Access Denied

You do not have permissions to access this page.

Latest Posts Comments Articles
    • Martial Arts as a metaphor of Personal Behavior? (Last post by rugadd)
    • I'll save Shaolin philosophy for another thread. Martial Arts wiped away misconceptions and delusions I had. Shaolin is a very unforgiving art in that you don't get to stop until you have too. Reality comes crashing in very fast because of this. What we are capable of, those wispy dreams born from fantastic stories, are gone the instant you realize you can only do 7 pushups. Gone are the fictitious flips as you struggle with a simple bear crawl. No more does one say to themselves "I would see it coming, know and do just the right thing" in a fight after one 2 minute round. Training for me taught me humility. It is the first lesson and an important one. After a few years in martial arts, one does not WANT to have to fight. They have to much experience with their own body to want to put that harm on anyone, or suffer it themselves. It is about being forced to see who you really are instead of what you think of yourself to be. One of the reasons I think everyone should be beat up at least once in their lives.
    • Becoming a member.. (Last post by Puerh)
    • Thank you very much everyone. Your help is really appreciated. I'll make sure to contact Jestor when I finish work :) May the force be with you all.
    • What is TOTJO? (Last post by Akkarin)
    • I'm a bit late to this party, but with regards to the defining thing brought up earlier, at TotJO we officially don't ever take any authoritative position on the definition of a Jedi. We say "This is what makes you a Jedi by our standards" and don't take much interest in what other people think, because why should we be beholden to them for our definition? We do not expect them to be beholden to us by our definition (which for TotJO is: "You are a Jedi if you complete the application and take the Simple Oath - which is a demonstration of your acceptance of our doctrine). On the Homepage: the text just above the Jedi Believe part was changed specifically to "If you wish to further your understanding of the Jedi Path then you can begin the Initiate Programme", because the training is supplemental to one's understanding of the doctrine which is what makes one a Jedi in our eyes. While the vast majority of members here do undertake the training it is not required. We are a gathering place of like-minded people who have taken on the name of Jedi as an umbrella term for our beliefs. Like-minded means that we will all come here, and stay here (or not), for a variety of different reasons. The Temple offers each of us something different, because it means something different to each of us. If people are worried that TotJO is ever trying to take some kind of authoritative position on what makes someone a Jedi then that person has perhaps missed the numerous instances in which we have always stated that we never do that - especially in official communication with non-Jedi news-people and students.
    • Further Religious Structure (Last post by Connor L.)
    • All we can be sure of is that nobody knows everything. Carlos was not there when the book was written. So, he can't know what the right answer is, EVEN IF HE GETS IT RIGHT. :O It's a crazy thought, isn't it?
    • Talent (Last post by Connor L.)
    • I LOVE how after she comes out of the arpeggio theme she ritards into the other themes, giving each of them their own tempo... that is SO Rock and Roll. WOW. WOW. WOW!!!
    • The Balance (Last post by Jung Faol)
    • So much time is spent displaying and describing the difference between light and dark. Not only here, to which I am granted a newcomer, but in life in general. There is an inherent need to see the separation between right and wrong, good and bad, light and dark, people who talk at the movies and those who shush them.... The Balance is something that I have revered since I can remember. You can be the clown and the smart kid at the same time. In fact its better that way because you approach humor from a point of intelligence, and you portray your intellect with a laugh. The 6'8 bruiser on the football team that volunteers at the local soup kitchen, the cut throat used car salesperson that signs over part of their check to the local animal shelter, the person who strives endlessly to enhance the income of their recorded artist company through whatever means are necessary and still finds the time to go on ahead and say yes (insert name of a band you cant stand here) we'll sign you on for three more albums. More importantly however is the balance within. Concerning with life necessities like family well being, and the ceaseless job to support them. Time apart and enhanced time together can be rather difficult to maintain no matter the circumstances. Work and Play, Family and Friends, Health (meneal and physical) and Wealth (literal and figurative). Do you go for the loaded mash because you spent 30 minutes on the treadmill? Have you call out sick because you just wanted a day to spend at home with your family? I suppose my overall idea here is that finding balance is something I have always wanted to be a constant in my life regardless of which one of endless categories that may fall under. How often is the balance supported, and how often do people so without even realizing it?
    • American men, American media, and the villificatio... (Last post by Oneiros)
