Dear Dino
I'm proud to consider myself a "liberal democrat" since it irritates so many of the postmodernist thinkers. Zizek has repeatedly referred to me as the ultimate Deleuzian of the right, which I suppose is also as an acknowledgment of my intellectual achievements (he has also called me half-jokingly a Stalinist due to my determinist approach to technological history).
To me, the development of different identities within a consumer-capitalist culture is not problematic in itself. Rather I see this as a truism. Capitalism is even a productive force, it stimulates creativity and differentiation, so what is then the problem (Zizek and Badiou would agree with me all the way to the idea of the problem involved, so they see a problem where I rather just see a phantom of theirs)? The problem is rather one of social justice, but the Scandinavian countries (which basically ignored classic Marxism with its revolution romanticism and went for Kautskyian social democracy) have shown that it is perfectly feasible to create the most democratic, just, affluent and egalitarian socities mankind has ever known using Kautskyian ideology.
Even now to the point that liberalism is a superior alternative to socialism to take society forward in a progressive manner.
I also believe this is a more ZOROASTRIAN approach to politics and social justice. Zarathushtra was opposed to dramatic political upheaval and is therefore a healthy antidote to Marxists and other western hotheads of political philosophy. Zarathushtra's approach to politics would rather be one of constraint, dialogue, democracy and giving voice to all. That's pragmatic liberalism by another term.
Ushta
Alexander
Dino wrote:
Alright, let me sum up the results from my studies:
According to Judith Butler, identity can never be free. Even if we consciously choose an identity, it is still interwoven in power relationships. There's always a moment of violence in every act of identification. There's no escape, we're always trapped. No exit!
In his later works, Foucault grew out of his own fatalism and (mis-)understood the Iranian Revolution as an event taking place beyond the system of complex power relationships - a genuine act of liberation.
Thus, identities are not free from power relationships, but we could be free to choose any identity we desire. And this very act of identification now affects the existing order of things, slightly changing the preconditions for further acts of identification.
The main problem with postmodernist reasoning on such matters it that, for example, Butler's ideal of multiple identities is perfectly in tune with late-capitalism's demands. It is not "against the systeam", so to speak. Late-capitalist consumer culture asks us to change our identity according to different circumstances. A postmodern identity is affirming existing power relationships. Just see Slavoj Zizek for that!
Now I'm going to read an essay by Paul Simpson, and it will hopefully inspire me, since I can't answer the problem formulated by Foucault and his allies.
http://www.panopticweb.com/2004conference/4.simpson.pdf
Would it be better to reject any 'identity offerings'? Can there be any kind of identity beyond existing power relationships? I can't say.
Kind regards, Dino
söndag 28 september 2008
Freedom, queer theory and gender studies
Dear Dino
I totally agree!!!
This is why I would refer to most of what is being created in the name of gender and queer studies as "vulgar Foucauldianism". Foucault himself was quite worried and expressed doubts about the early queer theory being developed in the early 1980s before his own tragic death (I unfortunately never had the chance to meet Foucault before he passed away, despite having many friends in common). I guess that says it all.
I know Judith Butler well and she is a great Hegelian philosopher. But I agree in your stance for Nietzsche and Spinoza and against Butler. Even Slavoj Zizek, the greatest Hegelian alive today, is much more of a Nietzschean than Butler is.
Modern gender and queer studies how much to learn from Zoroastrian culture about Zoroastrianism's long history of gender equality and its npragmtic and tolerant approach towards sexual minorities. Sure, there are extremely homphobic passages in the Vendidad and there is still quite a lot of homphobia prevalent among Parsees in India. But Zoroastrianism has one great benefit: Homophobia is NOT sanctioned within the theology itself. Especially as homophobia is strictly a moralization and incompatible with pure ethics. Zarathushtra himself would be aggressively against homphobia.
But Zoroastrians also have much to learn from queer and gender studies. Especially when it comes to learning how Zoroastrians can present their proudly socially progressive agenda to outsiders and show people that Mazdayasna has been a harbor of tolerance and curiosity towards various human expressions for over 3,700 years.
Ushta
Alexander
2008/9/28 Special Kain
- Dölj citerad text -
Dear Alexander,
Before answering your question exhaustively, let me just add that Foucault was often mistaken by many researchers in the fields of Gender and Queer Studies. He was a proto-positivist, trying to identify the mechanisms of discourses, instead of making up abstract theories (which is rather common in Queer Studies).
