doesn't diminish the truth in the saying that actions speak louder than words. And I'm sure you agree.

Ushta,
Hampus

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:

Israel vs Palestine is quite simple:

Any worldview which starts with the assumption that one belongs to a superior race or religion which motivates the stealing from and even killing of other races or religions is druj at its very heart.
Living in peace with and respect of your fellow human beings is asha.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/25 hampus lindblad

Dear Parviz,

I confess to still not being able to follow you. Do you not think it somewhat unfair to belittle the social scientist's aspirations to increase the level of understanding within his or her field of research? It's very natural that one, generally speaking, can not come to the same type of "hard" facts and conclusions within the social sciences as is possible within research dealing with the strength of materials or the atomic weight of chemical elements. The reason for this I would say is simply a problem of potential precision in measurement and the extreme complexities associated with experiments in social science; thus resulting in a much wider margin of error. But that does not make social science any less scientific nor the exploratory ambitions of social scientists any less noble than those of let's say nuclear physicists or chemists. In other words, they do the best they can with what data is available to them...

And I disagree with your tango example as well. Asha could never dance passionately with Druj. When Asha would lead right, Druj would go in the opposite direction. Or perhaps even knee Asha in the balls and thus put a swift end to the dance altogether. Asha only dances with Asha.

I would rather say that the mental image you conjure up with the highly skilled and passionate dancers is actually a very effective metaphor of Asha in action. If we could only somehow force all Israelis and Palestinians to regularly dance tango with eachother then I'm sure the troubles there would soon be over. Dancing is all about making things work, and ideally work in a way that is beautiful to behold or partake in. What is that if not Asha?

Ushta,
Hampus

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Parviz Varjavand wrote:

Dear Hampus,

Let me try and answere your good question, "could you please expand on your statement that to you Asha is "only Laws of Physics" that one should not "tag mental things to"?"
To me, science and the scientific method works best when we are where laws of Physics works best. As an architect, I work with "strength of materials" in order to render my buildings as earthquake-proof as I can. Yes, it is not a perfect science, but I can show how I arrive at conclusions I arrive at more or less scientifically. I can not understand how a "Social Scientist" can consider him or herself a scientist on the same wave length as a strength of material scientist!

I will put a Communist and a Capitalist and a Nazi social scientist in the same room and they will not agree on any single issue about what the Asha of running a government is. In mental realms Asha and Druj dance together like a couple dancing Argentine Tango most passionately. As reference to the videos that you mention, remember that I am talking to you from Tehran with a band-with that is only 21.3 kbps, I can not watch Youtube.

In my take on Zoroastrianism (or Muzdaizm as I call it) we have Asha and AshaVahishta (also Vahishtayi Ashem or Ashem-Vohoo). Asha Vahishta means "That Asha Which Is The Best". Asha as laws of science applies only to where the laws of Physics works best and it is by Asha Vahishta that we try to approximate when we are dealing with issues in the Minoo or Menog or Mental world. A marriage counselor has no solid Asha to judge the couple by, only Asha Vahishta of what may work best for that couple.

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

From: Parviz Varjavand
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 25, 2011 6:58:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Asha and Druj

Dear Hampus and Dino,

Is Asha with Israel or the Palestinians?

Parviz

From: Special Kain
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 25, 2011 1:18:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Asha and Druj

Dear Hampus

I agree!!!
When studying the works of Charles S. Peirce, John Dewey and Richard Rorty, I discovered that Zarathushtra was the first PRAGMATIST in history. Especially Peirce and Dewey were brilliant thinkers, but their key messages were already written down in The Gathas.
In modern words, Zarathushtra was not only a process philosopher ("the world's constant renewal"), but also a pragmatist.
Besides, ethics can only be situational and pragmatic, since ethicists are not obsessed with absolutes.

Ushta,
Dino

--- hampus lindblad schrieb am So, 24.7.2011:

Von: hampus lindblad
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Asha and Druj
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Sonntag, 24. Juli, 2011 21:37 Uhr

Dear Parviz,

I find your message quite confusing. How could we not tag mental things to Asha when the whole foundation of Mazdayasna - unless I am completely mistaken in what I've gathered so far - is all about focusing on our mental processes as the foundation for our words and actions and therefore also the driving engine behind all human interactions and events?

