Doctrine proposal on defining the force .

Adder wrote: I like to be guided by etymology more then popular usage, so:
from dē + fīniō (“set a limit, bound, end”)

Seems unusual to set limits on something defined as so limitless.

Precisely.

It cannot be defined, only described -- and that description is pretty flimsy. We do not need a working definition ; the work is in getting on without one. As it were, we can only define the things we can objectify. The Force cannot be objectified.

Basic phenomenology : "objects" present themselves to "subjects" perceiving them as phenomena. Adder is very prudent in referring to the origins of words rather than how we have been conditioned to make meanings of the things we say. Indeed, if we were to really pay a sincere attention to what we say "normally," according to "normal" usage of language (especially if one speaks but one language), we would find a lot of contradictions.

The 'unbound' (used here as the contrary of 'defined') phenomenon would be unrecognisable because it would be so decontextualised ; the numenon - the thing in-and-of itself is inaccessible to perceiving subjects because it is entirely "other" - or, "not I". That which we recognise (re-cognise - think again) is not that thing in itself but the way in which prior perceptions of related (even if it is only the perceiving subject doing the 'relating') things are re-presented in presently occurring memory events. These representations are not the presentation of the object to the perception of the subject, but the meaning being re-collected by the subject.

Thus, we cannot define the Force for it is non-objective -- the "Eternal Thou" of Martin Buber or the "Infinity" of Emmanuel Levinas . It is not observable as phenomenon for it presents itself only in the In-Between (as in "between you and me" - that sort of 'between'). To perceive the Force is describable only by allegory, not by objective detailing.

It wouldn't outright prevent the interpretation, but it would certainly condition the hermeneutic processes. That conditioning would prevent the inner-outer-inner reflexivity of the vital experience and most likely defigure its description when sharing with others.

People already have a common language, but, as we have already illustrated, it is that common language that gets in the way of the interpretation. The Force - and communion with It - can only be described through allegory : saying what something is "like". Definitions and common languages, moulded from agreed upon motives tend to disqualify interpretations which do not fit that conventional definition according to dominant language acception. There is often very little hermeneutic going on when accepting a previously agreed upon definition ; what is there to interpret ?

Psychology, social psych, sociology and ethics as well as medical sciences have had a bugger of a time knocking out "how people work", Mitchell. I sincerely doubt that anyone has the answer to that in her/his pocket. The "how people work" complaint is brushing dangerously up against the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. You know better than that ...

Malicious wrote: Well even though most other religions say that they or you can't comprehend god , they still have a basic definition defining god or gods

Do they, or is it a post hoc determination? Also what do you mean by basic definition? Maybe throw out an example and show how TotJO isn't up to snuff in comparison in your opinion