Zarathushtra - The Anti-Esseentialist!

Correct!!!
Zarathushtra is an anti-essentialist too. Or rather, he is historically PRIOR to essentialism.
Zarathushtra reveals this when he argues for CHOICES to be made prior to speaking and acting. He is fascinated with the process of choice, IN ITSELF, not as a result of some nature of some inner soul (an essence).

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/10 Special Kain

Perhaps this is off-topic, but the discussion on Nietzsche's Zoroastrian attitude towards meaning "forces" me to bring up this topic: the anti-essentialist self.

Nietzsche was totally against essentialism - much like his many followers, from French existentialists to postmodernists to the new pragmatists like Richard Rorty. There is no essence to begin with. There is no "true self" hidden underneath multiple layers (socialization, conditioning and so on). There are habits only. And we are what we repeatedly do - we are the total sum of our habits (see also Aristotle, David Hume and Gilles Deleuze). The "true self" doesn't exist.

What we have instead is "inner plurality": a multitude of forces and counter-forces such as urges, desires, interests and convictions. These forces bond and create "sub-personas" that can be in peace or in conflict with other inner "sub-personas". But there is still no HOLISTIC SELF.

Nietzsche wrote in "Die fröhliche Wissenschaft" (The Gay Science) that one should give style to one's character ("seinem Charakter Stil geben") - I don't know if there's a better English translation. That is, we are requested to integrate and coordinate this inner plurality in order to create such a holistic self. In other words, we become the choices we make, we are the habits we take. And the holistic self is therefore always "under construction", since there is no closure (please see Deleuze). So there are two communities to deal with: the outer community (society) and the inner community (the self). And different members from the inner community correspond with members from the outer community, and vice versa. And, of course, there are conflicts between inner members and outer members as well.

Ushta,
Dino

Constructive thoughts, constriuctive words, constructive actions (not good thoughts, good words, good actions)

Correct, Parviz!
Which is precisely why I never speak of "good" or "right" in connection to asha since "good" or "right" are meaningless terms unless you specify "goof for WHOM?" or "right according to WHOM?". It's platitudes that mean nothing. Or rather they become CONSERVING terms of death rather than life.
Better to speak of "constructive thoughts", "constructive words", constructive actions" since this is what Zarathushtra spoke about. He was certainly not an idiot and he hated meaningless clichés that made people stop thinking rather than thinking new and fresh and creative ideas. Otherwise you just end up with "conservative thoughts", "conservative words", and "conservative actions" as Parsi isolationists and those with Islam-envy mistakenly interpret Zarathushtra's excellent concepts.
To this mistreatment of Zarathushtra's philosophy, we should of course respond with a "constructive and creative mentality" and be vehemently opposed to "conservatism". Asha does mean "the which fits" or "how things work". But Asha is not what we should do as much as how things work. How we then think, speak, and act in relation to Asha is an entirely different matter which the translation in itself is not enough to answer.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/10 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Ostad Jafarey,

I thank Ms. Zaneta for coming to my rescue. I do not keep a files on you as I do not feel that I am in a legal battle with you. We are discussing philosophical issues here and what you say “Asha is the right thing to do, at the right time, at the right place and with the right means to have the right result” and what Mr. Dino Kane says Asha is “That which FITS” sounds pretty much the same to me. Can you see someone using “..the right thing to do, at the right time, at the right place and with the right means to have the right result” and producing a result that does not “FIT” the situation at hand? I rest my case and promise to try and not mention you by name again in any non substantiated reference

Your very dumb ex-student,
Parviz Varjavand

From: Zaneta Garratt
To: jafarey@aol.com; solvolant@yahoo.com; group
Sent: Tue, August 9, 2011 4:13:34 AM
Subject: RE: [zoroastrians] A Scientist and a Judge

My best wishes to everyone, As i recall, I think it is Dina who explains Asha in a simple way to make it easier to understand as "that which fits"
best wishes from zaneta

To: solvolant@yahoo.com; zoroastrians@yahoogroups.com
From: Jafarey@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 21:22:36 -0400
Subject: Re: [zoroastrians] A Scientist and a Judge


My dear Mr. Parviz Varjavand

Dorud!