The phenomena you describe with "Asha sales-persons" constitutes a problem in a community where there are no mental checks and balances. Where they don't actually practice what they teach, nor update and translate what they teach in rhythm with the surrounding culture. And that can in my mind only arise in environments where people have done exactly what you prescribe; i.e. stopped tagging mental things to Asha. And yes, it's obviously a very common problem in our world, but I don't see how an even further decoupling of Asha-awareness from our "mental things" would work to alleviate anything?

What makes Mazdayasna such a constructive (and eternally modern) way of thinking to me is that it seems to contain within itself a sort of self-regulatory system akin to the scientific method. It deals with ideas that work, much in the same way that science deals with what is proven to be approximately true through duplicable experiments and the gathering of empirical evidence. And just as genuine scientists never speak of any absolute truths but rather theories and pragmatic approximations, the same should in my mind go for the classification of thoughts, words and actions as Druj or Asha. It is the intention and aspiration towards Asha that one should dwell within - not the vain and narcissistic illusion of being a perfect Ashavan. Because of course Asha and Druj does not exists in and of themselves! Just like ethics...

From what I understand Asha is not a static mental state, a religious golden watch, attained as a sort of permanent gift awarded to the true believer for a long and faithful service. Asha is rather a intelligently designed, ethics-optimizing process, willfully projected and latched onto the neutral background processes that constitute the physical Universe. And Druj is simply the varying degrees of lack thereof. Zoroastrianism would at it's core then consist of highly situational and inherently adaptive, ethical formulas if you will. Nothing MORE and nothing LESS. Process philosophy! The antithesis of religious kitsch and empty rituals. And nothing like the religion seen practiced in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWQhFdeRTyk

The elder man being interviewed seems kind and loving but is hardly a great thinker. And it is not a great mystery, nor a tragedy, that the Parsis have trouble keeping their young interested if they have devolved into practicing more or less pure fetishism. I don't possess enough insight into Parsi culture to determine whether that is actually the case or not, all I'm doing is reacting to this one particular video and a couple of other glimpses of Parsi culture encountered on the net. So please forgive me anyone that might feel offended by what I'm writing.

With that said though, I won't deny that I actually see more of Ahura Mazda in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxEdqsr8QWI
Funny or not funny as it may seem in the eyes and ears of the beholder. I propose that one possible partial litmus test of a potential Ashavan is the ability to laugh at him or herself, or parodies of Zoroastrianism and/or Zarathushtra too for that matter.

I want to end by clarifying that I am of course very open to the possibility that I could be completely mistaken in regards to most, if not all, that is written above! I haven't even read through the complete Gathas as of yet, so my understanding of all this is very much limited for the time being - and I might be projecting heavily. So, to cut things short after all of my freewheeling above, could you please expand on your statement that to you Asha is "only Laws of Physics" that one should not "tag mental things to"?

Ushta,
Hampus

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Parviz Varjavand wrote:

Dear Folks,

To me, Asha is only Laws of Physics.
Because the minute you want to tag mental things to Asha, the waters become very muddy soon.
Everybody will claim that their Druj is Asha if you put up with it long enough.
The Asha sales-persons become too many, every self centered despot and dictator starts claiming that they are
an Ashavan but their Druji opposition is throwing curve balls at them and not letting their Asha succeed.
The mudslinging that "mine is Asha, yours is Druj" becomes a street brawl for all everytime.
How do you propose to solve that problem?
In old Zoroastrian Tradition, they would pour molten bronze on your chest; if it burned you and you died, yours was a Druj;
if it did not burn you and you lived, you were on the side of Asha.
They did this to Moobed Adorbad Marasepandan and it did not burn him, so they knew that what he preached was the Truth.
Try this on a friend you do not want around any longer! It does work!? They either ran away or die, either way you get rid of them!

