How is rank about academics and not just a popularity contest?

I can't speak for TOTJO but in other Orders, Knights are expected to be able to continue and escalate their training independently, as well as impart their own training onto prospective students. There's also expectations of a certain standard of behaviour and learning, and adherence to Jedi values.

Forgive me, I am new here, but under the Training & Ranking section of the FAQ here it explicitly states:

"A Rank is related to the amount of study that has been accomplished at the Temple."

So, that means that "Rank" should be related to the amount of study one has done, and has nothing to do with popularity at all, no?

@Paralel

Certain ranks, for sure. For example, Member to Novice. Maybe even Novice to Initiate, but the ranks of Apprenticeship, Knight, Master, etc., are all based on the judgement of another member or several members in one way or another. At that point it effectively becomes a mixture of promotion by accomplishment and community intervention.

And even then that description is technically out of date. By the definitions, Apprentice should be a Status rather than a Rank, since in terms of studies completed there is no difference between an Initiate and an Initiate who agreed with a Training Master to begin an apprenticeship, at least not until the first lesson has begun or concluded.

Though this discussion is more about whether the system works as described, as intended, as both, or as neither. For better or for worse, sometimes the real situation does not quite match the idealized description or prescription to the letter...

I joined in 2011 and there were questions about rank. I remember seeing threads older than that questioning rank. When I was mostly an observer and lurker here post 2013 there were questions of rank. And when I logged back in from another year hiatus a few days ago what did I see? Another thread about rank, lol.

Good to see some things haven't changed; it was almost like a welcome mat at the front door ushering me back into familiar halls.

But, since it's a legit question, I'll throw my opinion in (and really just point you to what a few others have said that seems to make the most sense to me right now):

Ryu on page 8 and what ZealotX said about the difference between orders and schools.

I'm not sure rank here has ever been associated to any type of command structure, though I can see how it might be easily misinterpreted as such. Therefore it alone is not really a vehicle for abuse beyond individual grandstanding about it. And hierarchical structures don't necessarily act as command structures anyway, so on paper its not a problem AFAIK. But how people act within them could always be.... so, correlation does not equate causation, any problem might be for other reasons, if its an actual problem at all.

But clearly there are 'powers' in various official roles. In my experience here its the 'offices' with officers that exert different natures of official duties... being functional responsibilities to Temple operations. But these are not always aligned with rank, nor does the office hierarchy afford control over subordinate officers IMO. The hierarchies there seem to be more about incremental increases in responsibility per level or different duties with shared reporting points.

The only association between rank and authority seems to be when its used a part of prerequisites for an official duty - but not all officer roles have them, and so they are not mirrored hierarchies AFAIK.

It might be a reason why the 'Master' rank is not used for teaching masters/teaching mentors. The functional role requires various things, and turned out to be set at a particular rank for other reasons (availability of persons at level to meet demand).

Therefore rank has no ground for abuse of power unless power is given to ranks through things like votes for making decisions etc. Power though is different from abuse of power, so there is more to the discussion in that regard.

So I think power structures are based on other things, and enabled by the powers afforded by virtue of office rather then rank under normal circumstances.... in regards to here. Popularity probably is another one, but not limited to this place.

The wider Jedi stereotype, which impacts all of us in various ways directly or indirectly does tend to associate rank with increased knowledge and skill - as training is the only way to achieve that knowledge and skill and the rank in the fiction represents that obviously... but that is not relevant in real life. At least not relevant beyond an individual having knowledge and skill about themselves, their bias, their beliefs and their own experiences etc. It's useful then IMO to consider expertise being in ones particular way along a path rather then the wider path or even another person path. And I think that is the point of the Apprenticeship, to enable a closer understanding between the two parties such that both can benefit through sharing at a deeper level then can be afforded by normal means. A result of that naturally will be a bond, which can appear as popularity.

Another means to be popular is to have something others covert or admire I suppose. But I don't think being popular or coveted or admired (or not) is necessarily related to abuse of power, but rather just another means which can be abused. So like 'following the money' its good to canvas likely abuse with who has the most power, and then who is the most popular, before asserting it as institutional. Structures inherently cast shadows, and the truth is in the details which are often the hiding in the shadows of structures. So much like with anti-discrimination, it works better when people view rights as being equal access rather then equal participation, and let participation be judged on its merits in ways which can be assessed in relevant terms to the structure, else change the structure or build a different one. In that way if participation is the measure of access, then all that needs to happen is the assessment is equally applied. But things are never that easy, and its not a dogma here so the assessed is not uniform enough to be assessed equally but rather that assessment is equally applied. So rules are made to guide the process as much as possible, most of note to this is the Apprenticeship.

How people relate to being within a hierarchy is a different topic I guess, as the experience can be one of being subordinate to power structures even if the hierarchy does not contain one... for if one is attached to the idea of it having something of value then the structures becomes seen in a light which is all about the result for self - it becomes imbued with a mix of supports and obstacles which can lead a person to assert an identity politics over people which distorts their perceptions and builds high barriers of bias and self fulfilling interactions. But I'm sure there are better ways of doing it, people have been talking about it for years and many people including myself have come up with lots of different ideas on a better working system. It should probably be an ongoing process, but it hasn't changed in any appreciable way in a very long time AFAIK, so its probably due!!

Adder wrote:
The wider Jedi stereotype, which impacts all of us in various ways directly or indirectly does tend to associate rank with increased knowledge and skill -

And yet this continues to be one of the most common assertions in this temple by those possessing such ranks. The most recent example of this is a call for "lay sermons" from outside the clergy ranks. "Lay" implying novice or inexperienced vs the "increased knowledge and expertise" of the clergy rank...

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Adder wrote:
The wider Jedi stereotype, which impacts all of us in various ways directly or indirectly does tend to associate rank with increased knowledge and skill -

And yet this continues to be one of the most common assertions in this temple by those possessing such ranks. The most recent example of this is a call for "lay sermons" from outside the clergy ranks. "Lay" implying novice or inexperienced vs the "increased knowledge and expertise" of the clergy rank...

On rank -
So, in your opinion , what could be the right term ? I’m all ears now ! I didn’t and don’t ever mean to offend. Ever. If I can get it right I will. What term would be acceptable ? Any ideas ?

The term ‘lay’ as in ‘layperson’ or ‘laity’ is used in the Christian church simply to mean ‘non-ordained’ or ‘non-Clergy’, and I would imagine that is the spirit in which Carlos intended it.

It is in that spirit - is there another term we can use ? I know people will find things to point and be angry about all day on their own but if I can minimize that on my end - I’m for it. Any ideas ?

Thanks for the reasonable replies. So as far as a context goes this is NOT a christian church and so the term Lay takes on many new contexts given its general usage. I for one dont prefer any terms used that would associate the temple thusly. However I do understand that the term sermon is in general usage here but I dont see the need to qualify a sermon from one as being something different than from another with rank? How about just using the term... "Sermon?" no matter who it is created by?

Possibly - very neutral. We shall see. Won’t derail this Please feel free to go here and help an old man out lol

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Clergy/122506-lay-sermons-totjo-s-invitation

I submitted a sermon years ago and I was a Temple Member. There's no reason to differentiate - if it's quality enough to submit it as a sermon, it's quality enough to be posted as one. I am sure over the years various Members and Guests have provided quality sermons to this Temple.

https://templeofthejediorder.org/sermons/2015-sermon-trial-of-darkness

Just sort of playing devil's advocate a little here, but in theory Clergy members should write high quality sermons because they have undergone specific training in the art of sermon-writing and in communicating the spirituality of Jediism, particularly as pertains to the Force.

That's not necessarily to say that it would be impossible for a non-Clergy member to write a sermon that was of as high or higher quality, that Clergy sermons don't deviate from the spiritual and welfare based themes of the Seminary training, or that the Seminary training guarantees a high standard of sermon-writing - but does the entire Clergy system not work on the assumed basis that those who have undergone the training have developed specific experience and knowledge when it comes to communicating matters of the Force and of spiritual welfare, including through the medium of sermons?

Qualifying your statement as "devils advocacy" really only serves to weaken your position. Do you actually believe what you say or not?

I find it quite common for those with these sorts of "badges" as Knight or clergy to actually believe this idea that they are somehow at a higher or more enlightened or better trained station over others here. I have also yet to see that position actually proven. Can you actually show evidence that any of these claims are true? And in this proof you should also provide justification as to why so many "better trained" knights of jediism have left in a rage or just been banned? If they are so well trained it should be easy for them to maintain certain standards individually and as a group, but the evidence is quite contrary to this. Also please tell me why taking a non accredited internet course or two would qualify any individual as more capable to write a sermon than say one who has earned an accredited doctorate of philosophy? Or even one who has gone through the training but never received the rank?

