A Problem.

Are those words truly a problem, or is it simply a tool for enlightenment? As a reminder of what we are called to be, and how we should STRIVE to act. Yes, no one is perfect, all will have short comings. However, how will we, or anyone ever achieve anything greater then what has already been achieved if we do not STRIVE to be better?

steamboat28 wrote:

Alethea Thompson wrote: So yeah, I can say it, and I will- based on experience with those specific types of laws.

And I will continue to disagree with you for my own, personal reasons.

You're free to say anybody you want is "unJedi." But don't expect everyone to agree with your statements, and understand that they undermine the very "Jedi" nature (by their very existence) that you're trying to get people to strive for.

In comparing someone to a ruler that doesn't exist, we are doing the opposite of what is taught here. We are actively harming the community by passing judgement in what should be a judgement-free space. And no amount of sugar-coating is going to make it alright.

Then what you describe as "Jedi" is not in fact Jedi- it's Human.

There is no point in having a word that describes already what people do.

Let me give you an example. If Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (the current leader of ISIL) came in and stated he was a Jedi, and let you know full well whom he was- would you agree that he was? If so, then you do not have a working model for what a Jedi is- so then you need to determine "Is there even a reason for us to call ourselves Jedi, if all we are doing is what we feel is right for society?"

Thank you for starting this conversation. Excellent.

We have parsed the term Jedi before. We know where the conversation goes. I suspect we all have a general idea of what is and is not Jedi behavior, but that is not really at issue.

I think Jamie's point is spot on. If we need to confront an idea, let us discuss specific characteristics. This has the benefit of being specific, which makes it harder to worm out. It also forces us to be more courageous in our language.

It has the added benefit of giving us a sense of how to define Jedi without using the label. At some point, we each need our behavior checked. When it is my turn, I hope people refer to traits.

Rickie The Grey wrote: Let me change one word....

That isn't very "nice" of you.

Does that change anything?

No. It's still passive-aggressive and wholly uncalled for in adult conversation.

Alethea Thompson wrote: If so, then you do not have a working model for what a Jedi is- so then you need to determine "Is there even a reason for us to call ourselves Jedi, if all we are doing is what we feel is right for society?"

Welcome to the conversation I've been having in this Temple for the last two years. Unfortunately for your argument, it doesn't actually apply to this example, given the corporate beliefs stated on the front page.

Conversations like this can't really get anywhere until there is a common understanding of what a Jedi should and should not be. It's already been pointed out that we don't have that yet and until we do these conversation will continue to fall short. The Jedi community is still muddied with individualism. In boot camp they call it the desire to be your own special butterfly. We can't achieve a common understanding of what a Jedi is if every Jedi wants to be their own special butterfly. Don't misunderstand me by thinking I'm against being your own person. I'm not. But I do see the merits of letting go of unimportant aspects of the individual in favor of aspects of the group that are of greater importance.

We do it in the military. If someone keeps failing their physical fitness evaluation, they get kicked out. If an officer has a relationship with an enlisted person (there are exceptions for marriage fyi) then they can be punished and possibly discharged. We do this because not enforcing these rules tarnishes the image of the military and what it means to be part of it. If we let 300 lbs couch potatoes who can't do 10 pull-ups wear the uniform then it would diminish what it means for someone who can actually perform the duties of a soldier to wear that uniform. That couch potato might have all the patriotism in his heart of a true soldier, but physically he just can't cut it. There are standards. The Jedi of myth had standards too. Not everyone could just be a Jedi because they decided to be.

I agree with Cabur that it's probably better to have conversations about specific issues. No need for labels. After a while people will come here because they know exactly what being a Jedi means.

Totally unrelated but since waterboarding was brought up, I've been water boarded. It's honestly not that bad. A bit like getting a bunch of water in your nose when you're swimming in the pool and you can't get it out. Uncomfortable, but not too bad.

Nice is an adjective: Jedi is a noun. So, no, this example will not work.

As "defined" as Christianity is according to most of those who are Christians, they nevertheless each have their own takes on what it means depending on what church and what denomination, or even what specific family they are from. That being said, I don't recall ever seeing somebody say "That's not very Christian of you", result in the "Christian" saying "oh... Well, okay, you're right. Thank you for calling me out like that." - Not to say that has never happened anywhere or never could, just saying the percentages don't exactly skyrocket.

"That's not very Buddhist of you"

"That's not very Muslim of you"

"That's not very Wiccan of you"

"That's not very Scientologist of you"

"That's not very Rastafarian of you"

or how about...

"That's not very [your given name here] of you"

Firstly, all those ego-identities are just social conventions. None of those labels are what any of us *really* are. They are all just words used to refer to ideas which are used as a tool to guide the ego in a particular direction - however, it has to be the decision of the ego itself to agree to and use that reference to be guided at all. No other ego can use another ego's tool to dictate its guidance. No matter how standardized an idea is, each ego makes that idea its own, inevitably de-standardizing it in the end. This means, there is no true standard of "what is" for any identity based idea, so long as it is interpreted by the ego. "That is not very Jedi of you" only means "That is not very [my idea of] Jedi of you." ... Furthermore, it is only the ego that is serving that statement in the first place - it is a judgement, nevermind whether good or bad, which is dictating that someone else adopt their ego's version of the idea. It is also also counter-productive to its intention, as it is the act of one ego challenging another, further dividing two people who are both trying to be guided by an idea centered around unity. Isn't that funny?

What funny, is that post actually gives nothing and only exacerbates the problem everyone tries so hard with relativity to cover up.

Can you clarify? Exactly what problem are you referring to, and how is it being covered up?