Zoroastrianism and Science

Well, you can't be more Zoroastrian than that!
The Universe is our temple!!!
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/2 Special Kain

It's time I get to visit CERN, for me it only takes three hours by train!
The amazement and awe that some Christians experience when sitting on their wooden benches in their local church is the same amazement and awe that I experience when reading scientific books, contributing to the scientific community in Zurich or watching a TV show about scientific issues.

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Fr, 2.10.2009:

The father of modern science in India was a Parsi, Homi Bhaba.
Unfortunately Homi Bhaba died rather young in a flight accident in the early 1960s.
But this shows that Zoroastrians easily take to science and scientific thinking, which I am convinced has its foundation in the Mazdayasna faith itself.
All Zoroastrian intellectuals I have met agree strongly agree with this argument.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/2 Special Kain



Dear Rory,

Several months ago I already mentioned Karl R. Popper who had been influenced by American pragmatism, especially Charles Sanders Peirce who happens to be one of my philosophical heroes (right next to Friedrich Nietzsche, Jacques Lacan, Peter Sloterdijk and, most recently, John Dewey). So there's a link between philosophical pragmatism and Popper's contributions to the art of science!
Since Zoroastrianism is one of the few pro-science religions, we should observe and discuss (if not contribute to) the scientific community - and Popper still is one of the giant figureheads in the philosophy of science! Scientists are professional ashavands, they are actively, creatively and (more or less) systematically pursuing the truth (and also getting paid for it).
It would be fairly interesting to discuss politics and economics in the light of the Gathas, but always be aware that our conclusions would be guesswork. Politically speaking, Zoroastrianism is a pro-democracy religion, but there are different types of democracy (my homecountry Switzerland is the closest state to a direct democracy).

Ushta, Dino

--- Rory schrieb am Fr, 2.10.2009:


Von: Rory
Betreff: [Ushta] Re: Zoroastrianism and pragmatism: Other Areas: Politics to Economics
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Datum: Freitag, 2. Oktober 2009, 10:27



And Karl Popper! And I misspelt: Dambisa Moyo.

Ushta,

Rory

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups. com, "Rory" wrote:
>
> Dear Arthur, Dino and Alexander,
>
> I find it interesting that Dino's linking Z beliefs to certain Western philosophers has taken the next step with people linking Z beliefs to political ideologies. It will be interesting to see where else in everything from medicine to agriculture it will lead. How about economics? I suggest William Easterly and Dambias Moyo?
>
> Ushta,
> Rory
>
> --- In Ushta@yahoogroups. com, Alexander Bard wrote:
> >
> > Dear Arthur
> >
> > I absolutely agree!!!
> > Although I'm a strict pragmatist politically too and call myself a
> > pragmatist liberal you can of course be a pragmatic libertarian too and
> > admire Hayek as much as Dewey as a Zoroastrian. I rather see the arguments
> > between Dewey and Hayek as arguments between friends (like on this forum)
> > who share a basic ideological premise and merely discuss the details and
> > consequences of their specific beliefs.
> > Brilliant posting too! We would love to read more form you on Ushta, Arthur!
> > As much as your time permits!
> >
> > Ushta indeed
> > Alexander
> >
> > 2009/9/23 Arthur Pearlstein
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have been reading with great interest and approval the posts tying
> > > pragmatists (especially Dewey and Rorty), and process philosophers
> > > (Whitehead) to Zoroastrian thinking--I especially want to thank Dino from
> > > whom I have learned a great deal in following these posts (though he cannot
> > > be blamed for what I may not have understood well). It is very exciting to
> > > see the articulation of these connections made so clearly and persuasively,
> > > and it has helped me reflect on and reaffirm my own personal brand of
> > > Zoroastrianism which is largely based on my own fascination with both
> > > pragmatic and process approaches. As I have written before, Ahura Mazda
> > > works as a kind of "process" through asha and the infinite variety we
> > > experience in this world of accelerating change is the expression of asha.
> > > The Zoroastrian future perspective, which offers, in the spirit of Rorty, an
> > > ever-deepening array of joy-producing delightful (and surprising) things, is
> > > a process and something more—it is life itself.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I did want to point out that, notwithstanding Alexander's mention of
> > > Dewey's "fights with Hayek" and the division between pragmatists and
> > > libertarians, that there are those of us who admire both Dewey and Hayek and
> > > who consider themselves libertarian pragmatists (or pragmatic libertarians) .
> > > In fact, I believe that process thinking, sharpened by the more recently
> > > developed interest in complexity theory and dynamic, adaptive systems, forms
> > > a compelling connection between pragmatism and libertarianism, and between
> > > the most attractive features of all these approaches, on the one hand, and
> > > Zoroastrianism, on the other.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hayek saw social/political/ economic orders as constantly evolving
> > > processes—self- creative and radically free. As nicely put in the interview
> > > with Ames that Dino supplied, thinking from a true process perspective
> > > involves "appreciating the emergence and the open-endedness of the human
> > > experience;" this could have easily been spoken by Hayek. And I think Dewey
> > > would agree with Hayek (and be right in line with process and Zoroastrian
> > > thinking) in rejecting the top-down rule of social planners and preferring
> > > institutions that arise through complex, adaptive processes—that evolve—over
> > > those that are "intelligently designed" (notwithstanding the Ames comment in
> > > the same interview that Dewey "believes in intelligent design" that is "the
> > > responsibility of human beings"—I think this is slightly misleading in the
> > > sense that "intelligent design" has come to imply a kind of grand design, of
> > > which no one—neither "God" nor human beings—is capable; it is correct in the
> > > more limited, literal sense of humans intentionally "designing" experiments,
> > > for example).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In the context of applying these ideas to "democracy," I think they have
> > > much in common in seeing the project of liberal democracy as a dynamic,
> > > adaptive process contingently emerging under uncertain conditions.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There are, of course, differences between and among these thinkers and
> > > their ideas. What I especially like about Zoroastrian thinking is that, in
> > > an elegant way, it seems to take the best of these concepts and tie it into
> > > a philosophy of life that is radically participatory— a philosophy that, in
> > > effect, views itself as a kind of (democratic) process.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ushta,
> > >
> > >
> > > Arthur
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Special Kain wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Dewey was even closer to Zoroastrian thought than Peirce, James and Rorty
> > >> altogether!
> > >> So far I don't know anything about the link between him and Whitehead,
> > >> only between him and Rorty (who's a neo-Deweyan) .
> > >> This is an interview with Roger Ames on both Dewey's and Whitehead's
> > >> philosophy:
> > >>
> > >> http://www2. thu.edu.tw/ ~philo/files/ 980818-Amesinter view.pdf

> > >>
> > >> Ushta, Dino