A Problem.

  • Jestor
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
    Registered
  • What you want to learn, determines your teacher ..
More
9 years 4 months ago #170783 by Jestor
Replied by Jestor on topic A Problem.
Shoot! I went off topic!

Sorry, please dont derail...

On walk-about...

Sith ain't Evil...
Jedi ain't Saints....


"Bake or bake not. There is no fry" - Sean Ching


Rite: PureLand
Former Memeber of the TOTJO Council
Master: Jasper_Ward
Current Apprentices: Viskhard, DanWerts, Llama Su, Trisskar
Former Apprentices: Knight Learn_To_Know, Knight Edan, Knight Brenna, Knight Madhatter

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
9 years 4 months ago #170801 by
Replied by on topic A Problem.

Jestor wrote:
SO, we have let Jedi mean that ANYONE can be a Jedi, and at a basic level, mean they believe in a 'force' and that's about it... That's what the populace, who are not members of an organization, do...

So, we at TOTJO have let the term "Jedi" mean a beginner on this path, because they have not (necessarily) begun the steps to make themselves a better Person/Jedi...

We then use our ranks and statuses, (here at TOTJO) to show that the individual who has a rank here, has begun to apply themselves in that manner (self improvement, I mean)....

Hopefully, the higher the rank, the higher the awareness...


I'll accept that. That's reasonable. You can't help what people call themselves whether they are affiliated with TOTJO or not. And please don't misunderstand me. My posts weren't meant to place blame on anyone specific.

Jestor wrote: if you think it is hard to change the minds of those few who call themselves Jedi, try changing a culture mindset, lol...


It might be a tall order, but changing a cultural mindset is exactly what needs to happen.

@ Steamboat
Do we need a measuring stick? Yes. But as Cabur Senaar pointed out:

Cabur Senaar wrote: the community is resistant to defining the term Jedi in any great detail.

The reson for this is that people are afraid that once there is a standard they won't be able to measure up, but we need one nonetheless because without it everyone in the Jedi community gets lumped in with every random person on the street that calls themselves a Jedi.

Proteus wrote: The problem with using things like measuring sticks and selected standards for identifying Jedi revolves around the requirement for truth - meaning anything that is consistently fact.

It doesn't have to revolve around the requirement for truth. That logic doesn't have to be imposed.

Proteus wrote: Any concept created and molded by thought (particularly selective thought), through the ego, is something outside of what is ultimately true - why? Because concepts in question are only seen true from certain perspectives but not true from others, and thus, is not ultimately true.

And that works well in a philosophical sense but not very well in a practical one. The concept is the speed limit and it is 55. Whether I believe that to be true or perceive that concept differently than the cop has zero bearing on whether or not he gives me a ticket. By your logic, nothing is actually true and it's all up to perception. We don't live in the matrix. Your view is practical when understanding other people and helping you to think outside the box, but it is limited by reality. No matter what your individual truth is or how you perceive concepts, you still operate in this reality and must adjust your truth to it.

Proteus wrote: The designation "Jedi" by itself is an intangible artifact of thought, therefore, it is something that we apply through ego on top of what is actually true (what we are before any labels applied to ourselves and others). What we are underneath the labels and ideas created by our thoughts is the only thing that is consistently true (ultimately true), and that is not and never will be dictated by measuring sticks or standards. It is much too vast to be contained in any box as such.

You're getting caught up on the specific word Jedi when I've been commenting on the concept. The word Jedi was applied by George Lucas to a concept and a path that many people were searching for and some were already on. As you say, it's what we are before any labels are applied to ourselves and others that is consistently true. I'll say it's what counts. If what's underneath the Jedi label someone has applied to themselves is a lazy, condescending, cruel person, then the label can still apply as things currently are. But if we identify (as some have tried to do in other threads) the things that should be underneath before the Jedi label is applied, then we'll have our standards.

Proteus wrote: I do not see that we are here to learn that "I am a Jedi and am to follow the Doctrine", so much as to learn how to shed the illusions of the ego through the guidance of what we learn here, because it is THAT which will enable us to exhibit the intended virtuous characteristics of the concept we call "Jedi" in each of our own ways. This includes becoming free from investing so seriously in ego-based concepts including "Jedi".

