måndag 1 november 2010

Clarification on Zoroastrianism and Metaphysics

Dear Parviz

I'm not really into comfort as much as I'm into some honest intensity. And haven't you heard that money corrupts? When did the Parsees get paranoid? When they got wealthy, of course.
Unless a religion can provide me with some deep emotional experience I could not care less.
I'm the kind of guy who does not go to church on Sundays and bow my head to authority.
I much prefer to stay out all night and sleep through Sunday mornings. Under bridges with other bag ladies, so be it. But to me religion is far more interesting when it is locacted on a dancefloor or in connection to shshamanic rituals rather than social submission.
That's just me.


2010/11/1 Parviz Varjavand


Where do you get these junky ideas from.
(Dear Alex, if you do not wish to be talked like this to, don't talk to others like this!)

Dear Alex, I have news for you. If you think you are safe from Abrahamic views hiding behind Mithras name, you have many surprises coming your way. Mithraism is like sleeping under the bridge, every other homeless person has already made a nest there and will give you hell for every word you speak. Zoroastrianism may be a home in shambles, but at least it pays its electric and gas bills and you will have some light and warmth while staying in its house.

You are great and I know it, even when I argue with you.
Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz varjavand

--- On Mon, 11/1/10, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Clarification on Zoroastrianism and Metaphysics
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, November 1, 2010, 6:27 AM

No, I do not!

I believe that human beings HAVE TO USE words written with capital letters to be able to grasp a world at all. Which is what you do too from the moment of your birth.
This is not OBJEJCTIVELY given, where on earth did you ge such nonsense from?
The way you use the term "Social Science" as a given starting point, as a reference of truth as Badiou would call it, proves that you believe exactlt the same thing. Or else you are terribly naive about your own beliefs.
And words do not have to be discursive, Dino, they often are USED that way but it is not a necessity. Although I must admit that the MAIN reason I refer to myself as a Mithraist and not a Zoroastrian is that it seems the safest way during my own lifetime not to ever be associated with the Abrahamic junk I detest so much.
Read Hegel!

Inga kommentarer: