Does naming yourself seperate yourself from the rest of the world?

I have agreed with that idea long before I heard him say it. I have been in arguments with people and I tell them that whenever you create an ist or ism that you separate yourself from the whole and begin to isolate the group.

Calling our self Jedi puts us in a group and also creates this separation. Saying we are just on the Jedi path also separates us from all those who are not. Even if we were to say that it is not some exclusive group that anyone can join, there is still that separation of those that are and those that are not. So why do it? Labels. We exist in a world of labels. We have had “debates” over labels several times on these forums even and some say it is important so others know what we’re about. Some say they aren’t important for other reasons.

I say labels are important for those that need them and not for those that don’t.

We are all one, just on different points in our own spiritual development. And I don’t think we can make a unifying decision that will encompass everyone. But what we can do is work towards a point of understanding and patience where each person is comfortable in their own place without fears or concerns of being judged, or thought differently of because of who they are or what they believe. And until each person is there, labels will help them find somewhere they can have that safety and grow.

So I guess the important piece of the puzzle we all seem to miss from time to time is to not give too much strength to these labels. Don’t let the label define you, but you define the label. And if it no longer fits, let go and move on.

Just my opinion though…

1) Do you agree with the above? Does it make sense to you?

Yes. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. This is a topic I touched on a long time ago. The Jedi, as I see it, should be the nameless, the ones who do not segregate themselves as an exclusive religion, and so fit in anywhere.

Right on, Wescli

1) Yes, it makes sense. Do I agree? Yes and no. I think it CAN be a "violent" sentiment to separate oneself but it doesn't have to be. If we are to choose not to identify by what makes us different aren't we all going to end up the same? I don't like the idea of us all identifying as simply human. I think in doing so we potentially gain some sense of unity but might lose what makes us each individuals. For the most part I don't usually identify myself in such terms anyway. Yes, I am an American...but if someone were to ask me the question "who are you?" I likely wouldn't turn to such divisive language. I try to identify more by my character attributes than by the way I was born or the religious beliefs I have chosen.

2) I generally don't identify first as a Jedi as it is...perhaps I'm not the best person to answer such a question. I am a Hellenic Polytheist and a Jedi, but those beliefs don't define the totality of who/what I am. As I mentioned above, I try to self identify without such labels as much as possible.

There's a wide variety of answers so thank you all for your thoughts. I'm going to make some comments and play Devil's Advocate (whether I agree with you or not) in the interests of discussion (and to be honest because I can only do this when I feel a bit meh- sorry in advance).

MCSH

MCSH-

But being a Jedi... by calling oneself a jedi he isn't separating himself from the world. Jediism is a mixture of almost all belief systems. It is more like uniting with everyone by saying I believe in Jediism, which includes everything mankind believe and even more...

So. Tbh- Struggling to find any weakpoints here lol! I could say that it's simply your perception- that by calling oneself a jedi don't actually separate himself from the world but that seems petty and without real basis for argument. I agree too strongly with the idea that perception has an incredible influence on how we see the world and so if that's the way you see it- how can I say that's wrong, It's a nice image you have of Jediism and a good response thanks.


SteamBoat (*Sorry missed your response on reading back on everything!)

You mostly seem to lay hard on the perception idea without ever calling it such. The one thing that was interesting to me was
SteamBoat-

"Labelling things isn't inherently violent, it plays on a system of classification that's kept us alive for the entirety of our evolution. It's when those labels become excuses for violence that are a problem; the labels themselves are not."

So might we say that human nature is the thing that is violent? But the idea that the labels aren't so much to blame as the people who use them makes sense to them. I guess we who are aware of the influence labels *can* have however should be careful with our own labelling.Thanks for your thoughts,


Akkarin

Akkarin-

"And each time it takes me an hour to understand their personal views. Wouldn't it be great of, instead of taking 10 hours to know what their views are it would take me only one or two?"

Great for whom? (May be slightly offensive) But isn't this 'greatness' of taking a shorter amount of time just being lazy and not bothering to actually get to know the person as much as possible? Isn't it also foolish to make that assumption that you'll ever understand someone's personal views- with or without their self-labelling? Does Self-labelling really make that any easier or are more mis-understandings likely to arise by doing so?

Akkarin-

" So they come together and call themselves 'Christians' and that makes it easy for me and others to have an idea of what they are about without having to ask each individual person what their belief is."

Yup- Easy. Easy for them because they don't have to be asked the awkward questions about themselves that they don't know the answers to and easy for you because you don't have to ask those questions. You can happily maintain a nice uncaring distance between you both.
(Man- being devil's advocate makes me sound pretty bitter. Sorry man!)

Akkarin-

Violent people are violent; loving people are loving.

And here we go into the nature of the human being, and labelling people.. Yes- your sentence is fact in it's model. But people are neither simply violent or simply loving. Have you heard the saying everything we do is evil for someone or the world? Also more Krishnamurti "We human beings are what we have been for millions of years -colossally greedy, envious, aggressive, jealous, anxious and despairing, with occasional flashes of joy and affection. We are a strange mixture of hate, fear and gentleness; we are both violence and peace."