Although with what I have experienced and am observing, the best way is not to enter into, what I have been saying for years, <> arguments, your statement ascribed to me, has made me to post this. You state: <>

I do not recall any statement of mine to resemble this. I have, in my 200+ essays published in books and magazines since 1960s, defined Asha, more or less, as <> and have always emphasized that it should be done with Vohu Manah, Good Mind. This is what I have stated. Will you, please, now provide me with the evident as to where I have stated, in English or Persian, that it means <>? I will be obliged and correct my statement.

Let me emphasize here that we, the followers of the Pristine Divine Doctrine of Zarathushtra, well defined by us in 1990, are going on our way, and you have chosen your way and have begun defining it. Let us go each our way and give up finger-pointing at the other.

Awaiting your reply,

Ali A. Jafarey



In a message dated 8/8/2011 8:09:52 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, solvolant@yahoo.com writes:

If you go in a lab that some scientists are experimenting on some physical i.e
Gitik phenomenons, you call them "scientist", what they are doing has to be
endorsed by the scientific method for them to be paid at the end of the months.
Here, they are using the Asha or laws of nature to do their work.

If you go into a court of law, a Judge sits there passing Judgments on others. A
judge is not a scientist, he/she uses a softer kind of Asha, a relative Asha
called Asha-Vahishta. Druj and Asha are mixed in the mental world, so a judge
has to find out not an absolute Asha but who has Asha-Vahishta or more Asha in a
mix of Asha and Druj that is being presented in his court. Those who say that in
a Monist sense a Judge is also a Scientist and a Judge and a Scientist both use
Asha in order to do their work do not convince me that they are right. Jafarey
first came up with calling Asha as "that which fits" and that definition has not
fitted in my mind too well ever. Anything can be called "That Which Fits"
depending on who is writing the review on what it is that has to FIT what.

Parviz

The Spinoza-Nietzsche Connection

Dearest Dino

I believe you are a formidable thinker and understand both Spinoza and Nietzsche extremely well yourself.
Yes, I agree, the major BREAK with the idea that Philosophy is a discipline of Constructing Systems was all Nietzsche's efforts. Nietzsche wrote "Human, All Too Human" for a reason: Not only the book but the title reflects his utter conviction that humans can and should do only what they and their language is capable of. So understanding those LIMITATIONS is the first and most important job of Philosophy. In this, Nietzsche is the philosopher par excellence of both subjectivism, extistentialism, pragmatism, process philosophy (Mobilism),and transrationalism (the overcoming of rationalism). This is what he really means with the idea of "The Death of God". He is not an atheist as he is an opponent to the ambition of creating closed and complete systems (Totalism).
Spinoza laid the ground for Nietzsche in Western Philosophy, but Spinoza was still GROUNDED in the idea of creating a complete system of human understanding as reality, he was actually one of the most aggressive and BELIEVING of the rationalists. Spinoza was actually a rationalist as much as Kant. If anybody questioned the conditions of rationalism before Nietzsche and started to move things around it was rather another one of Deleuze's other old heroes, David Hume, who set that ship afloat. Hume was an early process philosopher in this sense.
Zarathushtra is interestingly enough, like his Greek friend Heracleitus, outside all of this, since the whole ambition of creating a complete system did not exist at his time. It was, as Nietzsche has pointed out, originally an Egyptian idea infused into the Abrahamic faiths, the idea that humans were capable of understanding and comprehending Existence in full. Zarathushtra would probably thought of the whole ambition as crazy.
So Nietzsche is not so much an historical inventor of transrationalism but rather its resurrector!
And who was the last of the totalists? Hegel of course. And if Nietzsche "mourned the death of God and dealt with it" then his follower Hediegger "mourned the death of Hegel and dealt with it". No wonder Slavoj Zizek today began his philosophical career was an expert on Heidegger rather than Hegel. ;-)

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/10 Special Kain

Here's an article on the connection between Spinoza and Nietzsche in German:

http://www.c3.hu/~prophil/profi013/kisendre_4_4.html

It states that Nietzsche's Zarathustra character from "Also sprach Zarathustra" owes a lot to Baruch Spinoza the person.

And here's a postcard that Nietzsche once wrote to his dear friend Franz Overbeck where he sees Spinoza, "this most unusual and loneliest thinker", as his precursor and that they share the same tendency: to make all knowledge the most powerful affect.

http://dontdontoperate.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/nietzsche-on-spinoza-to-overbeck/

I like Spinoza, Nietzsche and Deleuze, but Nietzsche is still my favorite. I agree with his criticism of systematization in philosophy. And Spinoza pushed and squeezed everything into one system, his "Ethics". So we need Deleuze to balance out the tensions between Spinoza and Nietzsche.

But our dear brother Alexander has a much better understanding of Spinoza and Deleuze than I do. Perhaps he can share his pearls of wisdom with us?

Ushta,
Dino

--- Special Kain schrieb am Mi, 10.8.2011:

Von: Special Kain
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Equal opportunities (was: The Zoroastrian Revolution in Ethics)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Mittwoch, 10. August, 2011 08:51 Uhr


Dear Behnaz

You should start with Spinoza's "Ethics".
It was Gilles Deleuze who saw the connection between Spinoza und Nietzsche.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3800/3800-h/3800-h.htm

Ushta,
Dino


--- Behnaz Larsen schrieb am Di, 9.8.2011:

Von: Behnaz Larsen
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Equal opportunities (was: The Zoroastrian Revolution in Ethics)
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
CC: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Datum: Dienstag, 9. August, 2011 22:50 Uhr


On a different note, I am getting curious about Spinoza, have heard his name mentioned a couple of times, believe he was a philosopher about the same caliber as Nietzsche. Am I right? Could you recommend a book by him? I am not very smart in the art of philosophy so perhaps a document written about his work which summarizes his work?
Thank you
Ushta
Behnaz

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 9, 2011, at 1:23 PM, Special Kain wrote:


And this is exactly why people deserve to have equal opportunities, dear Behnaz! According to Zarathushtra, people deserve to be free and live life to the fullest.

Decision management isn't easy. There's an increasing number of options in western societies. And the outcomes of our decisions are hard to predict. So we are requested to educate ourselves in the art of managing and assessing information and choices. Those who can manage, sort, manipulate, share and distribute information are the kings and queens of tomorrow. Primus inter pares!

And if people choose to remain stupid, then so be it. Unfortunately, we can't open their skulls, push a few buttons and make them smarter. There is no button for "instant intelligence". So people should be free to choose which path they want to go. And smart people make better choices.

Ushta,
Dino



--- Behnaz Larsen schrieb am Di, 9.8.2011:

Von: Behnaz Larsen
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] The Zoroastrian Revolution in Ethics (was: 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 13:08 Uhr


Zarathustra stressed choice. How beautiful the world could be if people would learn to choose. In some cultures this is close to an impossible dream because children never learn to choose and the elders decide everything. The kids leave home after getting married and then if their spouse lets them they begin to choose. How frustrating for a woman to figure out the dinner menu when all she has done until that day was to eat. I am from a culture where most people considered my mother not a good parent because I, as an unthankful daughter, decided for myself. Our way of being was not due so much to an impulse but rather a sick routine. In this situation you can not think, neither can you act upon impulses because both your thoughts and impulses are over-shadowed by your mothers/father's/grandmother's voice. The children of Zarathustra are being destroyed body and soul in Iran because they cannot choose. Neither can they exercise their impulses. They have to submit to the shadows and just try to stay alive.
Imagine if we could act upon our impulse in Iran!
Behnaz
Sent from my iPad

On Aug 9, 2011, at 10:22 AM, Special Kain wrote:


Sociobiology can't explain cell phones, laptop computers, the printing press, rituals, pop culture or why many women favour their careers over having kids, for example. It is fairly limited. And its basic premises are wrong, as biological research proves.

