What is the Force

Loudzoo wrote: Gist - how can a term that pertains to wholeness and ubiquity be meaningless? Those words have meaning. There is a utility in words such as 'everything' and 'everyone'. Even in maths we need terms to describe the set of all possible sets. (emphasis added)

Alright... Let's do this...

Does the barber, who shaves all and only those who do not shave themselves, shave himself?

For the purposes of addressing what you just said there, I shall be using "sets" as defined by the Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory, the one used in pretty much all of the maths any of us learned at school, as well as all of the maths used in all applied maths, computer science, and all of the sciences. In fact, outside of some foundational research into what happens if you change the basics of your set theories or logic more broadly, every other kind of maths is based on these axioms. The tenth axiom is arguably a controversial one (though I personally have never once witnessed its application to be questionable outside of abstract algebra), but the third one, the axiom of subsets is not. It states:


Now let S be the set of all sets. Particularly, its elements are themselves sets. Let further P(x) be true for any x if and only if x ∈ x is false.
According to the axiom, there now exists a subset T of S containing only the sets that do not contain themselves. Since T was itself a set, we can naturally ask whether T is an element of T or not.
And now we have a problem: If T contains itself, then by definition T does not contain itself. And if T does not contain itself, then it does contain itself. That is a contradiction. Therefore the subset T of S does not exist. There exists a predicate P(x) for which the axiom does not apply to the "set of all sets" S. Therefore, S is not a set. There is no such thing as a "set of all sets".

Rather than deconstructing someone else's description - let's hear your answer to the question: What is the Force?

I don't know that it "is" anything in any kind of non-relative sense. The naive images of it as a kind of "energy field permeating the entire universe" only make sense in light of what we understand about the universe if it is at the same time either to weak to have any kind of impact or if it doesn't have any kind of will, doesn't treat living things differently from non-living ones, and generally interacts with other fields almost as strongly as not at all. Modeling the Force as a kind of magical power, slightly more abstract than the gods, I think does us no service. It makes us look frankly cartoonish, and at no benefit to our Jedi philosophy at all. Much like the soul, I can appreciate using the Force as a figure of speech, though I would again question whether we are doing ourselves any favours by it, seeing just how easily it can be mistaken for a genuine belief in some kind of ubiquitous power, both on the outside, as well as in the eyes of the trainee.
Personally, I don't believe that much of the Jedi philosophy hinges upon any kind of concrete conception of the Force, or indeed any conception of it at all. The recommendation for detachment (one ever more forgotten about these days, I feel...), stoicism, and understanding on intellectual as much as emotional levels as a foundation for healthy decision-making can be postulated and maintained without any kind of postulation about the existence or nature of the Force. If anything, strong emotion-based beliefs about its nature are more likely to spawn religious zeal than compassion.

Perhaps those who need an existential "why" for the idea of developing one's self as a constructive contribution to society as is encouraged through the descriptions in the doctrine are (or can be) reconciled through a belief / realization of their "connection" to what it is they are to contribute to and serve. The belief in the force seems to me, to be the driving view that takes the individual out of the "victim in a separate, unforgiving world" paradigm and into one that shows us to be an "empowered agent of the universe tending to itself". It seems to be important to have a belief system like this in which you can be humbled yet empowered in a harmonious way with the world to achieve developing that ability to contribute. This has been my understanding for the practical purpose of considering a belief in the Force.

Thank you Gist - you explained Russell's paradox far better than I could! The set of all sets is not a set - it is known informally as a proper class: It has a different name. The set of all sets needs a different name and a different definition, e.g. the paradox does not appear with classes because there is no notion of classes containing classes. If this was not the case - the paradox would persist with classes, as well as sets.

Thirty years later, Godel's incompleteness theorems went much further. They show that a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics cannot exist. The first theorem states that that there are statements we can make about natural numbers that are true, but unprovable within the system. The second theorem states that system can't demonstrate its own consistency.

To me this makes it imperative that we have words in our language (that are non-logic sensitive) to describe the wholeness and ubiquity that even in maths, result in paradox. Tao, Brahman, The Force - the name doesn't matter in itself - they are labels for the 'not-thing' that underlies everything,and can't be derived axiomatically.

---

Your critique on some descriptions of The Force is well taken - and we would do well to avoid those. However, in our modern world where separateness and isolation seem more prevalent than ever, it becomes even more important that we learn to experience that which connects us, and that which we share with each other and the rest of the Universe: physically, mentally, emotionally and (dare I say it) spiritually, or soulfully. 'The-Force' as a word does that for me.

ren wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ren wrote: The common attribute should at least be that the Force is a ubiquitous metaphysical power which is the underlying/fundamental nature of the universe.

This is interesting but ultimately not specific enough. I would hesitate to call The Force Ubiquitous. I'm just not convinced it could be classified as omnipresent. Also Metaphysical proposes a problem as it defines itself in various aspects including existence as well as abstract idea. And the idea of power is vague. How is power defined in this instance? Finally if it is abstract in nature, how is it an underlying aspect of the universe?

Metaphysical implies that it precedes the physical. Ubiquitous implies that it is in everything. A power implies a 'force' (I know right) as opposed to nothing. To put it in other words the force powers everything that exist, be it particles, space, or time. It isn't abstract. The force is the whole. The tiniest moment in time, the tiniest particle, radiation, space, you name it, is an expression of the force and evidence of it.

If you believe it isn't the case, you're not jedi. First line of the doctrine.

Is it in everything or is it everything? Does it power everything that exists or is it everything that exists? If it is everything that exists then that power is but a component, so which is it? Contradictory statements it seems. Its ambiguous statements like these that dazzle the ill informed but in the end are really just meaningless prattle. The very threat that if one does not buy into what you are saying as absolute gospel that they will be expelled from your elite little club of Jedi is just as ridiculous. People want to belong and Jedi claim connection but wait, you don't get to be connected unless you drink my koolaid and then re-segregation is the result.

I find the more well informed and self confident of spiritual explorers to be the ones that have the courage to reject these sorts of befuddling claims of esoteric knowledge and can instead accept that what you are defining as The Force, a concept of "Everything", to not be an 'is" as all. If it were an "is" (implying existence as a substance) and it were "everything" then why not just call it what we have already labeled it - Namely, The Universe.

To give it a special title and assign it un-provable attributes implies the title giver to have some special knowledge and people want to be in that special group so they will delude themselves into that belief and allow themselves to be lulled into subservience in the false name of some higher pursuit. This is not progress but regression for us as a species. The way forward is through knowledge, not superstition. I think humanity is slowly waking up to that fact. And even though new religions are still being formed I don't see them as being on the edge of a new era of enlightenment but rather the final violent death throws of the paradigms of superstition and willful ignorance.

Loudzoo wrote: Thank you Gist - you explained Russell's paradox far better than I could! The set of all sets is not a set - it is known informally as a proper class: It has a different name. The set of all sets needs a different name and a different definition, e.g. the paradox does not appear with classes because there is no notion of classes containing classes. If this was not the case - the paradox would persist with classes, as well as sets.

I am insufficiently familiar with or interested in alternatives to ZF set theory, both personally, and for the purposes of my reply, since we were talking about utility of words employing universality. In my experience, the utility of classes as anything beyond a means to recover intuitions or avoid pesky paradoxes so far has appeared rather quite absent, seeing as none or almost none of it has found any application outside of pure maths and to a tiny minority of logicians that bother spending any time learning about it.

Thirty years later, Godel's [sic] incompleteness theorems went much further. They show that a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics cannot exist. The first theorem states that that there are statements we can make about natural numbers that are true, but unprovable within the system. The second theorem states that system can't demonstrate its own consistency.

Yes, and the shockwave from that revelation has hit the philosophy departments more than it has any institution concerned with utility. Gödel's first theorem is not proven by pointing at an example, but from first principles instead. In practice, when faced with a proposition, there is no way of telling whether it is true or false until a proof can be constructed one way or the other. If it can be shown that a proof of that statement is impossible, then it is also impossible to say with any confidence, which truth-value can be assigned to it, or whether it even has one at all. In practice, if you cannot prove a statement to be true (or false, for that matter), you cannot prove anything true or false that would hinge upon it either. For mathematical purposes, for the purposes of proving things, it would be useless.

Your critique on some descriptions of The Force is well taken - and we would do well to avoid those. However, in our modern world where separateness and isolation seem more prevalent than ever, it becomes even more important that we learn to experience that which connects us, and that which we share with each other and the rest of the Universe: physically, mentally, emotionally and (dare I say it) spiritually, or soulfully. 'The-Force' as a word does that for me.

While I disagree that separateness and isolation are more prevalent than ever - quite the opposite in my opinion; had either of us been born some half a century ago, we wouldn't know of each other at all, and had we been born a thousand years ago our range of communication would likely have barely reached beyond the city limits and lands as far as a thousand miles away would be foreign and exotic - I can at least appreciate that use of the Force, as an idea, an inspiration, perhaps, "a word that does that for me" as you put it, moreso than as any actual "thing"...

The use of ‘class’ is not an alternative to ZFC - it was introduced into it, to resolve this and other paradoxes, as I understand it. I’m not sure the term has utility beyond that - agreed. It is really a fudge.

Anyway . . . seems like a good time to try and summarise any common ground we may have found.

From this, and the various other conversations we’ve been having, can we agree on the following?

- For those things that we know to be true but can’t prove - faith is necessary (or some other word that means high degree of confidence)

- That there is utility in a word that pertains to notions of wholeness, connection, evolution, being, experience, energy, and inspiration.

- On a universal scale, a name for this could be ‘The Force’.

- On a personal scale, a name for this could be ‘soul’.

- The personal can interact with that which is universal, and vice versa. In a sense, the personal is an integrated and vital part of the universal.

I’d like to develop this further but I don’t want to push too hard and I realise this could / should be part of Manu’s soul thread:

- the soul is always embodied. It doesn’t exist without a physical presence. Non-duality demands this.

- when we die, as with our cells, our soul returns to the universal, from the personal. Our soul returns to The Force.

- whilst we are alive, communion (literally) with The Force is possible. When this happens we hold the personal and the universal together and they can merge, at least temporarily. We are always inextricably linked but we feel that link totally.

- such experiences can occur at any time but are encouraged by meditation / contemplation practice

- these experiences can be called mystical / enlightenment / nirvana etc etc

Any particular reason why this proposed "common ground" of yours consists exclusively of things we disagree most strongly about?

Gisteron wrote:

ren wrote: Metaphysical implies that it precedes the physical. Ubiquitous implies that it is in everything. A power implies a 'force' (I know right) as opposed to nothing. To put it in other words the force powers everything that exist, be it particles, space, or time. It isn't abstract. The force is the whole. The tiniest moment in time, the tiniest particle, radiation, space, you name it, is an expression of the force and evidence of it.

So... in other words its an entirely meaningless term, then. It literally means nothing because no line can be drawn to separate things encompassed by it from things that aren't. Claims of its significance and effects are also unfalsifiable, because by the definition you gave there can be no test performed that gives different results in any pair of possible worlds. How is this a reasonable position? Half of it is gibberish, the other half entirely irrational. Oh, but wait, it gets better. Not only do you hold to this single least reasonable - let alone useful - take on the Force, you also say:

If you believe it isn't the case, you're not jedi. First line of the doctrine.

Excuse me, dear sir... In my seven years of being registered, at TOTJO including the year or so worth of membership at TOTJO, and what little interaction I enjoyed with the larger Jedi community during that and afterward, not once was I surveyed on what the TOTJO doctrine ought contain. Would I have had much of a contribution to make if I was? No, probably not. So let me ask you, if I may, what fraction of active members past and present actually did vote on the contents of the doctrine? Maybe the council did. Maybe the clergy did. It's not like this is out in the open, so I for one wouldn't know. What fraction of active members elected any of the composers of the doctrine to represent them and their beliefs?
Far be it from me to dictate to you who you should or shouldn't personally or in your capacity as councillor recognize as Jedi or not, who exactly are you to speak on any of their behalves but your own? Who are you to declare what is or isn't a Jedi? Who elected you to make such decisions for any of them? And if you want to say that this is not you, but the doctrine, then by the very same token, why is the doctrine an authoritative document on that question? At best it can be argued that it defines what a member of the TOTJO is. Heck, it can be argued that you as an (unelected) councillor get to make that call. You are not the King of Jediism. The TOTJO Doctrine is not gospel. Not even the Code is, though I'd argue that in a contest for purity, out of the Code and the Doctrine, surely the latter isn't to pervail, is it, not with a Catholic creed forced in there artificially.

Considering this definition of the force is in line with Brahman, the Tao, and other similar concepts in other religions, billions of people disagree with you. It is not meaningless, the meaning merely is unreachable to you.

In regards to your lack of input on doctrinal matters, you didn't create jediism, totjo, or the doctrine. That would explain why neither of these things are reflective of your brliefs. You do not believe in the doctrine of the religious order which provides you with the forum you are currently using. If you don't like the Force of Jediism, maybe you should have gone and created your own religion with its own force, instead of wasting years of your life here making zero effort to overcome your... Limitations.

I've seen fat women scream at shopkeepers because they can't get into small-number size clothing. That's what your post reminds me of.

Didn't seem much point in listing the things we already agree on. The discussion has been about things we disagree on for the most part and we've covered quite a bit of ground so to prevent us going around in circles – it seems like a good idea to try and summarise where we might have got to.

I’ll help you out, and quote you on what you’ve written in support of these bullet points:

- For those things that we know to be true but can’t prove - faith is necessary (or some other word that means high degree of confidence)

“If it can be shown that a proof of that statement is impossible, then it is also impossible to say with any confidence, which truth-value can be assigned to it, or whether it even has one at all. In practice, if you cannot prove a statement to be true (or false, for that matter), you cannot prove anything true or false that would hinge upon it either. For mathematical purposes, for the purposes of proving things, it would be useless.”

“However, at its root the only defensible position with regard to the operation and function of science is the instrumentalist one. In their capacity as scientists, noone need have faith in the reliability of their senses or instruments, or the uniformity of nature, because we can instead test all of that beyond any set threshold for reasonable doubt, and who ever makes claims significantly more specific than their testing could have warranted will be forced to retract those claims at the penalty of an effective career termination. If we want to go back to the dictionary and say that faith can also be a "complete confidence or trust", by all means, let's: The "complete" part of that definition is what makes it unwarranted by any amount of evidence or inference from evidence, and as such antithetical to the methods of science in that it is unreasonable.”

I’d be happy to change ‘high degree of confidence’ to ‘beyond any set threshold for reasonable doubt’. Would that be better?

- That there is utility in a word that pertains to notions of wholeness, connection, evolution, being, experience, energy, and inspiration.

- On a universal scale, a name for this could be ‘The Force’.

- On a personal scale, a name for this could be ‘soul’.

“I can at least appreciate that use of the Force, as an idea, an inspiration, perhaps, "a word that does that for me" as you put it, moreso than as any actual "thing"...”

“ Much like the soul, I can appreciate using the Force as a figure of speech, though I would again question whether we are doing ourselves any favours by it, seeing just how easily it can be mistaken for a genuine belief in some kind of ubiquitous power, both on the outside, as well as in the eyes of the trainee.”

As per Kyrin’s suggestion we could call the universal scale “The Universe” – but that tends to be reduced to matter and energy, and doesn’t normally include the universe of being, experience, connection and inspiration. I genuinely think we need a different name to cover all the emergent properties – but ultimately the name doesn’t matter as long as we have a short method of conveying meaning that we can all broadly agree on. I say we stick with “The Force”, we are Jedi after all.

Likewise, the soul (as a word) has baggage – no question. Again, we can change the name. I’m pretty sure ‘spirit’ wouldn’t be an improvement – perhaps ‘personhood’ would be inoffensive enough?

So, the revised summary might look like this:

- For those things that we know to be true but can’t prove - faith is necessary (or some other word that means beyond any set threshold for reasonable doubt)

- That there is utility in a word that pertains to notions of wholeness, connection, evolution, being, experience, energy, and inspiration.

- On a universal scale, a name for this could be ‘The Force’.

- On a personal scale, a name for this could be a ‘personhood’.

- The personal can interact with that which is universal, and vice versa. In a sense, the personal is an integrated and vital part of the universal.

- personhood is always embodied. It doesn’t exist without a physical presence. Non-duality demands this.

- when we die, as with our cells, the personhood returns to the universal, from the personal. The personhood returns to The Force.

- communion (literally) between personhood and The Force is possible. When this happens, we hold the personal and the universal together and they can merge, at least temporarily. We are always inextricably linked but we feel that link totally. Personhood temporarily evaporates.

- such experiences can occur at any time but are encouraged by meditation / contemplation practice

- these experiences can be called mystical / enlightenment / nirvana etc etc

And by the way – it’s not ‘your’ or ‘my’ common ground – it’s our common ground

ren wrote: Considering this definition of the force is in line with Brahman, the Tao, and other similar concepts in other religions, billions of people disagree with you.

Not entirely sure it is as many as one billion, but even if it was the entire planet... So what? Since when does popularity of a position give it merit? Do you have anything of substance to say about my comment, or can at least point at a flaw in it or not? I'm all ears.

In regards to your lack of input on doctrinal matters, you didn't create jediism, totjo, or the doctrine.

Correct. Neither did you. In a way, that was my point. None of us can take credit for creating Jediism, all of us are making TOTJO what it is in practice, but almost none of us are or have been ever asked what the doctrine should look like. What then is your point?

That would explain why neither of these things are reflective of your brliefs. [sic] You do not believe in the doctrine of the religious order which provides you with the forum you are currently using.

That's right. This place is made of the people who are part of it, not of the documents written by one or two of them who were neither elected nor surveyed anyone for the task. I do not recognize the doctrine's authority, which is why I cannot be a Temple Member by the criteria layed out here .

If you don't like the Force of Jediism, maybe you should have gone and created your own religion with its own force, instead of wasting years of your life here making zero effort to overcome your... Limitations.

What you see as limitations I see as a natural consequence of the training I received here, both through the IP and my subsequent early apprenticeship. My path since the late summer of 2011 has been profoundly shaped by this place and its teachings, whether the end result of it pleases you or not.
I object to your admittedly sneaky equating the Force as the TOTJO doctrine defines it with "the Force of Jediism". TOTJO is not the arbiter of what Jediism is, nor is the author of its doctrine.
Lastly, I shall for now ignore your implicit suggestion to leave and maybe find or found another place in this one's stead. If you want me gone for good reasons or bad ones, or for none at all, I trust you to make of that feeling what you will just fine without my input.