To tolerate, or not to tolerate, that is the question.
Well, yes it is a question.
To tolerate means, in this sense, to endure and put up with someone/something
(unhappily.) In effect, “I don’t like
(it, you, them, etc., ) but I won’t (can’t) waste anymore of my time fussing
with (it, you, them, etc., ) Toleration
is a quantum improvement over attacking, fighting, resisting, against anything
that displeases you, or is not aligned with your usual way of thinking (a.k.a.
belief.)
It’s axiomatic that anything someone wants and does is
rooted in an expectation that he/she will feel better for having it. There’s nothing complicated about this. How often have you had the thought “I’d be
better off if only (it, you, them, etc.) would ________ (fill in the
blank.) There’s a contradiction at play
that cancels the desired good feeling – the focus on the
mischief/mis-deed/whatever about (it, you, them, etc.,). Just as two physical objects cannot occupy
the same space at the same time, it’s not possible for a good feeling and a
negative (bad) feeling to occupy the same attention at the same time. Thus the problem with toleration.
Subtle differences |
There is a strata of perspective a notch above
toleration. It’s called Allowing. Someone eaten up with resentment may, in a
moment of frustration, comprehend the concept of toleration or forgiveness. It’s unlikely, however, they could grasp a
concept of allowing at that
moment. Someone who has developed the
ability to tolerate (it, you, them, etc., ) may be able to catch a glimpse of allowing.
The difference between the two is subtle yet vast. Very similar to the subtle yet vast
difference between a thought of that
which is hateful to yourself do not unto another and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Toleration carries with it the idea, the
memory, the picture of whatever it is about (it, you, them, etc., ) that
offends/angers you. Allowing is free of
that burden and (it, you, them, etc., ) are allowed to be what/who they are –
sans judgment.
It’s the without judgment
part that blocks access to this level of thought for many people. Allowing and judging cannot occupy the same
mind at the same time. To judge is to
seek and find fault, however defined.
The solution is for the judged to correct the “fault.” For instance, in New York city there’s a ruckus
over newborns having formula for food.
Who decides if a newborn is breast fed or bottle? In this spat the judgment is from the state
(city government) to force the mothers to breast feed by making formula very
difficult to access in a city hospital.
Is this justice? It is judgment.
So, the value of any judgment is relative to who/what is
judging and who/what is judged. Floating
just above that clamor is the old adage live
and let live, which is an application of Allowing.
The subtle difference between tolerance and allowing is very
similar to the distinction between being grateful for something and
appreciating something.
The bottom line is that too many people deprive themselves
of joy simply by the manner of their thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments welcome. You know the etiquette.