tisdag 10 november 2009

If Artists don't plan, but create... Part 2

Dear George

But to say nothing is to say nothing. We are after all humans and we do have to find words to describe our beliefs and our knowledge too. Without a vocabulary, there is no humanity to speak of.
There is also a universe rather than there is no universe. So since there is SOMETHING rather than nothing, and since we have language but only language, we only have language to describe this something for whatever it is.
To just say it is not this or it is not that is to say nothing. I much prefer people who dare to say something, who attempt to describe this something that exists, than who rather just despise all attempts at doing so.
They have after all said nothing. And how interesting is that?
So my brotherly question to you is: How do you describe that which exists? How do you describe the universe? Your belief in what the universe is? What are your words?
Not which words others have uttered which you dislike, but your very own proposal, your own prefered words!


2009/11/10 Georgios

Dear Alexander,

I guess I did not make myself very clear. I mean that concepts like "planning", "making", "creating" etc cannot be attributed to God/A.M./Nature/whatever-you-name-it. All these are simply human ideas. The universe would operate the same way without our ideas.
I think that the whole issue if A.M. is "creative" or a "maker" or a "planner" has absolutely nothing to do with who/what really *is* Ahura Mazda. So, to me, it doesn't also make any sense calling A.M. an artist, or even comparing him/her to one...


--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Alexander Bard wrote:
> Dear George
> I think the point here is that planning is a human activity precisely
> because our limitations force us to plan. If we were more intelligent and
> more physically versatile, we would not have to plan. I believe Clint's
> point that to limit Ahura Mazda to human characteristics is not only unfair,
> it is also evidence of a lack of imagination. So better then to assume that
> the dominant characteristic of Ahura Mazda is not to plan but to create. I
> can't find a single trace of a planning God anywhere in The Gathas, but
> Zarathustra is clearly obsessed with Ahura as being creative, which is why
> Ahura is so often referred to as Mazda (Ahura Mazda) and Zarathushtra is
> obsessed with CREATING WITH this divinity of his. The metaphor of "The Wise
> Maker" is tedious and deeply flawed. But a "creative maker" is an entirely
> different and much more Zoroastrian concept. That's my ten cents on the
> issue.
> Ushta
> Alexander

Inga kommentarer: