Defining Jedi and Sith

And by the gods almighty and the Force that is everywhere. You enjoy you

However. When discussing the creation of a Jedi community, the acceptance of followers, and the teachings of said followers. Some definitions must be defined in order to present what it is "We" (in general) are standing for. TOTJO Has done that with its doctines, tennets and....bleh bleh bleh....

We were not discussing these things, lol.....

And, you said the reason was cause we were afraid... Somebody is, anyway.... Any who refused to accept a "group agreed upon definition"....

And I say (for myself) that I disagree with your thinking...

We agree here, as you've pointed out, in an unspoken way....

We don't see the need to have it written.....

one key point that see between the Jedi and sith
would be that the Jedi work as a team while The sith of the rule of two started by darth bane

Edan wrote: By saying what one is not, by logical conclusion, one is also defining what they are. To say one is not a Jedi, however, does not by rights mean they are a Sith. Vice versa is true also. So you are right, many are between... but perhaps only because Jediism (and Sithism) is reflective of many other belief systems also, given that they are, to some extent, syncretic. We pick and choose our values here anyway, seems sensible one would with Jediism also.

You nailed it on the head, I wrote this post almost hoping for the temple to have a buzzfeed-eque 10 things sith do list. Also, I completely agree that Jediism is by nature inclusive/syncretic whereas Sith (as far as I understand) is not, but rather agonistic.

I used to try and define myself with many labels; I realised very recently that some of these labels were contradictory to some (though never to me). It's quite difficult to explain to others how I reconciled Jediism, Satanism and Quakerism. Now I don't bother labelling myself because in doing so I reduce what I am to a few (all of them misunderstood) words, none of which can really adequately describe myself. Nobody actually needs the labels 'Jedi' and 'Sith'... and as you quite rightly pointed out, they aren't really apples and oranges. It's not really about 'making oneself believe' anything... one is or one isn't what they are, words are irrelevant in that respect really, it's often others that attempt to define them.

Jediism and Satanism are both incredibly broad categories. You define your worldview as elements of those 3, since I would argue they cannot all be reconciled by traditional thought. Similarly, I took this exercise to examine how many Jedi hold a melded form of the temple's dogma with many other outside (not fully compatible) beliefs. The cognitive dissonance caused by examining the Temple's doctrine against other influences helps mature any adherent's paradigm.

Do they really need unification? Have you asked them what they think? Why do they need a hierarchy?

No, they don't. I wrote this hoping for some Sith to chime in and point me towards new/better material. Sithism, as I understand, focuses on introverted growth which doesn't leave much room for the hassle of codifying beliefs and creating a practical system like the Temple.

Thank you for your well-written points

Jestor wrote: "We don't see the need to have it written"

Your responses have seemed a tad acrid and imply finality. I understand if you believe you are the end-all be-all of what adjectives you self-ascribe, but that's a wee bit reminiscent of Sith doctrine. You don't have to be one or the other, I just would argue that you can't describe yourself as a Jedi when the alternatives aren't fully hashed out (and neither is Jediism for that matter). Individual policy calls (excluding death penalty and democracy) aren't in the temple's dogma, so that's really each individual's call. At the same time, you can't say you're 100% Jedi, if you're not. I by no stretch of the definition, am a Jedi, and so this post arose out of my interest in seeing how many other people were only nominally Jedi.

Please keep it civil and continue responding

Jediism and Satanism are both incredibly broad categories. You define your worldview as elements of those 3, since I would argue they cannot all be reconciled by traditional thought.

Only because you do not know what I mean by them ... And therein lies the problem with calling people anything... Jedi, Sith, by using labels one define others by one's personal definitions.

Jestor wrote: Just another hardliner, lol, looking to "define", rather than simply "accept"... :laugh: :laugh:

Why couldn't "defining" be more highly valued than "accepting" for Sith? We cannot think of Sith as Jedi.

Snowy Aftermath wrote: A Sith is fueled by passion. They are usually more hands on and direct. At their best they are artists, poets and creators. At their worst they are cold and argumentative manipulators for their own gain. Sith come at life with an axe, for better or worse. There is an urgency to them that is admirable, but can sometimes blow up in their faces.

Jedi who sincerely internalising their Jedi practice have a community which has grown up around the fiction and subsequently been informed by other source materials. One development was the adoption of the Jedi Code as a near universal constant. Sith have a similarly developed community but, unless we are informed on the topic (which I'm not), we cannot presume the Sith Code has similar central importance.

Trisskar wrote: Definitions need not be limiting. On the contrary. They are simply the first step into discovering your own beliefs and "Way"

The existence of definitions itself says "here are issues we consider important".

FTPC wrote: one key point that see between the Jedi and sith
would be that the Jedi work as a team while The sith of the rule of two started by darth bane

Only in a fictional universe.

Rex wrote: You nailed it on the head, I wrote this post almost hoping for the temple to have a buzzfeed-eque 10 things sith do list. Also, I completely agree that Jediism is by nature inclusive/syncretic whereas Sith (as far as I understand) is not, but rather agonistic.

Syncretism as practiced at this Temple is a recognition of how different resources can provide similar teachings. One need not be limited to just one book if other books may better serve to educate the same points.

Akkarin wrote:

Trisskar wrote: Definitions need not be limiting. On the contrary. They are simply the first step into discovering your own beliefs and "Way"

The existence of definitions itself says "here are issues we consider important".

Exactly. How is that limiting or non important? When someone says (Say a reporter or new member) "What makes you a Jedi?" are not our answers based on things "We consider important?"

