In a Zoroastrian apologetic essay against the old testament, Mardan-Farrukh writes: "86. If they say that the light arose from the word of the Lord, which was spoken by him thus: 'Thou shalt arise,' and it was so -- (87) that being when the Lord and his belongings (khudih) were dark, and light had really never been seen by him in what way is it possible for that light to arise from his word? 88. Because this is known, that speaking is the progeny of thinking."
This seems related to the Kantian concept of intellectus archetypus, the subject which "creates the objects of its knowledge through the act of thinking them". The intellectus archetypus is the Christian god. Kant deploys the intellectus archetypus as a hypothetical which is negated by subjectivity; subjectivity and free will originate in the alienation of the "intellectus" from the "archetypus". Subjectivity is the gap between real, lived, concete experience, and the set of all possible experience, the latter thereof being only accessible to the intellectus archetypus.
The quote from Mardan-Farrukh above seems to lay a foundation for an alternative god and therefore an alternative interpretation of subjectivity. If it exists, I need to do a deeper reading of Zoroastrianism in order to extract it.
Alternatively it's also worth considering Mardan-Farrukh's other interpretation of the old testament: "89. If they say that his word became light, that is very marvelous, because then light is the fruit of darkness, and the source of darkness is thereby the essence of light; or else it is this, that the light was concealed in the darkness." Is the Zoroastrian god the one that makes thought, light, knowledge, and the good synonymous? I.e. the Platonic god?
Quotes about the Zoroastrian god:
Concerning why god, Ohrmazd, doesn't stop the devil, Ahriman: "7. That which is not possible to be is not stirred up by a capable or an incapable being. 8. Whoever says it is so is not within the limits of understanding the words. 9. Because, though he said that it is not possible to be, he says again that the sacred being is capable of it, and that has brought it out of the limits of what is not possible to be. 10. For then it is not the not-possible, but the possible to be... 16. If I say that the creator Ohrmazd is able to keep Ahriman back from the evil which is his perpetual nature, (17) it is possible to change that nature which is demoniacal into a divine one, and that which is divine into a demoniacal one; (18) and it is possible to make the dark light, and the light dark."