When you post postings like the one below, you are absolutely BRILLIANT!!!
Not only is every word you mention true, but you are also pointing to a link which has rarely been used or understood and always ignored: The link between psychology and religion!
We need to psychologize the religious experience! We need to understand how the religious experience is a part of and should be a part of our psychology. This way we can create a religion which is OPEN to diversity, pluralism and truly cheris such things as sacred, which is the exact opposite of traditional religion.
Zarathushtra was of course into this already 3,700 years ago, which explains why pluralism as dogma was introduced into human history by Iranian Zoroastrians. This is an amazing legacy we can build on when we create a religion BEYOND fear.
2009/10/16 Judy Weismonger
In psychological research...it has been found that such individuals who are highly "intolerant," use concrete, black and white thinking...and have little to no flexibility or "tolerance" to consider other people's ideas, opinions, or expressions..and who.are found to be most often extremely insecure individuals, who also lack self confidence and self-esteem...and whose insecurity is often driven by fear. Therefore, to control such "fear"...intolerant individuals must seek to "dominate" and control their environment.
In this case....the intolerant person in this group...shows all the markers of a highly insecure individual...most probably as a result of being overly punished as a child, whose role model was also an intolerant father figure, who did not allow any flexibility in his thinking...or much personal expression. Often, those who are most intolerant....were also punished as children for any degree of creativity, including disapproval or punishment for simply asking questions, or challenging the parent's status quo.
Intolerance (or concrete and inflexible thinking) is most often learned....however, there are new studies that indicate that genetics may be involved.
In object-relations theories, when a parent becomes extremely punishing and "intolerant," it is thought that such a parent is most often confronting and identifying with their own sense of vulnerability and victimhood they experienced as a child....and thus seek to either punish or destroy such weakness in their own children.
Therefore, it is no use in verbally beating up such an intolerant person and demand tolerence, because such emotional and intellectual expressions heighten that individual's insecurity and fear levels. To emotionally beat up such an intolerant person is like demanding a mentally retarded child with an IQ of 70 function on the level of a brain surgeon.
In therapy, those who are most "intolerant"...are often difficult to treat, and the therapist has to spend many sessions in gaining the individual's trust...to then gently move the patient toward tolerance...most often through assisting them in becoming empathetic toward themselves first, and then transferring that sense of empathy toward others.
Significantly, those who are also intolerant of others, are also often extremely harsh and judgmental toward themselves and often perceive themselves as failures.
Ergo, the more the patient begins to tolerant and "like" themselves, and perceive themselves worthy of positive regard by others, the more they lateralize such regard for others and begin to move toward tolerance other people's opinions. But, it is a very slow process...which is often complicated by those who are also afflicted with a comorbid obsessive compulsive disorder. If it is found the individual also has OCD, then any hopes of assisting such a person to become more tolerant is almost impossible, without significant treatment, including psychotropic medications.
--- On Sat, 10/10/09, Rory
Subject: [Ushta] Re: The Art of Acceptance - Tolerance - Pluralism of Truths
Date: Saturday, October 10, 2009, 6:01 AM
"Since Zoroastrianism is based an a series of QUESTIONS and not absolute statements, it follows as a logical consequence that Zoroastrianism is based on the attitude of creativity and co-creation and not on some mistaken idea that "the world has gone wrong because of man" and consequently "has to be corrected through divine intervention" . Zoroastrianism has no concept of sin(and the following necessity of salvation)" - I am 100% with you here. You have described a large part of the objectives of all the Abrahamic faiths exactly.
"consequently truth is not objective and absolute but recognized as subjective and produced". This is what I find to be a bit of a leap but after reading through Dino's links realised that maybe it is a question of definition of terms. Please can you explain exactly how you define truth? Scientific fact? Opinion? Are you refferring to the Pragmatic Teory which holds that something is true if it is useful to believe? If you face the wall, put your head down and take a good run at it you are going to have a sore head! That is pretty absolute... Existence is pretty absolute...
--- In Ushta@yahoogroups. com, Alexander Bard
> Dear Rory
> Since Zoroastrianism is based an a series of QUESTIONS and not absolute
> statements, it follows as a logical consequence that Zoroastrianism is based
> on the attitude of creativity and co-creation and not on some mistaken idea
> that "the world has gone wrong because of man" and consequently "has to be
> corrected through divine intervention" . Zoroastrianism has no concept of sin
> (and the following necessity of salvation), consequently truth is not
> objective and absolute but recognized as subjective and produced. You are
> your truth! The question is therefore not what is true but rather who are
> you? And with 6 billion of us, that means 6 billion truths. Religious
> pluralism is an entirely different matter, we just recognize the concept of
> tolerance and freedom of speech (well, we invented it!) but the concept of
> "religion" is itself alien to Zoroastrians. We are interested in asha vs
> druj, whether asha is religious or not does not really concern us.
> Mazdayasna means "the love of the capacity of mind", whether that is
> considered religious or philosophical or merely literature, is less of a