I'm inclined to agree with this for two reasons:
1. I didn't mean to insinuate that the doctrine is the end all be all for what defines a Jedi.
2. Shedding the illusions of the ego so we can clearly understand the concept we call Jedi is precisely what I've been driving at. I think you're just more eloquent than I am.
I will ask though, if we're expected to become free from investing so seriously in ego-based concepts including Jedi because we exhibit the characteristics of the concept in our own ways, why have a group? Why even come together? If we're all ultimately expected to go about the path however we want, why even call ourselves anything at all?

Proteus wrote: In order for me to be a Jedi, I have to let go of the concept of Jedi as an actual thing to be. Instead, I am to be my true self - what I am before labels and judgments are applied. That true self is where I find what the actual Jedi is. There is no external, dictated standard that ever can or ever will point to that. Anything NOT Jedi (by virtuous intention), is anything other than that ultimate state of truth, and therefore, any behavior manifested as result.

And that's fine for someone like you. As far as I can tell from the limited personal interaction allowed by the internet, you're an intelligent, compassionate, and thoughtful person, but not everyone is and neither is everyone who calls themselves a Jedi. You can't tell someone who thinks that stealing something just because they want it that they should just be their true self and that's the actual Jedi. You also can't qualify that statement with virtuous intention because there have been a lot of bad things done that people intended to be virtuous. By your previous logic, what might be virtuous to one person isn't going to be virtuous to the next. That's why there has to be a standard. Forgive me if I misunderstood.
Also, forgive me for the long post. I'm totally cool with people PMing me instead of quoting and unquoting and such to have a discussion.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago #170808 by steamboat28
Replied by steamboat28 on topic A Problem.

Alethea Thompson wrote: Must believe:

Christ Died on the cross for our sins, he rose on the third day
Christ's Teachings
And the 10 Commandments
God is the one and only God of the world


Firstly, none of this is actually true. There are plenty of "Christian" sects that don't believe in the death or resurrection of Christ. And Christ Himself threw out the 10 Commandments along with the rest of the Law and the Prophets with His simple declaration that there are only two laws. That last one is complete nonsense, because if you look at the first commandment (and Jewish history at the time) actually suggests that until the Babylonian captivity, the Israelite religion was monolatrous rather than monotheistic, which is something that was retained in some Christian "heresies" in the early church. And none of this is even scratching the surface of Gnostic Christianity.

What I'm trying to illustrate here is that Cabur Senaar hit the nail perfectly on the head--if you want to discuss Jedi policy in regards to truth and doctrine, Christianity is the next closest model. The difference is that Christianity arguably has a more strict, arguably built-in, definition of who is and who isn't, who that label applies to. And it still has countless sects that can't agree with each other on who fits it.
The following user(s) said Thank You:

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago - 9 years 4 months ago #170811 by Br. John
Replied by Br. John on topic A Problem.
A prominent non-theistic Christian is Episcopalian Bishop John Selby Spong .

Founder of The Order
Last edit: 9 years 4 months ago by Br. John.
The following user(s) said Thank You: steamboat28,

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
9 years 4 months ago #170812 by
Replied by on topic A Problem.

Oneiros wrote:

Cabur Senaar wrote: the community is resistant to defining the term Jedi in any great detail.

The reson for this is that people are afraid that once there is a standard they won't be able to measure up, but we need one nonetheless because without it everyone in the Jedi community gets lumped in with every random person on the street that calls themselves a Jedi.


Do you think having a definition of what a Jedi is would stop us being "lumped" with every other random Jedi? Do you think that those who would lump people into one group would actually care about the fact that one set of people had some definition that would make them different? If we are going to get lumped, we are going to get lumped and no amount of definitions we have are going to make any difference, those people who "lump" are by definition choosing to ignore whatever differences there are anyway...

So say we do have a definition, that every current Jedi here agrees with. When someone comes along with something completely alien to this "Jediism", how exactly do you plan to enforce this definition upon those people? I gave the example of ISIL and Islam, you think that because other Muslims say "ISIL are not Muslims by definition" that ISIL actually give a damn about what they think? They will use whatever label they wish to use, and complaining about it isn't going to change that fact.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago #170816 by Breeze el Tierno
Replied by Breeze el Tierno on topic A Problem.
Just to clarify, I think we should focus less on who carries the label Jedi around and more on the quality of our own Jedi practices and the teaching infrastructure of tge Temple. Jedi will be pretty easy to define when there are a bunch of manifestly great Jedi walking around.

"That guy right there. That lady right there. Get yourself together kinda like that."

We may have trouble describing it, but i suspect we will know it when we see it. So, it seems to me we all have some homework there. I'm not even incidentally awesome yet.

I only brought up Christians because I know more bad Christians than bad Muslims or Jews or what have you. But those bad Christians are still Christians, or they believe so. We will run into the same thing with Jedi. No way around it.

I know a few lovely Christians as well. Just saying.

The definition for Jedi will be hashed out in actions, not by parsing of words or sly written barbs. It will require experimentation. It may get messy. It will take time. And that has to be okay.

We are still in the first generation of this endeavor. No child has been raised to adulthood by parents in this community as far as I know. Just think about what this will all look like then.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Alexandre Orion,

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
9 years 4 months ago #170828 by
Replied by on topic A Problem.

Akkarin wrote:

Oneiros wrote:

Cabur Senaar wrote: the community is resistant to defining the term Jedi in any great detail.

The reson for this is that people are afraid that once there is a standard they won't be able to measure up, but we need one nonetheless because without it everyone in the Jedi community gets lumped in with every random person on the street that calls themselves a Jedi.


Do you think having a definition of what a Jedi is would stop us being "lumped" with every other random Jedi? Do you think that those who would lump people into one group would actually care about the fact that one set of people had some definition that would make them different? If we are going to get lumped, we are going to get lumped and no amount of definitions we have are going to make any difference, those people who "lump" are by definition choosing to ignore whatever differences there are anyway...

So say we do have a definition, that every current Jedi here agrees with. When someone comes along with something completely alien to this "Jediism", how exactly do you plan to enforce this definition upon those people? I gave the example of ISIL and Islam, you think that because other Muslims say "ISIL are not Muslims by definition" that ISIL actually give a damn about what they think? They will use whatever label they wish to use, and complaining about it isn't going to change that fact.


I'm not touting standards as a magic bullet. Ignorant people are going to continue to be ignorant. But it would be more difficult for those ignorant people to lump a real Jedi in with someone who just talks the talk (or doesn't even do that) if we had standards.
I almost cited your example in my last post because ISIL is my area of expertise, but I felt the post was long enough already lol. But I'm glad you brought it up.
It doesn't matter if Baghdadi and his horde call themselves Muslims. What matters is drawing a thick enough line between them and real Muslims that when they claim to be Muslim even non-Muslims say, "No you're not. We know what a Muslim is and you aren't one." All the anti-Muslim sentiment expressed by people in my country, that zealot and his Quran burning, the "Pro-Israel-Fight Jihad" campaign, is all a result of there not being a well enough understood distinction between the two parties.
Anyone can go down to the Army Surplus store and buy a military uniform and claim to be military. However, when they make that claim, people will ask them what their MOS is, what unit they're with, if they've been deployed, if so where, when did they go to bootcamp, how long they've served. And that's just the general public. Someone actually serving in the military will ask them about rifle qualifications, who their squad leader is, stuff like that, and then their lie will unravel. It is extremely easy to tell if someone is not actually in the military because the military is so easy to distinguish.
You're rather familiar with Buddhism. If a guy wearing an orange robe, some flip flops from Walmart, long hair, and Beats by Dre headphones came up to you and claimed to be a Mahayana Buddhist monk, would you believe him? Or are the monks distinguished enough that even someone who doesn't know the difference between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism would be able to tell that no, they are in fact not a real Buddhist monk?
So my goal is not to keep people who are basically a real life version of the comic book shop guy from the Simpsons from calling themselves Jedi, but rather to further the divide between real Jedi and people like that so that when the day comes that we actually have a real temple and a dedicated following we don't have to deal with people mistaking us for something we're not or believing people who are not us but claim to be. It makes our credibility a little more secure.
And I know that what other people think isn't the most important thing, but when you wanna build a temple somewhere and people equate your religion with fat guys dressed as Leia at Comic Con, public perception matters a little.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago #170830 by SilverWolf
Replied by SilverWolf on topic A Problem.
Cabur, I am a member here and My Son Aiden-Gabriel is being raised, in a way through this community. Just the other day, he had expressed an interest in "learning to become a Jedi like you daddy" I did not know what to tell him because the rules for the order are more teen and adult oriented. I included a Picture of him from last years valentine's day. It is hard to see, but he has a ponytail that goes down to his Butt almost. He is now five years old, and Quite the lightsaber swordsman. He could probably give a Kendo Master a run for his money. At five, he can duel daddy with one saber, he can duel-wield, and saberstaff fight. His daddy who has cerebral palsy in his left side and can only fight with one saber, but an accomplished bo- staff martial artist gets bruises regularly from him. I honestly wish there were some form of rules or tasks a five year old could do to here to feel like he could train with daddy in his studies.
Attachments:
The following user(s) said Thank You: Breeze el Tierno,

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
9 years 4 months ago #170842 by
Replied by on topic A Problem.
[quoteWell, if it bothers you, maybe you should join the clergy and lead by example?
][/quote]

That is something I would find inspiring. :)

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago - 9 years 4 months ago #170863 by Proteus
Replied by Proteus on topic A Problem.

Oneiros wrote:

Proteus wrote: The problem with using things like measuring sticks and selected standards for identifying Jedi revolves around the requirement for truth - meaning anything that is consistently fact.

It doesn't have to revolve around the requirement for truth. That logic doesn't have to be imposed.


That isn't a logic that exists as something to be imposed at all actually. The nature of the intentions of Jediism is based around ultimate truth. Ultimate truth is not imposed, it is always there waiting to be discovered, but can only be so by cleaning off ego-based artifacts of thoughts and ideas.

Oneiros wrote:

Proteus wrote: Any concept created and molded by thought (particularly selective thought), through the ego, is something outside of what is ultimately true - why? Because concepts in question are only seen true from certain perspectives but not true from others, and thus, is not ultimately true.

And that works well in a philosophical sense but not very well in a practical one. The concept is the speed limit and it is 55. Whether I believe that to be true or perceive that concept differently than the cop has zero bearing on whether or not he gives me a ticket. By your logic, nothing is actually true and it's all up to perception. We don't live in the matrix. Your view is practical when understanding other people and helping you to think outside the box, but it is limited by reality. No matter what your individual truth is or how you perceive concepts, you still operate in this reality and must adjust your truth to it.


We learn on more of a philosophical level here at this temple, and leave the practical aspects to the individual according to how they wish to apply what they learn from the philosophy. We can always explore ways to apply it in discussions with friends and teachers here, as well as write about it in our journals. As for what is real or not, that is something we learn here in both the IP and in apprentice lessons, which there is much of it that demonstrates how ideas are not reality - what is observed before the ideas are created - that is reality... everything else is - by the metaphor of the movie - the matrix that you speak of.

Oneiros wrote:

Proteus wrote: The designation "Jedi" by itself is an intangible artifact of thought, therefore, it is something that we apply through ego on top of what is actually true (what we are before any labels applied to ourselves and others). What we are underneath the labels and ideas created by our thoughts is the only thing that is consistently true (ultimately true), and that is not and never will be dictated by measuring sticks or standards. It is much too vast to be contained in any box as such.

You're getting caught up on the specific word Jedi when I've been commenting on the concept. The word Jedi was applied by George Lucas to a concept and a path that many people were searching for and some were already on. As you say, it's what we are before any labels are applied to ourselves and others that is consistently true. I'll say it's what counts. If what's underneath the Jedi label someone has applied to themselves is a lazy, condescending, cruel person, then the label can still apply as things currently are. But if we identify (as some have tried to do in other threads) the things that should be underneath before the Jedi label is applied, then we'll have our standards.


I'm actually talking about the word and the concept - a concept is only a figment of thought typically based on intentions and desires of the ego. This isn't a bad thing, but simply, it isn't reality as we tend to think and reality is what we are here to discover. You may have misunderstood what I am talking about concerning what is underneath labels. Anything created out of thought or judgement (including "lazy", "condescending", "cruel", or any else created by thought in the same way) is not reality, they are only judgments applied by ego. None of those states actually exist, and as long as one is convinced they do, they will not discover actual reality beneath all of it. In fact, as long as someone is trapped within the illusion of those ideas, they will inevitably exhibit those characteristics and behaviors, keeping them within a loop of judgement > acting out the charge. The self (the ego-self) cannot do the identifying, since the one identifying inevitably separates their self from what they go to identify when they do. (I know this can sound rather confusing or complicated, or even over-thought, but it is actually a legitimate point of realization that many here are learning. It takes a very great deal of discipline to discover it for one's self, but it CANNOT be identified, least of all by thought of neither the self nor another.) It is a realization that exists beyond what "should" or "should not" be.

Oneiros wrote:

Proteus wrote: I do not see that we are here to learn that "I am a Jedi and am to follow the Doctrine", so much as to learn how to shed the illusions of the ego through the guidance of what we learn here, because it is THAT which will enable us to exhibit the intended virtuous characteristics of the concept we call "Jedi" in each of our own ways. This includes becoming free from investing so seriously in ego-based concepts including "Jedi".

I'm inclined to agree with this for two reasons:
1. I didn't mean to insinuate that the doctrine is the end all be all for what defines a Jedi.
2. Shedding the illusions of the ego so we can clearly understand the concept we call Jedi is precisely what I've been driving at. I think you're just more eloquent than I am.
I will ask though, if we're expected to become free from investing so seriously in ego-based concepts including Jedi because we exhibit the characteristics of the concept in our own ways, why have a group? Why even come together? If we're all ultimately expected to go about the path however we want, why even call ourselves anything at all?


We have a group for support - emotional, mental, and spiritual support includes the act of sharing our experiences and what we learn, as a way that can be compared to putting pieces of a puzzle together to see the one picture it creates between them all. There are patterns to our experiences and perceptions that provide clues to the reality that we have become distracted (or as Alan Watts said, "hypnotized") from seeing. As for why the name? Because the name is a play on the example of the Hero who goes through a cyclical journey, and it is in the nature of that journey that we derive the clues about reality that we come together to share. (You see?) :)

Oneiros wrote:

Proteus wrote: In order for me to be a Jedi, I have to let go of the concept of Jedi as an actual thing to be. Instead, I am to be my true self - what I am before labels and judgments are applied. That true self is where I find what the actual Jedi is. There is no external, dictated standard that ever can or ever will point to that. Anything NOT Jedi (by virtuous intention), is anything other than that ultimate state of truth, and therefore, any behavior manifested as result.

And that's fine for someone like you. As far as I can tell from the limited personal interaction allowed by the internet, you're an intelligent, compassionate, and thoughtful person, but not everyone is and neither is everyone who calls themselves a Jedi. You can't tell someone who thinks that stealing something just because they want it that they should just be their true self and that's the actual Jedi. You also can't qualify that statement with virtuous intention because there have been a lot of bad things done that people intended to be virtuous. By your previous logic, what might be virtuous to one person isn't going to be virtuous to the next. That's why there has to be a standard. Forgive me if I misunderstood.
Also, forgive me for the long post. I'm totally cool with people PMing me instead of quoting and unquoting and such to have a discussion.


No problem at all. I'm happy to further explain and clarify my meaning more accurately. It is always necessary to, with the limitations of language. :)

With the example of the thief, this is an example as to why we have an entire temple here dedicated to in-depth guidance of learning what it means to be a Jedi, far beyond telling anybody what they should do, critically including "to simply be yourself". Instead, the thief chooses on their own will to join such a community and to dedicated a great deal of time into deep self-reflective lessons that ultimately enable the thief, themselves, to discover what their true self is by realizing why they felt the need to steal in the first place (an impulse based on a trap of socially conditioned thoughts that manifest fear or boredom, or what else have you). Of course, things are not even that simple, which is why we spend as much time here as we do to really get down into the philosophical questions of our own psychology and spiritualism. As for virtue, that is a whole other topic that goes much deeper than what your responses here about it can reflect. It is something that takes place on both the level of perception and ultimate reality beneath perception, which is why it tends to be very difficult to adopt and understand them properly. However it is something else we learn about here at the temple, and as a community, through exploration for that reason. :)

“For it is easy to criticize and break down the spirit of others, but to know yourself takes a lifetime.”
― Bruce Lee

House of Orion
Offices: Education Administration
TM: Alexandre Orion | Apprentice: Loudzoo (Knight)

The Book of Proteus
IP Journal | Apprentice Volume | Knighthood Journal | Personal Log
Last edit: 9 years 4 months ago by Proteus.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Alexandre Orion,

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: ZerokevlarVerheilenChaotishRabeRiniTavi