söndag 7 december 2008

What freedom of choice really is

Absolutely excellent, Dino!!!
You have caught exactly what CONCERNED Zarathushtra.
This is precisely what Mazdayasna is all about.
And this is why I have always referred to Zarathushtra as the original EXISTENTIALIST.
He is never concerned with the whys of this world. He considers such questions irrelevant and infantile. To Zarathushtra, what is interesting is the how of asha (the laws of the universe, what we call science today) and how THESE laws then affect the choices we make (how we turn ourselves into the people we become as Mazdayasni). In other words: How can we live in accordance wit the asha that we have just discovered?
Leave the other more childish religions to keep themselves preoccupied with the whys of children's faírytales. Things do happen without any whys. The whys are completely unnecessary. Which is Zarathushtra's point.
It is WE who give the world meaning. The world is there for us to GIVE IT MEANING. This is precisely why the world is sacred to us. Because it is the foundation on which we place meaning to existence.
And that is OUR job, and NOT the job of any Almighty Allah whom we must obey or else we will end up in hell. This is the difference between Zoroastrianism and Islam!

2008/12/7 Special Kain

Dear friends,

We all agree that freedom of choice is key in Zarathushtra's philosophy. Freedom of choice is somewhere between determinism and its (more or less) logical necessities, such as the laws of nature (ASHA), and free, unconditioned will. Both determinism and free will are extremes, and extremes are unlikely to be found in nature (if one does not choose to be extreme). So freedom of choice means a freedom that is LIVED within necessities.
The whole point is that freedom of choice is concerned with the question "what for". The question "why" is not very important here, because it is directed at the past (and never at the present or the future). Because there's a huge difference between being free from something (which is directed at the past) and being free towards something or to do something (which is directed at the present and the future). "Why" is concerned with necessities, whereas "what for" is concerned with liberation through applying ASHA to our lives.
Freedom of choice is this very freedom towards something within given necessities. It is the question: "What is it for?" And that's exactly where you find Zarathushtra's message of building, maintaining and expanding civilisation.

My two cents,

2 kommentarer:

liebera sa...

What are scientists Children of the knowledge Primal seed of cosmical machine Schemes and terms from sky laboratories Investigation‘s brought by Creator‘s wit
Physical aspect and lace of metaphysic
Supreme touch urges to create
Science wit knows sense of moving
But Divine can’t be proved by theme

Dear Alex, here is a trifle example my creation and tribute to VACUUM. I’m an author of great amount of poems that are close to your ideas, especially to NETOCRACY. And I want you to be acquainted with them. Please, give me your i-mail, where I can send you in privacy (not for all other net users) I’m real fabric of different ideas and thoughts. It’s very important for me!!! I’m very responsive person! Send your answer on ‘prototype2004@gmail.com”.
I’ll be waiting for your news!
P.S. This letter is not for public publishing!!! But you may publish my commentary in your blog.

liebera sa...

ARMY OF LOVERS’ CLONES are as French résistance. French communist Michael romances with positive lad from positive French Gestapo. Local stripper Sarah is busy worker. Female Polizei is in jealousy. Unhonest Owner of Milk Factory is only one negative person. There is no blood and horrors in the story that is the result of mobilistic philosophy. Do you want Whole Clip script, Alex? And what about the Romanovs and The communists who live in complete peace or BWO, VACCUUM and ARMY OF LOVERS members as heroes of fancy tales?

PS there may be some silliness in my first commentary. I was shy that time. It’s my explanation…