Agreeing or disagreeing with Zarathushtra on Asha vs Druj?

2011/8/16 Parviz Varjavand wrote:
There are parts of the Gathas that I do not enjoy, the parts that Zarathustra keeps referring to all that he is doing as pure Asha and accuses his opponents of engaging in pure Droj.

Dear Parviz

I actually strongly disagree.
I think it takes GUTS and COURAGE to tell the truth when one is doing the right thing and others are doing the wrong thing.
It was exactly this attitude from the Americans that made them join World War 2 and beat the horrors of fascism and nazism in Europe and Asia and gain a foothold for democracy in what was then properly established as the free world. This was the best and wisest decision ever made by the American presidents and congresses. It was Asha!
I admire Zarathushtra for his guts in telling the truth also when he chooses superior ways. However, I do not admire self-haters who believe they are superior by denying their superiority of decision-making when they actually are making the right decisions.
Self-hatred and fake humility is actually rather pathetic.
Furthermore, convicts in jail know exactly when and why they have done druj: It is when they were SHORT-SIGHTED and only saw to their own and immediate gains ignoring the long-term effects for all of their decisions. Sometimes things are actually not very complicated at all.

Ushta
Alexander

Pragmatism vs Stalinism

Not at all.
Pragmatism would never defend a deceitful dictatorship like North Korea.
Because hardly any hypotheses even allowed to be promoted in North Korean society were ever maximally useful for the people of North Korea, not even for its dictator.
Haven't you grasped even the definition you just quoted?
Pragmatism is by far the most democarcy-promoting philosophy ever invented precisely because it does NOT recognize ultimate truths, only the meta-truth of conditions for truth, which in turn is an aggressive oponent of any form of closed society with a closed debate.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/13 Parviz Varjavand

"Pragmatism, as a tendency in philosophy, signifies the insistence on usefulness or practical consequences as a test of truth. In its negative phase, it opposes what it styles the formalism or rationalism of Intellectualistic philosophy. That is, it objects to the view that concepts, judgments, and reasoning processes are representative of reality and the processes of reality. It considers them to be merely symbols, hypotheses and schemata devised by man to facilitate or render possible the use, or experience, of reality. This use, or experience, is the true test of real existence. In its positive phase, therefore, Pragmatism sets up as the standard of truth some non-rational test, such as action, satisfaction of needs, realization in conduct, the possibility of being lived, and judges reality by this norm to the exclusion of all others."<<

So for the many persons who were born and died during the communist rule in North Korea, the norms, the rules, the tools used to enforce, and the results achieved by that state, should be Pragmatically, the Asha, the Truth and another name for God. Opposing that regime would bring all manners of harm upon them while obeying it would WORK for them. I do not know of any government who does not have Jails and Spy networks, so Jails and Secret Agencies are Asha, because they Work and everybody is using them. Who cares what the TRUTH may be and what DROJ might be, any DROJ that WORKS is the TRUTH and ASHA! Members of the CIA are the true ASHAVANDS then, because they care for nothing other than what WORKS for them. Is this correct according to you Dino, or am I mistaken here somewhere?

Also a student of philosophy,
Parviz Varjavand

Civilizations vs Hedonism (was: A Scientist and a Judge)

Dear Parviz

I believe what you are missing is whether something IS asha or druj or whether we experience it as asha or druj.
Asha and druj are not substances or essences, things just ARE, they are NOT in themselves asha or druj.
Asha or druj is what things become to us depending on which attitude we confront phenomena with.
Zarathushtra does not even dicuss substances or essences, HE FINDS THAT NOT INTERESTING. He only discusses mentalities and what different mentalities RESULT IN. Think feedback loops. What does a thought result in? Which is its outcome? THAT is what concerns us as Mazdayasni.
Leave the rest to science to figure out.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/13 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Dino,

If .."There are no fixed meanings, because things mean what they cause".., then Asha or Droj are meaningless terms too. If a Droj can bring positive results for us, then it is an Asha.
I see your point, yet a feeling in me lingers that there is something missing here. What is it that I am missing?

