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

Call me cynical, but I just cannot overlook the irony of a Knight explaining how matters of vigilance, self-awareness, and humility are important topics often touched upon among his peers, right before a Master carries on passive-aggressively making cheap personal shots? Call me wicked, too, for feeling an odd sense of satisfaction from the sheer absurdity of it.
Speaking of feelings about things unreachable... like the undisclosed thoughts and motivations of one's challengers, say... I remember a man of questionable wisdom once tell me that things are generally worth as much as you payed to acquire them. Something given out for free is as worthless for that reason. One might respect rank as a recognition from one's peers, but rank one gives to oneself surely cannot mean anything, can it? What standard has one met before doing so? What standard is one expected to meet after? Also, what is not forgiven to those in a position of unlimited might?

We're not in the abrahamic forum but I believe God's unlimited might does not require forgiveness, but instead requires worship from those he created, and may get angry at those who interfere with his plan and send them to hell until the end of times and beyond.

I'm not a specialist in 'unlimited might' as I do not believe it exists, and if it did, I would believe it to be the Force.

Proteus wrote:

and it is taught that the only path to enlightenment is through a Knight or path to redemption is through clergy. Of course these are my own thoughts.

Yes, they are. Enlightenment not only is a very loaded, overused, abused and misunderstood term, that I feel here is simply thrown into your response as a tool for an exaggerated and over-simplified idea, but everything we share here in not only discussions but in sermons, the IP, and apprentice lessons are is that any such thing is gained only through the self and the experience of the self. TM's, or Clergy people, whether a knight or not do not claim to be the gatekeepers of any of this knowledge. They are those who expose others to what knowledge and wisdom there already is, but through a system of guidance of helping others digest it, because this kind of knowledge and wisdom is usually not a simple cut-and-dry kind of thing to integrate on one's own. This is why the "mentor" role in mythology exists in human psychology in the first place. The structure of learning here means to follow that reality.

In any case, the mission of knighthood is to teach exactly what you are on about here, that someone must learn to be their own person and take their own lead. It is most naturally people who are leaders of and/or in their own lives who are best able to help others understand what that means.

You cautioning is definitely useful. But it is not something that only you have done here. It is frequently discussed in many forms with those who go through the ranks, which is why most knights agree to approach their path with humility, in light of that very caution.

I agree with you on many of your points. However, wisdom is not something taught and it cannot be given to another. This simple implication that those of rank automatically have this power is what I challenge. All the meditation and lessons in the world will not impart this wisdom either. This very idea that you follow a specific process in the IP and AP under a "mentor" and then earn a badge from others that self appointed themselves as actually worthy of bestowing this honor is what I challenge. These individuals claim to be the gatekeepers of this wisdom by the very fact that they have bestowed upon themselves these high ranks and then require others to go through them to attain similar. So I ask you, why is a mentor required if this is not the case? Its one thing to learn from another because you find yourselves connected in some way, its quite another to be forced to build such an association artificially just so you can advance. That is why they are gatekeepers.

If it is the mission of a knight to teach, I must ask, why have you not acquiesced to my earlier request? Is it because you don't like me? Thus you feel I'm not worthy of your teaching and so you withhold that teaching? I asked directly, you declined to provide answers through your silence on the matter. I'm not saying you should be required to provide anything, however don't make the claim that you have knowledge and then deny that knowledge to those you made the claim to. It only serves to make you look weak.

I understand these things get frequently discussed. I believe they definitely should be as a continual reminder to others as to the most valid pursuit of their journeys. In the end it is not the knowledge we seek. That is only a precursor to the true goal. we want the ability to apply that knowledge through wisdom. That only comes by combining it with experience, not a shiny badge. Badges do not make one great, the ability to act wisely does. Its good to keep in mind that we are each responsible for our own lives in every aspect and to be careful to never allow that responsibility to fall to another. That creates victim hood. We each must walk into any Heroes Journey with eyes wide open, carefully selecting who we choose to associate with, always being wary of false gods behind the scenes spreading sour grapes of un-knightly wrath.

ren wrote: We're not in the abrahamic forum but I believe God's unlimited might does not require forgiveness, but instead requires worship from those he created, and may get angry at those who interfere with his plan and send them to hell until the end of times and beyond.

I'm not a specialist in 'unlimited might' as I do not believe it exists, and if it did, I would believe it to be the Force.

I'm guessing this little quip here is attempting to deflect from the original question of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Br. John might actually have a point, only Kyrin knows. But trying to reduce a conversation to an accusation of "you're just making a fuss about it cause you are butthurt you didn't make Knight" is neither professional nor constructive.

ren wrote: We're not in the abrahamic forum but I believe God's unlimited might does not require forgiveness, but instead requires worship from those he created, and may get angry at those who interfere with his plan and send them to hell until the end of times and beyond.

I'm not a specialist in 'unlimited might' as I do not believe it exists, and if it did, I would believe it to be the Force.

