To tolerate or to be syncretic ?

Question for discussion.
As a Jedi this is only one practice and one definition. Every jedinos diffrent and we may see eye to eye we may not . The idea here is not to argue or create conflict but to share.
Tolerance seems to me a word that creates division.
Without attachment ... here's where we can practice this ... tolerance seems to side ... your there I'm here . Often your right I'm wrong.
Syncritsm can say all can exist on the same planet on the same realm and can grow and be without interference.
When we often say I tolerate , we have made choices to side and often creates absolutes. ( not wrong or right not arguing that..) not arguing at all. Should Jedi use the word tolerance ? If it's come toons we seek and if it's truly our goal to grow should we take the use of this word to be ... opposite of syncretism ?
What does it matter to me and my definitions of you ... are completely different? Can I as a Jedi let your definitions be with or along side or even have the same power and validity as my own? Especially when they don't match?
Here is where I say discuss for the sake of seeking not for tearing down or hurting . Can we ? What would happen if you were challenged to rid yourself of a few words ... like tolerance ? Could you do it ? It's possible . The result is amazing. But like one of my past closed uses to say, don't take my word for it ...
I open it to you my temple and look foward to what this yields !

I respect that some can walk a path of total openness, and some cannot, and I think you raise a good point. But I will raise the other side of that point.

Tolerance is a valid term, in my world - it is the range of strain or variance that a structure can take before it is no longer able to hold integrity, and I think it is very important concept in organization and even interpersonal relationships. This is a different matter than respect (how we treat each other in the light of differences) or even regard (being able to appreciate and esteem the different perspective that an opposing view may hold). Part of the work of synthesis (from an interdisciplinary perspective) is to be able to understand the range of tolerance between different perspectives and to find those parts that can be syncretized and still yield something coherent and valid.

One can practice non-attachment and at the same time hold clearly defined expectations of one's self and relationships by focusing on the behaviors and where they fit into this range of tolerance, without dehumanizing the person behind them or making them a foil to validate your own sense of "rightness." In the organizations I work with, we have an objective that needs to be accomplished, which is the primary purpose for which people are putting their time and energy (financial or emotional) into the organizational work. To do this primary thing well, there's going to be a lot of other things that it can't be doing at the same time - that's what is meant by holding integrity. If we allow every person who, for whatever reason, wants to add their own purpose on top of that, subordinating the resources of the group and those involved to something that is not part of the agreed purpose, then that organization is going to fail - people will walk away because it is a bad investment of their personal resources. However, this does not mean that we have to view the person who wants to do something differently as an "enemy" - it's simply that to hold to one mission, we have to evaluate how everything affects that mission. It is sometimes true that the different view holds some real gold - and the organization that is not able to examine that possibility and evaluate it's worth to the guiding mission will also likely fail.

In my personal life, I've had to apply this definition of tolerance to a lot of relationships that were so harmful to me that they prevented me from accomplishing all the good things I could be doing. It meant knowing the limitations of where I could intervene in what was going on in that person's life and presenting them with a choice that showed the range I could handle. When that wasn't where they were interested in going, we walked in our different directions with no ill will between us - we simply had different lessons to learn. I try to apply that in whatever conflict of interest scenario I find myself in, and quite frankly, I find a lot of good comes from showing people the choices that are being made in through ones actions and behaviors - sometimes it helps get things out of the emotional reaction zone.

Should tolerance be tolerated? :laugh:

There are so many paths for a dialogue like this to take, but I’m going to focus on the originating query: “Should we tolerate members who are consistently abrasive towards others? What if they stay within the current rules in place, should the rules then be changed?”

There are a couple of points that need to be addressed immediately. First, we have no definition of what “abrasive” actually is. Second, and the point that others are focusing on, is how do we define “tolerance” in this context, and what role does tolerance play within the Temple.

It seems to me that “abrasive” is a synonym for something else, though within the confines of the term “continually abrasive” it does take on a larger connotation. Still, we have no idea what exactly is to be considered abrasive behavior, and if a definition were secured, would that apply equally to everyone? Would we all agree on what “abrasive behavior” is? My perception of what is abrasive will likely be different from many other opinions on the same topic, so how do we focus on an issue of personal interpretation? Well, that leads me to the question of whether or not this is even the right place to start. If we’re going to get caught up in quibbling, perhaps it isn’t. “Consistently abrasive” behavior might actually be “bullying” or “abuse”, but where do those lines fall?