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

From: Special Kain
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, July 24, 2011 5:37:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Ushta] The Meaning of Druj

Dear Hampus

We agree!
Asha is that which works in the long run. Druj is that which works at first, but which will prove the feedback loop between sender (people acting in accordance with druj) and their surroundings to be destructive - the vicious circle as studied in modern psychology and systemic psychotherapy.
The doctrine of asha is tough: the people involved are always part of the very same situation. This is why we should focus on the little actions we undertake that reflect our mentalities and habits and adjust them accordingly. This is why far-sightedness is so important!

Ushta,
Dino

--- hampus lindblad schrieb am So, 24.7.2011:

Von: hampus lindblad
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The Meaning of Druj
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Sonntag, 24. Juli, 2011 14:32 Uhr

Dear Dino

Do you see a contradiction between our texts? If so please point me to it!

Ushta,
Hampus

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Special Kain wrote:

Dear Hampus

Asha means three things: the true order of the things, the relentless pursuit of the truth and truthfulness. In order words you are ethically obliged to be honest with yourself and live in accordance with your desires, as well as enable the people around you to enjoy themselves and live accordingly.

Druj is all the pretty and fluffy lies we tell ourselves in order not to live passionately and authentically. It is all the things we do in order to hide ourselves and grow bitter and cynical. And it is all the words and actions that prevent other people from enjoying themselves and living to their fullest potential, such as tyranny, betrayal, resentment, slavery and so on.

Since everything starts inside our minds, we have to be willing to be honest with ourselves and to develop a constructive mentality. It is a question of attitude.

Ushta,
Dino

--- hampus lindblad schrieb am Sa, 23.7.2011:

Von: hampus lindblad
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The Meaning of Druj
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Samstag, 23. Juli, 2011 23:01 Uhr

But when I write about druj "working" it's not meant to signify working for the individual propagating it through his or her actions. Druj would be inherently and omnidirectionally destructive (at least in a sort of net effect calculation) and thus work against it's "host" or propagator, even on the short term basis. The only way it can seem to work on the short term would be through a sort of Ponzi scheme type of process. Or one could use the basic dynamics of addiction to illustrate something similar.

So what I mean by "working" is rather that it is a successfully replicating process (e.g. hate breeds hate) which is also why I brought up Darwinism. It would also happen that non-druj events trigger druj-causality through sheer tragic misunderstandings and so on.

Ushta,
Hampus

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:

Druj merely works in the short run, but the original meaning of druj ("that which does not work") does not refer to short-term causes and effects but to the long-term perspective. So you're both right, just talking about two very different perspectives. Please note druj does not mean "that which does not function" and even less so "that which does not exist" but rather "that which does not work in the sense of returning a pride in onself, an authentic self-identity".

Ushta
Alexander

Sanskrit and Avesta

2011-07-25T06:09:00.001-07:00

German is not older than the Scandinavian languages. They share the same roots but modern German was actually constructed in the 19th century. It is if anything a very young language. And the Scandinavian languages are the written versions of the far older spoken dialects of Old Norse. All these tongues have their roots in ur-Germanic. The same goes for Avesta and Sanskrit, one is not older than the other. Yes, Indian philosophy is similar to Iranian, Brahmanism is similar to Zoroastrianism. But Brahmanism has a Buddhist influence coming from the idea of suffering as primary. And it also has influences from Dravidian thought, for example reincarnation, which is completely lacking in Zarathushtra's philosophy.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/25 Daniel Samani
Dear friends,

Thank you for your informetive posts! But what does this tells us in regards to process philosofy and nomadism does Indian and perhaps even Africa have similar examples of tought?

What I have heard Sansikrit is older then Avestan - just as German is older then the Scandinavian languages.

