Ethics vs. Morality

The modern philosophical distinctions - from Spinoza to Habermas - is that ethics deals with right vs wrong while morality deals with good vs evil. The distinctions are blurred with the rather weird English term "moral philosophy" which actually deasl with ethics and not with morality. Ethics is that which we discuss when we compare value systems, ethics is a philosophical disipline dealing with causes and effects of choices made. Morality is rather a THEOLOGICAL exercise, dealing with what is assumed to be a divine wish. Personally I love ethics but couldn't care less about morality (being an amoral but ethical person myself). All the Abrahamic religions are MORALISTIC, while Mazdayasna is a system of ETHICS. The moralist wants to do what God tells him or her to do and force others to do the same (Usama bin-Laden and The Pope are both moralists). The ethicist is engaged in finding WHO HE or SHE IS, as a foundation for making the right decisions in life (we behave according to who we are). Zarathushtra was the first major ETHICIST in human history.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/18 osred90

I think the Greek word ethos meant habit or custom (in Greek) the same as Latin mores, but 'ethika' meant the science of behaviour. So maybe ethics is something that implies thought to discern the right action whereas mores is just the customary action.

Osred.

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Special Kain wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> The more I have studied Zoroastrian philosophy, the more I have concluded that The Ethical Choice is at the very heart of it all.
> The word "ethics" derives from the Greek word "ethos" which means "attitude" and "character" in English, whereas the word "morality" > derives from the Latin word "mores" which means "habits" and "customs" - the way we use to deal with certain things or with certain
> groups of people, the way we use to cook and eat, and what we eat, etc.
> There is no choice in morality. So either you follow orders or you're "morally reprehensible".
> This is Zarathushtra's contribution to mankind: by adopting a certain attitude, your thoughts change, your words change and your
> actions change - and, voilà , you're co-creating a different world. Ethics is much more brutal - intellectually and emotionally - than
> morality.
>
> My two cents,
> Dino

What Zoroastrianism (Mazdayasna) is and is not

Dear Parviz

You want a sect with a book of rigid rules lead by a pope.
I want a word for a wonderful community I belong to who already live a life I want to live. That word is Mazdayasna and since Mazdayasna was originated by a guy called Zarathushtra I can live with the fact that most people refer to this movement as Zoroastrianism.
The fact that people disagree on details within Mazdayasna is a STRENGTH and not a weakness. The totalitarian set of rules you are looking for was precisely what Zarathushtra was opposed to and why I joined his teachings and followers in the first place.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/15 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Dino,

What is your definition of a Zoroastrian and Zoroastrianism?
To many, it should be the name of a religion that has some structure to it.
Where do I go to find that structure that many or a few agree upon?
I need a community of like minded persons so that I can feel I belong amongst sane adherents to the same religion. Where do I find this community and the ABC of what they agree upon?

Usta
Purviz


From: Special Kain
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 2:01:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Dialogue with Zoroastrains!!!


Dear Parviz,
There is nothing wrong with LSD. ;-)
Besides, I'm part of the Zoroastrian online community. I have made great friends in different parts of the world. And I have discussed Zoroastrian issues with people from all over the world - former colleagues who, like myself, used to work for one of Germany's largest independent agency networks.
But if there is anything I can do to support Zoroastrians in Iran or elsewhere, please let me know.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Fr, 15.7.2011:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Dialogue with Zoroastrains!!!
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Freitag, 15. Juli, 2011 10:45 Uhr


Dear Parviz


You have no idea of what you're talking about.
There are people converting to Zoroastrianism in Europe all the time while you sit and puke your cynicism in your isolated glass tower.
You want a sect for yourself, we want a living thriving community. And we're getting what we WORK towards while you're not getting what you want. The fact that people aren't reporting their work to you as you wish is no excuse for you not getting the facts for yourself.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/15 Parviz Varjavand

While the dialog in Iran remains at its lowest common denominator, our friends in the West like Alex or Dino are flying so high that they sound more like persons on an LSD trip than any real force within a wholesome community. I know that I am acting crazier than anybody else around, but I feel it is more productive to act crazy in a systematic manner rather than to buy time by off the cuff cleverness that lead nowhere and in fact shatters any meaningful line of thought.


From: Alexander Bard
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, July 15, 2011 3:28:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Dialogue with Zoroastrains!!!


It sounds like "Defamation and Prosecution of Zoroastrians".

If this is what the Iranian government or its cohorts are spending their time and money on, then this is no more a dialogue than any "Dialogue with the Jews" would have been in Nazi Germany in 1938.
What is the situation like for our dear Zoroastrian brothers and sisters in Iran today?
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/14 Bahman Noruziaan
A new web site has come into existence from Iran. The title of the web site is "Dialogue with Zoroastrians"
http://zartoshtimosalman.parsiblog.com/

The site invites participants in critical discussions about Zoroastrianism and Islam. The site claims that it will remove any comments that are insulting any of the two religions.

