IMPORTANT: DOCTRINE UPDATE

I wasn't even aware of this conversation until now, but this subject popped up in my head a couple of days ago when I was contemplating the difference between what I accept and what I tolerate, or if one is a negative aspect of one's ego.

Without looking up definitions, my first response is to look at what each mean to me. Tolerance is that which you disagree with, but are willing to let be so as to not have to deal with it. It's a sort of self-harm that we inflict upon ourselves in that we aren't at peace with our decision to remain willfully still while allowing what we disagree with to continue. Acceptance is knowing that we disagree with something, flowing with it, seeing where actions lead and using the information gathered to intervene and change things for a better outcome.

Since these aren't real definitions according to a book or credible source (e.g. dictionary, thesaurus, etc.), I accept them as my own interpretations of how I feel about each term. I accept and use the definitions which are published as the more accurate descriptions of the terms, but I will also use my interpretations of the terms to act in accord with my style of action. For purposes of discussion, I typically mention the facts before I decide to go into my interpretations of things so that eveyone has a more solid foundation to base their perspective on. Some choose to stay objective, which is yet another perspective, but a more solid one.

Acceptance doesn't necessarily have to mean that you agree with something, just that you aren't going to block it from your attention. Tolerance is another way of putting the blinders on for the purpose of not having to pay any attention to something, even though you acknowledge its existence.

Just my take on it, but I think I might be confusing my interpretations with other terms I'm not aware they should be associated with. I will humbly accept any corrections brought forth to my addition to this discussion.

Ve-Lo-Zi wrote:

Wescli Wardest wrote: Accepting things as they are does not mean laying down and letting it happen. (At least not to me) It means recognizing that things happen, all things; good, bad, normal, odd and being okay with the fact that some things are just out of our control. Accepting that it is the way it is and not filling ourselves with hate for the things we have difficulty tolerating or find morally wrong. It means saying, yes this happens and that person has done this thing. The person has committed an act that is in violation of a law or moral law and there will be reproductions for their actions. But the person themselves is not that act.

That is a very strong ideal and I admire anyone who can truly separate between the person who commits an act and the act itself. I really try to do this because I realise that all people - no matter how vile their acts may be - are in some sense still "children of God" or "part of the Force". But I still find myself in situations sometimes where I don't only condemn the act, but feel hatred towards the person as well.

I admire this ideal. It's not going to save anybody's kneecaps around me, because I have a very low tolerance for people that could harm folks I care about, and it usually manifests in ways to prevent said harm as effectively as possible, but it's a nice thought, y'know?

Luthien wrote: Without looking up definitions, my first response is to look at what each mean to me. Tolerance is that which you disagree with, but are willing to let be so as to not have to deal with it. It's a sort of self-harm that we inflict upon ourselves in that we aren't at peace with our decision to remain willfully still while allowing what we disagree with to continue. Acceptance is knowing that we disagree with something, flowing with it, seeing where actions lead and using the information gathered to intervene and change things for a better outcome.

I both agree and disagree with this, really. To me, the difference is a little more stark than the rest of you folks seem to make it:

• Tolerance is seeing something and knowing it's not for you, but understanding that it may be for someone else, and is therefore, potentially valid.
• Acceptance is taking something into yourself that wasn't necessarily previously a part of it, and being at peace with it.

The difference, to me, is whether or not you're willing to adopt/make peace with something that wasn't a part of you earlier. I accept often that I am wrong, but I don't tolerate my own ignorance. I accept that some people enjoy tequila, while I do not tolerate tequila itself (it's icky tasting and makes my face hurt). I accept that everyone has a past, even if I may not tolerate their actions. I also accept that I compartmentalize these things more than most people, who don't tolerate my seemingly arbitrary distinctions.

(p.s., Wescli, like this?)

steamboat28 wrote:

• Tolerance is seeing something and knowing it's not for you, but understanding that it may be for someone else, and is therefore, potentially valid.
• Acceptance is taking something into yourself that wasn't necessarily previously a part of it, and being at peace with it.

I'm willing to accept your interpretations as more concise and logical than mine -- I think they make more sense. I'm still trying to find the correct terms to identify what I said, though, so any help would be appreciated.

steamboat28 wrote: The difference, to me, is whether or not you're willing to adopt/make peace with something that wasn't a part of you earlier.

The way I see it, what you said there and how Wescli described it seem to be on par with each other. We can accept that someone is who they are, but decide whether we will tolerate their actions or take action to change it. Am I saying that right?

Luthien wrote: The way I see it, what you said there and how Wescli described it seem to be on par with each other. We can accept that someone is who they are, but decide whether we will tolerate their actions or take action to change it. Am I saying that right?

For the most part. I'm not really the best person to ask, because I hold some personal beliefs that a lot of people take issue with (because i have a very reductionist interpersonal philosophy), but generally speaking, I accept a person's past but expect them to live up to their potential. I'm told that's unfair, but I don't care.

To what end? Potential is a slippery word without any given context.

steamboat28 wrote:

• Tolerance is seeing something and knowing it's not for you, but understanding that it may be for someone else, and is therefore, potentially valid.
• Acceptance is taking something into yourself that wasn't necessarily previously a part of it, and being at peace with it.

I just said in a PM to another yesterday:

Jestor, the Yo-Yo Novice, wrote: Tolerance is what we do with others....

Acceptance would be what we would do with ourselves...

Luthien wrote: To what end? Potential is a slippery word without any given context.

I judge people by their potential at the top of their game. If you're not as caring as I know you could be, or as aggressive with your goals as you could be, then I see that as a negative. I'll praise you for where you are most of the time, but I want people to be their best selves.

That said, I'm kind of a hypocrite, because when I measure myself against my own potential, I come up a loser every time.

steamboat28 wrote: I judge people by their potential at the top of their game. If you're not as caring as I know you could be, or as aggressive with your goals as you could be, then I see that as a negative. I'll praise you for where you are most of the time, but I want people to be their best selves.

That said, I'm kind of a hypocrite, because when I measure myself against my own potential, I come up a loser every time.

Ah, then I am the same way, in that respect. I even go so far as to not expect anything from others that I wouldn't do for myself so that I'm not invoking some kind of double standard.

I guess the confusion could stem from that it seems you seem to see the murderer as his actions. I see them as a person who has made actions. The action is wrong according to society. The person is the one that brought the action. But I am not accepting his action but that the action happens. And in recourse it will have to be dealt with.

So basically what you call "acceptance" is making an observation (as opposed to living in denial). You observe that murder happens but do not tolerate murder or murderers.
Is that correct?