In my rush this morning I do not elaborate my
point
as much as I ought so I am sorry for that. To correct this mistake here is a more full explanation.
MJ Hannigan wrote: Akkarin
I am looking forward to seeing your thought on Standard, Requirement and the concept of the Elite on another topic so it can be fully discussed.
Yes it is a separate topic but I shall elaborate the point I made to explain the connection I was making (but didn't communicate) between elitism and in/exclusivity.
MJ Hannigan wrote: As it pertains to Elitism I have no issues with the word or calling myself a Elitest. Not hard to see that fact and not a shock to anyone reading it. I feel that Jedi Knights/Masters should be Elitest as not everyone who was a padawan made it to knight/master status.
This is a rather thorough philosophical point being made so I apologise for the length, but it is broadly necessary.
First a quick explanation of what elitism is. Elitism is a particular group of persons being "better" than others in some way.
In some instances this is just factually true of the circumstances. For example a person might have a higher IQ than another person, or a person might be more physically capable than another person. Such assertions can be factually the case when looking at the supporting evidence. To deny the evidence would be nonsensical and might border dangerously far into political correctness.
Another form of elitism is when authority or power is concentrated in the hands of a particular group of persons. The justification for such concentration is generally because of the idea that these persons are better than a different group of persons.
In the military for instance power and authority would probably be granted to the most capable person available to handle the situation. Like the above examples these instances are probably based on the factual information that this person is simply more qualified and better than everyone else at handling the situation. Appointing them rather than another is therefore appropriate.
But here's the catch... what happens if the justification is not based in facts? Well then it is based in belief (or rather prejudice) that such a person is better simply because they are better. This might be due to racism or arrogance or being born into a particular class etc...
The military example above is an example of when elitism is appropriate. All members of the military have commonly agreed to abide by the rules and training provided within that institution so there is a clear line of authority from the person most in charge to the person least in charge. Inclusivity and exclusivity in these cases is based on factual information and many times is entirely appropriate for the way in which the institution needs to be run.
If pilots (I'll use this as an obvious example) need good vision to fly a plane then clearly people with very poor vision must be excluded from being pilots. The pilots with good vision are elite - they factually have better eyesight - and the Air Force needs elitely-visioned persons to be able to operate. Exclusivity is both appropriate and expected.
But what about cases where what is better is much murkier? What makes one a better human than another? Sure someone might make set some standards for good humanness, but guess what? The person who set the standards
is human, so why should we listen to that human rather than another human? A human cannot create a set of standards to justify what makes good humanness, without first having to justify why they are the right human to make a set of standards... And once they justify why they are justified then they have to also justify why they are justified in making their justification
ad infinitum.
The problem is that there is no agreed upon standard by all parties concerned as to what makes a good human a good human. When there is, remembering of course that these standards are just conventions of choice rather than facts, then and only then can a discussion be had on good humanness. The in/exclusivity in this instance is who agrees to the standard and who doesn't.
But what if it isn't being a good human that is being discussed, but being a good Jedi? Well the exact same process needs to be followed. All parties (Jedi) need to agree to a common set of standards, those who agree are considered inclusive (included), those who disagree are considered exclusive (excluded).
But guess what? There is not commonly agreed upon standard of what makes one a good Jedi. Sure there are general principles we think are appropriate for a Jedi to have, but such principles are hardly a good "standard" from which a judgement could be appropriately made.
If there is no standard then to insist on a standard is to elevate a person or persons into a position of authority over-and-above everyone else and declare "This is the way it is because I say so". This creates exlcusion as people no longer fit into this "standard", but it is not an exclusion based on elitist fact, it is an exclusion based on elitist arrogance.
When it comes to Jedi/Jediism/Jedi Realism TotJO rejects any such authority which is why the Temple is inclusive*. The Temple as an institution has a set of standards which members of the institution should abide by, but that is a convention agreed to by virtue of choosing to be a member here. TotJO's position is, and I hope forever will be, that we speak for ourselves and we grant ourselves authority only as far as the boundaries of our institution extend. Outside of TotJO I cannot speak as a Knight, because I am only a Knight so far as everyone who is a member of the Temple agrees to accept the authority which granted my Knighthood. Outside of this commonly agreed convention TotJO has no power nor say on who is and is not a Jedi (as it should be).
TotJO doesn't exclude anyone from being able to call themselves Jedi, certainly not based on any sort of standard.
Do you know where these statements fall?
The link you posted to jedi Manual had this description: "Home - This site is dedicated to those who truly wish to follow the Jedi Path."
Truly wish to follow the Jedi Path - so if we are not a part of that then we are not truly following the Jedi Path? That is an example of elitism.
MJ Hannigan wrote: Third intead of trying to reach the ideas of Jedi Realism to the best of your ability why not raise your standards instead of lowering the standards of the Jedi Realist.
Lowering the standards of the Jedi Realist? So we are lower standards of Jedi for being a part of TotJO than we would be if we were not a part of TotJO? That is also an example of elitism.
Both are elitist, but as I said the Temple is also elitist. Except they are
not the same sort of elitism. The Temple has authority to set standards on Jedi related matters where authority is agreed. You made a statement about standards on Jedi related matters from a position of authority but for which there was no agreement.
The Temple says "This person is "superior" because between all parties concerned it has been agreed that they are superior". What you said was "This person is "superior" because I say they are superior", that is
elitist arrogance.
*A note should be made here that there is a difference between inclusivity and acceptance. Acceptance is a standard that may or may not be required of persons who are included into a particular group. For brevity I won't go into this much more and just leave it at that.
Topic Author