This is my question in this thread, why is the "rank" so important? It's been said here that rank is not even about academics but more about specific behaviour. So it really stands for nothing other than ones ability to impress others.

If rank stands for nothing other than ones ability to impress others, how does this affect you Kyrin?

If rank standing for nothing other than one's ability to impress others would affect Kyrin in one particular way or another, or multiple, or none at all, how would that have any bearing on the actual topic at hand? Maybe threads started by Satan™ are exempt from the "ideas, not people" mantra we keep hearing so much about elsewhere when nothing is getting this personal. Or maybe rank makes it okay, who knows. Perhaps with more training I could understand...

Rank, ideally, is a certain guarantee of a standard of self-actualisation, and behaviour, and adherence to Jedi values. This guarantee doesn't always hold up depending on the order, its culture, its values, and the training relationship from which it stemmed, and the conditions under which they were knighted. Ever since I joined the community in 2012 I've been told how much harder it used to be to get knighted. I've put that down to generational bias and nostalgia, but I'm not always sure. Some places certainly do make it a challenge to reach knighthood - I've been granted titles in... four or five groups at this point but really only feel like it was earned at a couple. Some hand them out - and it shows. Some put their students through some real challenges that changes who they are for the better - and washes out the ones who don't make the grade. And guess what? It shows. Which is why I'll always have far more respect for the Shadow Aspect or Order of the Sith than most of the Jediist McDojos.

I think the variance between groups, subjective differences, and at times, ego-driven 'hero' symbolism really bite the concept of Knighthood in the ass. I've met Knights, and Masters, and a whole mess of variants, at Orders who really just don't have it compared to their contemporaries at other Orders. "What did you to do earn your position?" is almost a taboo question in the community,and I'm not sure it should be. I was recently talking with Alethea about introducing some sort of regular re-evaluation for Knights and Masters. A periodic review, to ensure their training hadn't hit some sort of stagnation, or their Jedi values hadn't deteriorated. The always quotable Khaos constantly warns against Knights and Masters who achieve rank, then rest on those laurels and do nothing. But if I recall correctly he followed that up with questioning over the suitability for those titles, if that's how the recipient was to respond to having them.

Knights represent their Order. That's how it works. They can be the example, or an example. People take notice of an Order's knights, and how they are representative of the spirit of the times in their Order. For better or worse.

Williamkaede wrote: Knights represent their Order. That's how it works. They can be the example, or an example. People take notice of an Order's knights, and how they are representative of the spirit of the times in their Order. For better or worse.

Couldn't speak on behalf of most visitors, but I for one don't think of the TOTJO Knights as its representatives. A big part of that is that at no time during or after my membership do I recall any sort of process by which members of the Temple could elect any of their peers to represent them. Again, this is not to question the legitimacy of anyone's rank, but when the Temple public does not propose candidates for knighthood nor votes on whether a given candidate is granted it, nor do they elect any representatives to make such choices on their behalf, then I cannot see how the knighted are either in practice or intent representing their order. That just isn't their purpose nor - in my opinion - would it be legitimate, if that was their claim.

Gisteron wrote:

Williamkaede wrote: Knights represent their Order. That's how it works. They can be the example, or an example. People take notice of an Order's knights, and how they are representative of the spirit of the times in their Order. For better or worse.

Couldn't speak on behalf of most visitors, but I for one don't think of the TOTJO Knights as its representatives. A big part of that is that at no time during or after my membership do I recall any sort of process by which members of the Temple could elect any of their peers to represent them. Again, this is not to question the legitimacy of anyone's rank, but when the Temple public does not propose candidates for knighthood nor votes on whether a given candidate is granted it, nor do they elect any representatives to make such choices on their behalf, then I cannot see how the knighted are either in practice or intent representing their order. That just isn't their purpose nor - in my opinion - would it be legitimate, if that was their claim.

I don't think the "representation" applies in this case to members feeling represented by knights. Rather, the way knights behave, interact, and carry themselves in general, serves as a sort of "cover letter" for what the Order is/values. Thus, it would make sense for Administrators to at least minimize the risk of being misrepresented, by individuals who may "make the Order look bad".