To Bend Or To Be Bent?

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

I agree. I tend to over complicate such things.

What's with the fact that major axioms and theorems of maths and laws of physics are formulated once and for centuries? The choice of words there is more of a symbolic equations. Are our maxims to be less durable or less strict?

den385 wrote:

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

I agree. I tend to over complicate such things.

What's with the fact that major axioms and theorems of maths and laws of physics are formulated once and for centuries? The choice of words there is more of a symbolic equations. Are our maxims to be less durable or less strict?

Id have to turn that over to my more educated brothers...

Gisteron, are these laws/rules/theories (ha ) tested repeatedly?

For some reason, I was thinking that they are...

Our maxims and such are made by, and for, humans... Which are messy, and inconsistent...

So, our 'rules' have to have a little give...

While it could be argued that they 'wiggle to much', others argue for a bit more wiggle...

I think, for the time being, that we have found a happy medium...

Questioning so many things at once, as Gisteron has done, is tough for many to discuss, whereas if we discussed one at a time, we could maybe have a better conversation...

Its why I didnt chime in on his OP...

In retrospect, arguably my list was a little too long to be discussed in its entirety, but then I did pose questions to guide the discussion apart from that list. I appreciate the feedback though and am glad it spawned so much fruitful one at that.

Anyway, I'm afraid the answer to den's comment is a little more nuanced than a mere yes or no, and the answer is different for math than it is for physics, and both are rather lengthy on their own, as I just tested... and also rather off-topic, in my opinion. Feel free to ask me in private or open a dedicated thread.
Suffice it to say that the solidity math and the hard sciences tend to have is usually in a much different place than where the lay person suspects.

Now, would the Temple benefit from either more or less rigidity? Probably not. Would we? Some would, I reckon, others perhaps not so much. How do we then feel about the place we are at individually? How comfortable are we to change and how much do we want to change as opposed to feeling obliged to change?
Ironically, I find the same results I mentioned in the OP. Some find that the doctrine is the gold standard of what it means to be a Jedi, some find it to be "more of a guideline". Having been to both sides of that, if I reflect on it, it appears I used to judge the "moderates" for their looseness as much as I would judge the "fundies" for their orthodoxy today... And then looking back at that sentence I begin judging myself for being so judgemental and round and round we go. You people are awesome. I love you.

Gisteron wrote: Goken, I was specifically referring to faith, honesty, loyalty and integrity as they are described in and by the maxims and to no other sense of those words. My concern in the context of that post is that some of the maxims do contradict each other and my question to tzb was how he is able to reconcile this with being on board with all of them.

Friend you have come to a very real point in your path. The next steps are yours to take and your to find. Our glorious Temple gives us a place to seek. This is one of the hidden gifts of the teachings. Yes they aren't original yes they seem to cross at times but it is the gift to find who and what we believe for ourself. So any people s jaw drops when they reach this part cuz that voice says " which ones right " and the inside man says they all are. Our ego says only one.... not many... it's a gift to find put which are mine and which are yours. Share what u find. Another joy of Jedi ism. We learn together and share together and become... one, with each other and the Force

Jestor wrote: Questioning so many things at once, as Gisteron has done, is tough for many to discuss, whereas if we discussed one at a time, we could maybe have a better conversation...

Truly, guys, that's the crystallized knowledge of this thread. Better doubt things one at a time. One thread for one doubt - and if we'll have them so much that they together will doubt all the doctrine - that'll be great! Then, we shall have in form of this threads an extended FAQ, which can buffer up the next revision of doctrine, if need be.

I am a programmer, so I tend to see this things in software development methodology context. Funny idea is this: it would be interesting to commit our doctrine to github so that anybody can fork from it and propose their interpretation of original. Then any diversity in opinion can be visualized line by line and with timestamps. Also, that will give us versioning.

However, as I said, I'm a programmer

"I (…) am rarely happier than when spending an entire day programming my computer to perform automatically a task that would otherwise take me a good ten seconds to do by hand."

— Douglas Adams