Zarathushtra's revolutionary take on ethics is based on two principles: (1) long-term thinking and (2) existence as a chain of causes and effects. This is why he stressed choice. I still believe that Zoroastrianism is existentialism without Jean-Paul Sartre's "gloom and doom" scenarios. ;-)

Ushta,
Dino


--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Di, 9.8.2011:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] The Zoroastrian Revolution in Ethics (was: Learning what is right and wrong (as opposed to the idea of a human essence))
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Dienstag, 9. August, 2011 08:43 Uhr


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.

Ushta
Alexander

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.

Ushta,
Dino


--- 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.

Ushta,
Dino

--- 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.

Ushta
Alexander

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,
Dino

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.

Ushta
Alexander

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.

Ushta,
Dino


--- 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.

Ushta,
Dino

--- 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.

Ushta
Alexander

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,
Dino

Learning what is right and wrong (as opposed to the idea of a human essence)

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.
Ushta
Alexander

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,
Dino



--- Behnaz Larsen schrieb am Mo, 8.8.2011:

Von: Behnaz Larsen
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] A Sientist and a Judge
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
CC: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Datum: Montag, 8. August, 2011 17:48 Uhr



Yes therefore I consider all these definitions of asha and droog ( in Persian, lie) the good and the bad. They are the opposite, so if one is, that which works the other is the opposite etc. Why use words when they are so limiting? We have our morals imprinted in us, let's do what our moral dictates us and if that is the way of Asha then so be it. Am I totally off here? Are we not saying the same? That which works is GOOD. That which is sustainable in it's quality, is good. Good is Good and anything other is its opposite is bad, druj, droog.
B

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 8, 2011, at 5:28 PM, Special Kain wrote:


So what is your definition of asha, dear Parviz?
And what is your definition of ashavahishta?

As far as I know, asha is "the truth" or "that which is true" and ashavahishta is "the best truth", while druj is "illusion", "deception" and "lie".

It is difficult to tell whether the physical world and the mental world are substantially different and deserve different approaches in order to be dealt with appropriately. It is just a matter of taste which ontology or which concept we prefer. And the descriptions we use in order to make sense of what's going on are WITHIN LANGUAGE and NOT "OUT THERE" in the real world. The real world doesn't know any descriptions - it doesn't speak. And vocabularies come with their own resources, opportunities and restraints.

Ushta,
Dino


--- Parviz Varjavand schrieb am Mo, 8.8.2011:

Von: Parviz Varjavand
Betreff: [Ushta] A Sientist and a Judge
An: "Ushta"
CC: "zoroastrians"
Datum: Montag, 8. August, 2011 15:52 Uhr


If you go in a lab that some scientists are experimenting on some physical i.e
Gitik phenomenons, you call them "scientist", what they are doing has to be
endorsed by the scientific method for them to be paid at the end of the months.
Here, they are using the Asha or laws of nature to do their work.

If you go into a court of law, a Judge sits there passing Judgments on others. A
judge is not a scientist, he/she uses a softer kind of Asha, a relative Asha
called Asha-Vahishta. Druj and Asha are mixed in the mental world, so a judge
has to find out not an absolute Asha but who has Asha-Vahishta or more Asha in a
mix of Asha and Druj that is being presented in his court. Those who say that in
a Monist sense a Judge is also a Scientist and a Judge and a Scientist both use
Asha in order to do their work do not convince me that they are right. Jafarey
first came up with calling Asha as "that which fits" and that definition has not
fitted in my mind too well ever. Anything can be called "That Which Fits"
depending on who is writing the review on what it is that has to FIT what.

Parviz

The Civilizationism of Zarathushtra (was: The Secret of Ethics - trial and error)

Excellently put!!!
In other words: The possibly BEST translations to English of "asha" and "druj" are Longsightedness versus Shortsightedness.
Zarathushtra detests the tribes who plunder open villages in Central Asia because they destroy civilization and also themselves ethically in the process. What he detests is not the destruction itself (that would be tantamount to moralizing which he is careful not to do) but the shortsightedness of the whole behavior, the historical backwardness of the whole thing.
Pure ethics in other words. I would even call it "Civilizationism".

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/3 Special Kain

Dear Daniel

Please ignore my previous posting. :-)

As a matter of fact, our closest relatives in the animal kingdom share the same "moral instincts" with us. And there are a few basic rules that we share with all other human beings whether they live in modern metropolises or still in small tribes in exotic forests. These "moral instincts" are a result of evolution by means of natural selection. They must be several 100,000 years old. They are adaptations to the natural and social environments in which certain species developed. For example, altruism is a widespread phenomenon.

Of all animals on this planet, we human beings have always been one of the nastiest. When moaning about the current pollution and destruction of our environment, we have to remember that human beings have always been harmful and destructive. Now we have new technologies to destroy our environment more efficiently and effectively.

It has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between cultural evolution and biology. However, biologists are not able to explain cultural evolution. They recently tried memetics, but ironically memetics hasn't made a big dent in the scientific community.

What matters here is complexity. Civilization has become more and more complex over time. Natural selection hasn't prepared us for this dramatic increase in complexity and contingency. The few basic programs that we share with our ancestors don't help us here. Also, we developed LANGUAGE and the CAPACITY TO SPEAK which changes the whole picture. What postmodernists and poststructuralists got wrong is their belief that language was everything that matters. They completely ignore our natural heritage such as the few "moral instincts" and behavioral patterns that are part of our personalities. And communication isn't all about sending out and receiving messages. The very act of communication is part of communication. Any purely strategic take on communication describes sociopathy.

What comes with greater complexity is CHOICE. Zarathushtra said in Yasna 48 - Verse 4 that the outcomes of our words and actions are different according to the NATURE of our thoughts (constructive thoughts lead to good changes, destructive thoughts lead to bad changes). He applied LONG-TERM THINKING to his contemporaries' ways of life. So it isn't only language that is crucial, it is also our capacity to think for the long term and base our choices on long-term thinking. This is where ethics steps in and assesses our heritage.

Seen from this perspective, morality is concerned with preservation and ethics is concerned with selection. Morality is directed at the past, whereas ethics is directed at the future. This explains why Zarathushtra's philosophy is at the very heart of CIVILIZATION and CULTURAL EVOLUTION. It is a primary force within the forces of nature - in Nietzschean and Deleuzian terms: it is an active force within reactive forces.

Now please correct if I make things seem less complex than they are.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Special Kain
Betreff: AW: [Ushta] The Secret of Ethics - trial and error
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Mittwoch, 3. August, 2011 13:30 Uhr

Dear Daniel

As a matter of fact, our closest relatives in the animal kingdom share "moral instincts" with us. There are a few basic rules that we share with almost all other human beings, whether they live in modern metropolises or still in small tribes in exotic forests. These "moral instincts" are a result of evolution by means of natural selection. They are adaptations to the natural and social environments in which certain species developed. For example, altruism is a widespread phenomenon.

Of all animals on this planet, we human beings have always been the nastiest. When moaning about the current pollution and destruction of our environment, we have to remember that human beings have always been harmful and destructive. It has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between cultural evolution and biology. However, biologists are not able to explain cultural evolution. They recently tried memetics, but ironically memetics hasn't made a big dent in the scientific community.

Morality is concerned with preservation. We have always done it this way, we will keep on doing it this way. We follow our ancestors' path. The only way to survive and be successful is SUBMISSION. We will not accept any deviations, since they can lead to harm. Danger is evil.

