The Jedi Golden Rule

Proteus wrote: This is true in some cases... In others, incomplete information can lead to misinterpretations and misconceptions that may counter the intended message. It is good to be mindful of how a discretely worded message might be interpreted by those who are approaching it from different perceptions than your own.

Very true. Misinterpreting information often leads to problems. It is important to be mindful of how we present ourselves as individuals or as an order. But even with perfectly understood information there are misapplications. If we were to establish a Jedi "Golden Rule" (and I'm not saying we should) we can't do so effectively if we're concerned with all the ways it might be misinterpreted. There will always be someone who doesn't get it or reads into something and finds lots of things that aren't actually there. Catcher in the Rye was cited by Mark David Chapman as the reason he killed John Lennon. I don't think Salinger had that in mind when he wrote it 30 years before. We can't control what or how people interpret things so it would be disingenuous to craft our message so that people understand it the way we want them to. It should really be more for us. As I said previously, it should be one people can understand without any knowledge of Jediism but can also gain a deeper understanding when they know more about Jediism.

Jedi Golden Rule:

"Live by the Jedi Code"

Says it all.

Alethea Thompson wrote: Jedi Golden Rule:

"Live by the Jedi Code"

Says it all.

I agree with you. I find that it is the best way to synthesize the believes of the Jedi in one simple sentence. Of course it would not be understood by people outside of or ignorant of Jediisim, nevertheless at least it does not lose any of the meaning of it.

May the force be with you all

I am just a Guest and I'm very early into the IP so take my opinion with a grain of salt but if the mono-myth/collective conscious is actually real and repeatedly communicating the same thing (via the force I presume?) then, given the original post, is it not clear what the golden rule should be?

Also check out what the golden rule is on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule. I don't know sometimes when something is telling you something it is telling you something.

I understand that it doesn't fully describe what Jedi-ism is but then it hardly describes Christianity in its entirety either. In fact it does nothing to differentiate any of the listed religions from each other except for the actual words used. Again I'm only seeing positives here if you want something all encompassing.

If you must judge things, at least (perhaps) compare apples with apples, otherwise be genuine that your comparing the differences instead.

Simplification of things creates simple concepts for times when simple concepts are required... it (or complexity) does not need infer personal shortcomings.

Focus various its capacity for complexity depending on circumstance, so having a range of different complexity 'views' is like having different tools for different circumstances, IMO.

Well said Adder, well said.

Wikipedia wrote: The Golden Rule:
One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated

Consider the following cases (I've chosen Christians purely for hypothetical purposes):
An evangelical Christian is compassionate enough to want to save people from eternally burning in hell. They therefore feel they have a moral and religious obligation to go around trying to get you to convert to Christianity. That afterall is how they wish to be treated (saved).

A Christian is steadfastly against homosexuality and if they were homosexual themselves they would wish as hard as possible to be "cured". Therefore when they come across a homosexual they may very well feel obligated to "cure" that homosexual.


Those two circumstances fulfill the criteria of the "Golden Rule", but do those circumstances make you feel comfortable? Does the Golden Rule only properly apply when the moralities of the parties are similar? If the morality of the parties are different then does the Golden Rule allow them to bypass your wishes an give them an excuse to impose their own (because that is how they wish to be treated)?

Adder wrote: If you must judge things, at least (perhaps) compare apples with apples, otherwise be genuine that your comparing the differences instead.

Simplification of things creates simple concepts for times when simple concepts are required... it (or complexity) does not need infer personal shortcomings.

Focus various its capacity for complexity depending on circumstance, so having a range of different complexity 'views' is like having different tools for different circumstances, IMO.

I agree. Simplification has just as much a place as complexity.

The Jedi Code is pretty simple to be honest, but when we all first read it I reckon we must have gone "Hmm...." and tried to understand its implications further. The Jedi Code is a good simplification, but one can only understand the simplification if one understands the greater meaning behind how one gets to such a simplification.

Simplifications will always chop bits off of what they are talking about, if you're new to something and you read a simplification, then you won't know all the bits that have been chopped off, so understanding the greater whole it is trying to teach is probably going to be harder.

*cough*

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Jediism/108232-the-jedi-golden-rule?limitstart=0&start=20#164440

jedi believe:

In the ethic of reciprocity, and how moral concepts are not absolute but vary by culture, religion and over time.



The ethic of reciprocity is the golden rule, and that line is supposed to point out to the negative form, (do NOT do what you would NOT appreciate)

I also suggest people do what the guest says "Also check out what the golden rule is on Wiki en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule ."



The happy christian does NOT want to be cured from *wrong* beliefs by, i dunno, a muslim. The happy heterosexual christian, just like the happy homosexual christian, does not want to be cured from their sexuality.

These Golden Rules (positive - do unto...) and the so called Silver Rules (negative - do not unto...) are distillations of a religion's ethical theory. They are not offered to replace millennia of theological discourse, history, tradition, scholarship or a religion's fully developed ethical theory. They are not a reduction. These rules are offered in a form that resembles the response of Jesus to a questioner about the essence of the Law. The current format of our discussions of Golden Rules is modern even if the source material is ancient. The contemporary habit of abbreviating lengthy and detailed explanations into a meme or pithy one-liner is a habit greatly to be resisted.