Toleration and Freemasonry

Dear Brothers, receive a big greeting and hug.

We can define Toleration is the allowing, permitting, or acceptance of an action, idea, object, or person which one dislikes or disagrees with. Its etimology has from the Latin "tolerans" (present participle of tolerare; "to bear, endure, tolerate").

Now, we know that Freemasonry has much phrases, triades, how: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity". This is a powerful phrase, and I have a question about it: Is the Toleration the origin from Liberty, Equality, Fraternity?, or vice versa?, or best, both?.

I think that this situation is how the chicken and egg riddle, which was first?

Before to conclude, I have another question: Should we tolerate the intolerance?

I wait yours opinions. Thank you for read my written.




Image obtained from https://www.accem.es/dia-internacional-tolerancia/

The paradox of tolerance in society is that you can not tolerate intolerance. If you do it inevitably begins to spread and destroys that which is held dear. I will generally hear someone out but I may choose to reject them.

Everyone has their own threshold.

M8925 said:

...We can define Toleration is the allowing, permitting, or acceptance of an action, idea, object, or person which one dislikes or disagrees with....

Click to expand...

We could, but it would be foundationally wrong.

Toleration is NOT Acceptance. Toleration is NOT responding negatively toward what we perceive to be a source of irritation. It doesn't mean that we accept the influence of the perceived source. It only means our responses are not negative toward it. We endure the irritation without negative reaction.

M8925 said:

... Is the Toleration the origin from Liberty, Equality, Fraternity?, or vice versa?, or best, both?.

Click to expand...

No. Civility, Respect and Consideration are.

M8925 said:

...I think that this situation is how the chicken and egg riddle, which was first?

Click to expand...

The Egg. One does not need a chicken to produce a chicken egg. One only needs to create the chicken egg and that does not require the chicken. And the concept of a chicken is not required either, though it helps to know what you are to create.

If you wish to argue the concept of a chicken comes first, as in the idea must be put forth for the creator to know what is to be created, then obviously the concept came first proving the either/or question is poorly constructed since it offers a logical fallacy with only two options where it is obvious a third is necessary and does exist.

Of course, this too is a logical fallacy since it introduces a fourth option, the creator of the idea. I hope you see where this is going.

M8925 said:

...Before to conclude, I have another question: Should we tolerate the intolerance?

Click to expand...

Not if the source of that intolerance exhibits negative responses that impact that which it is intolerant toward. We always have the option to resist or reject it when Civility, Respect and Consideration are not in the equation.

For Further Light on this: https://buildinghiram.blogspot.com/2010/09/tolerance-revisited.html

Grimm said:

The paradox of tolerance in society is that you can not tolerate intolerance.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The paradox is due to limited understanding. Society CAN tolerate intolerance. Especially when the intolerance is Civil, Respectful and Considerate.

Grimm said:

If you do it inevitably begins to spread and destroys that which is held dear.

Click to expand...

Your assumption excludes the possibility that intolerance can be Civil, Respectful and Considerate. Civil, Respectful and Considerate intolerance can and is something that is exercised daily. Much like what I have done here to your post.

I am intolerant of your thoughts. But I have handled them with Civility, Respect and Consideration.

Grimm said:

I will generally hear someone out but I may choose to reject them.
Everyone has their own threshold.

Click to expand...

It's when intolerance becomes uncivil, disrespectful and inconsiderate that it spills over into negatively affecting others.

I'm intolerant of many things and rightfully so. I rarely approach becoming uncivil, disrespectful and inconsiderate though. When I do, it's usually when I see endangerment of life and associated life connections or simple stubborn stupidity.

Then the source of that danger (or stupidity) is dealt with without prejudice and a second thought.

coachn said:

Then the source of that danger (or stupidity) is dealt with without prejudice and a second thought.

Click to expand...

Well said Brother!

If everyone isn't at least having fun, and being respectful, then it's time to hang it up. But there are those who act like children to see how far you can push the envelope. Those I will just avoid. Sooner or later they get the hint.

coachn said:

We could, but it would be foundationally wrong.

Toleration is NOT Acceptance. Toleration is NOT responding negatively toward what we perceive to be a source of irritation. It doesn't mean that we accept the influence of the perceived source. It only means our responses are not negative toward it. We endure the irritation without negative reaction.


No. Civility, Respect and Consideration are.


The Egg. One does not need a chicken to produce a chicken egg. One only needs to create the chicken egg and that does not require the chicken. And the concept of a chicken is not required either, though it helps to know what you are to create.

If you wish to argue the concept of a chicken comes first, as in the idea must be put forth for the creator to know what is to be created, then obviously the concept came first proving the either/or question is poorly constructed since it offers a logical fallacy with only two options where it is obvious a third is necessary and does exist.

Of course, this too is a logical fallacy since it introduces a fourth option, the creator of the idea. I hope you see where this is going.


Not if the source of that intolerance exhibits negative responses that impact that which it is intolerant toward. We always have the option to resist or reject it when Civility, Respect and Consideration are not in the equation.

For Further Light on this: https://buildinghiram.blogspot.com/2010/09/tolerance-revisited.html

View attachment 6788

Click to expand...

Thank my Brother, your words are very good. A big hug.

coachn said:

I disagree. The paradox is due to limited understanding. Society CAN tolerate intolerance. Especially when the intolerance is Civil, Respectful and Considerate.

Your assumption excludes the possibility that intolerance can be Civil, Respectful and Considerate. Civil, Respectful and Considerate intolerance can and is something that is exercised daily. Much like what I have done here to your post.

I am intolerant of your thoughts. But I have handled them with Civility, Respect and Consideration.

It's when intolerance becomes uncivil, disrespectful and inconsiderate that it spills over into negatively affecting others.

I'm intolerant of many things and rightfully so. I rarely approach becoming uncivil, disrespectful and inconsiderate though. When I do, it's usually when I see endangerment of life and associated life connections or simple stubborn stupidity.

Then the source of that danger (or stupidity) is dealt with without prejudice and a second thought.

Click to expand...

Brother CoachN, perhaps it would be more precise to say that a society can ACCOMODATE intolerance and still function? If the intolerance is not widespread enough to destroy the fabric of the society. Intolerance is not the same as disagreement, is it? Intolerance, coming from the Latin verb, implies action against something. Disagreement is more of a stative verb. We can all disagree with each other without causing a riot. This makes me think that your personal definition is not quite the same as that presented in the original post. Unless we all use the same definition of the word it will be pretty hard to have a constructive conversation, right? It's that apples and oranges thing.... But I do agree with the spirit of your post!

Jim In Bozeman Montana said:

Brother CoachN, perhaps it would be more precise to say that a society can ACCOMODATE intolerance and still function? If the intolerance is not widespread enough to destroy the fabric of the society. Intolerance is not the same as disagreement, is it? Intolerance, coming from the Latin verb, implies action against something. Disagreement is more of a stative verb. We can all disagree with each other without causing a riot. This makes me think that your personal definition is not quite the same as that presented in the original post. Unless we all use the same definition of the word it will be pretty hard to have a constructive conversation, right? It's that apples and oranges thing.... But I do agree with the spirit of your post!

Click to expand...

I understand what you have done here. I understand the spirit of what you have shared. Some points:

1) I can tolerate intolerance. I do not have to accommodate it.
2) I can still function tolerating intolerance. I may not continue to function if I accommodate it.
3) As long as intolerance doesn't interfere, I can tolerate it and even accommodate it. When it interferes, I can still tolerate it, but I certainly will not accommodate it.
4) Both intolerance and disagreement in their various forms can be either action or stative based, depending upon their form, context and intent.
5) Tolerance is about NOT taking negative actions. Accommodation is taking actions that support it.
6) Having the same definitions is no guarantee of success of constructive conversations, but it is a great start

coachn said:

I understand what you have done here. I understand the spirit of what you have shared. Some points:

1) I can tolerate intolerance. I do not have to accommodate it.
2) I can still function tolerating intolerance. I may not continue to function if I accommodate it.
3) As long as intolerance doesn't interfere, I can tolerate it and even accommodate it. When it interferes, I can still tolerate it, but I certainly will not accommodate it.
4) Both intolerance and disagreement in their various forms can be either action or stative based, depending upon their form, context and intent.
5) Tolerance is about NOT taking negative actions. Accommodation is taking actions that support it.
6) Having the same definitions is no guarantee of success of constructive conversations, but it is a great start

Click to expand...

This is tolerable.

Glen Cook said:

This is tolerable.

Click to expand...

I find what's happening to this forum intolerable and disagreeable.

TheThumbPuppy said:

I find what's happening to this forum intolerable and disagreeable.

Click to expand...

I'll tolerate this. But don't expect me to accommodate it.