Ushta,
Parviz

From: Special Kain
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, August 12, 2011 2:02:40 AM
Subject: Re: AW: [Ushta] Creating Civilizations vs Simple Hedonism (was: A Scientist and a Judge)

Dear Behnaz

It is important and healthy to be part of something larger than one's ego - whatever this may be - and manage the dynamic tensions between one's individuality and one's commitment to the cause. So it's not about totalitarianism or collectivism where you're told which meaning you should give to your life. Meaning does not only exist in one's head, but develops and changes between people. It is an open-ended process, work in progress, "under construction", it changes over time. There are no fixed meanings, because things mean what they cause.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Behnaz Larsen
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] Creating Civilizations vs Simple Hedonism (was: A Scientist and a Judge)
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
CC: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Datum: Donnerstag, 11. August, 2011 23:21 Uhr

Interesting, so a Chines busy bee is less melancholy than a middle-class, western individual!?

Asha and Ahura Mazda

Exactly!!!

2011/8/11 Special Kain
Asha is "that which fits" or "that which works" (commonly translated as "the truth"). The laws according to which all events in our universe take place. The laws of nature in the broadest possible sense.

Asha as the laws of nature or rather the laws of physics. Independently of us. The principle of Ahura.

Ashavahishta is "furthering that which fits" (commonly translated as "the best truth"). One's duty to live in accordance with and actively promote asha, to live in harmony with the universe and to properly apply the laws according to which events take place. It therefore is REALIZATION in its proper sense.

Asha as ethics. Dependent on us as beings with minds. How we are to relate to Asha. The principle of Mazda.

Ushta
Alexander

Religion as a psychological necessity (was: The constant re-arrangement of atoms)

I look at the issue the other way round: We have had individualism now for so long that have realised how tired we are of its consequences and are ready to try something new. Neither individualism nor collectivism worked because they were built on the wrong assumptions. They are not what being human is all about. This is why I believe in religion properply conducted as a psychological need and phenomenon. The historical parallell are the Mithraist congregations during the second half of the Roman Empire. And of course social Zoroastrianism in all its different forms. This is where we should look for creative inspiration today.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/11 Special Kain

Excellently put, dear Alexander!

I have always been looking for a way to think and express myself beyond the opposition between the self (egotism) and the community (altruism). A theory that would integrate both parts and thereby create a "third quality" or something that is larger than its two parts. But it seems that we've been fed with individualism for such a long time (centuries!) that it has become almost impossible to escape this trap.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am
Do, 11.8.2011:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] The constant re-arrangement of atoms (was: Creating Civilizations vs Simple Hedonism)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Donnerstag, 11. August, 2011 11:20 Uhr

I agree 100%.

I would much prefer not to promote altruism, the Judeo-Christian idea that "one should give onself up for a larger whole". It smacks of sacrifice, which we as Zoroastrians should be vehemently opposed to. Actually, the opposition between egotism and altruism is false, and rather disqualifies both as relevant ideals. I'm not an egotist and I'm not an altruist, I'm just a social being, an existence in flux, a brief phenomenon within the ocean of time and being that is Existence.

So I place Existence itself (Zarathushtra's Ahura or Spinoza's God) at the forefront, this is what is relevant and important, that there actually is a Something rather than just Nothing. And my existence as a subject with a sense of self-appreciation is a brief phenomenon in time and space which will always need to position itself in relation to this massive Ahura, a small individual or rather dividual expression of Mazda within Ahura. Dying as an individual is therefore just to leave space for new and different creative existences to make their mark on Existence. The re-arrangement of atoms!

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/11 Special Kain

Dear Alexander and Shahrooz

I wholeheartedly agree.

The Austrian psychiatrist and neurologist Victor Frankl was an expert in clinical depression, suicide and one's quest for meaning. He was also an inspiration for humanistic psychology (i.e. people deserve to live to their full potential). He taught his students and readers that meaning isn't something that we will be provided or rewarded with, but something that we give to ourselves and for which we are solely responsible.

One of his findings is that we get a sense of meaningfulness when we commit ourselves to and actively engage in something that is larger than one's ego. Simple hedonism doesn't work, and yet his theory on meaning is more than Christianity's uncritical praise of altruism. In other words, we have to manage the dynamic tensions between our individualistic needs and desires and our desire to contribute constructively to something larger (family, team, community, society at large etc.).

Our western societies have been radically psychologized (please see Eva Illouz). I'm all for sociologization, so everybody can learn for themselves that they are always part of social situations and that individuals and their surroundings cannot be separated. Think of the Moebius strip!

Ushta,
Dino

The constant re-arrangement of atoms (was: Creating Civilizations vs Simple Hedonism)

I agree 100%.