Perhaps we need to ask ourselves if the initial question is really securing its own point. For one thing it seems to imply a certain negative quality. “What should we remove?” Arguing from a negative doesn’t exactly open the floor to larger possibilities, so perhaps in rephrasing the point in my own language I can come to a better starting place.

“How can we formulate a code of conduct and an environment that fosters collective introspection, growth, and unified (cooperative) thinking, built around the core Jedi principles?” I like this rephrasing (though it’s off-the-cuff and not complete) because it allows for limitations to be placed in a more positive way. It says “here’s what we’re focusing on; how do we make this happen as a community.” It also suggests that there’s something fundamental to this community that simply isn’t up for discussion (such as our support for life, freedom, etc.).

Now, “tolerance” implies that there is something in another person that we dislike (or in some way dislike) and are yet willing to put up with (for any number of personal or social reasons). I don’t think that tolerance should be the goal of Jedi, thought it can be a useful tool in certain circumstances. There are times where it’s better for the greater good to tolerate something as a means of reaching something greater (though the moral philosophy here can get veeeery tricky). Again, I think this can lead us down the path of philosophical quibbling rather than real self-awareness and growth. Anyway, the real point of the initial question seemed to be whether or not a stricter code of conduct should be enforced, which returns me to the quick rephrased question I came up with, earlier.

“How can we formulate a code of conduct and an environment that fosters collective introspection, growth, and unified (cooperative) thinking, built around the core Jedi principles?”

On one hand, it seems to me that Jediism as practiced within TotJO already has some clear instructions on this hidden in plain sight (see the adopted Prayer of St. Francis we use, or line two of the 21 maxims.) We seem to be striving, always, to indulge a plurality of views. Yet, we also seem to have the intent (at least) of upholding specifically “Jedi” ideals and doctrines, which presumably must be held as superior to all other personal beliefs. In a certain sense we operate with a syncretic perspective toward all members. One my join the Temple and still be a Christian, or a Soldier, even a politician I suppose. Yet, we also, as Jedi, agree to adhere to our path as a Jedi, and that belief, while it allows for other beliefs to coexist within it, creates an “umbrella of acceptability.” Other beliefs will need to be adaptable in order to fit within Jediism, simple fact.

Regardless, this gets confusing again, because now we need to delve into what the core principles of Jediism actually are (while there are some listed in the doctrine there’s really not that much literature on them that allows us to look deeper).

Perhaps I’m getting too far away from the initial point. Should we enforce stricter rules of conduct on our members? Perhaps. I definitely think that part of what needs to be done to solve the crisis of drama and antagonism is to make courses in communication a fundamental part of the overall curriculum, here. Old and new, alike, would need to participate and show that they’re up to the challenge of adopting new habits, new patterns of communication. The IP would provide a solid introduction to this, and what’s expected behavior for Jedi, and there could be further study required for anyone seeking to move deeper into the organization. Such a curriculum might focus on the following areas: critical thinking, emotional thinking, empathy and compassion (distinct yet akin), and practical practice in the art of communication. It would also, certainly, go into a solid training of how to communicate online – which includes how we think about communicating. Both how we think of our own communication, and how we think about the communication we receive from others.

I think that something along these lines would be better (if infinitely more complex) than just trying to slap some more arbitrary forum rules down. More rules means more moderators and a more restrictive atmosphere, whereas agreeing to, as a community, accept that the privilege of being a part of the community means showing our commitment to communicating more effectively. It helps shift the responsibility toward the individuals, especially toward those who are deeper in the organization and have already reached Apprentice, Knight, or similar rank.

Its good to know what tolerance is... its putting it into practise in a community that matters.

If I went out today and broke a rule (stole something), I'd prolly get a slap on the wrist, a fine maybe, because its my first offence.

Then say I go out again and commit another crime, broke another rule. This time maybe worse, or heck, even the same crime. This time I'd get a bigger fine, maybe jail time.

Then I go out again and do it again. This time it's becoming a problem. I'm obviously not learning the lesson. So they lock me away for a longer period to give me time to think.

But once I get out, I'm back at it.

At this point, I've become a menace to my community. And what happens to repeat offenders that disrupt their community? They get locked away for good.

and THAT, my dear Jedi, is where tolerance ends. The second chances run out, I've not learned my lesson.That is when a person is put away, permanently.

This is a community, and the same rules apply. Break the rules continuously, be talked to time and time again, be given second chances time and time again... and eventually the community will not want you about.

There's a fine-line difference between being syncretic and being tolerant.

