What Is Your Personal Directive as a Jedi?

FollowerOfDeimos wrote: I shouldn't have used the term fighting. I merely meant it in the sense of both sides getting too defensive and not even acknowledging the other. That is just unhelpful and illogical and so i try to be the peace keeper and show both sides that the other side may have valid input, even if one doesn't agree with the other.

This is fine if you find yourself an arbiter, but what about when you are one of the combatants/debaters?

Perhaps he meant, in the words of Thor in regards to what makes a good king, "A King doesn't go looking for war, but must always be ready for it"? Does that sound right William?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

FollowerOfDeimos wrote: I shouldn't have used the term fighting. I merely meant it in the sense of both sides getting too defensive and not even acknowledging the other. That is just unhelpful and illogical and so i try to be the peace keeper and show both sides that the other side may have valid input, even if one doesn't agree with the other.

This is fine if you find yourself an arbiter, but what about when you are one of the combatants/debaters?

There is a common theme in the world and truly if you “ boil it down “ what you get is the theme - harm non : do you or do you : harm non. It’s a basic human “idea.” Don’t be jerk is pretty much what we all as Jedi and humans strive for in the long run. Some don’t have that focus and that’s ok too- not every one is exactly the same- they can’t and that’s ok too. The balance of these codes and reminders and selfless acts can often make colors - so bright and some seem - not so. Sad feature in life but one as well. In real life , even the most general heading can be a big difference - depending on the captain aka the individual. Thank you for your response - I love to hear of people practicing their faith after choosing it. The real stuff ! It’s what can shape and create character. My kinna folk. Welcome and I hope you can continue to seek the Force and practice your faith as a a modern day Jeddist and I hope the Temple can be of some help as well. My inbox is always open May the Force continue to be with you as you seek it !

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: There is a common theme in the world and truly if you “ boil it down “ what you get is the theme - harm non : do you or do you : harm non. It’s a basic human “idea.” Don’t be jerk is pretty much what we all as Jedi and humans strive for in the long run.

I dont believe it is a common theme and even if it may be, I dont believe it is one any of us should or even could ever follow if we are to also have compassion in our lives. This is not about being a jerk either, although we may be perceived as that at different times in our lives.

Well I try to take a step back and understand their perspective and their ideas, and even if I don't agree with them I still acknowledge they have merit. If the other party is also willing to accept that my view is just as valid then we may discuss our views. If not, we may just have to agree to disagree.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Fighting and debating are two entirely different things.

Yea I've said this a lot offline myself, which has made me reflect on it. IMO it takes two to debate, such that if its just one person acting as if its a debate... then its more accurately an attack (depending on the topic). In that way it's like sex, in that it has to be consensual. But I agree in defining a difference between debate and fight, I was watching La La Land on the weekend and in one scene pointed out the distinct moment it turned from an attack to a fight. #offtopicbut to me debate maintains truth while fighting does not.

Here is a different directive for Jedi to consider...

An accept the consequences, do as you will.

This seems the most common theme of jedi in this place but also one in which many step into but never fulfill. Egos abound and jedi feel they are special inside, somehow removed or above those they serve. They think this place will fold without them and they make ultimatums and ragequit as a form of punishment to the organizational makeup they perceive is pursequiting them in some unjust way. And what are the consequences of such action? They are forgotten. In the end their actions only served their ego and nothing else. Some realize this and return, others do not, having never learned a thing, or they cannot because the consequence of their action is banishment.

The question becomes, how does this place produce so many that have so few resources to deal with the rigors of a complex functioning, yet rather 2 dimensional, internet organization? What is even more baffling is how these individuals expect to function in the infinately more complex real world societies of today, as a Jedi, with such inferior skills?

Nah, it ignores the reality of the platform and the purpose - which is that they remove the very things which enable one to be able to accept consequences. The internet affords idiots anonymity and separation enough to be idiotic without having to deal with the results of it.

So I'd say in particular the internet and services delivered upon it are functionally limited yet uniquely capable in their own limited ways.... and therefore work best when participation aligns with those functional limitations.

The downside is, trolls. People who are limiting participation to within rules are easy to out-manouver or speak louder or more often, because genuine use is predictable and cautious. But cheating has always been cheating and so it affords its own advantages. The problem is people need to be realistic about the cost, and then decide what there actions in regards to that cost say about them. Anyone can be a cheater, its the weak path to take.

So people might quit to re-assess how they see the purpose for them, and the limits of the platform. Updating ones picture of something with new information to alter the manner of interaction is a smart thing. It's an adjustment or refinement and probably a good idea and what is likely to happen when someone is genuine about using their time efficiently.

Deimos wrote: Well I try to take a step back and understand their perspective and their ideas, and even if I don't agree with them I still acknowledge they have merit. If the other party is also willing to accept that my view is just as valid then we may discuss our views. If not, we may just have to agree to disagree.

But surely you must find yourself in situations where you dont find merit in the others argument? Or they find no merit in yours? Like to the point of conflict. What about those times? If they are bent on violence against you, surely you must resort to defending yourself, right?

Thankfully ive yet to deal with physical violence, only verbal. If it does get to the point where either they dont see merit or i dont see merit i simply agree to disagree and attempt to end the conflict before it reaches that point. Now if it ever did become violent then yes i would defend myself but i dont go seeking conflict whilly nilly.