And now. Pausing for a second, Generally I agree with what you're saying Akkarin, especially your second half about making in-groups and out-groups, but how the importance of how much meaning we GIVE a word or labelling is more to do with this making of in-groups and out-groups rather than the word itself! Thanks for your input,



Ren

Ren-

"I wouldn't go as far as he does. naming can either be functional or defining. function is making an observation (for example that someone is christian), while definition is the acquisition of a property (christianity) as self, and the rejection of other properties (for example islam) as different."

I'm not really arguing with you here, but I thought i'd say I found this rather funny. "Naming can either be functional or defining"- Is this very sentence functional or defining... or both? It seems functional as part of your observation and argument and yet defining at the same time to me! But in general, you make a good argument. Thanks!


Rugadd

Rugadd

I want some vanilla ice cream for a root beer float, but at the store there are no labels because they have been deemed too violent. I don't want anything but vanilla, so I peak at the plastic tubs in the freezer until I find one with a white ice cream in it. I buy my "vanilla" ice cream anyway only to get home and realize it is "lemon" ice cream and I'm allergic to lemons.

Good thing I already had root beer or I really would've had a time of it....

I want to say this isn't really about labelling objects but instead ourselves and other living people but then the question might be posed to me- What's the difference between objects and us? Now, if you were labelling *yourself* vanilla ice cream- maybe there would be a problem! :laugh: Because I identify with lovely Lemon ice cream. Might we be odds against one another? lol, I'm joking, Thanks.

Adder

Adder-

"In both those cases it is easily a tool to de-power the merit of an individuals existence by association into some perceived notion of identity, it just depends who is being violent with the use of labels."

OR... could it EMPOWER people? Like Jedi for instance? Are Jedi really aware of who they are or are people self-labelling themselves Jedi forcing/helping/making/molding these people into something different to what they would be if they were not calling themselves Jedi?
Generally- not sure I *fully* understood everything you wrote sorry. It was this sentence that made me blink a couple of times. Can you explain further and give an example sorry? " A common problem seems to be that people merge labels with symbols (or specific unique actions), thinking that those must exist to serve 'as a label'... when often a they can operate for specific functional reason and only be partly representative of a label." Generally seemed to agree with me. Thanks for your ideas!

Alex,

Alex-

"If we could not identify one another or ourselves and talk about things, that would undoubtedly make for a much more violent approach to Life than we have."

Is it through identifying one another or ourselves that we can communicate with them? And "Undoubtedly" more violent? Why so certain? Wouldn't we just be more animalistic, always living in the present moment because we finally couldn't recognise ourselves? Perhaps we would fit in less disruptively with the rest of the world. It might make for a more honest way of living. Although we probably wouldn't be human in that case.

To be honest- yes- you make good points about the conditioning and the "no win guilt cycle". Thanks mate, and yes I should read it again as you suggest in full if I want to talk about it properly without misunderstandings. But heh- even if I did- could I have claimed to really and fully understand it?


Phortis

Phortis

"This is the Balance of all things. It is both violent and peaceful, selfish and unselfish. It is in the perception of the viewer, and the application of the one naming themselves, that make it violent or peaceful."

Is there such a thing as known reality? Or is all perception? How can we trust anything if we know everything is seen through several panes of painted perception?

You make some good points and I agree, Thanks!

Whyte Horse

Whyte Horse-

"You could say he is referring to systemic violence and then it might make sense. Jediism is non-violent so identifying with it isn't violence. "

You seem to be dealing in the fact that "Jediism is non-violent" and 'known' reality. But as many others have suggested, it's all in the perception. But it's a good perception that you have in my perception lol,

Wescli

Wescli! I like your writing and I think I agree best with what you wrote (which others had said in parts or likewise similarly so thanks to them as well)- but yours was most strongly felt! My only one point that didn't settle with me so well was this- "We are all one, just on different points in our own spiritual development." That we are one- I agree. That we are on different points in our own spiritual development? Not sure. There is something about that that lies uneasily on me. Perhaps it is the relativity that I see is implies in it. "I'm at this point in my spirituality! You're at this point!" But that's probably just my perception and maybe fears coming through... Nice words though ty


Streen- long time no see!

Yeah- Good words and a good idea, I like the idea of people being 'Jedi' without naming themselves such. I wonder if the main reason for doing so is simple recognition from other 'Jedi'. Belonging to a group can be healthy and supportive of self-identity...

Lykeios

Lykeios-

"If we are to choose not to identify by what makes us different aren't we all going to end up the same? I don't like the idea of us all identifying as simply human. I think in doing so we potentially gain some sense of unity but might lose what makes us each individuals."

If we do choose to identify by what makes us different, aren't we all going to end up the same? "I'm special. I'm different. I'm different because I'm normal. I'm different because I'm me. I'm different." Are we dealing in hypothetical absolutes here? I don't think we would end up the same tbh even if we didn't identify what 'made' us 'different'. We might be different. We might not. But by not identifying with it- would we care?

"I try to identify more by my character attributes than by the way I was born or the religious beliefs I have chosen."

Isn't it the same sorta thing? Identifying by your character attributes? We could say that all... 'Jedi' (or 'Christians' or whatever) share similar character attributes and therefore come into conflict with those people who do not believe they have those attributes or react negatively towards those who do..
Thanks for the input!

SO MANY COLOURS. Heh, well- thanks everyone, I feel less meh now after reading everything and replying to it all. Some good thoughts and good ideas going around! Sorry if I was overly aggressive to some (and overly nice to others? haha)

Anyway- have a nice day/night and thanks again

Vusuki wrote: Great for whom? (May be slightly offensive) But isn't this 'greatness' of taking a shorter amount of time just being lazy and not bothering to actually get to know the person as much as possible? Isn't it also foolish to make that assumption that you'll ever understand someone's personal views- with or without their self-labelling? Does Self-labelling really make that any easier or are more mis-understandings likely to arise by doing so?

I don't think it's lazy at all. I think it's shorthand, certainly, but language was made for efficient communication of ideas between people, so I think in this case labels are ultimately serving that purpose.

Yup- Easy. Easy for them because they don't have to be asked the awkward questions about themselves that they don't know the answers to and easy for you because you don't have to ask those questions. You can happily maintain a nice uncaring distance between you both.

Actually, I think they present a unique opportunity to question our beliefs. For example: I am a Christian (believer/follower of Christ and His teachings), and Christians have a boatload of denominations that almost never get along, despite biblical mandates against denominationalism and for intercooperation. When we have these inter-denominational disputes (read: when we're breathing the same cubic mile of air), it turns into something like this:

"You can't just backslide; once you're saved you stay that way. You're sanctified and set apart."
"I'd expect a Baptist to say something like that."
"Oh, please--like a Calvinist has any room to talk about falling out of salvation?"

And, if these people are honest with themselves afterward, they may stop and think "Why do I believe that? Why does my denomination believe that? Where's the spiritual authority for that claim?"

Many won't, but a few do, and to them it's very helpful.

Hey Steam, before I go on, remember I was playing the devil's advocate (albeit somewhat badly if you can counteract it so easily! )

I don't think it's lazy at all. I think it's shorthand, certainly, but language was made for efficient communication of ideas between people, so I think in this case labels are ultimately serving that purpose.

Yes- I agree that language was made for efficient communication of ideas between people and yes labels *might* well be serving that purpose BUT I would argue that all too often we ASSUME we know what labels mean without recognition that other people may well have a (slightly or largely) different view of the same label. Herein lies part of the problem- we assume when someone calls themselves Jedi or Christian it means something and we don't question our own understanding OR the other's understanding of that. Hence- is it lazy? Assuming we understand a label? Assuming we will understand just as well by using labels as without?

Actually, I think they present a unique opportunity to question our beliefs.

Here you prove that it depends on each person as to whether they question their own labels and definitions surrounding them and language, Good point!

And, if these people are honest with themselves afterward, they may stop and think "Why do I believe that? Why does my denomination believe that? Where's the spiritual authority for that claim?"

Many won't, but a few do, and to them it's very helpful.

Thanks- another good argument.. I agree with the notion!

I'm not really arguing with you here, but I thought i'd say I found this rather funny. "Naming can either be functional or defining"- Is this very sentence functional or defining... or both? It seems functional as part of your observation and argument and yet defining at the same time to me! But in general, you make a good argument. Thanks!

I couldn't find better words to describe it.

Making observations (naming) in order to organize/classify/etc what happens
vs.
classify/manipulate what happens in order to name it.

Vusuki wrote: OR... could it EMPOWER people? Like Jedi for instance? Are Jedi really aware of who they are or are people self-labelling themselves Jedi forcing/helping/making/molding these people into something different to what they would be if they were not calling themselves Jedi?

Both depower and empower when it's by oneself to oneself is something I consider to both be empowerments from a broader perspective. So I'm talking about externally... and I don't think it can empower oneself to others in spiritual terms by labellings oneself, but yes it could bring some benefits such as boosting ones ego, easing decision making by following a preestablished pattern of behaviour etc.

Vusuki wrote: Generally- not sure I *fully* understood everything you wrote sorry. It was this sentence that made me blink a couple of times. Can you explain further and give an example sorry? " A common problem seems to be that people merge labels with symbols (or specific unique actions), thinking that those must exist to serve 'as a label'... when often a they can operate for specific functional reason and only be partly representative of a label." Generally seemed to agree with me. Thanks for your ideas!

Yea sorry I try to confuse myself and then work myself out seemingly ie projecting method rather then madness lol

That sentence was just referencing the difference between language and symbols. Symbols could be perhaps more static types of labels where labels in language can change their shades with context quite a bit just be being used in a sentence... that sort of thing. I guess symbols can be parodied though. Sometimes what I write looks like thinking out loud
:whistle: