It differs across cultures and objects. Our perception, basically, is the filter to what our senses need or need not. Scientifically, threshold would relate to our sensory perceptions: seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling or tasting.

Sociologically speaking, threshold is much related to pain and suffering as an object with the sense of feeling at the foreground. You may hear, see , smell or taste pain and suffering vicariously but to feel it yourself is a totally disparate sphere.

Once in a TV show where contestants are forcibly tormented to soak themselves in a swarm of decomposing coelenterates, the dunce host proudly cheered: “Oh c’mon you can do that, that’s a piece of cake!” (Duh? Why don’t you try it yourself!) The dumb really does a petitio principii; begging off the question while couch potatoes the world over do the most disgruntled of looks.

The threshold of tolerance differs still between individuals. A wealthy man may see suffering and pain in the form of unspent hours in a luxurious spa; a mendicant, in not having a meal a day. The level of experiences, one might suggest, is the cause or source of these differences. A man of fortune is less resilient to drastic changes as well as that of minor details; an impoverished man sees it on the contrary as part of a life constantly unrequited.

Opportunities usually fail us, if it may ever chance upon deserted souls, but time is always of the essence. For a billion waiting in line, the trickle will surely not unbend things nor even make a ripple at the least.

In parochial terms, the threshold we’re speaking of had already become non-existent. People these days are trying to be more and more resilient in a world that is growing to be hypocritical by projecting lethargy amidst turmoil.

In voir dire, as captured by that street-smart language: “Hanggang kaya kong sikmurain!” But still, this implies a stretch to infinity. . .