söndag 24 januari 2010

What is Metaphysics?

Haha, no, I don't think there is any connection between Metaphysics and Ardeshir Farahmand per se. I just look forward to Ardeshir responding to our sincere questions on where he sets the limits to Mazdayasna. My limits are rather very generous, especially since Zoroastrianism is historically speaking NOT a sectarian or dogmatic religion, one of its best qualities.
Metaphysics is NOT religion. Rather the opposite, Metaphysics has always been Philosophy's way of dealing with the big issues in life, taking them away from Religion.
For example Ontology, which is key to Metaphysics, how does something that we know is in flux, forever changing, still appear as a firm object, as a form of being, to us? What exactly constitutes its being, its eternalization, its substance over time? And what can NOT be caught within its being? This is what Metaphysics deals with.
This has nothing to do with anything supernatural. I would never advocate any such thing. As both you and I and Dino have agreed on hundreds of times.

2010/1/24 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alex,

I was not aware of what you had to tell me about the true meaning of Metaphysics. I just assumed that Metaphysics dealt mostly with religious thought and that most religious thought dealt with the supernatural, life after death, and the realm of the Jinn. My mistake, I will learn to like Metaphysics now because of you.

Is Metaphysics what Mr.Farahmand has the knowledge of as the one who knows all about the TRUE MAZDAYASNI ZARATHUSHTRESH?

Parviz Varjavand

--- On Sun, 1/24/10, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Post-Metaphysics
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, January 24, 2010, 4:41 AM

Dear Parviz

I know what you are saying but I believe this is a bad idea.
Metaphysics is what most of Philosophy is about. All of Ontology runs under the title of Metaphysics.
If you don't like supernatural beliefs, then say so. If you don't like dualism, then please say so. I'm all with you and I totallyu agree with you.
But since when did Metaphysics become such a hated term and why?
Are you going to revolt against the whole world over THIS term and do you prefer to be constantly misunderstood by just about everybody? Why???
To say that you are against Metaphysics is like saying that you are against Philosophy itself. Why???

Alexander/happy to have kidnapped "Mazdayasna" since Zarathushtra himself would have approved, comparison with Metaphysics here strongly misplaced...

2010/1/23 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alexander,

Many old words have been corrupted by the wrong usage over the ages. So even if they can have very good and legitimate meanings, one must move away from them and coin new words in order to get the mothball smell out of the ideas being presented. Maybe you remember that I had coined new words in order to better express my thoughts when we had long discussions with our dear Dina McIntyre. She considered the translation of God-Worship as the only legitimate translation for Mazda-Yasna (Mazda=God Yasna=Worship) and I was proposing Philo-Sophia (Sophia=Mazda Philo=Yasna) . After the arguments dragged on too long, I proposed the word "Manesh-Jashni" for the school of thought we were formulating instead of Mazdayasna. We did not agree on that, so until the end of time, all shades of born and unborn Zoroastrians will attack us and say that we have stolen Mazdayasna from them and it does not mean what we say it means.

Methaphisics is another one of those words which has been corrupted by the wrong usage over a long period of time. If somebody does not know Billy Graham (the famous Christian evangelist) and wants to go to one of his speeches and asks me about what he may expect to hear there, I will tell him that "you are going to be in for an evening of talks about Metaphysics and not Philosophy". What I say will give a clear image of what Billy Graham will be all about that evening as Metaphysics is not Philosophy for the average man regardless of what Vicapedia says about it.

This is why when I say OUR brand of Philo-Sophia= Mazda-Yasna must move past Metaphysical parameters into a Post-Metaphysics realm, I do not think what I am saying is Gibberish. My assumptions may be wrong and I welcome being corrected.

Ushta Te,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Sat, 1/23/10, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Post-Metaphysics
To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, January 23, 2010, 2:59 AM

Dear Parviz and Dino

You are using the term "metaphysics" here at least as sloppily and out of context as Ardeshir does when he says that "the universe is alive".
There is and there never will be a post-metaphysical Mazdayasna. There is not even any post-metaphysical atheism if that is what you desire.
The Universe is DYNAMIC and not alive. Mazdayasna strives to be post-supernatural or anti-supernatural (which I believe is the term you are lacking) but never post-metaphysical.
Just so that we can have a debate which we and outsiders too can all understand and that makes sense.


2010/1/23 Parviz Varjavand

Dorood Dino,

The problem is that the Gatha may be mostly metaphysical talks if in the hands of those who get high only on metaphysical gibberish (as you put it). Can we move Gatha to a post-metaphysics level? I have given up on that because I say that if we want post-metaphysical Mazdayasna, we should be brave enough to make all sacred books irrelevant for our new school of thought. Sorry Zanetta, we may not be the best guys to get high on Zoroastrian Metaphysics here on the Ushta site.


--- On Fri, 1/22/10, Special Kain wrote:

From: Special Kain
Subject: AW: [Ushta] One more long title that does not tell us what is beeing talked about.
To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, January 22, 2010, 3:39 PM

Dear Parviz

The problem is not whether one's philosophy is earth-centered or not, but it's all just metaphysical gibberish in the sense that they are making outrageously bold claims about something that we can never prove right or wrong. So this is where blind faith starts: metaphysics. And that's why I went post-metaphysics 9 years ago.


--- Parviz Varjavand schrieb am Fr, 22.1.2010:

Von: Parviz Varjavand
Betreff: [Ushta] One more long title that does not tell us what is beeing talked about.
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Datum: Freitag, 22. Januar 2010, 22:52

My feelings towards Ardeshir's writings is the same as Dino's.
Clear thinking and clear talking go hand in hand.
>>>>"Our minds are limited":
Sure they are, but show me a mind outside the brains of humans and I will shut up. This is the best that you can get, so why put it down.
>>>>"Cosmos is alive":
Where? Where other than on earth have you found life?
>>>"Christianity was Earth Centered, let us not be like them":
Just because the Church thought that the planets rotated around the earth does not make the philosophy of Christianity "Earth Centered". Their vision was always Heaven centered, Earth was a place of damnation and Heavens was a place of bliss and perfection for the Church. This is so plain to anybody that knows history that to present it otherwise is pure ........ My (Parviz's) Mazdayasna is Earth Centered because I can find life only on earth. I will move my center of attention from Earth to any other place you want me to as soon as you find life anywhere else other than Earth.

Nice to see that at least Dino is also with us here catching the .......
Parviz Varjavand
Meditating as usual upon cow plops because more life exists in a cow plop here on earth than in all of the cosmos beyond the earth.

Inga kommentarer: