Apprentice & Knight Standards

Arisaig wrote: I agree with all that except for conservatism.

Conservatism: commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation.

So, no. This is a young faith, and it has to grow, and with growth, change. Once we start agreeing we should just stick with the way things are, we stagnate. Upwards and forwards, always.

Not that you asked, but to me conservatism been about building on established foundations, rather then tearing them down and starting afresh. It 'conserves' prior efforts in moving forward. A 'conservative process' is easily labelled as old fashioned because it tends to be slower in change (but faster in good results because it can inherent successful elements and transform by discarding unsuccessful ones)...... and because it is vulnerable to stagnation.
But as a type of refinement process it sits in contrast to removing all prior efforts and starting anew, where the process might be more one of creation - with all the risk and reward that might bring ie restarting the trial and error process from a new base. I think what is more important that the trial and error process is ongoing, and so I tend to be a progressive conservatist
I'm not sure what contrasts it TBH, as liberalism would seem not to fit in that role. Perhaps extremism!? Or just non-conservative. Sorry for semantic opinion derail.

Proteus wrote:

Arisaig wrote: Conservatism: commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation.

So, no. This is a young faith, and it has to grow, and with growth, change. Once we start agreeing we should just stick with the way things are, we stagnate. Upwards and forwards, always.[/color]

I had a feeling that was not the most accurate term for what I was actually meaning by it!

By conservatism: the ability to know when to conserve one's resources, actions, judgements, etc. Basically, knowing how to keep from splurging yourself on impulse. (I'm not sure a better noun for that though)

I feel ya, joys of the internet where you have to know the meaning of every word you say so you can say what you mean and not simply mean what you say.

I feel a more fitting word would be Restraint, or, at least, Self-Restraint.

Proteus wrote: Are there parameters for wisdom that generally anybody in this temple can agree with?

Perhaps demonstrative qualities such as:
Humility
Conservatism
Compassion & Empathy
Constructive Judgement
Prudence
Self-Care

Actually I would not agree with any of those as a necessary parameter for wisdom. I don't think wisdom can be measured in any such way. It cant be taught except as a component of experience so not only is it a result of knowledge but also internal revelation. And that personal revelation will be as unique as the individual, making personal wisdom just as unique.

I personally think this discussion has missed the point of apprenticeship. To me apprenticeship is not about academics or religion. It is about exploring the self and what is important to you in your worldview and spirituality. I don't need a bunch of courses in science or seminary because those things are not why I study here. I study here to explore my philosophy of life and I apply that to my experience of life and through that I hope to gain wisdom. This is a journey my mentor and I undertake together and in that we bond in a personal way and that facilitates a unique journey that no one else gets to define the parameters of.

Sure we can develop some standards because we need a means of measurement for specific items. Points for lessons and interviews etc but this process also necessarily needs to include a level of trust in that journey that mentor and student undertake. Is there integrity in that process or not? if yes, then no one gets to decide what wisdom means except that student and that mentor. Its not a milestone or a goal that can be measured but the fulfillment of a promise to one another. No one else gets to judge that. They only get to judge if that promise was fulfilled with integrity. That will be easily discernible.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I personally think this discussion has missed the point of apprenticeship. To me apprenticeship is not about academics or religion. It is about exploring the self and what is important to you in your worldview and spirituality. I don't need a bunch of courses in science or seminary because those things are not why I study here."

Well to be clear. I created this thread so that people can share THEIR view and opinion's on what THEY feel should be standard training. So...I don't think anyone has missed the point of apprenticeship - because what they suggested was important to them. Just like your next comment below....is what works for you.

I study here to explore my philosophy of life and I apply that to my experience of life and through that I hope to gain wisdom. This is a journey my mentor and I undertake together and in that we bond in a personal way and that facilitates a unique journey that no one else gets to define the parameters of.

I think it is great that we can all be diverse and so very different from eachother. I am glad you get to have those points with your Mentor I just also think we shouldn't be too quick to discount how others prefer to learn.

Sure we can develop some standards because we need a means of measurement for specific items. Points for lessons and interviews etc but this process also necessarily needs to include a level of trust in that journey that mentor and student undertake.

This is why my own suggestions had a number of ideas. An application process, A month of communication before application can be sent, stages of speaking with a consular about your bonding process and provide outside assistance, student and mentor review meetings, 2 years of mandatory training - ect ect. They may not be perfect and could use some TLC but I also agree that the pair in training should trust eachother.

Is there integrity in that process or not? if yes, then no one gets to decide what wisdom means except that student and that mentor. Its not a milestone or a goal that can be measured but the fulfillment of a promise to one another. No one else gets to judge that. They only get to judge if that promise was fulfilled with integrity. That will be easily discernible.

Agreed!


So with that said. How would you write up a set of standards?

Proteus wrote: Perhaps demonstrative qualities such as:
Humility
Conservatism
Compassion & Empathy
Constructive Judgement
Prudence
Self-Care

Any list of qualities or knowledge ought to be as comprehensive as possible, but what constitutes a comprehensive list and how would we all agree? One of the most suitable solutions is probably the Doctrine . It's pretty comprehensive and relates directly to the Temple. That being said the Doctrine itself couldn't be the focus of subjects needed for an Apprenticeship to be completed, because it misses out on all the great stuff like joining the Clergy or learning about the Hero's Journey, or Zen/Tao or science or communication etc.

There's so much great knowledge out there, but we can't learn all of it. There needs to be focus and what should we focus on? Why not whatever will bring about the greatest capacity for wisdom in our Apprentices and Knights? And what will bring out the greatest capacity for wisdom? Well that depends on the person. Every Apprentice and Knight experiences wisdom differently, because wisdom comes in moments unique to each of us.

And the capacity for wisdom takes a long time to accumulate, longer than the eight months minimum needed to reach Knighthood here, but training doesn't stop at Knighthood and in practice we also have to balance the need for Initiates needing to be taught with having enough people able to teach. If we set a standard so high it takes people ages to become Knights, they might be amazing in the end, but there will be great numbers of people who come here and receive little or no training because we don't have enough Knights - we already have this issue.

We need a manageable minimum quality that balances the need for people to get the capacity for wisdom with the need for enough teachers to give this capacity to those who come here looking for it.

With all that we have been saying about "wisdom" indeed being a knightly virtue, we have to admit likewise that is can never be a stable character trait. We would no more be able to measure someone's wisdom than we would be able to teach it. As was said before, "wisdom" can come about when one can use the appropriate knowledge that one has retained (we do forget things, after all) to that just meeting point where the intellect meets the heart. It is not necessarily wise to employ Logic and Rationality to those vast dimensions of our sentient existences which are Non-Rational. Indeed, to attempt to Rationalise the Non-Rational is the surest, most direct descent into the Irrational. And about as far away from "wisdom" too as one can get...

Please do not be mis-led by the term "Non-Rational" ; it merely refers to that much wider domain of our existence as Being in/with the World that does not subscribe to Reason. Why do we want to be 'rational' ? Because we get better results that way ? There is a value judgement determining the "better" in that, and value judgements an only be 'justified'. Justifications can only ever sound quite rational without ever quite capturing the value they are trying to sustain. Empirical extrapolations based on our assumption that the future will be like the past, is inductive reasoning - and in many cases, why not ? If I run an experiment - and my peers run the same experiment - and we all get similar results, then we'll say, with a pretty sure degree of accuracy that under similar conditions, similar processes yield similar results. An interplay of constants (more or less) and exercising a pretty good control on variables, it is still "induction" which begins as Non-Rational.

Yet, let's try doing this with notions such as Love, or Courage, or Justice ... suddenly, we are not supported by the tight controls of constants and variable, nor can we be sure that the future will be like the past. In the absurd realm of human affairs, we can be almost certain that there would be such a staggering number of variables and hardly any constants that suddenly we can not rely solely on Reason. Logic and critical thinking skills are very necessary for knowing what information is good and what information is not so dependable, but it is the beginning of the knowledge base, not the summit of it.

To be open to the instances within any given set of circumstances wherein one may be prone to wisdom, one has to be in touch with one's own feelings and sensitive to those of Others. Reason alone cannot determine our morals (Kant got that one wrong - as did the Golden Rule) ; in our collective living, Reason cannot alone provide the foundation of our ethics. Feeling precedes thought, but feeling does not have a voice... it relies on language-framed thought to find expression. That language-framed thought has to be processed by the Rational mind. Hence, the 'justification'. And - wanting/valuing to be rational beings (value judgement again), we will believe in the Rationality of the expressed feeling (Non-rational) ... and again, this wards off the moment of wisdom we may have had access to had we only had faith in the feeling and not in the thoughts about it.

Anyway -- no, we won't be judging anyone's wisdom, nor trying to teach it ; there's no "Wisdom" 101 final. But what we ought to try to "teach" is that we really don't know too much and from there, cultivate our knowledge that we can use, our capacity to feel, our senses, our sensitivity and our sensibilities to make us more apt at perspective taking. Thus we would be more prone to receptivity when a momentary occurrence of wisdom might come our way.

Indeed, the Doctrine in a great source for this approach. Then again, it isn't a sequence : focus on what is in front of us now, and that's where the lesson is ...

Alexandre Orion wrote: Yet, let's try doing this with notions such as Love, or Courage, or Justice ... suddenly, we are not supported by the tight controls of constants and variable, nor can we be sure that the future will be like the past.

Couldn't the "teachers" together make a bank of statements that they felt embodied "knightly virtues" from their experiences (X was frightened of spiders, but now she keeps a pet tarantula, and takes it round schools to help others overcome their fears); bring them to council/a sub group for a "thumbs up, thumbs down" to make a guide list? It could be maintained/renewed/reviewed as needed for temporal change.