Why does his might not require forgiveness for his actions? Do you actually believe that unlimited power is an automatic means to require worship? How do you judge the moral character of such a being? Might makes right in this case? No matter what moral atrocity they may undertake it makes it moral simply because he has the power? Well that's simply bullshit. If such a God existed and even if I was helpless against his power I would still resist him and I would know that I was of better character than he even while I burned in hell.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: wisdom is not something taught and it cannot be given to another. This simple implication that those of rank automatically have this power is what I challenge. All the meditation and lessons in the world will not impart this wisdom either. This very idea that you follow a specific process in the IP and AP under a "mentor" and then earn a badge from others that self appointed themselves as actually worthy of bestowing this honor is what I challenge. These individuals claim to be the gatekeepers of this wisdom by the very fact that they have bestowed upon themselves these high ranks and then require others to go through them to attain similar. So I ask you, why is a mentor required if this is not the case? Its one thing to learn from another because you find yourselves connected in some way, its quite another to be forced to build such an association artificially just so you can advance. That is why they are gatekeepers.

So, I think this is an example of what irritates people when you respond to them. Here, you have misrepresented what has been said and once again over-simplified it and re-modeled it into something for you to argue against... except what you're arguing against is something that has not been said - you reformed it into something for you to argue against in order to continue what you're doing. The idea that wisdom is taught was never brought up here. Again, that is your own thoughts, assuming that people think so because of an apparent misunderstanding of how things work here. I did attempt to give my own understanding of it, but what you've responded with begs that most of it didn't land? (Maybe this is what Br John was hinting at in his response, because I see people's attempts to explain things to you not land in this same way a bit frequently).

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: If it is the mission of a knight to teach, I must ask, why have you not acquiesced to my earlier request? Is it because you don't like me? Thus you feel I'm not worthy of your teaching and so you withhold that teaching? I asked directly, you declined to provide answers through your silence on the matter. I'm not saying you should be required to provide anything, however don't make the claim that you have knowledge and then deny that knowledge to those you made the claim to. It only serves to make you look weak.

I asked you what I did because I knew you had the answer already, seeing as how it would be according to your own stance. But I noticed that you refused to directly answer it (which is okay, you didn't really have to answer it. I suppose it was somewhat rhetorical there) because you would have to admit, in front of everyone here, a direct contradiction in your line of logic that you seem to stick to quite narrow-mindedly. Has nothing to do with if I like you or not (I'm pretty neutral about you to be honest). It just is what it is. You use logic in your debates that you don't actually represent yourself, thus showing that you might have an intellectual understanding of what you're saying, but you haven't actually come to personally understand it or implement it, which is the entire point of what apprenticeships mean to bring about. Otherwise we would probably have a lot more knights going around, like you do, to "challenge" everyone with liberal elitist logic in every discussion "because they know better" (which is another reason I think people get irritated with you when you shoehorn yourself into discussions doing that).

Kyrin Wyldestar wrote: I understand these things get frequently discussed. I believe they definitely should be as a continual reminder to others as to the most valid pursuit of their journeys. In the end it is not the knowledge we seek. That is only a precursor to the true goal. we want the ability to apply that knowledge through wisdom. That only comes by combining it with experience, not a shiny badge. Badges do not make one great, the ability to act wisely does. Its good to keep in mind that we are each responsible for our own lives in every aspect and to be careful to never allow that responsibility to fall to another. That creates victim hood. We each must walk into any Heroes Journey with eyes wide open, carefully selecting who we choose to associate with, always being wary of false gods behind the scenes spreading sour grapes of un-knightly wrath.

I absolutely agree with the point I see you're getting at here. I think I would find myself agreeing more fully, however, if you didn't approach these points, again, with shoehorned, oversimplified and misrepresented ideas and hasty assumptions with an agenda to "challenge the council" or whoever else I find you like to make bold claims about. It weakens your stance and it hinders the ability of your points to get through to people.

Proteus wrote: So, I think this is an example of what irritates people when you respond to them. Here, you have misrepresented what has been said and once again over-simplified it and re-modeled it into something for you to argue against... except what you're arguing against is something that has not been said - you reformed it into something for you to argue against in order to continue what you're doing. The idea that wisdom is taught was never brought up here. Again, that is your own thoughts, assuming that people think so because of an apparent misunderstanding of how things work here. I did attempt to give my own understanding of it, but what you've responded with begs that most of it didn't land? (Maybe this is what Br John was hinting at in his response, because I see people's attempts to explain things to you not land in this same way a bit frequently).

Your exact words were:

Proteus wrote: They {knights and clergy} are those who expose others to what knowledge and wisdom there already is, but through a system of guidance of helping others digest it, because this kind of knowledge and wisdom is usually not a simple cut-and-dry kind of thing to integrate on one's own.

So I must ask, how does one expose another to wisdom? Or through a system of guidance, help them integrate it into their lives? Wisdom is one of the most complex things we can ever acquire - the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment. It is the soundness of our actions, not something that can be exposed to us. In this regard I don’t even know what you mean by “this kind of wisdom”. Are there even different kinds and if so what kind are you referring to? And even more to the point, by what right do you claim the ability to impart such things to others while those of lesser rank lack this ability?