We can learn from Foucault (and Nietzsche) that freedom doesn't exist from the very beginning, but it's something that we can work towards. After Foucault there is a certain kind of defeatism or fatalism when it comes to power relationships - just look at Judith Butler! I truly respect her, but Foucault still believed in a realm beyond such power relationships. Thus, we can really experience more and more freedom, the more we know about how our identities come to life and how we identify with such social constructs. That's why I LOVE the word "queer" as it refers to an identity without an essence.
Kind regards, Dino
--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Sa, 27.9.2008:
Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] 'Free will' vs interactive learning process (was: Being vs Becoming)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Samstag, 27. September 2008, 23:55
Dear Dino
I agree, this is MOST interesting.
Zarathushtra definitely sees us as the creators of our own freedom. This is why he emphasizes that we must identify ourselves with our thoughts, words and actions but also points out that we can affect them in advance and that we ARE precisely this very choice.
So freedom must then lie in between that which we discover that we are too ourselves and that which we could have anticipated ourselves to have become. It is never freedom in relation to anything EXTERNAL to ourselves (such as a Big Other or a God-Judge of any kind).
How did yu experience the concepts of identity and freedom during your gender studies and queer theory studies? I know Michel Foucault has had enormous influence on these fields. Foucault was a Nietzschean at heart and Nietzsche was as we all know inspired by Zarathushtra and "the dilemma of ethics and morality".
Ushta
Alexander
I totally agree!!!
This is why I would refer to most of what is being created in the name of gender and queer studies as "vulgar Foucauldianism". Foucault himself was quite worried and expressed doubts about the early queer theory being developed in the early 1980s before his own tragic death (I unfortunately never had the chance to meet Foucault before he passed away, despite having many friends in common). I guess that says it all.
I know Judith Butler well and she is a great Hegelian philosopher. But I agree in your stance for Nietzsche and Spinoza and against Butler. Even Slavoj Zizek, the greatest Hegelian alive today, is much more of a Nietzschean than Butler is.
Modern gender and queer studies how much to learn from Zoroastrian culture about Zoroastrianism's long history of gender equality and its npragmtic and tolerant approach towards sexual minorities. Sure, there are extremely homphobic passages in the Vendidad and there is still quite a lot of homphobia prevalent among Parsees in India. But Zoroastrianism has one great benefit: Homophobia is NOT sanctioned within the theology itself. Especially as homophobia is strictly a moralization and incompatible with pure ethics. Zarathushtra himself would be aggressively against homphobia.
But Zoroastrians also have much to learn from queer and gender studies. Especially when it comes to learning how Zoroastrians can present their proudly socially progressive agenda to outsiders and show people that Mazdayasna has been a harbor of tolerance and curiosity towards various human expressions for over 3,700 years.
Ushta
Alexander
2008/9/28 Special Kain
- Dölj citerad text -
Dear Alexander,
Before answering your question exhaustively, let me just add that Foucault was often mistaken by many researchers in the fields of Gender and Queer Studies. He was a proto-positivist, trying to identify the mechanisms of discourses, instead of making up abstract theories (which is rather common in Queer Studies).
We can learn from Foucault (and Nietzsche) that freedom doesn't exist from the very beginning, but it's something that we can work towards. After Foucault there is a certain kind of defeatism or fatalism when it comes to power relationships - just look at Judith Butler! I truly respect her, but Foucault still believed in a realm beyond such power relationships. Thus, we can really experience more and more freedom, the more we know about how our identities come to life and how we identify with such social constructs. That's why I LOVE the word "queer" as it refers to an identity without an essence.
Kind regards, Dino
--- Alexander Bard
Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] 'Free will' vs interactive learning process (was: Being vs Becoming)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Samstag, 27. September 2008, 23:55
Dear Dino
I agree, this is MOST interesting.
Zarathushtra definitely sees us as the creators of our own freedom. This is why he emphasizes that we must identify ourselves with our thoughts, words and actions but also points out that we can affect them in advance and that we ARE precisely this very choice.
So freedom must then lie in between that which we discover that we are too ourselves and that which we could have anticipated ourselves to have become. It is never freedom in relation to anything EXTERNAL to ourselves (such as a Big Other or a God-Judge of any kind).
How did yu experience the concepts of identity and freedom during your gender studies and queer theory studies? I know Michel Foucault has had enormous influence on these fields. Foucault was a Nietzschean at heart and Nietzsche was as we all know inspired by Zarathushtra and "the dilemma of ethics and morality".
Ushta
Alexander
lördag 27 september 2008
In Search of Freedom (by Parviz Varjavand)
In Search of Freedom
The key to proper choices in search of freedom we make needs as a tool proper labeling for the choices that we have available. There are many so called names of God in Zoroastrianism. Bogh is one, Ahoora, Mazda, Spenta Mind, Asha, Dey, all the names of the Ameshaspands and the 101 names in the Avesta are all God names. I chose two in order to make a very definite distinction in my choices; Mazda and Dey.
Dey is linguistically related to Deity and Devine (also Div, but let us forget that negative connotation). Dey means divine powers coming from the metaphysical realm and beyond the realm of our mental powers to decipher them. Mazda means "That which can Think" and refers to the realm of powers our mind can hope to decipher, now or some day soon. Asha is the name of laws Mazda can work with and try to decipher.
Yasna and Yasni (in Mazdaism) means to Celebrate (not to worship but to have a Jashn or celebration). As a Mazdean, my mind should know if it is engaging in celebrating the Mind or in celebrating the Divine (beyond the reach of the mind). We do Mazda-yasni work or we do Dey-yasni work.
My loved one is sick. I go to the temple and with all sincerity pray to Divine powers to make him/her well. Nothing to be ashamed of, my Dey-yasna part of the psyche needs it. Then I go to the doctors, I do the lab works needed, and give the patient the medications prescribed. I engage here in Mazda-yasni works. The patient gets well. I thank God and His Divine powers, because there was so much powers at work that I did not understand. I also thank and celebrate Mazda and all that worked by using the proper Asha that persons with minds did to make the sickness go away.
As a Mazdean, I am an Ashavand and Mazdayasni first; I trust and work with and celebrate the results given by Mazda to me. I am also not ashamed to do Dey-yasni works, because I know how small I am with the tiny amount of Mazda lodged in my head in relation to the enormity of the Asha that runs around in the universe. The key to my sanity is that I do not run around calling the Dey by the name of Mazda or Mazda by the name of Dey. I recognize the times I celebrate the Mind and times I celebrate the Dey or powers beyond the reach of my mind.
Ushta to us,
Parviz Varjavand
The key to proper choices in search of freedom we make needs as a tool proper labeling for the choices that we have available. There are many so called names of God in Zoroastrianism. Bogh is one, Ahoora, Mazda, Spenta Mind, Asha, Dey, all the names of the Ameshaspands and the 101 names in the Avesta are all God names. I chose two in order to make a very definite distinction in my choices; Mazda and Dey.
Dey is linguistically related to Deity and Devine (also Div, but let us forget that negative connotation). Dey means divine powers coming from the metaphysical realm and beyond the realm of our mental powers to decipher them. Mazda means "That which can Think" and refers to the realm of powers our mind can hope to decipher, now or some day soon. Asha is the name of laws Mazda can work with and try to decipher.
Yasna and Yasni (in Mazdaism) means to Celebrate (not to worship but to have a Jashn or celebration). As a Mazdean, my mind should know if it is engaging in celebrating the Mind or in celebrating the Divine (beyond the reach of the mind). We do Mazda-yasni work or we do Dey-yasni work.
My loved one is sick. I go to the temple and with all sincerity pray to Divine powers to make him/her well. Nothing to be ashamed of, my Dey-yasna part of the psyche needs it. Then I go to the doctors, I do the lab works needed, and give the patient the medications prescribed. I engage here in Mazda-yasni works. The patient gets well. I thank God and His Divine powers, because there was so much powers at work that I did not understand. I also thank and celebrate Mazda and all that worked by using the proper Asha that persons with minds did to make the sickness go away.
As a Mazdean, I am an Ashavand and Mazdayasni first; I trust and work with and celebrate the results given by Mazda to me. I am also not ashamed to do Dey-yasni works, because I know how small I am with the tiny amount of Mazda lodged in my head in relation to the enormity of the Asha that runs around in the universe. The key to my sanity is that I do not run around calling the Dey by the name of Mazda or Mazda by the name of Dey. I recognize the times I celebrate the Mind and times I celebrate the Dey or powers beyond the reach of my mind.
Ushta to us,
Parviz Varjavand
Mazda and Dey
Dear Parviz
This is a BEAUTIFUL DESCRIPTION of what it means to be a true Mazdayasni. Thank you for your wise words!!!
We are Mazdyasni or Ashavand first and foremost.
But we also realise the human need for the metaphysical realm to explain that which to us remains unexplainable. Also we need this last resort of hope. This is why we treat those with dignity to do their Dev-Yasni practice as well. Because sooner or later we know that we are bound to be Dev-Yasni too. It is those who deny us the Dev-Yasni potential which are mistaken. They may know the world as facts and figures but they have still to figure out what it means to be truly human. And thereby their Mazda-Yasni onesidedness is not truly Mazda-Yasni at all, it remains onedimensional when it should and could have had at least two dimensions.
Ushta
Alexander
2008/9/27 Parviz Varjavand
As a Mazdean, I am an Ashavand and Mazdayasni first; I trust and work with and celebrate the results given by Mazda to me. I am also not ashamed to do Dey-yasni works, because I know how small I am with the tiny amount of Mazda lodged in my head in relation to the enormity of the Asha that runs around in the universe. The key to my sanity is that I do not run around calling the Dey by the name of Mazda or Mazda by the name of Dey. I recognize the times I celebrate the Mind and times I celebrate the Dey or powers beyond the reach of my mind.
Ushta to us,
Parviz Varjavand
This is a BEAUTIFUL DESCRIPTION of what it means to be a true Mazdayasni. Thank you for your wise words!!!
We are Mazdyasni or Ashavand first and foremost.
But we also realise the human need for the metaphysical realm to explain that which to us remains unexplainable. Also we need this last resort of hope. This is why we treat those with dignity to do their Dev-Yasni practice as well. Because sooner or later we know that we are bound to be Dev-Yasni too. It is those who deny us the Dev-Yasni potential which are mistaken. They may know the world as facts and figures but they have still to figure out what it means to be truly human. And thereby their Mazda-Yasni onesidedness is not truly Mazda-Yasni at all, it remains onedimensional when it should and could have had at least two dimensions.
Ushta
Alexander
2008/9/27 Parviz Varjavand
As a Mazdean, I am an Ashavand and Mazdayasni first; I trust and work with and celebrate the results given by Mazda to me. I am also not ashamed to do Dey-yasni works, because I know how small I am with the tiny amount of Mazda lodged in my head in relation to the enormity of the Asha that runs around in the universe. The key to my sanity is that I do not run around calling the Dey by the name of Mazda or Mazda by the name of Dey. I recognize the times I celebrate the Mind and times I celebrate the Dey or powers beyond the reach of my mind.
Ushta to us,
Parviz Varjavand
Romanticism in Zoroastrianism
Dear Dino
I would add that the true romanticism is the belief that we are obliged to love the world as it is no matter what. To hold the world sacred, even if we can't find any logical reason to do so. Wgen we return the obvious indifference from Existence as such with our complete love and desire. If only because we no nothing better. I actually believe this is what Zarathushtra did. I believe this is what Lao Tze, Spinoza and Nietzsche did too, only far later in history. And I believe this is the only romanticism which is well founded. Because, if we don't just DECIDE in an existential act that we embrace Existence as it is, what else are we to do? If the capacity to love Existence is there, let's do it!
Fairytale nonsense and superstitions is an altogether different story. If we desire to love Truth for being the only thing that exists, then we also obliged towards Truth to removed that which egts in the way, that which is Untrue. And I believe this is what Zarathushtra does when he holds asha separate from druj (or if we personify asha and druj, we speak of Ahura Mazda versus Ahriman). This is what Zoroastrian romanticism is all about. And this is what makes it different from all the other religions.
Ushta
Alexander
2008/9/26 Special Kain
Dear Zaneta,
Yes, romantic ideas are appealing in general, I assume, and I enjoyed them for a long time. I'm still romantic to a certain extent - or differently romantic now. But I'm well-aware that those romantic ideas are here to comfort us, not to guide us towards the truth. Many people enjoy to rest within such cosy romantic ideas. And then those people get lazy and defend their cosy prejudices with fire and fists! ;-))
But all of this isn't that bad, as long as we aknowledge that we're co-creators of this wonderful world, and we can responsibly turn some of those romantic ideas into reality.
Kind regards, Dino
--- Zaneta Garratt schrieb am Fr, 26.9.2008:
Von: Zaneta Garratt
Betreff: RE: [Ushta] Being vs Becoming (was: Spinozism and existentialism)
An: ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Freitag, 26. September 2008, 10:40
Hi Dina, I happen to like the romantic ideas, maybe they appeal to me more because I am a woman but I did look up the guy you mention but I could not make head or tale of what he was going on about as my mind does not think in the same way as his, sorry about that, but thanks for your letter and Best wishes from Zaneta
I would add that the true romanticism is the belief that we are obliged to love the world as it is no matter what. To hold the world sacred, even if we can't find any logical reason to do so. Wgen we return the obvious indifference from Existence as such with our complete love and desire. If only because we no nothing better. I actually believe this is what Zarathushtra did. I believe this is what Lao Tze, Spinoza and Nietzsche did too, only far later in history. And I believe this is the only romanticism which is well founded. Because, if we don't just DECIDE in an existential act that we embrace Existence as it is, what else are we to do? If the capacity to love Existence is there, let's do it!
Fairytale nonsense and superstitions is an altogether different story. If we desire to love Truth for being the only thing that exists, then we also obliged towards Truth to removed that which egts in the way, that which is Untrue. And I believe this is what Zarathushtra does when he holds asha separate from druj (or if we personify asha and druj, we speak of Ahura Mazda versus Ahriman). This is what Zoroastrian romanticism is all about. And this is what makes it different from all the other religions.
Ushta
Alexander
2008/9/26 Special Kain
Dear Zaneta,
Yes, romantic ideas are appealing in general, I assume, and I enjoyed them for a long time. I'm still romantic to a certain extent - or differently romantic now. But I'm well-aware that those romantic ideas are here to comfort us, not to guide us towards the truth. Many people enjoy to rest within such cosy romantic ideas. And then those people get lazy and defend their cosy prejudices with fire and fists! ;-))
But all of this isn't that bad, as long as we aknowledge that we're co-creators of this wonderful world, and we can responsibly turn some of those romantic ideas into reality.
Kind regards, Dino
--- Zaneta Garratt
Von: Zaneta Garratt
Betreff: RE: [Ushta] Being vs Becoming (was: Spinozism and existentialism)
An: ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Freitag, 26. September 2008, 10:40
Hi Dina, I happen to like the romantic ideas, maybe they appeal to me more because I am a woman but I did look up the guy you mention but I could not make head or tale of what he was going on about as my mind does not think in the same way as his, sorry about that, but thanks for your letter and Best wishes from Zaneta
torsdag 25 september 2008
Mazdaism
Dear Parviz and Dino
I definitely agree with both of you. Totally.
Mazdayasna is Pantheism Plus - as I have often referred to our faith.
And I became convinced about this during one of our debates. It was Parviz and Arthur - and to some extent Dina - who brought me in this direction.
This is precisely why I describe Mazdayasna as a PANTHEISTIC religion rather than just plain Pantheism.
To call yourself a Pantheist is basically saying that you believe that everything in the world is interconnected as one substance (monism) and that this whole is sacred, as a whole.
Mazdayasna covers far more than Pantheism. This is why it is Pantheism Plus. I can even tell the diference in how Mazdayasni see the world and how other Pantheists see the world. Our faith features far more.
And I agree with Dino that the concept of Ahura Mazda covers both immanence and transcendence, both Becoming and Being. With the added belief that Becoming takes precedence to Being.
Or to use Parviz' terminology: Will is fascinating, Mind is not just fascinating but also sacred.
Ushta
Alexander
2008/9/25 Special Kain:
Maybe this is too daring, but why don't we define Ahura Mazda as the unity or rather union of transcendence and immanence? Since Ahura is "all which exists", it is immanence. Mazda as "the mind" could therefore be seen as transcendence, since we're able to change all which exists (poetically, not empirically).
To me, the dao always seemed to represent this union or identity of transcendence and immanence, and it is what the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann once coined as GOD.
My two cents,
Dino
--- Parviz Varjavand schrieb am Do, 25.9.2008:
Von: Parviz Varjavand
Betreff: [Ushta] Mazdaism
An: "Ushta Ushta"
CC: "Ali Jafarey"
Datum: Donnerstag, 25. September 2008, 5:55
Dear Alexander,
I would like to bring up once more the idea that Mazdaism is different from Pantheism. I feel that when we describe Mazdaism as a Pantheist phenomenon, we are trying to pour it into a Western mold of measuring religious ideas and some very important distinctions may get washed out in the process.
Ahoora pointing to "Existence or Universe as a Whole" is correct. AH is "That which Exists" and Ahoora is anything and all that has existence. But Mazda or that part of existence that has a Mind is a very special and limited part of Existence. A rock is not part of a process of "Becoming" or "Moving" in order to progress and some day have a Mind, or is it? Also you talk about cosmos and chaos; Ahoora is clearly the Cosmos, but Mazda is not Chaos, is it? Do you suggest that Chaos is that part of the Cosmos that Thinks?
I feel amongst religions, Mazdaist Zoroastrianism is the only school giving emphasis to the role of the Mind, and as such, we need to discuss it at length in order to get a special feel for it.
Ushta,
Parviz Varjavand
I definitely agree with both of you. Totally.
Mazdayasna is Pantheism Plus - as I have often referred to our faith.
And I became convinced about this during one of our debates. It was Parviz and Arthur - and to some extent Dina - who brought me in this direction.
This is precisely why I describe Mazdayasna as a PANTHEISTIC religion rather than just plain Pantheism.
To call yourself a Pantheist is basically saying that you believe that everything in the world is interconnected as one substance (monism) and that this whole is sacred, as a whole.
Mazdayasna covers far more than Pantheism. This is why it is Pantheism Plus. I can even tell the diference in how Mazdayasni see the world and how other Pantheists see the world. Our faith features far more.
And I agree with Dino that the concept of Ahura Mazda covers both immanence and transcendence, both Becoming and Being. With the added belief that Becoming takes precedence to Being.
Or to use Parviz' terminology: Will is fascinating, Mind is not just fascinating but also sacred.
Ushta
Alexander
2008/9/25 Special Kain
Maybe this is too daring, but why don't we define Ahura Mazda as the unity or rather union of transcendence and immanence? Since Ahura is "all which exists", it is immanence. Mazda as "the mind" could therefore be seen as transcendence, since we're able to change all which exists (poetically, not empirically).
To me, the dao always seemed to represent this union or identity of transcendence and immanence, and it is what the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann once coined as GOD.
My two cents,
Dino
--- Parviz Varjavand
Von: Parviz Varjavand
Betreff: [Ushta] Mazdaism
An: "Ushta Ushta"
CC: "Ali Jafarey"
Datum: Donnerstag, 25. September 2008, 5:55
Dear Alexander,
I would like to bring up once more the idea that Mazdaism is different from Pantheism. I feel that when we describe Mazdaism as a Pantheist phenomenon, we are trying to pour it into a Western mold of measuring religious ideas and some very important distinctions may get washed out in the process.
Ahoora pointing to "Existence or Universe as a Whole" is correct. AH is "That which Exists" and Ahoora is anything and all that has existence. But Mazda or that part of existence that has a Mind is a very special and limited part of Existence. A rock is not part of a process of "Becoming" or "Moving" in order to progress and some day have a Mind, or is it? Also you talk about cosmos and chaos; Ahoora is clearly the Cosmos, but Mazda is not Chaos, is it? Do you suggest that Chaos is that part of the Cosmos that Thinks?
I feel amongst religions, Mazdaist Zoroastrianism is the only school giving emphasis to the role of the Mind, and as such, we need to discuss it at length in order to get a special feel for it.
Ushta,
Parviz Varjavand
onsdag 24 september 2008
Will and freedom
I agree, I agree, I agree!!!
Where did you get your SMART brain from?
The will is not the problem, it never was. Every body has a will (or rather a multitude of wills). And wills are fascinating in themselves. Because what is the life we hold so sacred if not the wills involved?
The creative problem is rather what we mean with "freedom".
As I see things, there is really no freedom involved in the immediate act since we act as we are programmed to act at a given moment. This is also Zarathushtra's point with the all-important ORDER of thoughts, words and then actions last. The focus is on the THOUGHTS because only there and then can we adjust ourselves to prepare ourselves for the coming actions.
But, and this is the important but, acts of the future are an entirely different thing.
Our identity is intertwined with the choices we make towards how we should react in the future. This is where a "freedom" appears, the freedom to choose between different "programs on how to act". For example: Reading an emergency plan when we enter an airplane we decide then and there how we should act SHOULD en emergency occur. Once the emergency does happen, we act as we had planned to act.
It is this TIME perspective which I find unique in Zoroastrian ethics.
But the normal religious freedom FROM something is unnecessary here. There is no judge beside the internal judge in ourselves (our superego, as Freud would have it) involved. Not as far as I can see. Rather, Zoroastrian ethics is to UNITE superego and ego and make them one as much as possible.
Please correct me if you find me wrong. Or if you want to dig deeper into the issue.
Ushta
Alexander
- Dölj citerad text -
2008/9/23 Special Kain
- Dölj citerad text -
Dear Alexander,
I'm quite familiar with the distinction between philosophies of Being and philosophies of Becoming, since I'm not new to the history of philosophy and have always been fascinated with the philosophers and schools of thought concerned with Becoming rather than Being. :-)
The question I'm interested in is not if there is any free will as an abstract absolute at all, shining brightly in a transcendental sky, but whether it's a will free from something or free to do / towards something. Bearing this in mind most claims and teachings concerned with the old distinction between free will and fate / determinism seem completely obsolete.
Thus, free will doesn't exist from the beginning. There's a deliberating learning process towards increasing independence, there's the ability to learn and apply the things we learn to our future thoughts, words and deeds, there's trained self-control.
Some postmodernists think of themselves as the smartest thinkers on Earth, but Peirce was a lot smarter almost 100 years before them!
Kind regards, Dino
Where did you get your SMART brain from?
The will is not the problem, it never was. Every body has a will (or rather a multitude of wills). And wills are fascinating in themselves. Because what is the life we hold so sacred if not the wills involved?
The creative problem is rather what we mean with "freedom".
As I see things, there is really no freedom involved in the immediate act since we act as we are programmed to act at a given moment. This is also Zarathushtra's point with the all-important ORDER of thoughts, words and then actions last. The focus is on the THOUGHTS because only there and then can we adjust ourselves to prepare ourselves for the coming actions.
But, and this is the important but, acts of the future are an entirely different thing.
Our identity is intertwined with the choices we make towards how we should react in the future. This is where a "freedom" appears, the freedom to choose between different "programs on how to act". For example: Reading an emergency plan when we enter an airplane we decide then and there how we should act SHOULD en emergency occur. Once the emergency does happen, we act as we had planned to act.
It is this TIME perspective which I find unique in Zoroastrian ethics.
But the normal religious freedom FROM something is unnecessary here. There is no judge beside the internal judge in ourselves (our superego, as Freud would have it) involved. Not as far as I can see. Rather, Zoroastrian ethics is to UNITE superego and ego and make them one as much as possible.
Please correct me if you find me wrong. Or if you want to dig deeper into the issue.
Ushta
Alexander
- Dölj citerad text -
2008/9/23 Special Kain
- Dölj citerad text -
Dear Alexander,
I'm quite familiar with the distinction between philosophies of Being and philosophies of Becoming, since I'm not new to the history of philosophy and have always been fascinated with the philosophers and schools of thought concerned with Becoming rather than Being. :-)
The question I'm interested in is not if there is any free will as an abstract absolute at all, shining brightly in a transcendental sky, but whether it's a will free from something or free to do / towards something. Bearing this in mind most claims and teachings concerned with the old distinction between free will and fate / determinism seem completely obsolete.
Thus, free will doesn't exist from the beginning. There's a deliberating learning process towards increasing independence, there's the ability to learn and apply the things we learn to our future thoughts, words and deeds, there's trained self-control.
Some postmodernists think of themselves as the smartest thinkers on Earth, but Peirce was a lot smarter almost 100 years before them!
Kind regards, Dino
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)