Ushta
Daniel

Asha and Monism

2011-07-25T04:01:00.001-07:00

None of them, of course.
Asha is not a person, asha does not take sides.
Asha is rather about such things as historical facts, population figures, financial resourcesm weapons and ammunition, the hearts and minds of people, bot those who live in Israel and Palestine and in other parts of the world, etc.
Asha is how things work. Yes, asha is indeed the law of physics in the widest sense of the term, as others have already pointed out here (Dino and Hampus) mental processes are also under Asha in a Monist worldview.
So in other words: Asha and Monism require each other. Zarathushtra COULD NOT HAVE BEEN a dualist. Only a monist (and a pragmatist at that) can use a concept such as Asha as the foundation for his or her teachings.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/25 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Hampus and Dino,

Is Asha with Israel or the Palestinians?

Parviz

From: Special Kain
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 25, 2011 1:18:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Asha and Druj

Dear Hampus

I agree!!!
When studying the works of Charles S. Peirce, John Dewey and Richard Rorty, I discovered that Zarathushtra was the first PRAGMATIST in history. Especially Peirce and Dewey were brilliant thinkers, but their key messages were already written down in The Gathas.
In modern words, Zarathushtra was not only a process philosopher ("the world's constant renewal"), but also a pragmatist.
Besides, ethics can only be situational and pragmatic, since ethicists are not obsessed with absolutes.

Ushta,
Dino

--- hampus lindblad schrieb am So, 24.7.2011:

Von: hampus lindblad
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Asha and Druj
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Sonntag, 24. Juli, 2011 21:37 Uhr

Dear Parviz,

I find your message quite confusing. How could we not tag mental things to Asha when the whole foundation of Mazdayasna - unless I am completely mistaken in what I've gathered so far - is all about focusing on our mental processes as the foundation for our words and actions and therefore also the driving engine behind all human interactions and events?

The phenomena you describe with "Asha sales-persons" constitutes a problem in a community where there are no mental checks and balances. Where they don't actually practice what they teach, nor update and translate what they teach in rhythm with the surrounding culture. And that can in my mind only arise in environments where people have done exactly what you prescribe; i.e. stopped tagging mental things to Asha. And yes, it's obviously a very common problem in our world, but I don't see how an even further decoupling of Asha-awareness from our "mental things" would work to alleviate anything?

What makes Mazdayasna such a constructive (and eternally modern) way of thinking to me is that it seems to contain within itself a sort of self-regulatory system akin to the scientific method. It deals with ideas that work, much in the same way that science deals with what is proven to be approximately true through duplicable experiments and the gathering of empirical evidence. And just as genuine scientists never speak of any absolute truths but rather theories and pragmatic approximations, the same should in my mind go for the classification of thoughts, words and actions as Druj or Asha. It is the intention and aspiration towards Asha that one should dwell within - not the vain and narcissistic illusion of being a perfect Ashavan. Because of course Asha and Druj does not exists in and of themselves! Just like ethics...

From what I understand Asha is not a static mental state, a religious golden watch, attained as a sort of permanent gift awarded to the true believer for a long and faithful service. Asha is rather a intelligently designed, ethics-optimizing process, willfully projected and latched onto the neutral background processes that constitute the physical Universe. And Druj is simply the varying degrees of lack thereof. Zoroastrianism would at it's core then consist of highly situational and inherently adaptive, ethical formulas if you will. Nothing MORE and nothing LESS. Process philosophy! The antithesis of religious kitsch and empty rituals. And nothing like the religion seen practiced in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWQhFdeRTyk

The elder man being interviewed seems kind and loving but is hardly a great thinker. And it is not a great mystery, nor a tragedy, that the Parsis have trouble keeping their young interested if they have devolved into practicing more or less pure fetishism. I don't possess enough insight into Parsi culture to determine whether that is actually the case or not, all I'm doing is reacting to this one particular video and a couple of other glimpses of Parsi culture encountered on the net. So please forgive me anyone that might feel offended by what I'm writing.

With that said though, I won't deny that I actually see more of Ahura Mazda in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxEdqsr8QWI
Funny or not funny as it may seem in the eyes and ears of the beholder. I propose that one possible partial litmus test of a potential Ashavan is the ability to laugh at him or herself, or parodies of Zoroastrianism and/or Zarathushtra too for that matter.

