How is rank about academics and not just a popularity contest?
Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:
Adder wrote: . Anyway, that is why its about academics not not popularity...
Only those seen as worthy, regardless of academics, are chosen for Knight of the temple. But anyone can define their path as a Jedi and they can be a member of the temple though right? Wrong, There are Jedi here right now that are in good standing and yet being denied membership just because they are not well liked. Anytime personality and character are evaluated as a necessary component of inclusion that is a popularity contest that academics have nothing to do with.
Except that is not at all how it works, for Knight....... so Id urge you to cnsider how corelation does not equate causation. You then switch topic to membership but that is nt academics or popularity.
I think those of you who know me know I look at the spiritual side of this pretty importantly to my path, I also looked at being knightly as a set of behaviors fitting the idea of living the doctrine (service or capacity for). At this temple that seems to be the guiding law of Knighthood. That said it takes people to recognize a knighting, so it can be swayed/popularity or what not.
This said, I think I have said this on my personal opinion of rank before but it bears saying in this conversation I believe. Please just take it for what it is just my thoughts, submitted in humility but not necessarily humble.
Rank is literally what you make it, it means what it does to you.
It gives you expanded rights for sure, in any system of hierarchy and that can be the issue of disenfranchisement for all levels of it.
But, what it is, the exact meaning is all up to you. If you see power in it then that's what it is, if you see it as a guide stone in a path, that's what it is, if you see it as an end, that's what it is. Here at TOTJO there is a ton of materials to learn openly and freely, and though I have seen some rough collision with free expression of ideas before, in the end here is a place to discuss them. To me (I mean my personal idea of it) my position in the hierarchy is simply the amount of responsibility I will take upon and commit too in the temple. That could make me look a lot of different ways to a lot of different people. In the end though I suppose whatever the responsibility I take on the bar with the color really doesn't matter. In the end I keep coming back because here is all this knowledge and what I have found to be a decent set of people to discuss it with. Otherwise the way in which I interact with all of you sets others expectation of me, but in the end I'm still here to learn, talk or share for selfish ole' me.
Just my 2 cents
Much Love, Respect, and Peace,
P.S. Manu can you please be a sports announcer or movie reviewer/riffer you would be soooooo good at it
I met a strange lady, she made me nervous, she took me in and gave me breakfast. - Men at Work
ZealotX wrote: It's one thing to know something. It's another thing to be that thing. Someone can know all there is to know about Jediism but does that automatically make them a Jedi?
So what does make one a Jedi in your mind? I believe that according to the doctrine of this place anyone can be a Jedi simply by claiming they are one. In such a qualification its often stated the each individual path is the Jedis own and no other can say it is an invalid Jedi path. But if this is the case what is the difference between a Jedi and any other person on the face of the planet? It is really just the declaration of that name, Jedi? I have always failed to see the point of this and of course many discussions have been brought forth in trying to define a Jedi from a non-Jedi. Every time those discussions have failed to achieve their goal. Its because of these nebulous standards in definition and lack of training standardization that it becomes impossible to actually qualify anyone for a rank outside of sheer popularity. In this idea its pretty obvious that even the title of Member is simply a rank. Guests here are commonly referred to disparagingly and even the basic Jedi must meet popularity standards in order to be accepted as a member.
With that said, the difference between a Jedi and non Jedi has two different answers depending on the context: Are we talking about site membership or the spirit of the human beyond the temple?
Outside the context of the temple, I interpret the idea of being a Jedi as simply a symbol representing all humans going through the journey of being human (the hero of surviving life with all the suffering it entails, and growing through that suffering). In this context there are no non-Jedi. In the context of the site, it is just a matter of being acknowledged for confirming any particular state of that growth as a human. Rank is just a confirmation of these phases as acknowledged by the temple and what has been both academically and behaviourally demonstrated to it, with the addition of being granted certain responsibilities in suit of it. The doctrine is a verbal, summarized description of what these phases of growth ideally results in.
If the rank is had without its essence, nothing has been gained other than brownie points in an online forum. If the essence of what is represented by rank is had without the rank itself, everything has been gained other than brownie points in an online forum. I am a Senior Knight. What does that do for me? It adds a little icon under my avatar, and that seems to be about it. Remember the 4th of the 16 teachings: "Jedi are wary of attachments, both material and personal. The obsession over possessions and people creates the fear of losing those possessions and relationships which can cause ourselves to be trapped in a state of depression and loss."
No, not necessarily. That is a simplification of something more complex than it seems. It INCLUDES cooperation and at some point, some kind of agreement (read as acceptance in this case, and not even necessarily on the outside, but on the inside), but there is much more to it than that. There are so many other things going on during a single interaction between two people, even online. It isn't about just being agreeable, it is about clearly communicating what you mean so that the other person understands you and can see where you're coming from. At that point it is about WHAT in a point being made can be agreed with and what cannot.
Constructive results equates to "cooperative" or "agreeable" results actually.
In any case, what makes up the truth about a person is indeed reflected on multiple levels: 1. what is going on within them, 2. in those who know them deeply and 3. those who only know them by their casual impressions and everything between the three. For example: There are things others here at the temple can see about me through more simple interactions that people in my own family do not. So all of these layers must be considered. Again, this isn't a simple cut and dry state of affairs when it comes to this kind of personal development, so we can't simplify things down the way I see you often do.
Proteus wrote: so we can't simplify things down the way I see you often do.
And this makes me unworthy to be a Knight in your eyes right? You simply could not say "we cant simplify things down that way", you had to make it a personal slight towards me. I find this an interesting pattern and its what I speak about here. You are a Knight here at this temple, but do you think you would be a Knight, given the same training, at my temple? There are those here I would grant Knighthood to, but I'm curious where you think you would fall on that scale.