Access Denied

You do not have permissions to access this page.

Latest Posts Comments Articles
    • Is all altruism selfish? (Last post by Mareeka)
    • Quote: This isn't an answer to my own question, but I thought that those who have read the thread might find this interesting. I've just found research paper where the researchers found that the more spiritual you are, the more compassion you have and the more altruistic you are, but how religious you are has little bearing on how altruistic you are. Spiritual people are more altruistic than religious people. Food for thought I guess. It does correlate directly to the discussion. I think I get what the author is attempting to say, but I surely wouldn't run around freely stately "spiritual people are more altruistic than religious people." LOL
    • Why does the application ask about offenses over $... (Last post by Gisteron)
    • Speaking as one of the harsher visiting douchebags of this here fine establishment, I shall say this: Seeing as an answer like yours to this question will have negligible to no effect on your actual time here, maybe there is a discussion to be had whether it should be asked then. Besides, on the one hand the question explicitly cautions against being answered vaguely. Yet it justifies itself through something as vague as the "protection of you and the membership [emphasis added]", where the membership could be referring to your own, or to that of other members or to the set of other members, and I have no idea what protection means in this context at all either. And now that we have been to a little exercise on the virtues of irony and self-awareness, what came to bother me, and this was not a question back when I applied in 2011, is the question for one of four phone numbers. Why TOTJO would need that sort of data is frankly beyond me and "for our records" doesn't quite make it make any more sense. Transparency, ladies and gentlemen, is the only way to gain a newcomers trust or to keep a long-time user's. Now lest I be accused of seeing but one side of this, after taking it out on TOTJO, let's turn to you, dear newcomer. You implied that TOTJO has no right to ask questions of the sort you are complaining about. That is false. Everybody has every right to ask any question they please. That being said, nobody, including TOTJO, is entitled to an answer. You are perfectly free to ask the administration why they need that information and if their answer is unsatisfying, refuse to provide it. If you are lucky you will be able to negotiate a membership without that and chances are, the form will be changed for future applicants based on that precedent case. Otherwise you will be refused membership, not so much because of the answer, but because you wouldn't provide one. Of course, you can skip all of that by simply not applying, if you feel like they are asking too much for memberships here, as do I. In the very next sentence you go on to claim that somebody asks that to pass judgement on you. Not only do you not know that, you have little to no evidence to even assume it, past experience with other organizations notwithstanding. You also tried to appeal to the emotions of the administration by trying to insult them and potentially other members. That is not what we call fine behaviour; however, rest assured, that only the substance of your posts will be adressed and not any angry outbursts or feeble attempts to push someone's buttons, which ever it is. It will be noticed, however. In the next paragraph you go on to assume that somebody is going to refuse your membership based on how you respond to that question. Well most people here tend to not waste their time with this much bureaucracy. If criminal offenses as low as 300USD are a problem enough to refuse membership, I think there would be an automated script where you hit the button for having such a record and it would kindly inform you that a membership is impossible. The very fact there is an application form that is manually processed already tells you that all this information is for records only and would seldom jeopardize anyone's potential for membership. You then go on being outraged at how anyone asks you to lie for membership eventhough the form very specifically states that you must enter truthful data. Seeing as you must have read the application form at least thus far, including the preceding text, it stands to reason that you know full well how nobody is asking you to lie and therefore are lying in this very post. Way to dig one's very own grave! Now, in the next paragraph you both ask and answer another question, namely what makes the leading bodies of TOTJO qualified to decide who is worthy of joining their club. Well, frankly, anyone sincere and honest and serene enough to answer one of a dozen simple questions without insulting anyone would, technically be enough, I presume. Seeing also how TOTJO in particular is indeed a club, its members and leaders are very much qualified to decide who they let in and who they don't and while you are free to question their standards, it is not your place to dictate any to them at this point. Besides, TOTJO is not the only Jediist community. There are others, active to varying degrees, with both higher and lower standards than these, and being a Jedi does not strictly require you to join any of them. You can be a self-appointed Jedi master if you want, and nobody will judge you for it, just as nobody judges self-appointed Hindu gurus or self-appointed Baptist ministers, if I may jump ahead into the post you did after that. TOTJO is not defining what a Jedi is, it is defining what a TOTJO member is, a TOTJO Knight, a TOTJO Master. As far as I know, most other sites wouldn't give a damn about anybody's rank here until they met their standards and likewise, wherever else you might be an order's Grand Master, you start as a humble novice on TOTJO. If you feel that this place is offensive to your particular sensibilities, that's too bad, and you are welcome to either deal with it or walk through our ever open door again; nobody here is responsible for what you are telling yourself, especially not when what we are saying is the opposite of that.
    • Shadow Jedi? (Last post by ren)
    • Shadows do not believe in dark or light Aqua. I don't think there's many surviving websites out there, but I'm sure google will return something. Shadow philosophy is a lot of existentialism and a lot of wu-wei. Shadow Jedi usually adopt the unifying force perspective, which is pantheistic (or panentheistic), which is also how the totjo doctrine describes it ("Jediism is a religion based on the observance of the Force, a ubiquitous and metaphysical power that a Jedi (a follower of Jediism) believes to be the underlying, fundamental nature of the universe"). The unifying Force seems to be the most common "Force belief" nowadays, and no longer typical of shadows.
    • What are you reading right now? (Last post by hellisforhorses)
    • Quote: @Arcade: "Kadavermarch" (March of the cadavers) was one of the defining books for me growing up :) Currently I'm reading Hunter Thompson's "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" which is by far one of the weirdest and most brilliant books I've ever read. Just got a fresh copy after the last one literally fell apart. Next up on the list is "Last Exit to Brooklyn" by Hubert Selby Jr. That book is pretty trippy, but super-awesome at the same time! :)
    • The Whole? (Last post by Adder)
    • For me, its about exercising different points of view but then extending that, and multiplying it to a persistent and broader level of reflections - like rolling marbles out of a lawn and having a thousand eyes seeing the world in slightly different angles. There are practical benefits to exercising a different point of view in understanding others of course, and breaking out of established bias, but developing that idea of a greater view of the whole tends to reshape how one see's themselves because we only have so much resource internally to achieve some nature of that view. That is sort of how I approach the question. I'm not saying its good or bad though :S
    • How massive is a supermassive blackhole? (Last post by Adder)
    • How massive!? Depends how close you are :lol: I read a few days ago a NASA simulation of the destruction of dark matter produced what looks like a black hole. Here is a pic, the brighter colors are Gamma rays rushing towards the camera/POV as they interact close to the event horizon. Perhaps all the 'dark matter' is within black holes, or not... [attachment] Gamma-Ray Signal Produced in the Computer Simulation by Annihilations of Dark Matter Particles NASA/GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER
    • Rituals Needed Today (Last post by Adder)
    • Quote: Quote: Ritual almost has a negative connotation with me, as in 'routine' but I think it points to how I see it - I try to make everything spiritually significant While I agree with this approach to a fairly large degree, it is important to note that things are defined by their "opposites." Just as you cannot conceptualize light without the contrasting darkness, or fullness without knowing what emptiness is, the ability for something to be sacred or "spiritually significant" relies on the demarcation between it and the mundane or "insignificant." In short, to paraphrase the Incredibles' villain, "If everything's sacred, nothing is." I hedge that by the awareness of my shifts in focus :lol: I'm always ignoring something lol!
    • Jedi Beleive (Last post by Spenserhawk)
    • Quote: So I will be getting a little pedantic here, thus bare with me, please. Also, I have to disclaim that I for one find it, let's say, pretentious to be able to just declare what all Jedi believe, especially considering that TOTJO is a place where nobody would ever be called less of a Jedi for not believing any particular of these points; that to the point, where I have seen people who frequent this place argue that the death penalty may be defendable on, say, financial grounds, as if that were at all relevant, and I have seen people argue absolute morality (though be it not the absoluteness of moral concepts, as it were) on this very site, too. Now on we go to my trademark nitpicking (i.e. take it with a grain of... well, of sugar, really for splitting hairs is what this is and not strictly any definitive disagreement): To start off with a genuine hair-splitting exercise, the first line doesn't say "everything in the universe" but "all life within [the Force]". It says that Jedi believe in that Force, not necessarily that it is present throughout all of existence, though undoubtedly a great number of Jedi believe that, too. The second line doesn't say much about respect. One could argue that the human person is more than its flesh and extend the proposed sanctity thereof to mean a prescription of respect, but the text does not quite grant that on its own, and we might be better off stretching it as little as possible. I think the line only says that we ought not damage anyone mentally (as opposed to physically covered in the previous line). The fourth line says that we believe in a society that does not discriminate on the mentioned grounds. I suppose by extension some other grounds may be added to the list. However, nobody can be commanded to accept anyone. We are, individually, free to reject anyone for any reason. However, society and large should not on principle reject people of particular superficial properties. In other words, we believe in equality before the law and peaceful coexistence under it. The next line also I don't find says anything about either respect or benefit. The Ethic of Reciprocity is more than a clear reference to the Golden Rule, since both are technical terms used to refer to the same thing. The rest of the line points to the different conceptions of morality beside and despite it. It does not say that all are applicable to some extent or another, let alone that we individually ought seek them out and find our best mix, although that is a view defensible by itself. In my opinion the line cautions us against prejudice and preconception. People are different and we ought not expect everyone to behave in the ways we deem proper at all time nor judge them on the strictest forms of our own standards as if they were the only ones before we have at least a rudimentary understanding of their moral reasoning. Not much to add to the third last line. Where the third line proposed compassion as a guiding principle in forming societal laws, no other line includes acceptance and at this point I concede that maybe what we mean by that word isn't quite the same thing. Maybe what you mean is what I'd call acknowledging, we'd be on the same page with what the line seems to say. Accepting to me sounds like being less critical and more welcoming than that, both of which have their place in principle but also should be applied with moderation in practice. And to wrap it up I shall nitpick the word "follow" in your interpretation of the second last line. If by that you mean that we should be free to believe and think as we do and whenever we do, I agree that this seems to be what the line is saying. Follow can also mean follow through with, however, and seeing as the line speaks specifically of the freedom of conscience, I don't think it means to advocate the right to do all sorts of potentially dangerous rituals people keep constantly coming up with. Thanks for your views on my interpretations. They have definitely given me a of more to be thinking about...cheers, Lee
    • Workout Check-In Thread (Last post by Luthien)
    • Yesterday 3x5 Overhead Press 3x8 Incline Bench Press 3x10 Good Morning 3x30 Shrug 1x20 Crunch 1x20 Leg Lift Today 3x5 Deadlift 3x10 Hack Squat 3x10 Good Morning 3x8 Pull-up 1x15 Leg lift 2x12 Glute-Ham Raise
    • Light bubbles dont work (Last post by steamboat28)
    • To put your stance into its proper context, I will change every reference of "light bubble" into something that it approximates in the physical world. Quote: the value of the bubble self-defense class is that it helps settle oneself into ones energy body and it bolsters ones confidence as an exercise in visualization physical training it has benefits ; just like every other visualization physical training exercise - you could visualize train yourself in a mickey mouse suit and it would have exactly the same effect energetically physically and mentally i understand people have been using these forever and no one is going to stop simply because i say something - the fact that people do them doesnt change the fact that they are unecessary psychic energy physical strength is very much like light or sound or radio waves youre not going to build a wall of radio waves to keep out the other radio waves you disagree, fine yes, its what people are taught; excellent it makes you feel better; great, have fun never-the-less; a persons durability and energetic physical fortitude is a result of their birth, nutrition (which is much more than just food btw - people often forget that what we attach our emotions and our thoughts to is also an extremely important type of nutrition - its probably the FOUNDATION of personal nutrition really) behavior and lifestyle, overall physical health, mental development (which is not the same thing as I.Q.), personal discipline, emotional intelligence, and basically what rooster cogburn refers to as "grit" So while you may think them useless and unnecessary, the point is this sort of stance is potentially dangerous, especially to people new to energy work, psychic abilities, or any other non-physical chi-based mojo one happens to believe in.

There are 305 visitors, 17 guests and 33 members online (3  in chat): Akkarin, Br. John, Sarus, steamboat28, Shadouness, Jestor, ren, Kitsu Tails, Gisteron, V-Tog, Alexandre Orion, Rosalyn J, Llama Su, Kamizu, Cyrith, Edan, Mareeka, Silvermane, Pyrus Erath, benedictveritas, Calanon, Goken, Angwusi, Rocda, den385, Tk768, Krieger, Howl, Protonix, Adi Vas, CryojenX, Neorian, theta, Tellahane, Corsair Gorscue, adventureexcitement242, KarlstadJedi, HJulius1017, starhopper86, Eruthol.

Follow Us