Defining Jedi should highlight those things as it allows people to understand and relate to those "Importance"

Akkarin wrote:

Snowy Aftermath wrote: A Sith is fueled by passion. They are usually more hands on and direct. At their best they are artists, poets and creators. At their worst they are cold and argumentative manipulators for their own gain. Sith come at life with an axe, for better or worse. There is an urgency to them that is admirable, but can sometimes blow up in their faces.

Jedi who sincerely internalising their Jedi practice have a community which has grown up around the fiction and subsequently been informed by other source materials. One development was the adoption of the Jedi Code as a near universal constant. Sith have a similarly developed community but, unless we are informed on the topic (which I'm not), we cannot presume the Sith Code has similar central importance.

I don't understand what you mean by "internalizing". I have "sincerely internalized" everything about my Jedi path, and I take it quite personally; it is central to my existence. Part of the Jedi path, as I see it, is the ability to stop labeling things "good" and "evil" and to see what simply is. Labeling someone is demeaning, no person is all one thing. And I will go ahead and presume that if they bothered to have a code, that it means something to them. Why else have one?

Of the Sith I have met here, they are honest and intelligent. They might be blunt, but some of the conversations they have been involved in need that. I think it's time to start taking each person on their own merits and contributions, not the stereotype that they've fallen under. And this "us vs. them" crap is really boring, if you don't mind my saying (I'm not saying you've done it in this post, Akkarin, just that it's a popular road for some to travel.)

People are people. Each one gets their own category. That's all.

Akkarin wrote:

Jestor wrote: Just another hardliner, lol, looking to "define", rather than simply "accept"... :laugh: :laugh:

Why couldn't "defining" be more highly valued than "accepting" for Sith? We cannot think of Sith as Jedi.

It could... Good point, lol... I dont call myself a Sith, and thereforre dont worry how they are defined...

Are you suggesting Rex is a Sith?

I was just using the term 'hardliner' to signify someone who "must. have. things. defined. and. we. must. all. agree. on. them."

lol....

Rex wrote:

Jestor wrote: "We don't see the need to have it written"

Your responses have seemed a tad acrid and imply finality. I understand if you believe you are the end-all be-all of what adjectives you self-ascribe, but that's a wee bit reminiscent of Sith doctrine.

I could see why you say that...

Mostly, I feel it is because you dont know me...

I am not the end-all-be-all of anything, except myself...

Im no youngster, and have been contemplating these things for a long time,

You don't have to be one or the other, I just would argue that you can't describe yourself as a Jedi when the alternatives aren't fully hashed out (and neither is Jediism for that matter).

That point could be argued...

Funnily enough, I HAVE decided what I think a Jedi is, as I see it... And, I fit the bill quite nicely..

One of my awesome qualities, is the almost absolute (lol) resistance to tell others how they should define themselves.. It stems from the desire to never belittle another, I think... And, the encouragement to let anyone define themselves as they see best...

I dont judge whether someone is a man or woman based on a penis, or lack thereof... Who am I to tell someone that they are not 'in the wrong body'? There are issues (for them) there I couldnt begin to understand... And I dont have to.. I simply have to accept, that someone knows themselves better than I, and are doing the best they can... Some, are only fooling themselves, 'computer jedi', internet black belts', but, then I dont know them, and can only assume that they are doing their best... IM not here to judge them, only do my best..

I "am a Jedi of one"...

No one thinks like I do, fights like I do, professes their faith like I do, and a whole plethora of other things,lol...

Not all the way down the line...

Every person, is a "xyz of one"...

As we all deviate from one another at some point... Im not here to tell someone where 'I draw the line', and then exclude them...

Individual policy calls (excluding death penalty and democracy) aren't in the temple's dogma, so that's really each individual's call.

Well, are we talking about TOTJO Jedi, or 'all' Jedi?

Im willing to be that many Jedi who are not TOTJO members/guests would have a hard time agreeing with me, and would ascribe it to 'me, not being a Jedi'...

The things in my personal dogma, align enough with the Temple's dogma, that I am here... Should my views change further, or the Temples, I might have to find a new refuge,lol...

At the same time, you can't say you're 100% Jedi, if you're not. I by no stretch of the definition, am a Jedi, and so this post arose out of my interest in seeing how many other people were only nominally Jedi.

I actually CAN say I am 100% Jedi, lol...

As I personally see it should be, for me, at this time...

I may be "100% Peacock" for my next belief system, lol... Peacocks are cool...

Using your arguments, in reverse, if it was decided by the "Jedi Council of Elders", that being a Jedi was to have the name "Rex" and be a pretty decent guy (I am assuming, lol, forgive me if I am wrong on your gender, or decent-ness, lol), then by the same rules as to who we say IS NOT a Jedi (by the exclusion through definition), you would be automatically included under the qualifications, and thus, have no say-so on it...

I wouldnt do that to you, you have the right to call yourself what you will...

But, to begin to define, means to begin to exclude... And I cannot do that... Just as I wouldnt auto-include those who do not wish to be included...

And by your "I by no stretch of the definition, am a Jedi", it would seem you are making some strong lines in the sand, lol...

Shall we list your qualities, against mine, and see where you might be considered Jedi, and I a Sith? :lol:

Akkarin wrote: We cannot think of Sith as Jedi.

Why the hell not? Why is that distinction so important to you?

Snowy Aftermath wrote:

Akkarin wrote: We cannot think of Sith as Jedi.

Why the hell not? Why is that distinction so important to you?

I think its rather important to the Sith Try calling any sith a "Jedi" and watch that madness unroll haha No sith wants to Identify with the drama that is wrapped so tightly around "Jedi" - At least, none of the one's I have known have.

Jedi and Sith are indeed pretty much the same thing. Even in fiction they are, the only difference. The only seperation between one or the other was the fact that

Jedi - Had definitions, codes, and directive honor.

Sith - Did not.