I'm just going to use American society as a generalized example:

American culture is, at it's heart, syncretic in nature. We were created to be as such. The fact that there's no official language, no official religion, and that we are comprised of immigrants from a multitude of countries at it's very core makes the American culture syncretic in nature. Someone who is from New York City is going to have far different practices, rituals, and habits than someone from.. I dunno... Odessa, Texas. (Just picked some random tiny down in the middle of western Texas.) The things those people enjoy are going to be different, the way they dress, and even their accents.

The only way for syncretism to work is for there to be a tolerance baseline established. As Ari pointed out, the way we measure when to be and when not to be tolerant is based upon laws and rules. And in order for that tolerance to mean anything and actually be valid, there must be punishments in place when a person exceeds that baseline that has been established.

Whether that person is from NYC or Odessa, if they go and steal something or hurt someone, they're going to be punished for it. Their punishment is going to be based upon the crime they committed and (depending on the severity of that crime) previous history. In general, the actual punishment may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (purely because that's the type of government system that America has in place), but both jurisdictions treat the offense as a crime, because the baseline tolerance level of America has established those actions to be a crime and it is enforced across all jurisdictions.

In other words, stealing something exceeds that level of tolerance, regardless of culture.

What doesn't exceed that level of tolerance is a difference of "opinions" (political or religious affiliations, for example), so long as that "opinion" in and of itself does not cause one to act outside the baseline level of tolerance. Meaning someone can hold any religion they desire, and they can practice that religion in any way they desire, so long as they are not violating the law in the practice of that religion.

Obviously, exceptions exist. American law forbids the removal of bald eagle 'artifacts' from national parks. Unless you're Native American, because then those 'artifacts' are considered essential to your faith and culture and the federal government agreed to the Tribes' general sovereignty when it comes to the governance of their own people. (Whether or not they actually have respected those treaties and agreements is a debate for an entirely different day and thread all together.... )

But as a whole, the only way for the American culture to maintain its syncretic nature is for there to be a baseline level of tolerance that is both established and respected by all members of American society. Without that tolerance, segments of the population would begin to come in conflict with one another (ie, what we see happening a lot today in the news...)

Any syncretic community, including TOTJO, requires the same. A baseline of tolerance has to be established and respected by all members of the community in order for the syncretism to even stand a chance of working. When someone goes beyond that baseline, they have to be held accountable.

It's not the difference of opinion that causes trouble in syncretic communities; it is the way each person behaves in accordance with that difference opinion as related to the law of the land (ie, the tolerance baseline). When someone consistently acts outside of the law of the land as a means to try and force their difference of opinion on those who differ from themselves, they become a problem and a danger to that syncretic community. That's when accountability must come into play.

A syncretic and tolerance community is not, and never should be, expected to play host to those who consistently act outside the tolerance baseline established to maintain the syncretic nature of the community. If they are allowed to remain, the syncretic nature falls apart and inner conflict begins.

I feel that tolerance begins when understanding fails.

When we see something different, the "syncretic" approach is to be open to it, to want to understand it, to which we begin to compare and contrast and then grasp in context to how it corresponds with different but similar-enough experiences we have already had.

When this is no longer possible, we draw the line and say "I do not understand, I cannot accept". BUT, it is not hurting anyone, so I'll let it slide.

That is tolerance.

At Manami: with me, there are no sides, there will never be any sides. Your definition I hold as valid as mine. Clearly your definition can exist in a world where mine does as well. This is not an attempt to sway Manami's definition. This discussion is just a discussion to add to Carlos s definition on yet another attempt to understand the word tolerance. To see individuals use it for the type of purpose you do does me good. To see what's avalible and actual and actually being used ... to see if I wanna try what's out there , you know ? That's how I learn ... honestly .
To say it's valid in your path ,in my practice, is to allow it and nurture it in your path. I believe you totally . It works for some . I am glad it works for you .
I often find myself , when the tolerance is given or even identified that...emotional reaction zone comes out too. I'm not saying don't be tolerant .. oh no that's not what I'm saying , I'm saying I have much more of a benifit now in my later life to not choose tolerance as a first choice. It was a brace thing to try but it seems those who do move beyond that word take a deeper connection than just sides. Thank you for sharing with me your stance and taking time to sit stand Text post this and discuss this Jedi like ! Thank you for being this in my path of my own practice of Jedi ism. Force we seek and share be with you !

My man Locksley !
I love your train of thought . You know my stance on quibbeling ... I don't. Even if I see motions tword , my choice is usually I will sacrifice to keep from it. My choice.
We have no rules for annoyance and upset ... there is not a rule for some just getting on my nerves. Lol When we define our view and we find opposition - do we simply default and say nay and walk away or is there a difrent option? You and I share a similar view as to what is abrasive , it can be relative to the one who is defining it. Does it diss value the definition or even null it if it's not common or we don't share it ? The reason I ask is simply put- do we pad corners too often or do we really need such lines for things like this? Can we live with difrenses? Why do differences upset us or even challenge us and ... dare I say even throw us off our own ... balance?
Do we remove every onstical or offense or even those who pressure us in life or even here in the temple? How can we learn if there is no opposition? Even further - how can we practice without it? How can I show mercy without upset? How can I forgive without hurt? How can I stand without opposition? How do we expect to grow without conflict ? Do we rid it completely ? No--- we are not allowed to disagree , no --- you can't argue ? We rid life of pain? Is tolerance the only way to combat or even further is tolerance the only alternative to act ? Can we have difrent ways to create ? Tolerance seems to create opposition and absolute and say ... draw a line .... grumble grumble grumble ... and there we stay. Tolerance seems like a escape from the opertinity to apply. Apply what ? Hmmm there's always difrent ways to act. Tolerance seems to keep grace and compassion and forgiveness and all those type of things at bay. Thank you Locksley for the discussion . I hope this keeps going.

@ -arisaig
Here there is no crime so ... yea don't commit crime . You may or may not get in trouble . Make good desisions.
Here it's more of disagreement and difrent views and even picking on or agrivation. Tolerance seems to be a idea that keeps tally till it becomes to much at which point it can be harmful. Is that what is needed or we even promote ? Just sweep it under the rug till it gets to be too much? Can we defend our own practices and our own faiths and views with our tolorance? I am not arguing or even calling anynome out please be aware of that. I don't want to cause drama where there is none needed . I simply want to see what the ideas that exist are. Syncretism can have as a ready solution to defend or even let be. What do you think? So chances run out ? Is there a point where we reach that we can tolorate it no more ? ( tolorance has a point and is difrent for everyone) or do we subscribe to the ideas a bit more like we believe in the inherit worth of all... and no one is to far from redemption? I fell some time tolorance keeps from the show of faithfulness and of actual practice of what we want to bloom rather than ... stored hate . Thought s? Thank you for taking time to share with me !

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: @ -arisaig
Here there is no crime so ... yea don't commit crime . You may or may not get in trouble . Make good desisions.
Here it's more of disagreement and difrent views and even picking on or agrivation. Tolerance seems to be a idea that keeps tally till it becomes to much at which point it can be harmful. Is that what is needed or we even promote ? Just sweep it under the rug till it gets to be too much? Can we defend our own practices and our own faiths and views with our tolorance? I am not arguing or even calling anynome out please be aware of that. I don't want to cause drama where there is none needed . I simply want to see what the ideas that exist are. Syncretism can have as a ready solution to defend or even let be. What do you think? So chances run out ? Is there a point where we reach that we can tolorate it no more ? ( tolorance has a point and is difrent for everyone) or do we subscribe to the ideas a bit more like we believe in the inherit worth of all... and no one is to far from redemption? I fell some time tolorance keeps from the show of faithfulness and of actual practice of what we want to bloom rather than ... stored hate . Thought s? Thank you for taking time to share with me !

For my example I used crimes as a parable of sorts. Breaking the rules, crimes, same things. If people continue to break the rules of a community (here, anywhere), they eventually aren't wanted and are put away.

Yes, there is such thing as running out of chances. Yes, we should forgive, but this is a community that needs to be kept safe. If someone threatens that security, be it by acting in a way that may hurt people seeking healing, or by actively breaking rules, then they wont be accepted and they're shunned.

This goes beyond this community. I give a lot of second chances, some would even say I'm too forgiving. But eventually a cornered predator will lash out. They will remove the threat. This may be ceasing communication with someone, "unfriending" them, blocking them on social medias, or straight up telling them to leave. In all communities, even interpersonal ones between two people, there are rules of conduct, unspoken rules. The proverbial "domestication of the human race" type thing. You break those rules, you get in trouble, if not lose everything.

I remember seeing a video about a man going at a news reporter with racist slurs (reporter was Jamaican if I remember correctly). Honestly, shocking statements and dehumanising slurs. That man was filmed and shamed publicly for his actions. He lost his job, and he will prolly have a hard time finding another. He broke the rules of a society, and was shunned as a result. People's tolerance for his actions ran out.