I would much prefer not to promote altruism, the Judeo-Christian idea that "one should give onself up for a larger whole". It smacks of sacrifice, which we as Zoroastrians should be vehemently opposed to. Actually, the opposition between egotism and altruism is false, and rather disqualifies both as relevant ideals. I'm not an egotist and I'm not an altruist, I'm just a social being, an existence in flux, a brief phenomenon within the ocean of time and being that is Existence.

So I place Existence itself (Zarathushtra's Ahura or Spinoza's God) at the forefront, this is what is relevant and important, that there actually is a Something rather than just Nothing. And my existence as a subject with a sense of self-appreciation is a brief phenomenon in time and space which will always need to position itself in relation to this massive Ahura, a small individual or rather dividual expression of Mazda within Ahura. Dying as an individual is therefore just to leave space for new and different creative existences to make their mark on Existence. The re-arrangement of atoms!

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/11 Special Kain

Dear Alexander and Shahrooz

I wholeheartedly agree.

The Austrian psychiatrist and neurologist Victor Frankl was an expert in clinical depression, suicide and one's quest for meaning. He was also an inspiration for humanistic psychology (i.e. people deserve to live to their full potential). He taught his students and readers that meaning isn't something that we will be provided or rewarded with, but something that we give to ourselves and for which we are solely responsible.

One of his findings is that we get a sense of meaningfulness when we commit ourselves to and actively engage in something that is larger than one's ego. Simple hedonism doesn't work, and yet his theory on meaning is more than Christianity's uncritical praise of altruism. In other words, we have to manage the dynamic tensions between our individualistic needs and desires and our desire to contribute constructively to something larger (family, team, community, society at large etc.).

Our western societies have been radically psychologized (please see Eva Illouz). I'm all for sociologization, so everybody can learn for themselves that they are always part of social situations and that individuals and their surroundings cannot be separated. Think of the Moebius strip!

Ushta,
Dino


--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Do, 11.8.2011:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Creating Civilizations vs Simple Hedonism (was: A Scientist and a Judge)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
CC: "Dina Mcintyre" , "Dr. Jafarey"
Datum: Donnerstag, 11. August, 2011 10:13 Uhr

Dear Shahrooz

I believe both Zarathushtra's and Spinoza's lesson is that there are other interests than those of The Individual. It is precisely when we begin to see Existence as a whole as sacred we also begin to see other interests than those of ourselves. We move beyond nihilism. Zarathushtra actually speaks very little about The Individual (other than as the causal and ethical process where thoughts become words become action), he is far more concerned with The World as a whole and holding it sacred, to point beyond our current existences, as Dino puts it: Zarathushtra is as corcerned with intersubjectivity as he is with subjectivity. His goal is not hedonism but Creating Civilizations.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/10 SHAHROOZ ASH

Hope all is well and good.

Yes Correct - Good and right for whom and according to whom. Things can only be good and right - I call it IDEAL (ASHA) for an individual.
And, if that individual compromises what is ideal because of others, then here is the conflict between; Singular & plural. However, sometimes,
IDEAL (AHSA) can be compatible with your choice and others - but in most cases it is struggle. Unless we all have our own individual universes.

Wishing you the best (Behesht),
Shahrooz Ash

Creating Civilizations vs Simple Hedonism (was: A Scientist and a Judge)

Dear Shahrooz
I believe both Zarathushtra's and Spinoza's lesson is that there are other interests than those of The Individual. It is precisely when we begin to see Existence as a whole as sacred we also begin to see other interests than those of ourselves. We move beyond nihilism. Zarathushtra actually speaks very little about The Individual (other than as the causal and ethical process where thoughts become words become action), he is far more concerned with The World as a whole and holding it sacred, to point beyond our current existences, as Dino puts it: Zarathushtra is as corcerned with intersubjectivity as he is with subjectivity. His goal is not hedonism but Creating Civilizations.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/10 SHAHROOZ ASH

Hope all is well and good.

Yes Correct - Good and right for whom and according to whom. Things can only be good and right - I call it IDEAL (ASHA) for an individual.
And, if that individual compromises what is ideal because of others, then here is the conflict between; Singular & plural. However, sometimes,
IDEAL (AHSA) can be compatible with your choice and others - but in most cases it is struggle. Unless we all have our own individual universes.

Wishing you the best (Behesht),
Shahrooz Ash

To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
CC: dinamci@aol.com; jafarey@aol.com
From: bardissimo@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:44:40 +0200
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Re: [zoroastrians] A Scientist and a Judge

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