Ethics is concerned with attitude. For example, Zarathushtra said in Yasna 48 - Verse 4 that the outcomes of our words and actions are different in accordance with the NATURE of our thoughts (constructive thoughts lead to good changes, destructive thoughts lead to bad changes). He applied LONG-TERM THINKING to his contemporaries' ways of life. So danger might be necessary in order to achieve something that will be more beneficial for everybody.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Daniel Samani
Betreff: [Ushta] The Secret of Ethics - trial and error
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Dienstag, 2. August, 2011 09:44 Uhr


To my mind this video reflects the diffrence between an ethical and an moral approach. To admit to ourselfs that we don't know - let's focus to make our minds see the diffrence between asha and druj. Or that which works between that which does not work. This is the ethical way of life - as i have understod it.

http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_harford.html

Decision Management and Human Freedom

Excellent texts, Dino!!!
The really really weird thing is that Zoroastrians haven't understood that this whole line of thinking was PIONEERED by a certain Zarathushtra 3,700 years ago. We are all more or less becoming Zoroastrians. And because Zoroastrians live within the ethics of Zarathushtra (albeit with all kinds of metaphysical mumbojumbo added, it is still the pathos of Zarathushtra which drive their lives) they are so smartly adapted for the contemporary age. No wonder they do so well now.
What we need to do is to educate Zoroastrianism on how smart Zarathushtra actually was. They seem to believe any story about Zarathushtra except the real one, as if they are scared of having lived closest of all to reality for centuries. He was an early Nietzsche or Habermas, he was however NOT en early Jesus or Muhammed. And we need to educate soicologists that Pragmatism was not invented in the West in the 19th century but actually has a history dating back 3,700 years.
It's just so weird that people haven't seen this connection before. Zoroastrianism is tragically the blind spot of the history of ideas.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/31 Special Kain
What we can see now is that there is no closure: we are never 100% in control over our social identities. With every new player and with every change in our social environment our current identities may undergo a dramatic change, such as other people who do not assess our identities as we do or a dramatic shift in information flows. Change one factor, and the whole picture will change.

Starting from modern sociology, we can see that Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist were right when they predicted that the new social environment as created through new media technologies will foster new social identities. Smartphones, the internet, apps and webstreaming services are not mere additions to the social environment, but rather co-create a new environment in which people live and with which we now interact. This new environment comes with new resources, opportunities and restraints. And it is our uses of these new technologies that will greatly shape our social environment and our future identities.

DECISION management entails INFORMATION management as well as FREEDOM management. Larger amounts of information and new information flows through new channels allow for a larger number of resources and opportunities. But it also means that we have to cope with a larger number of choices. The smarter we manage information and choices, and the better our chances at co-creating the new environment, the more freedom we have.

--- Special Kain schrieb am So, 31.7.2011:

We become the choices we make. The thoughts we choose to think foster the words we will speak which in turn foster the actions we will undertake. Decision management is therefore the art of managing and assessing choices. And freedom is something we provide ourselves with.

What we can learn from social philosophers like Jürgen Habermas is that subjectivity and intersubjectivity presuppose each other.
Technically speaking, it is COMMUNICATIONS that create and foster social communities as well as social identities. It is people who gather and interact with each other in order to build communities, and it is this communicative environment that provides the resources for identity production.
They will then interact and further influence their social environment based on their social identities (acceptance, defiance, creative adaptations and deviations thereof etc.).
We have to see the FEEDBACK LOOP at work here. It is a sequence of re-actions embedded within environments and their resources, opportunities and restraints.

The choices we make and the identities we therefore co-create cannot be separated from their social environments. With larger amounts of information comes greater responsibility for WHO WE CHOOSE TO BECOME. Simply because identities and the ecology of choice have become increasingly CONTINGENT in our global internet environment where we're requested to manage, assess, sort and manipulate information.