The Jedi Golden Rule

I'm really enjoying this conversations. Some great information from everyone. Thank you one and all.

I like the "Acceptance" idea but using Akkarin's example of where "do unto" fails could this not also be victim to the same logic? For example one must accept <intsert what is the most terrible thing imaginable to you here> because yours is not the only one that counts. So genoside maybe or just to break the Jedi appose bit on the home home page torture and the death penalty. For me I think that kind of breaks the spirit or intention of the rule but then I'd say the same thing where "do unto" fails too. Is the downfall then the rule or the person who interprets it? Your thoughts?

Also in regards to simplification where/how do people draw the line? For example one of the first things that struck me with the Mono-myth (forgive me I'm currently busy learning the IP) is that it seems to over simplify myth so that all myth tends to fit it in the same way as "do unto" does with religions. And now my brain hits a circular cell reference in regards to accepting "do unto". Oh dear. What am I missing?

Anyway that's got the cogs in the old head turning.

A variation on Meister Eckhardt might be cool (paraphrasing) Between me and the divine there is no between.

Watching a Star Wars Rebel animated episode last night - one of the characters quotes a Jedi phrase, "The simplest gesture of kindness can fill a galaxy with hope."

Both could benefit from some TotJO editing.

SeventhSL wrote: I like the "Acceptance" idea but using Akkarin's example of where "do unto" fails could this not also be victim to the same logic? For example one must accept <intsert what is the most terrible thing imaginable to you here> because yours is not the only one that counts. So genoside maybe or just to break the Jedi appose bit on the home home page torture and the death penalty. For me I think that kind of breaks the spirit or intention of the rule but then I'd say the same thing where "do unto" fails too. Is the downfall then the rule or the person who interprets it? Your thoughts?

I was really thinking about it more along the lines…
I accept that things are (maybe at face value, maybe not, maybe they aren’t, maybe they are), and that whatever it is, my opinion/idea/position/belief/thought/way/circumstance/effort/faith/judgement/philosophy/desire/need/regret… whatever is not the only one that counts.

But like so many other things in life, it’s not so much in what was said, but in how it all is understood.

Thank you Wescli for that clarification. I figured that's what you meant and I very much like the spirit behind the words.

Wescli Wardest wrote: But like so many other things in life, it’s not so much in what was said, but in how it all is understood.

Thanks to all of you this is exactly the lesson I'll be taking away from this topic. Be mindful of how I interpreted things and of how people interpret me. Sounds so simple and i thought i understood this but it just clicked. Now if only it were so easy to adhear to. Hmmm.... With your permission Wescli I might add this to my signature for a while as a personal reminder.

It can be taken further then one word, such as using a single letter and it's sound. It doesn't get much simpler then a monotonic hum - but usually that simplicity is a symbol for something more complex, else it's rather meaningless.
:lol: