To Bend Or To Be Bent?

Just get the definition of Doctrine. And then decide if what we have here is or isn't a doctrine. I follow as such, and maybe there's someone who sees it as a doctrine as well. That's starting to confuse me. Not the Doctrine, but by how seriously it's taken.

ren wrote:

"The Force as anything other than a vague label that can mean anything and therefore means nothing"

"Jediism is a religion based on the observance of the Force, a ubiquitous and metaphysical power that a Jedi (a follower of Jediism) believes to be the underlying, fundamental nature of the universe."

This is the first sentence of the doctrine. Wouldn't call that a vague label, it clearly says ubiquitous power, and underlying fundamental nature of the universe. Your inability to understand the vastness of the Force or its nature does not in anyway make it a vague label. I doubt any human can. The word "obervance" was carefully chosen as well.

So, first of all, since what you quote there is from a list of things I disagree with the doctrine about, what a surprise is it really to find that they don't quite match the doctrine? But lest that be my only excuse, let me understand your objection as an inquiry to explain why I see it this way also. "Power" can mean a number of things. It can mean the ability to do things, the ability to influence other things or people or it can be the time derivative of work. There are some more specific subdefinitions under each of the three, but literally none of them are either ubiquitous or metaphysical. So the way the doctrine uses "power" is a way in which the dictionary doesn't. It leaves that usage unspecified, too, so my accusation of vagueness stands as tall as before. What "underlying fundamental nature of X" means is also not explained, and by extrapolation I'm not sure I'm positive that the doctrine and I mean the same when we speak of the "universe". Then of course there are the low and high ranking members of TOTJO, some of whom may have very specific and others may have very vague definitions of their own; seldom do any two of them match, and seldom do any of them match the one in the doctrine either. So whenever people talk of the Force it is unreasonable to expect them to use the doctrine's definition, and even if one would, it would still be as vague and useless as one would be without one altogether. How "observance" makes any of this any clearer is frankly beyond me, even after all these years.

This is a Jediism pre-requisite...

I beg to differ. It may be a prerequisite to your Jediism, yet I have met enough people right here who either themselves don't think of the Force as any actual thing which is what the doctrine seems to be implying, as well as those who would say that such a belief, while they have it, is not strictly necessary to be Jedi. If you will say that those people are therefore not true Jedi, be my guest. If they cherish being called Jedi so much, I shall leave it up to them to debate you on this if they need to.

... maybe you've been hanging out with realists for too long to be able to tell the difference, not to mention totjo doesn't seem to care about knighting non-jediists, but the force isn't some label for us.

If you must know, I have only ever been to TOTJO, so whatever realists I might have interacted with, it could at best only have been here. What I definitely have not seen is the inner workings of the council, so I ask you to kindly enlighten me as to what mechanism you propose it could use to tell who is a Jediist and who isn't before (or after) it knights them. I understand the Force is not "just a label" for you. Hence why this is not a list of my interpretations of the doctrine, but rather of my disagreements with it. In my experience an empty label is all "the Force" is and people use it mostly when they want to be unspecific and seldom when they actually mean any concrete thing.

I enjoy your take on the doctrine of this group; it's obvious that the codices have been written with syncretism in mind. Since the Jedi Order seeks inclusion, it puts truth at a lower premium than makes sense logically. Soteriology, as someone briefly mentioned earlier, is a big deal for me.
To quote Alamut,
"If nothing is absolute, everything is permitted."
The Jedi Order can only seek to function as a framework for or secondary worldview. If you want to go into what the real meanings of a true belief are, read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. You'll easily see that Jediism doesn't fit the bill.
In my humble opinion, don't take the doctrine here too seriously.
One final quote from one of my favorite Jedi, Captain Jack Sparrow, "It's more of a guideline."

Why cant we just be ourselves? Do we, as Jedi, really have to recieve validation from some doctrine or code in order to lead fufilling and just lives?

Is being a decent human being really so hard, that we need to debate how to best go about being one?.

I dont think so.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

IMO

1) I had my doubts on the forms we use. They can be improved, in my opinion. Much should be sharpened to make the doctrine from a loose guidelines into steel durable framework. We need to do this.

Yet, looseness in form does not mean such in essence. Doubt is useful as long as it keeps trust alive. If doubt corrupts the trust, the root motivation has to be reevaluated. To do this, I go to the source.

As there is written in "Jedi Compass", we must have our own crystallized answers on what means to be a Jedi. I do have mine. I revisit them in times of doubt.