    • Quote: I don't mean from the book itself but from the article. My experience of TV tells me it's rubbish, with the only guy on TV that looks normal to me being norm from "new yankee workshop". though I'm sure there are other instances of men not being mis-represented. I know of at least one show that makes fun of women ("real housewives of some town"), but i find it particularly distasteful, my wife is the one who watches this sort of rubbish (This stuff genuinely makes me feel like after 10 years free of TV I should never have hooked it up to an aerial) Well yes, I will absolutely concede the point that TV is 100% rubbish except for Looney Toons. That is just pure gold. I think my biggest problem with the points made in the article is that they are all based on the idea that (to put it simply) the media controls the way you think. I only believe this is the case if someone does almost nothing except immerse themselves in media. If all someone does all day is watch TV, then all they're going to know is what they see on TV and that will shape their world view. But by that logic I could say the same thing about a person who only reads books by a single author on a single subject. In both cases their perspective will be limited, but do we criticize publishing company's for printing books? No because that would be crazy and there are plenty of books to choose from so nobody is limited. That is why it is important to be mindful of our thoughts and strengthen our mental resolve so that we are not influenced by this outside noise, but rather stay focused on our internal clarity so our perspective can be open instead of limited. I understand the worry that children won't be able to maintain a clear enough mind to resist all the messages in the media, but that's why education is so important. If a child is well educated and well rounded, they will be able to see through all the rhetoric and labels and half-baked sound bytes and find the truth. This article only adds to the noise they'll have to cut through. It comes from the exact same place in someone's heart as the messages it's trying to counter: fear. Fear is not an appropriate tool to teach people. This brings me to my specific examples from the article. I need not read further than the first line to find one. The first thing the writer does is quote Orwell's 1984 and then talk about totalitarian societies. If you're allowed to quote Orwell, you don't live in a totalitarian society. I feel like that's the first book that would get burned. Another example is "Feminism is an ideology, or systematised way of thinking. Many influential feminists have been outspokenly angry about and encouraged violence to men." Aside from the grammatical errors and misidentification, the author doesn't even bother to define feminism. He just says it's an ideology and then jumps right into "violence to men." Through a blatant omission of information, he effectively associates feminism with violence against men. That is being purposefully deceptive in order to make a point. "While there has been some university study of men, it is taken for granted that this will be done from a feminist perspective." That's not what taken for granted means. It doesn't mean automatically assumed, it means to expect someone or something to be always available to serve in some way without thanks or recognition; to value someone or something too lightly. The misuse of a simple phrase speaks to the intellectual value of the article's author. "HOW MEDIA PUT MEN DOWN Some influential media images of men can be found in The Simpsons. The father character, Homer, is lazy, chauvinistic, stupid and irresponsible." I don't watch Simpson's often but I can name a few dad's on TV that are good men: Ned Stark-Game of Thrones, Jerry Stiller-Seinfeld, Jay Pritchett-Modern Family, Burt Hummel-Glee. I could name more. For every "bad" example there is also a "good" example. The article cites a single father figure TV and extrapolates a whole point from it, completely omitting (again) any information to the contrary. If someone is worried about being told how to think, they should steer clear of this article and Jim Macnamara's book because all it does it tell people how to think by focusing on and twisting things to fit a world view instead of looking at the totality of information and developing an unbiased viewpoint from it. the funny thing is, this is exactly the tactic used by the media to do exactly what this article is warning people about: controlling the way you think.
    • chat (Last post by Revan Falton)
    • Had to dip out fast. Work called me in early. It was fun chatting with you all, hope to do it again soon!
    • Is questioning one's faith inevitable? (Last post by Koffee)
    • It's as natural and inevitable as a snake shedding its skin, yo. In other words, humans are intrinsically metaphysical. As consciousness evolves, so must ones beliefs or "faiths" correspond to this evolution. Faith must decay before it can grow anew, and since growth is a a natural property of consciousness, it follows that all faiths must in some sense decay. This sense of "decay" could be elaborated further, but I would generally consider "questioning" one's faith to be either a kind of decay or a symptom of decay, depending on how you want to approach describing the phenomena. What is essential never really dies, however. So one may qualify my original answer with a few other distinctions and terms, etc.

There are 152 visitors, 4 guests and 39 members online (7  are in chat): Akkarin, Br. John, steamboat28, Shadouness, Jestor, Jedi_Roz, ren, Kitsu Tails, Joe, Connor L., Brian, Wescli Wardest, Learn_To_Know, Desolous, Proteus, rugadd, Alexandre Orion, Rosalyn J, PatrickB, Archon, Kamizu, elizabeth, tzb, microft, Pyrus Erath, benedictveritas, Jamie Stick, Mathew Erickson, carlos.martinez3, Cabur Senaar, SeventhSL, Acheron, Oneiros, Exarchias, danielhwhite.

Follow Us