måndag 8 augusti 2011

The Zoroastrian Revolution in Ethics (was: Learning what is right and wrong (as opposed to the idea of a human essence))

However, sociobiology is not an ethical guide.
Sociobiologists can explain why plundering your neighbor, killing homosexuals, and racism, are all sociobiologically motivated. But they are druj rather than asha since they don't endorse life or civilization in the long run but are rather just impulses endorsing short term individual gains and are emotionally rather than logically motivated.
Especially when we change our living conditions, this is when we have to control our impulses and THINK rather than act by instinct. This is actually the most dramatic difference between Zarathushtra's ETHICS OF LOGICS and the instinctual moralism of the Abrahamic faiths (which all claim that God has planted homophobia and racism "in your heart" which is why you should act accordingly).
I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying that Zarathushtra always places LOGIC before IMPULSE. This is the most important implication of the Zoroastrian revolution in Ethics. Which is why I oppose the idea of a "human substance". There is no such thing to Zarathushtra, our "human substance" is what we create within our selves. The program we ourselves program to then speak and act according to who we want to be.


2011/8/9 Special Kain

Dear Behnaz

Ushta means "ecstasy" and "radiant happiness" in English. :-)
As discussed earlier, there are "moral instincts". I prefer to call them "social instincts". These are basic rules of living together in groups and herds that have evolved by means of natural selection. These basic rules can be found in almost all known cultures and tribes. They are truly universal.
I guess that we owe all other rules to language. There must therefore be diversity, and history can explain similarities.


--- Behnaz Larsen schrieb am Di, 9.8.2011:

Von: Behnaz Larsen
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] Learning what is right and wrong (as opposed to the idea of a human essence)

An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
CC: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Datum: Dienstag, 9. August, 2011 00:32 Uhr

You are both right. One needs to learn and as Zarathustra has advised progressive mentality is good, right, advised. What I am stressing is not a stand-still or a contentment with the past. What I like to do is to focus on what we know already to be the right, the good, the Asha. Alexander you mentioned before that druj in every society is the same. Killing someone for no reason has never been advised by any religions. These GOOD values are taught to us by the moral of the society in which we live and we should not ignore them. I guess what I mean to say is that when you say Ushta, I know it is a type of well wishing or a nice way to say take care or even "may the force be with you"! All GOOD and pleasant. I don't need to look it up but I am glad there are people who do. Otherwise we could never translate anything. I guess we are all different but what I will refuse to do is to fight over a definition, which I have witness on many sites, while doing research about the Good faith. I wouldn't mind though getting a good definition of the word Ushta :-)

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 8, 2011, at 10:45 PM, Special Kain wrote:

I agree 100%.
The opposition between asha and druj refers to a learning process, as I already discussed in my brief summary on Zoroastrianism. According to Zarathushtra, we are requested to educate ourselves. The world deserves better than blind faith and stupidity. Smart texts are weapons!
Existence precedes CHOICE precedes essence - if there is any essence involved at all.


--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Mo, 8.8.2011:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Learning what is right and wrong (as opposed to the idea of a human essence)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Montag, 8. August, 2011 22:10 Uhr

Actually there is nothing to prove that we "have what is right within us". Rather, we learn what works in the long run and what merely works in the short run through experience 8which is what asha vs druj really is), it is not something we are born with. Both psychologists and Zarathushtra would agree on this. Which is why Zarathushtra was opposed to the idea of a "human essence" as in the Abrahamic religions. Rather, Zarathushtra clearly believes in processes through which we LEARN and then CHOOSE what we want to be, to ourselves, as ethical beings. This is almost his obsession as a spiritual teacher. And I fully approve.


2011/8/8 Special Kain

Dear Behnaz

Things are much more complicated. We have to critically assess the value system into which we were born and see if we can still use any of it and/or if we have to create new values.

Your conclusion is that the status quo is good in itself. But is this really the case? I don't think so. I wouldn't confuse asha/druj with ethics. The fact that something works doesn't make it good. It merely makes it useful. We sometimes have to lie in order to protect our loved ones!

Moralism states that the status quo is good and should be preserved and defended against everything that is different. But ethics is different: it is concerned with one's attitude and mentality such as universal openness vs. "othering", and how this affects the world around us through our words and actions.

My two cents,