Overcoming nihilism - the Zoroastrian way

Dear Dino and Hampus

I believe Zarathusthtra's whole point - as with any process philosopher - is to leave the choice free (or rather explain that it always is) but then try to understand end explain the CONSEQUENCES of choices taken. It is quite easy for us to choose logically - and foresee the PRACTICAL and PHYSICAL consequences of our actions - but the really tough question which absorbed Zarathushtra is the question of WHAT OUR CHOICES DO TO US. Who am I before I choose? Who do I become after my choice? And who do I become after the consequences of actions taken become apparent? Which direction in my life are my actions taking ME as seen by myself?
This is a concern Zarathushtra shared with Nietzsche, but which does not seem to concern Zizek much (who doesn't speak of affirmation in his works). I believe it is the most important question of all. Nihilsim becomes AFFIRMATIVE the second it is properly thought through, and acted upon, this is when it becomes an AFFIRMATIVE nihilism and creates the opportunity for "amor faiti" or its result, "asha-vahishta".

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/25 Special Kain

@ Alexander:
I agree. The thing that comes next is CHOICE. To choose what to do with it next and how to do it. As Nietzsche pointed out, there are at least two sides to nihilism: nihilism out of strength and nihilism out of weakness.
This is different from Slavoj Zizek's take on Nietzscheanism: active nihilism (one's willingness to destroy everything in equal measure) vs. passive nihilism (one's willingness to surrender to relentless destruction).

@ Hampus:
I really don't understand what you mean. Could you please elaborate on your thoughts? Much appreciated!

Ushta,
Dino

Von: hampus lindblad
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 13:09 Donnerstag, 25.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Zoroastrian ethics and self-victimization


Dear Alex,

I couldn't agree more! This was the situation that I faced after my first major LSD trip at 18. Nihilism it is, but so is "something" observing it, and truly realizing that is the key. From that starting point just use the nihilism the same way you use a static wall in a squash game and off you go with a flying start towards the omega point (which you've just had a terrorizing yet somehow delicious taste of)! :)

It's a bit like always carrying Pandora's Box within you, but you already know what it contains so there is no longer any unbearing curiosity gnawing at your unwillingness to open it. You just let it sit in its place in a corner somewhere - maybe with a nice spotlight on it as a token of respect - and then go about your business trying to be creatively constructive and humorous.

Ushta,
Hampus

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:

I believe the trick is not to fight against nihilism but TO BUILD FROM nihilism.
I always describe myself as a post-nihilist. I don't deny anything in my past or in the history of the people of the culture where I come from. Neither do I embrace the past out of love or some emotional attachment to it, but rather I embrace the past in the spirit of the Nietzschean "amor fati", as an OBLIGATION, a duty, out of an ethical logic.
I have therefore really in its deepest sense CHOSEN Zoroastrianism.
So the question is not if you are a nihilist and how you arrived there but rather WHERE DO YOU GO NOW FROM THIS UNDENIABLE STARTING POSITION.
The hardest thing with a history of bullying is usually not the history itself and certainly not the scars (yes, they are overrated and usually more a source of enjoyment more than anything else) but the fact that THE ORIGIN OF THE BULLYING REMAINS. The very reason why a person becomes a social outcast are still there (such as the odd personality type or the incapacity to read and understand social codes etc). This fosters hatred which according to Zarathushhtra causes a deep self-hatred too.
In this sense, the feeling of being an outsider is not a thing of the past but very real in the here and now and quite likely in the future too. Dealing with this in small step by steps is then the only way forward. But why should everybody be a social expert? We people need each other and being a social expert is just one of many talents where we humans can COMPLEMENT each other rather than compete with each other as we are fostered to think these days.
Ushta
Alexander

Zoroastrian ethics and Self-victimization Part 2

I believe the trick is not to fight against nihilism but TO BUILD FROM nihilism.
I always describe myself as a post-nihilist. I don't deny anything in my past or in the history of the people of the culture where I come from. Neither do I embrace the past out of love or some emotional attachment to it, but rather I embrace the past in the spirit of the Nietzschean "amor fati", as an OBLIGATION, a duty, out of an ethical logic.
I have therefore really in its deepest sense CHOSEN Zoroastrianism.
So the question is not if you are a nihilist and how you arrived there but rather WHERE DO YOU GO NOW FROM THIS UNDENIABLE STARTING POSITION.
The hardest thing with a history of bullying is usually not the history itself and certainly not the scars (yes, they are overrated and usually more a source of enjoyment more than anything else) but the fact that THE ORIGIN OF THE BULLYING REMAINS. The very reason why a person becomes a social outcast are still there (such as the odd personality type or the incapacity to read and understand social codes etc). This fosters hatred which according to Zarathushhtra causes a deep self-hatred too.
In this sense, the feeling of being an outsider is not a thing of the past but very real in the here and now and quite likely in the future too. Dealing with this in small step by steps is then the only way forward. But why should everybody be a social expert? We people need each other and being a social expert is just one of many talents where we humans can COMPLEMENT each other rather than compete with each other as we are fostered to think these days.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/24 Special Kain

Perhaps this has nothing to do here, but the reason why I'd love to discuss this issue is indeed rather personal.
I was exposed to bullying and peer victimization at school and this is why I'm having a hard time developing a constructive and AFFIRMATIVE attitude. I refuse to use the terms "emotionally screwed" or "emotionally scarred", because I don't want to go emo. But there's a persistent nihilistic twist to my attitude.
They say that when you're going through hell, keep going. And we can get a really compelling thrill from being a victim.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 9:20 Mittwoch, 24.August 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] Zoroastrian ethics and self-victimization


Well, two things:

1. Self-victimization is never good in itself for the person concerned. Even the victims of horrific crimes like the Holocaust did much much better after being freed when REFUSING TO ACCEPT VICTIMHOOD which I believe should be seen as an ethical conscious act rather than as some kind of emotional issue. Films and books like "Sophie's Choice" have elaborated on this issue extensively. So did the philosopher Hannah Arendt.

2. Still, there is victimization that is relevant and has to be dealt with. There is then an enormous difference between the SOUGHT self-victimization which begins with an INNER URGE to find an EXCUSE for being destructive on the one hand and LEGITIMATE victimization (such as a bullied child in Sweden or a starving child in Somalia). We need to make a clear distinction between the two. The first should not be encouraged at all and even ridiculed. The second kind should result in POLITICAL ACTIVISM as its proper ethical response. The best response for example to famine in Somalia is not to give money to aid organisations but to engage in the democratization and political reforms movement of the area in question. Think long term REMOVAL of victimhood.

3. Rule of thumb: NEVER vicitmize somebody unless they have asked for it and their claims are legitimate. It is degrading to declare somebody a victim against their wishes, and it is CONSERVING always to declare somebody a victim even if legitimate. We can take people to court and judge them as perpetrators without making the victims concerned victims for ever. The longer you stay a victim (wth no alternative identity) the worse it is.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/23 Special Kain

Dear brothers and sisters

I would like to discuss the issue of self-victimization. Some play victims in order to attract other people's attention and gain power over them (also known as "psychic vampires"), others have been victimized and are stuck in a vicious cycle (the long-term consequences of school bullying and peer victimization).
I would especially love to hear Alexander's words on this issue, since he has properly addressed it in interviews and postings before.

Ushta,
Dino

Zoroastrian ethics and Self-victimization

Well, three things:

1. Self-victimization is never good in itself for the person concerned. Even the victims of horrific crimes like the Holocaust did much much better after being freed when REFUSING TO ACCEPT VICTIMHOOD which I believe should be seen as an ethical conscious act rather than as some kind of emotional issue. Films and books like "Sophie's Choice" have elaborated on this issue extensively. So did the philosopher Hannah Arendt.

2. Still, there is victimization that is relevant and has to be dealt with. There is then an enormous difference between the SOUGHT self-victimization which begins with an INNER URGE to find an EXCUSE for being destructive on the one hand and LEGITIMATE victimization (such as a bullied child in Sweden or a starving child in Somalia). We need to make a clear distinction between the two. The first should not be encouraged at all and even ridiculed. The second kind should result in POLITICAL ACTIVISM as its proper ethical response. The best response for example to famine in Somalia is not to give money to aid organisations but to engage in the democratization and political reforms movement of the area in question. Think long term REMOVAL of victimhood.

3. Rule of thumb: NEVER vicitmize somebody unless they have asked for it and their claims are legitimate. It is degrading to declare somebody a victim against their wishes, and it is CONSERVING always to declare somebody a victim even if legitimate. We can take people to court and judge them as perpetrators without making the victims concerned victims for ever. The longer you stay a victim (wth no alternative identity) the worse it is.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/23 Special Kain

Dear brothers and sisters

I would like to discuss the issue of self-victimization. Some play victims in order to attract other people's attention and gain power over them (also known as "psychic vampires"), others have been victimized and are stuck in a vicious cycle (the long-term consequences of school bullying and peer victimization).
I would especially love to hear Alexander's words on this issue, since he has properly addressed it in interviews and postings before.

Ushta,
Dino

The Case against Cultural Relativism (and Atheism)

Which is logically inconsistent: To say that there is no truth worth to hold on to is in itself to claim a truth one considers worthy holding to. It's like the inconsistency of atheism: To say that there is no God worth believing in means that there must be a very firm belief in what this God is, how could the concept otherwise be refuted? I can accept that somebody is A-Christian or A-Islamic, but atheism is a position that doesn't hold up to intellectual scrutiny. Cultural relativism is logically impossible to cling onto.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/22 Special Kain

Pragmatically speaking, we always hold something to be true. There always is something that we believe in. Even nihilists have faith in the fact that there is nothing worth to believe in. They believe that it is pointless to have any beliefs at all. Their truth is unbearably absurd, so they reject all truth there is. Why should we build from something that is cruel and unfair? It would make all things a lot worse and our lives a lot more miserable. Their favourite interpretation (!) has failed them, so they interpret the world as if there were no interpretations to be favoured over others.


Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 11:59 Montag, 22.August 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] The Worldview of a Mazdayasni (was: The Concept of Truth)

Consequence: Parviz DOES HAVE FAITH in the fact that there is something fluid there (a constantly respelled Parviz Varjavand, if nothing else) which can not find a constant faith in anything. Which is in itself a lasting faith in SOMETHING to build from, to build a constantly changing, fluid but functional idea of a reality which in all its glory Parviz CHOOSES to hold sacred in its entirety. A Mazdayasni worldview!
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/22 Special Kain

@ Parviz:
I don't have much faith in anything.

@ Yazed and Alexander:
Given the constant renewal of the world, that which fits with our world always changes too.

Ushta,
Dino

The Worldview of a Mazdayasni (was: The Concept of Truth)

Consequence: Parviz DOES HAVE FAITH in the fact that there is something fluid there (a constantly respelled Parviz Varjavand, if nothing else) which can not find a constant faith in anything. Which is in itself a lasting faith in SOMETHING to build from, to build a constantly changing, fluid but functional idea of a reality which in all its glory Parviz CHOOSES to hold sacred in its entirety. A Mazdayasni worldview!
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/22 Special Kain

@ Parviz:
I don't have much faith in anything.

@ Yazed and Alexander:
Given the constant renewal of the world, that which fits with our world always changes too.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 10:24 Montag, 22.August 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] The Concept of Truth

Dear Yazed

Parviz is right. And I disagree with him that hois position is only followed by a minority of Zoroastrians, I believe it is the other way round. At least her in Europe, there are hardly no followers of the idea that The Gathas is sacred book. It is just a smart book. As for your question: When you chill water below zero degrees centigrades it turns into ice. When you heat it above 100 degrees centigrades it turns into steam. No, truths are not valid everywhere and at all times, truths are always dependent on the cirumstances. Even physical truths. So even more so mental truths, including how we DESCRIBE the physical reality with a very non-physical thing, language! Since language is the tool with which to describe truth and language is fluid, then "truths must be considered fluid" too (this is the foundation for the philosophical school called "Pragmatism"). This is the major difference between Zoroastrianism and the Abrahamic faiths: We understand that the conditions for truth also regulate what truth is possible. The meat-truth decides what truth is possible. And the fact that Truth is not forever valid is actually a possibility for us, a POSSIBILITY FOR HUMAN FREEDOM and CREATIVE EXPRESSION, not a problem but a possibility.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/22 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Yazed,

Truths that are for all times and never change are written in sacred books that are for all times and no man is allowed to change them. These books are usually written not by man but by God. If you want to have Gatha or Vandidad be such books for you, there are a majority of Zoroastrians that will stand by you. Alex and Dino seem to be Mazdaists and they are writing the rules for what they wish to belive in. I am a Muzdaict and have my own school of thought all together. No shortage of crazy people when you choose to look at Zoroastrianism close up.

Mehr Ufzoon,
Purviz Vurjavund

The Concept of Truth

Dear Yazed

Parviz is right. And I disagree with him that hois position is only followed by a minority of Zoroastrians, I believe it is the other way round. At least her in Europe, there are hardly no followers of the idea that The Gathas is sacred book. It is just a smart book. As for your question: When you chill water below zero degrees centigrades it turns into ice. When you heat it above 100 degrees centigrades it turns into steam. No, truths are not valid everywhere and at all times, truths are always dependent on the cirumstances. Even physical truths. So even more so mental truths, including how we DESCRIBE the physical reality with a very non-physical thing, language! Since language is the tool with which to describe truth and language is fluid, then "truths must be considered fluid" too (this is the foundation for the philosophical school called "Pragmatism"). This is the major difference between Zoroastrianism and the Abrahamic faiths: We understand that the conditions for truth also regulate what truth is possible. The meat-truth decides what truth is possible. And the fact that Truth is not forever valid is actually a possibility for us, a POSSIBILITY FOR HUMAN FREEDOM and CREATIVE EXPRESSION, not a problem but a possibility.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/22 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Yazed,

Truths that are for all times and never change are written in sacred books that are for all times and no man is allowed to change them. These books are usually written not by man but by God. If you want to have Gatha or Vandidad be such books for you, there are a majority of Zoroastrians that will stand by you. Alex and Dino seem to be Mazdaists and they are writing the rules for what they wish to belive in. I am a Muzdaict and have my own school of thought all together. No shortage of crazy people when you choose to look at Zoroastrianism close up.

Mehr Ufzoon,
Purviz Vurjavund

--- On Sun, 8/21/11, yazed kapadia wrote:

From: yazed kapadia
Subject: Re: [Ushta] The Meaning of Asha and The Concept of Truth
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 21, 2011, 8:18 PM

Can truth be dynamic? Should a truth not be a truth at all times?

Yezad

On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:

Dear Parviz

I agree, I agree, I agree!!!
However my point all along as been that if we are too afraid of making truth-statements (such as: I am actually right and you are actually wrong when the current situation actually is a fact) then we are just castrated beings and no more Mazdayasni then we would be as extremists and absolutists of the Ronald Delevaga or Usama bin-Laden type. It is about avoiding not one ditch but also about avoiding falling into the other ditch. Castrates are no better at living a full Mazdayasni life than absolutists.
To understand Zarathushtra here is not to be against Truth as an absolute but to claim that Truth does exist BUT IS FLUID RATHER THAN STATIC. It is the idea of static truth we are against, not truth as the utlimate horizon of our ethical being.
Being a Mazdayasni means also DARING to make the EXISTENTIAL ACT of pronouncing a truth when such a truth is evident to us, since this is what gives us SUBSTANCE as human beings, this is what manifests Mazda within us.
Zarathushtra's point is that THINKING the right thought is only the beginning. The full Mazdayasni identity also requires opur vocal statement of the truth of the moment and the ACTION accordingly. The silent proper thinker is not in itself a full Mazdayasni.
We can't oppose dictators like Assad in Syria by sitting silently in cafés thinking that in another era and another time Assad could have been a good guy (truth as always and only relative). As Mazdayasni, we have to cross the street and demonstrate against the likes of Assad making ourselves THE TRUTH of that moment although Truth in the long run is in flux. Act ethically to BECOME ETHICAL BEINGS!

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/21 Parviz Varjavand

Ushta Alex,

I gave the example of a vegetarian and one who eats meat also as the difference between Giti and Minoo, remember! I said in both cases we kill something living to eat, but since vegis are silent when we kill them while animals cry and bleed a lot more, we are justified to differentiate between the two realms.

What I all along objected to was Truth as an absolute, as one monolith in the Minoo against Droj as a Monolith. This I objected to because people who tend to think in black and white like that are more likely to write books such as Mein Kamph. Please read me more carefully and you will see that we are not far apart on this issue of what Asha is in the Minoo realm at all. If Asha was ONE THING in Minoo, we would have almost no choice at all. When we have many Ashas lined up in our mind Minoo, it is then that we can choose the Asha Vahishta or the best amongst them.

When I read my Ashem Vohoo over and over again, I get high, because it tells me this over and over. Ashem (Asha) is great, but Ushta goes to the one seeking the Vahishtayi Ashem or the Highest Asha. It never tells me what the Asha Vahishta is, (as in Semitic religions) it leaves it up to me to choose it. And why should I choose it? For the Ushta or ultimate Bliss that I will get as a reward if I do!
Show me any other religion with a Mantra this profound, and I will convert to it! Our Mantra is the most powerful there is.

Ashem Vohoo Vahishtam Asti.
Asha is good and is the best.
Ushta asti.
Is Bliss.
Ushta Ahmayi Heyad Ashayi,
Ushta upon whom seeking that Asha (which is),

VAHISHTAYI ASHEM.
THE HIGHEST (BEST OF) ASHA.

Mehr,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Sat, 8/20/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] The Meaning of Asha
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Dina McIntyre"
Date: Saturday, August 20, 2011, 10:43 AM

Very very good, then have settled on a great and important agreement!!!
If there was confusion on this topic it could be because I don't even talk of asha but of asha-vahishta when it comes to the ETHICAL aspect of asha which can of course only be PRECEIVED as an existential choice by minoo, not in itself as a physical phenomenon only, even though it could be proved to be such a thing deep beneath (pretty much ironically like physics is in itself always in flux, there is no such thing as fixed physics).
The important thing is that the laws are not the same. I would prefer to speak of THE MENTAL REALM as an EMERGENCE coming out of the physical realm, still 100% physical but PERCEIVED as a world of its own.
For example, we all know that the color yellow is a certain wavelength of light but we do not perceive it as such, we percieve the color yellow not for its wavelength but for its YELLOWNESS which our minds add to the wavelengths our sight picks up.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/20 Parviz Varjavand
Dear Alex,

This has been my point all along.
While Asha has hard laws applying to it in the Phisical or Giti realm, it does not have such laws in the Minoo or Mental realm. In the Minoo, you have to choose from amongst many Asha their best. So Asha in Giti and Asha in Minoo are not the same.

Parviz

--- On Fri, 8/19/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] The Meaning of Asha
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Dina McIntyre"
Date: Friday, August 19, 2011, 3:01 PM

Dear Parviz

I don't think anybody should sign any contract stating that they promise to follow asha.
That would be way too Abrahamic. We as Zoroastrians live with a fluid and flexible ethics, not with a fixed and assumed objectively valid moralism. We become our actions but we are not our actions in advance!
We have no commandments since it is the CIRCUMSTANCES that always determine what is the right thing to do (what is likely to be the best long-term outcome). And this can never be detailed in advance but rather has to always BE LIVED WITHIN THE MOMENT OF DECISION ITSELF.
Zarathushtra was indeed NOT an Abrahamist. So why would he ask us to behave as if we were?

Ushta
Alexander

The Meaning of Asha and The Concept of Truth

Dear Parviz

I agree, I agree, I agree!!!
However my point all along as been that if we are too afraid of making truth-statements (such as: I am actually right and you are actually wrong when the current situation actually is a fact) then we are just castrated beings and no more Mazdayasni then we would be as extremists and absolutists of the Ronald Delevaga or Usama bin-Laden type. It is about avoiding not one ditch but also about avoiding falling into the other ditch. Castrates are no better at living a full Mazdayasni life than absolutists.
To understand Zarathushtra here is not to be against Truth as an absolute but to claim that Truth does exist BUT IS FLUID RATHER THAN STATIC. It is the idea of static truth we are against, not truth as the utlimate horizon of our ethical being.
Being a Mazdayasni means also DARING to make the EXISTENTIAL ACT of pronouncing a truth when such a truth is evident to us, since this is what gives us SUBSTANCE as human beings, this is what manifests Mazda within us.
Zarathushtra's point is that THINKING the right thought is only the beginning. The full Mazdayasni identity also requires opur vocal statement of the truth of the moment and the ACTION accordingly. The silent proper thinker is not in itself a full Mazdayasni.
We can't oppose dictators like Assad in Syria by sitting silently in cafés thinking that in another era and another time Assad could have been a good guy (truth as always and only relative). As Mazdayasni, we have to cross the street and demonstrate against the likes of Assad making ourselves THE TRUTH of that moment although Truth in the long run is in flux. Act ethically to BECOME ETHICAL BEINGS!

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/21 Parviz Varjavand

Ushta Alex,

I gave the example of a vegetarian and one who eats meat also as the difference between Giti and Minoo, remember! I said in both cases we kill something living to eat, but since vegis are silent when we kill them while animals cry and bleed a lot more, we are justified to differentiate between the two realms.

What I all along objected to was Truth as an absolute, as one monolith in the Minoo against Droj as a Monolith. This I objected to because people who tend to think in black and white like that are more likely to write books such as Mein Kamph. Please read me more carefully and you will see that we are not far apart on this issue of what Asha is in the Minoo realm at all. If Asha was ONE THING in Minoo, we would have almost no choice at all. When we have many Ashas lined up in our mind Minoo, it is then that we can choose the Asha Vahishta or the best amongst them.

When I read my Ashem Vohoo over and over again, I get high, because it tells me this over and over. Ashem (Asha) is great, but Ushta goes to the one seeking the Vahishtayi Ashem or the Highest Asha. It never tells me what the Asha Vahishta is, (as in Semitic religions) it leaves it up to me to choose it. And why should I choose it? For the Ushta or ultimate Bliss that I will get as a reward if I do!
Show me any other religion with a Mantra this profound, and I will convert to it! Our Mantra is the most powerful there is.

Ashem Vohoo Vahishtam Asti.
Asha is good and is the best.
Ushta asti.
Is Bliss.
Ushta Ahmayi Heyad Ashayi,
Ushta upon whom seeking that Asha (which is),

VAHISHTAYI ASHEM.
THE HIGHEST (BEST OF) ASHA.

Mehr,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Sat, 8/20/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] The Meaning of Asha
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Dina McIntyre"
Date: Saturday, August 20, 2011, 10:43 AM

Very very good, then have settled on a great and important agreement!!!

If there was confusion on this topic it could be because I don't even talk of asha but of asha-vahishta when it comes to the ETHICAL aspect of asha which can of course only be PRECEIVED as an existential choice by minoo, not in itself as a physical phenomenon only, even though it could be proved to be such a thing deep beneath (pretty much ironically like physics is in itself always in flux, there is no such thing as fixed physics).
The important thing is that the laws are not the same. I would prefer to speak of THE MENTAL REALM as an EMERGENCE coming out of the physical realm, still 100% physical but PERCEIVED as a world of its own.
For example, we all know that the color yellow is a certain wavelength of light but we do not perceive it as such, we percieve the color yellow not for its wavelength but for its YELLOWNESS which our minds add to the wavelengths our sight picks up.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/20 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alex,

This has been my point all along.
While Asha has hard laws applying to it in the Phisical or Giti realm, it does not have such laws in the Minoo or Mental realm. In the Minoo, you have to choose from amongst many Asha their best. So Asha in Giti and Asha in Minoo are not the same.

Parviz

--- On Fri, 8/19/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] The Meaning of Asha
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Dina McIntyre"
Date: Friday, August 19, 2011, 3:01 PM

Dear Parviz

I don't think anybody should sign any contract stating that they promise to follow asha.
That would be way too Abrahamic. We as Zoroastrians live with a fluid and flexible ethics, not with a fixed and assumed objectively valid moralism. We become our actions but we are not our actions in advance!
We have no commandments since it is the CIRCUMSTANCES that always determine what is the right thing to do (what is likely to be the best long-term outcome). And this can never be detailed in advance but rather has to always BE LIVED WITHIN THE MOMENT OF DECISION ITSELF.
Zarathushtra was indeed NOT an Abrahamist. So why would he ask us to behave as if we were?

Ushta
Alexander