I'm not saying it's possible to ACTUALLY pin things down; but it's easier to say "Yeah, I think this is under-par development; given the potential." (or whatever) when there's a guide that has a few examples attached; rather than raw doctrine. It's still going to be an interpreted thing - but it might be a useful tool to make for whoever's doing the "grading". It may, indeed, already exist; but I don't know.

Alexandre: what we ought to try to "teach" is that we really don't know too much and from there, cultivate our knowledge that we can use, our capacity to feel, our senses, our sensitivity and our sensibilities to make us more apt at perspective taking. Thus we would be more prone to receptivity when a momentary occurrence of wisdom might come our way.

This brings into focus something that I had been thinking while reading some of these later responses. We cannot teach wisdom (we can't even reach a working definition of wisdom that meets the expectations of a simple majority and doesn't rely on metaphor). Talking about wisdom, exploring the figures in history (and the present day) who seem to "have" it, thinking about those possible traits and skills which help make someone a fertile vessel for wisdom, these are positive things to bring up and explore. They won't bring us to a definition, however, and I don't think that the Apprenticeship should be about trying to teach wisdom. Down that road lies a grim forest of ignorance, and, as Jedi, part of what we're trying to do is be less ignorant (about ourselves, our fellow humans, and the universe around us).

I do, however, suggest that our dialogue on how to train students isn't one that's wasted. Individuality is something innate to Jediism. An exploration of standardization and standards doesn't preclude individual learning or expression. We can ask students to look into areas they may be unfamiliar with, and suggest that they try to view the world in unfamiliar ways (and even uncomfortable ways) in order to help broaden their perspectives. Teaching Masters usually do that anyway, and would continue to take things in their individual directions even if there was a standardization mandate in place.

What this comes down to, for me, is exactly what Alexandre said about "perspective taking." We need to be able to learn to view things from larger and differing perspectives. Our teaching styles should be concentrated on making that happen. Perhaps not even for the sake of wisdom. Perhaps we can simply learn broadly, open our perspectives whenever possible, and try to act like good human beings. Wisdom may or may not come along because of the circumstances of existence, our own growth, and luck, but we can learn to be good to one another and ourselves.

\

Trisskar wrote: I just also think we shouldn't be too quick to discount how others prefer to learn.

I was not trying to dismiss how any one person prefers to learn but I do think this thread got off track with the whole academics and wisdom discussion. While those may be a product of the journey they should not be the focus. I don't use the terms teacher or master because I don't believe those are roles for a Knight. They do not teach academics and the cant teach wisdom. They are qualified for neither.

What they are qualified for is the role of mentor in the sense that they are advisors, friends, councilors and consultants in the apprenticeship journey. That relationship should be one of equal input between mentor and student. If the student is not willing to put in as much effort in the journey and be willing to guide their own path just as much as the Knight, but instead be lead by the nose down a preset course of study, they are not ready for apprenticeship anyway in my opinion.

Trisskar wrote: So with that said. How would you write up a set of standards?

I think you were off to a brilliant start but I would be careful to not put to many restrictions and structure to the process. Stay away from academic requirements for example. If further designated lessons are to be required then add those to the IP. That is the place for academic achievement. As I starter I would not add time to the Apprenticeship but leave it at 1 year min to whenever and instead I would add 3 months onto the Initiate training and add courses in Critical thinking, conflict resolution and maybe even an intro to the seminary lesson. Give the potential apprentice the full set of tools before he starts the course of study with the Knight.

Twigga wrote:

Alexandre Orion wrote: Yet, let's try doing this with notions such as Love, or Courage, or Justice ... suddenly, we are not supported by the tight controls of constants and variable, nor can we be sure that the future will be like the past.

Couldn't the "teachers" together make a bank of statements that they felt embodied "knightly virtues" from their experiences (X was frightened of spiders, but now she keeps a pet tarantula, and takes it round schools to help others overcome their fears); bring them to council/a sub group for a "thumbs up, thumbs down" to make a guide list? It could be maintained/renewed/reviewed as needed for temporal change.

I'm not saying it's possible to ACTUALLY pin things down; but it's easier to say "Yeah, I think this is under-par development; given the potential." (or whatever) when there's a guide that has a few examples attached; rather than raw doctrine. It's still going to be an interpreted thing - but it might be a useful tool to make for whoever's doing the "grading". It may, indeed, already exist; but I don't know.

This sort of implies that such "grading" is an objective thing that could be reduced to evidentiary demands, even case-specific ones. I mean, there are Knightly virtues, certainly; the chivalric code has one set, and I just made my Apprentice wade through another set found in Nitobe. But just about any one of those might be no easier to make objective than "wisdom" is proving to be elsewhere on the forum today. My guess is that virtually everyone here has a different idea of "justice" than I do these days, largely because I'm a cynical old [strike]bastard[/strike] fart after too many years as a public defender. Ultimately, when it comes time to evaluate these things, whether for Knighthood or any other purpose, it seems to come down to something to Justice Stewart's famous non-definition of obscenity: "I know it when I see it."