- Posts: 4394
No true scotsmen
- OB1Shinobi
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Banned
-
Inactive
see that feedback suggests something
first we should come to an understanding of what peace is before we should get into how to develop it
which is the same challenge we started with as far as determining what a jedi is
so
lets take this a step back and ask "what is a good proccess for developing a definition?"
how about we all throw a few lines on what peace means and when we put them together all ofthe lines idea which are mutually inclusive or supportive becomes the working definition with the understanding that it be always open to expansion if appropriate?
i suggest that peace is a state of mutual existence where imposed violence is not permited as a means of achieving personal or institutional ends
that peace is the state of interaction where the only physical violence which is permissible is in instance of response to dangerous violence by others
People are complicated.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Generally we all tend to agree on the existence of something beyond our current physical being, and most of us have agreed that "Force" is an acceptable term to describe this mystery. The ways we each examine and understand that mystery are as diverse as the people doing the examining.
Beyond that, there is no standard that will ever be accepted by a majority that wouldn't exclude someone else. We choose not to make those exclusions, which I believe actually contributes to the loose definition of what is "Jedi".
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- OB1Shinobi
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Banned
-
Inactive
- Posts: 4394
its like saying "good"
we let everyone decide what "good" is to them and then we all agree to respect each others definition of good
actually we probably have a greater consensus of what "good" means than what jedi means
--
so again by developing a process for creating definitions a functional definition can be reached
People are complicated.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
To say X is what all Jedi share is not narrow, it's just coherent. To say there is nothing all Jedi share sure helps to make everyone a Jedi, but it doesn't help understanding what a Jedi is. If a Jedi is a peron, why not call it a person? If a Jedi is whatever you are, then why not call yourself 'Me' instead? Words have one purpose only: Expression. A word that doesn't express an idea can for that reason not be utilized. Things that have no use are by definition useless.
I'm henceforth a Shmaguffle and that word means something personal and individual to me and I shall not actually ever define it but I can tell you everything about me once I've made sure you know I'm a Shmaguffle. See how unhelpful that is? It almost seems like I'm fooling around with your attention or that I am intentionally trying to confuse you lest you remain of clear mind to discuss whatever is up next.
What do we know about a person saying they are Jedi, if that is all we heard? What does it actually mean?
Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- OB1Shinobi
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Banned
-
Inactive
- Posts: 4394
like blue can include a huge spectrum of particular shades but there is a place where it definitely has become black and where it definitely is green or orange
so what about the process of deternining definitions?
People are complicated.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
OB1Shinobi wrote: ok, so lets pick one and explore it
what does it mean to be a guardian of peace
and what are some tangible ways of living up to that function?
For me a Guardian of peace are a warrior.
The most tangible way to living up to that function it's being a Jedi.
Be prepared and trained before the day come is to be responsable of that fonction.
The difference with a soldier it's he act for the one who pay him.
Soldier don't need to believe in the good nature of an order.
The warrior act often without getting paid.
But the always believe for what they defend.
The 2 of them can be Guardian of peace.
Depending of what are their definition of peace.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
I would agree that there exists something beyond our current physical being, I guess. You are pretty much beyond my being and so is most of the rest of the universe. I would beg to differ though in it being sensible to describe it with "Force". That's at best a labeling, not a description. I also disagree that the sum of things beyond ourselves is a mystery. Some of it might be, but I'd rather go on and try and find out about it and how to explain it rather than be satisfied with the notion that it shall remain forever a mystery or that my view of it is as legitimate as any other. It is no surprise that when people actually examine things they don't end up understanding things as mysteries (which sounds contradictory right there) or indeed having widely diverse understandings. Whenever there is some actual truth to be discovered, it eventually is, and the only debate that remains sometimes, or seldom, I should say, is over the implications rather than over the facts. There are also not many diverse ways to examine things, at least not many that lead to useful results.Senan wrote: Generally we all tend to agree on the existence of something beyond our current physical being, and most of us have agreed that "Force" is an acceptable term to describe this mystery. The ways we each examine and understand that mystery are as diverse as the people doing the examining.
Now, the only way to make this still be a definition of Jedi is by saying that I and those who think like me in this are not Jedi. I'd be fine with that. Would you?
Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned
Please Log in to join the conversation.
I still would say that the acknowledgment of the "Force" is a common aspect of being Jedi. Much like questioning the existence of a deity could be considered a common aspect of being Agnostic.
I will add that simply using the term "Jedi" implies that one is aware of the mythology from which the term originated. One does not typically call themselves "Buddhist" without at least being aware of Buddha. One who did would likely not be considered a Buddhist. Thus, calling oneself "Jedi" at least implies that you are referring to the term made famous by the Star Wars mythology.
Generally, one who chooses the "Jedi" path would likely also be exploring the origin of that term as well as the characters in the mythology that the term refers to.
That's where the path splits. Some may see the Bushido in Vader and say that is "Jedi". Some may see the Zen in Yoda and decide that is "Jedi". Some will recognize the Hero's Journey of Luke and identify with that path.
In my opinion, all approaches would be "Jedi". I also believe that George Lucas purposely blended multiple philosophies when creating the Jedi characters so that "Jedi" would function as a very inclusive term. That we choose to share the term, acknowledge and emulate certain behaviors of the characters from the mythology, and generally agree on the existence of a "Force" should be enough to establish a loose definition of "Jedi" that we can start from.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Without fall in the absolute & escalate to a fight.
For me to deal in the absolute it's not about statement.
It's about taking out the freedom of choices.
The free will of the individual not considered.
No letting someone leave even if it's by love.
Exemple: " you are with me, or I kill you." :huh:
Absolutism is more about attitudes (actions)
There a lot of statements that are absolute.
But they are facts and true.
But always let you the choice to learn it or not.
Or just heard it and believe it.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
OB1Shinobi wrote: or what it means to be a pagan
The word 'Pagan' is very broad and (in my mind anyway) similar to 'Jedi'. Paganism is an umbrella term for an entire spectrum of beliefs that are tied together by a few basic concepts that practitioners adhere to, just like Jediism. I don't know two Pagans (or Jedi) who hold the same beliefs or go about their practices the same way.
When I first joined TotJO, I asked someone what was necessary to call oneself Jedi, and they said 1) a belief in the Force (whatever that is to each individual)... 2) a desire to learn and continually enhance our understandings of who we are... and 3) a drive to help others in some way.
I've been thinking about definitions and labels lately, and in some cases they don't serve those things being defined in a positive manner. Personally, I like that there is no clear definition of Jedi/Jediism. That open-endedness is undoubtedly one of the reasons I've stuck around.
As a side note, Unitarian Universalists do all right without too much 'structure'. The Wikipedia page states, "Unitarian Universalists do not share a creed but are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth." Being a Unitarian Universalist doesn't seem too far removed from being a Jedi in that sense. Our identities develop out of our own interpretations of who we are rather than from what other people think we are, which doesn't seem like a bad thing.
Please Log in to join the conversation.