Sensing the Force and adhering to the spirit of the core code are first and necessary requirements to call oneself a Jedi. That is the threshold of initiation. Like Campbell wrote, an uninitiated person can enter the Temple physically but not spiritually.

2) As of formulas, there is much to be refined, IMO.

As of wordplay, IMO, belief better be renamed in experience+trust, Doctrine into axioms, church into just temple.

3) To bend or to be bent? That depends on the knowledge and wisdom of a person. Those who are ahead of others on the Way, are to be trusted to shape the formulas. However, that does not exclude *constructive* criticism and revisiting of standards.

4)

Is being a decent human being really so hard, that we need to debate how to best go about being one?

Jedi is not "a decent human being". Such vague formula gives no internal structure to person. Under pressure, unstructured mind will not be calm. Having lost calmness, we lose our ability to serve, which disables us as Jedi.

Jedi is a commitment to practice as training and to service as application. It is like work. Anyone can consider himself a psychologist but if they don't meet the criteria of education and professional behavior, this would be a mere pretense.

We, as community, should formulate our criteria razor sharp. Otherwise it would be hard to survive the growth diseases we already start to experience.

None of my doubts got answered, all of them, ignored. Weren't they seen, or are they being ignored?

IMO

Temple provides structure to the training and support of brothers in times of crisis. Temple does not bear your responsibility to commit to the Jedi way instead of you.

If you have constructive doubts - doubts on the periphery of our value system - sharply formulated and appropriately addressed positive message, then you shall get help. If no one else answers (which I deeply doubt, if you proved patience and diligence in technique details of addressing), I shall answer, however untrained I am.

Otherwise if you doubt the core of our value system - the concept of the Force, the 5 line code and the creed - there is nothing we can do.

Core questions may only be answered in solitude.

As of our seriousness. Yes, we are serious. The Jedi I know are striving to save or improve concrete lives. Forget star wars references. Human lives matter more. For me now, it's my two 14 yo sisters with their alcoholic parents. It's not all, just my most strong personal example. "Jedi Compass" book has stronger ones.

Almeida wrote: None of my doubts got answered, all of them, ignored. Weren't they seen, or are they being ignored?

I tried to answer your question. :pinch:
To go on from what I was saying I'd also add from that, that I don't judge others in their effort or capacity to adhere to the doctrine - because to be fair, I am not always able to meet my own standards most of the time!!! So there is no reason to force anything on anyone for that reason alone IMO. Given then some people might not follow some aspects of it (at this point in time) it still would have some relevance to their relationship with Jediism perhaps for the simple reason that other Jedi do? Does everyone have to follow every point and if so to what extent!? I think its unhelpful to demand those two things, if we are intending to help people become better. So the Doctrine then might not be best a measure to judge others, but certainly useful to measure oneself against what we deem appropriate and perhaps what others on similar paths might use as similar points of reference. After all, who knows what our future paths hold in regards to focal points and capacity to focus.

Almeida wrote: None of my doubts got answered, all of them, ignored. Weren't they seen, or are they being ignored?

This one?

Almeida wrote: This thread is making me think. A lot. Really.



Seeing some religious leaders and knights saying that I can basically ignore everything that is said here and I will still be a Jedi.

How can that be?

Not ignore...

But, rather your interpretation isn't necessarily going to line up all the way down with my definition, and/or interpretation...

Its why the IP asks for folks to break it down, for you (collective you) to consider it, and its possibilities...

Almeida wrote: Just get the definition of Doctrine. And then decide if what we have here is or isn't a doctrine. I follow as such, and maybe there's someone who sees it as a doctrine as well. That's starting to confuse me. Not the Doctrine, but by how seriously it's taken.

I like this one...



But, "a tree that doesn't bend, will break"...

So, while we do take it serious, it is within our personal interpretations that we do so...



~from the Hitchhicker's Guide in my Galaxy S3~

Den385 wrote: 1) I had my doubts on the forms we use. They can be improved, in my opinion. Much should be sharpened to make the doctrine from a loose guidelines into steel durable framework. We need to do this

Part of our power is in remaing fluid...

The more we define, the faster is ceases to be current...

A written sentence is old news once read, a picture is a moment in time..

Both are past...

I can write something now, and upon reading new info, change my thoughts, write new words, read a bit more, and change my mind yet again...

Things are incomplete, and vague for a reason, I feel...