I want to end by clarifying that I am of course very open to the possibility that I could be completely mistaken in regards to most, if not all, that is written above! I haven't even read through the complete Gathas as of yet, so my understanding of all this is very much limited for the time being - and I might be projecting heavily. So, to cut things short after all of my freewheeling above, could you please expand on your statement that to you Asha is "only Laws of Physics" that one should not "tag mental things to"?

Ushta,
Hampus

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Parviz Varjavand wrote:

Dear Folks,

To me, Asha is only Laws of Physics.
Because the minute you want to tag mental things to Asha, the waters become very muddy soon.
Everybody will claim that their Druj is Asha if you put up with it long enough.
The Asha sales-persons become too many, every self centered despot and dictator starts claiming that they are
an Ashavan but their Druji opposition is throwing curve balls at them and not letting their Asha succeed.
The mudslinging that "mine is Asha, yours is Druj" becomes a street brawl for all everytime.
How do you propose to solve that problem?
In old Zoroastrian Tradition, they would pour molten bronze on your chest; if it burned you and you died, yours was a Druj;
if it did not burn you and you lived, you were on the side of Asha.
They did this to Moobed Adorbad Marasepandan and it did not burn him, so they knew that what he preached was the Truth.
Try this on a friend you do not want around any longer! It does work!? They either ran away or die, either way you get rid of them!

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

Bodhidharma and The Zoroastrian Origin of Zen (Chan) Philosophy

2011-07-23T12:05:00.000-07:00

Bodhidharma was clearly a Persian Zoroastrian trader, possibly a Mitharist of sorts. From Soghdia, a Persian kingdom in Central Asia (current Uzbekistan) with extensive trade connections to China. The idea that Bodhidharma was an Indian prince is of course nonsense, meant to ascribe him royal status. No Indian prince would leave India to move to China. This is why Zen is originally Persian and not Chinese or Japanese philosophy.

Dino is right. We can't lose our personal responsibility. Zoroastrian ethics is tough: We are the things we do, responsibility is automatic and not chosen or conscious. And as for the roots of desire, desire is rooted in drive. It is the process of consciosuness that makes us process drive and when we do so desire is the outcome. Desire is utlimately the desire for desire itself (therefore constantly replacing of escaping itself). But it is also the only possible ethical standard. Just make sure your empathy works as empathy is an integral part of desire: The will not to merely enjoy pleasure (the dilemma of modern humans) but to enjoy the enjoyrment of others as caused by or going through ourselves. Zizek calls it by its proper name: Love!

Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/23 Special Kain

Please see:

Jeffrey L. Broughton (1999): The Bodhidharma Anthology: The Earliest Records of Zen (Berkeley: University of California Press)

Broughton notes that Bodhidharma was a Persian from Central Asia.

This paper investigates the relationships between Mithraism, Persian culture, Zen and Mahayana Buddhism:

http://iloapp.waalmdiplomacy.org/blog/journal?ShowFile&doc=1272139314.pdf

Ushta,
Dino

--- hampus lindblad schrieb am
Sa, 23.7.2011:

Von: hampus lindblad
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The Ethics of Process Philosophy
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Samstag, 23. Juli, 2011 20:14 Uhr

Dear Dino,

Yes, Alexander has mentioned this connection to me earlier. That and the Zoroastrian influence on Greek thinking as well. It's highly interesting! There doesn't seem to be easily accessible information on the subjects though (although admittedly my searches on Google have been fairly quick and shallow). The etymology on the word Ch'an usually stops at mentioning how it is derived from the Sanskrit word dhyana meaning meditation or meditative states (with no mentioning of Persian traders or the like bringing the ideas of Zarathushtra into China) and I've never seen any mention of Zoroastrian influences in descriptions of Zen history.
Would be great if someone here could elaborate more on the subject and/or refer me to online information!

Ushta,
Hampus

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Special Kain wrote:

Dear Hampus

There is a strong connection between Zoroastrianism and Zen philosophy, culturally and historically. It is the habits that we take that make a difference. The thoughts we think determine what we will say. The words we speak determine what we will do.
According to Aristotle, we are what we repeatedly do. And this is where such great thinkers like Zarathushtra, Bodhidharma, Spinoza, Peirce and Dewey agree!!!
Deweyan speaking, we live in accordance with asha when our words and actions co-create new possibilities and encourage growth on different levels. We are obliged to foster progress and contribute creatively to "the world's constant renewal".

Ushta,
Dino

--- hampus lindblad schrieb am Sa, 23.7.2011:

Von: hampus lindblad
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The Ethics of Process Philosophy
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Samstag, 23. Juli, 2011 17:02 Uhr

Yes, I feel that I understand and agree completely! But I still also feel that without the further clarification that you just gave an example of, the term relevant in and of itself is too "open" to different interpretations. It's an eternal "middle man" of sorts. On the other hand I would be hard-pressed to find a better alternative.

So desires then. What does Lacan say about the origin of desires apart from the purely/directly biological ones? And is there some sort of hierarchy of desires in your view? And if so what does it look like? What, if any, means do we possess to influence and direct our driving desires? How does one in your mind go about coupling and aligning often unconsciously driven desires to an intellectually conceived vision of a more akashic self? To me it seems this is all tied to the scope of one's identity. We need to enlarge our identities, without losing the sense of individual responsibility, in order to bring harmony into our interdependent desires.

I like the focus on the smaller choices as a way to steer larger processes. This bottom-up approach seems to me to be what Zen has really come to emphasize. If we just take care to be conscious and steadfast in the smaller things the rest follows naturally, like the simple work of individual cells making up the fantastically complex process of a human body.

One a sidenote I just discovered that the phrase "The Devil is in the details" evolved out from the opposing statement that the details is in fact rather the abode of God. They never quite seem to be able to decide what's what, the Abrahamites...

Ushta,
Hampus - who is sick with fever and thus preemptively apologetic for any feverish misconceptions...

The Meaning of Druj

2011-07-23T11:55:00.001-07:00

Druj merely works in the short run, but the original meaning of druj ("that which does not work") does not refer to short-term causes and effects but to the long-term perspective. So you're both right, just talking about two very different perspectives. Please note druj does not mean "that which does not function" and even less so "that which does not exist" but rather "that which does not work in the sense of returning a pride in onself, an authentic self-identity".
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/23 hampus lindblad

Daniel,

I don't see what that proposes to explain. If druj had been simply "that which doesn't work" then how come we are still surrounded by it in so many ways? In my view druj is just as present as asha, and it can never be "eradicated" but "merely" deselected and de-emphasized. If it simply "didn't work" than it would have been eliminated through Darwinian processes by now, no? And thus leaving no room for our personal and in my mind sacred aspirations towards asha.

Druj and asha both "work" in my mind, but they are opposing sides of the same logic. Or if that sounds too tautological to you then maybe it can be expressed better as "the same logic applied in coherence with opposing intentionalities". Maybe that brings me dangerously close to the dualism that we try to distance ourselves from - but I'd like to think that my form of dualism is of a different type... ;)

Compare the differences and the similarities between a lover and a rapist for a rough analogy of my conception of asha and druj. Technically they might be doing more or less the same thing, but yet the difference couldn't be any greater. But the general, underlining logic follows the same pattern of influence and force application (whether the force is fear and violence as in the case of the rapist or the ability to instill lust and pleasure when it comes to the lover).

Ushta,
Hampus

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Daniel Samani wrote:

druj is that which does not work an are therefore by defult irelevant!

2011/7/23, hampus lindblad :

> I have a problem with the term relevant used in this fashion as processes
> can be relevant to druj just as they can be to asha. The relevancy is what
> ascribes them asha or druj "status" is it not? Isn't the point that the
> underlining Universe isn't partial to asha or druj, but that that's where
> our consciousness makes an entry on the stage and get's to partially steer
> whether our particular play - viewed from the end of our personal reality
> tunnel - is to be themed based mainly on asha or druj? With varying degree
> of overlap to the other parallel plays (or processes) taking place in the
> minds of our fellow beings of course.
> Or what am I missing?
>
> Ushta,
> Hampus