This is of course a rhetorical question. It is not meant to be answered but stand as a reminder to never look to a single source for any such thing in our lives. That any and all opportunities are rife with these abilities and all individuals possess this potential and capacity. Mentorship is something earned, not automatically imparted by a self-awarded badge. It’s a caution to not chase those badges and never elevate even the mentors in our lives to a station they do not deserve. Instead chase life, and hold yourself in the most sacred of regard no matter the victory achieved or defeat suffered.

Proteus wrote: I asked you what I did because I knew you had the answer already, seeing as how it would be according to your own stance. But I noticed that you refused to directly answer it (which is okay, you didn't really have to answer it. I suppose it was somewhat rhetorical there) because you would have to admit, in front of everyone here, a direct contradiction in your line of logic that you seem to stick to quite narrow-mindedly.

This is a bold claim to be sure. You know my mind now? You know I have the answer to this question so you make the assumption, even in the face of my direct question, that I am being purposely dense just so I do not have to admit an inconsistency? My only reply to this can be that just because you lack the ability to understand my logic does not make it invalid. If you are unwilling to actually point out such an inconsistency then we seem to be at an impasse here.

Proteus wrote: I absolutely agree with the point I see you're getting at here. I think I would find myself agreeing more fully, however, if you didn't approach these points, again, with shoehorned, oversimplified and misrepresented ideas and hasty assumptions with an agenda to "challenge the council" or whoever else I find you like to make bold claims about. It weakens your stance and it hinders the ability of your points to get through to people.

An agenda to “challenge the council” has never been mentioned here. I have challenged no one to nothing save for the membership of this place to be wary and protective of their own journeys in whom they chose to share such things with. To never make assumptions and to always research everything they are not only told but experience. Never take for granted and always be a critical thinker. I can think of no sounder advice. How this equates to your comments above I cannot fathom.

This is of course a rhetorical question. It is not meant to be answered but stand as a reminder to never look to a single source for any such thing in our lives. That any and all opportunities are rife with these abilities and all individuals possess this potential and capacity. Mentorship is something earned, not automatically imparted by a self-awarded badge. It’s a caution to not chase those badges and never elevate even the mentors in our lives to a station they do not deserve. Instead chase life, and hold yourself in the most sacred of regard no matter the victory achieved or defeat suffered.

If there is something to say you are consistent about it is doing exactly what I described in my last response in order to continue a redundant horse beating - misrepresenting and oversimplifying what I've said into a false assumption. My explanation about exposing knowledge does not equate with teaching anything... It has seemed to me for the majority of the time I've been here that everyone else here seems to have already figured this out, so I'm not sure why you are the one person (or of a few people at least?) who have not somehow. And the fact that its decided to be rhetorical doesn't help your response much either.

This is a bold claim to be sure. You know my mind now? You know I have the answer to this question so you make the assumption, even in the face of my direct question, that I am being purposely dense just so I do not have to admit an inconsistency? My only reply to this can be that just because you lack the ability to understand my logic does not make it invalid. If you are unwilling to actually point out such an inconsistency then we seem to be at an impasse here.

Nobody needs to know your mind in order to see you demonstrate being the very thing you frequently preach against in every discussion that you force your statements about the temple in. I don't even need to give examples. You're not going to pay attention to the point of those examples, instead you are simply going to try to invalidate what examples are given to give you a space to repeat your process of misrepresentation, over-simplification, and falsely assuming to continue painting your own idea of a corrupt temple to preach against (the very narrow agenda of this thread). It's pointless because your approach consistently paints almost every response from you as this being, ultimately the only reason why you're still here responding to discussions in the first place. Whether or not you will agree to that being true, the wide-agreed upon impression still exists.

Well Proteus, I'm quite happy to be consistent in exposing the flaws in your assertions. And that's all they really are, assertions. You yourself even admit you don't even need to give examples, that these things you freely state are obvious. Another common diversionary tactic. I did not set out in this thread to challenge anything except a commonly manifested component of human nature. I find it the height of irony that you have proceeded as you have in this discussion as one of the greatest defenders against what I said by continuing to attack my personal nature and not the topic of discussion. You continue to refuse to answer even my simplest questions and instead use inflationary terms when it comes to discussions I engage in and my reasons for even being here. Its pretty obvious you operate from a position of extreme elitist cognitive bias in your latest assertion that the nature of this place is plainly obvious to all but me. And yet you provide no evidence while I have provided quite bit. In fact the very second post of this thread is proof enough of corruption. I see no need to engage your antics further if you are unwilling to engage in an equal manner.

I don't recall disagreeing with any of the various flaws you have pointed out regarding the temple in general. So proof of whatever doesn't really concern what I've been on about. Your approach toward doing that is what I wanted to point out because you've kinda been the pot calling the kettle black. And of course you see me as elitest, I have made statements regarding you that you 1. Don't agree with and 2. Point out personal hypocrisy in your involvement here. All I'm saying is that whistle blowing about the something that involves things that you yourself are doing just by your own whistle blowing is in and of itself invalidating your place to do so. (The original irony of the thread). But you are pretty correct in a lot of the flaws you've pointed out. That stuff is old news though.