Te first article though bring up the issue of uncertainlty about the time of Zarathushtra with this title "belittling a big weakness". Basically saying it is a big weakness that the accurate time of Zarathushtra is not known and we the Zartoshis try to show it as not significant!!
http://zartoshtimosalman.parsiblog.com/Posts/239/%da%a9%d9%88%da%86%da%a9+%d9%86%d9%85%d8%a7%d9%8a%d9%8a+%d8%b6%d8%b9%d9%81%d9%8a+%d8%a8%d8%b2%d8%b1%da%af/

The other article is called "One Hadith", a saying, in which the question of whether Zartoshtis are People of the Book or not is raised. In analyzing the saying of one of Shia Imams, the write concludes that : 1-In the time of Imam Zoroastrians did not have a book!!, 2-Their prophet was "Damasb" and they , Muslims can not say whether he was Zartosht or someone elase, 3-Their book was called "Jamasb", 4-Their book was very big, 5-Zoroastrians themselves killed their prophet and and burned their book.
http://zartoshtimosalman.parsiblog.com/Posts/238/%d9%8a%d9%83+%d8%ad%d8%af%d9%8a%d8%ab/

In another article titled, "Two Hadiths about Zoroastrians" the writer brigns about the subjet of marraige with mothers and sister among Zartoshtis and claims that according to one of Shia Imams, such marriages were allowed among Zoroastrians. The writer conclues from the conversation between a Muslim man and the Imam that 1-No one should insult Zoroastrians, 2-At the time of Imam such marriages were common among Zartoshtis and as such those who want to bring historical !! evidence can refer to this saying, 3-Muslims need to respect Zoroastrains beliefs despite Muslims not accepting them as being the highets of immorality.

Zarathushtra, Spinoza, Nietzsche

It would be great if there was more literature around but coming from a person who insists that Zoroastrianism is (correctly) NOT a faith of a book, I'm quite baffled to hear you demand more literature as a CONDITION for proper conversion. Have you become Ali Jafarey all of a sudden? Counting souls rather than being concerned with people LIVING Mazdayasni lives? Personally I recommend people to read Spinoza and Nietzsche and then practice their teachings after which they will be good Zoroastrians. In addition to the good old "Gathas" of course. Seems to work pretty well, I must say.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/15 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alex,

Please help me see what it is that these persons converting are converting to!
There must be some literature somewhere that is deep enough for someone to read and want to convert to, where is that literature? Don't run away from what I am asking by saying "read your Gatha, it is all there". That answer is like "read your bible, it is all there", it is a cop out. Thanks for using the word "puke" while referring to what I try to express! I will not stoop as low as you while trying to express what I think of your writings.

Parviz

Haurvatat as being in balance with oneself as an eternally changing substance

I agree. The opposites perfection/imperfection make no sense. How can something that is in eternal change/movement/progress be termed as either perfect or imperfect? This is why translating Zarathustra's concept of "haurvatat" as "perfection" makes absolutely no sense. It should rather be translated as "in balance with itself, in its own constant progress eternally". Or as for example "asha" best of all not translated at all. English is too limited.
The translation of haurvatat as perfection is, again, an Abrahamic infiltration in Zarathushtra's unique thinking.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/14 Behnaz Larsen

Definition of living and dead requires that one knows which being/concept one is referring to. If you consider Mazda as wisdom, than you cannot put a limitation on it. Is it dead, alive , imperfect or unlimited? How do u imagine him, it? These are questions for an individual to answer to himself. Mazda exists in your heart and hopefully in your head and if u like to have it imperfect so it can remain alive and progress then so be it. However know that you have not believed in the unlimited, ultimate wisdom as might or might not exist. I chose to believe in an unlimited ripe wisdom because I am very tried of relying only on my own wisdom.


On Jul 14, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Special Kain wrote:
Dear Alexander and Parviz,

All things perfect have stoppped developing and are therefore static and dead. This isn't just some process philosopher's sophisticated thesis, this is an actual fact.
When I still was a small child and attending school, we had our parents talk about their jobs in class. My father said that in the business world stagnation equals death. So I was about 8 or 9 when I became a process philosopher. ;-)

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Do, 14.7.2011:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The superiority of Zoroastrianism over Itself.
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
CC: "Kambiz yeganegi" , "Mehrdad Farahmand" , "Ardeshir Farahmand"
Datum: Donnerstag, 14. Juli, 2011 02:05 Uhr

The terms perfection and imperfection mean nothing unless you SPECIFY what you mean.

"Haurvatat" for example has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with perfection. Haurvatat means "in constant progress" or "forever evolving" as opposed to that which has stabilized and stopped progressing (which Zaratushtra as process philosopher is always opposed to).
Mazda is whatever it is. Ascribing perfection or imperfection to Mazda is just childish to me. Itäs just a view. It doesn't alter or explain what Mazda is.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/13 Parviz Varjavand
You can not be a Monist if you have a PERFECT Mazda at the start.
Since my Muzda is as imperfect as I am when we start, my Muzdaism has no problem with Monism.
You have to choose, Is it Mazda for you or Muzda?

Haurvatat as forever evolving, not perfection!

The terms perfection and imperfection mean nothing unless you SPECIFY what you mean.
"Haurvatat" for example has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with perfection. Haurvatat means "in constant progress" or "forever evolving" as opposed to that which has stabilized and stopped progressing (which Zaratushtra as process philosopher is always opposed to).
Mazda is whatever it is. Ascribing perfection or imperfection to Mazda is just childish to me. Itäs just a view. It doesn't alter or explain what Mazda is.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/13 Parviz Varjavand
You can not be a Monist if you have a PERFECT Mazda at the start.
Since my Muzda is as imperfect as I am when we start, my Muzdaism has no problem with Monism.
You have to choose, Is it Mazda for you or Muzda?

The Basics of all Religion: The Cutting of The Chord vs The Story of The Fall

Yes, it is the fall story.
But the cutting of the chord is THE DRIVING FORCE behind The Fall Story, it is the universal sense of "homelessness" which is the motor. You don't really need the fall story for that. For example, in Nazism there is no fall story, there is the cutting of the chord being blamed on an EXTERNAL force (in that case: The Jews). The same thing goes with the hatred of the west in the Middle East (always blaming America för eveything that goes wrong) and these days its opposite (Americans always blaming "terrorists" for everything, soon probably also the U.S. budget deficit).
What I'm talking about is to look beyond the Abrahamic religions and find the true course of what I would refer to as "The Popularity of The Druj". And it always refers back to The Cutting of The Chord.
Our answer is that life WITH The Chord equals Death (actually in a positive sense). When we die "we return to the one-all rather than the current one-as-separate during life". Because that is the way it is, that is the truth.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/13 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alex,

SEPARATION of the IMPERFECT from a PERFECT that made it, is "THE FALL" story!
I say that Uhoora Muzda was as imperfect as everything else and IT and I where as united then and as imperfect then as we are now. We are both going towards a destiny that we hope is somekind of Perfection, but "WE DON'T KNOW THIS" (Purviz Vurjavand's Muzdaism 101). We do not know because we never had a platonic idea of the Ideal from whose perfect state we have fallen.

What you are trying to say may sound good for half a second to the armature ear, but it runs into a million muddy philosophical issues next. Besides, who died and made you the spokes person for Zoroastrianism? I can speak for Muzdaism because I am the inventor of Muzdaism. And it is Muzdaism from now on and not Mazdaism any more. I worship Uhoora Muzda from now on and not Ahoura Mazda as you do. Why? Because Uhoora Muzda told me to do so, so go perfume your lovely red beard some if you do not like it!

Mehr Ufzoon,
Purviz Vurjavund
P.S. Go to the site dubire dot com to see why I write Persian words as I do.

Zoroastrianism as the opposite of Abrahamic religion

It's not even a FALL story, Parviz, it is a story of SEPARATION.
Originally this is when the mother and the child are physically separated at birth. The cutting of the chord.
But where Abrahamism makes this cutting the FAULT OF THE CHILD (original sin) we should proudly state that Zarathushtra said that the cutting of the chord instead is the very ORIGIN OF LIBERTY and EXISTENCE (Haurvatat)!
Zoroastrianism is therefore fundamentally the OPPOSITE of Abrahamism, as Spinoza and Nietzsche wanted. Interestingly also the opposite of Buddhism!
In other words: If we had believed in the Garden of Eden we would have been HAPPY for Eve to eat the fruit. We are The Snake! And to Buddha we say: If the world is full of suffering, why don't you just take prozac and get over it? Not that there isn't suffering but it is not PRIMARY; it is always CAUSED rather than unavoidable. Primary is just Existence itself, Mazda!
Ushta
Alexander
- Dölj citerad text -

2011/7/12 Parviz Varjavand

Dino and Daniel,

Many Zoroastrians believe in a perfect Ahoora Mazda as the first cause and existing in a state that we are to reach eventually. This is the core story of the FALL and the original sin is just an addendum to the FALL story.

If you do not want to be FALLEN creatures, you can not place a perfect creator at the beginning of it all.

Yours,
Parviz

From: Special Kain
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, July 12, 2011 4:24:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Ushta] The superiority of Zoroastrianism over Itself.

Daniel is right!!!
There is no original sin in Zoroastrianism, thus there is no need for salvation.
Western societies should get rid of their collective obsession with self-actualisation.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Daniel Samani schrieb am Di, 12.7.2011:

Von: Daniel Samani
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The superiority of Zoroastrianism over Itself.
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Dienstag, 12. Juli, 2011 08:28 Uhr

Dear Parviz,

I need no salvation - if it's somthing I need then it's exactly this! That I have nothing to be saved from - and that I am sublime as I am.

Indeed so are you aswell! This insight are not an insight under to rules of reason - instead an emotional one.

When Zarathustra in the Gathas talk about Khashatra - to my mind he talk about this exactly. And I can't do anything more then to agree with him full hearted with astonishment!

Our mission is to kill the neurotic neurons (those who enable us to be emotional instable) within us!!

Ustha,
Daniel