Doctrine proposal on defining the force .

According to 3 different dictionaries parsimony is only in relation to resource and/or finances. I had to look it up because it wasn’t previously in my vocabulary. It comes from a Latin word meaning “to be sparing”. It’s not the proper use of the word.

It doesn’t do anyone any good if you use words that require the common person to go hunt it down in a dictionary at best, and at worse you risk misusing the word in favor of trying to come off as well-learned. I’m not trying to be a grammar Nazi, but not everyone is going to be able to read that word in context, with a definition, and figure out what he’s trying to communicate.

Alexandre,

I don't understand what you mean by "apophatic"

And why can the Force not be defined by apophatic's counterpart "cataphatic"

My only point is that while a definition could potentially cause some to focus on the finger instead of the moon, but it would still be nice to have done kind of finger pointing in that direction so we can at least look toward it.

Alethea Thompson wrote: According to 3 different dictionaries parsimony is only in relation to resource and/or finances. I had to look it up because it wasn’t previously in my vocabulary. It comes from a Latin word meaning “to be sparing”. It’s not the proper use of the word.

It doesn’t do anyone any good if you use words that require the common person to go hunt it down in a dictionary at best, and at worse you risk misusing the word in favor of trying to come off as well-learned. I’m not trying to be a grammar Nazi, but not everyone is going to be able to read that word in context, with a definition, and figure out what he’s trying to communicate.

You didn't understand, so he was wrong? :blink: wow. Sorry, what? You not understanding is not equivalent to his usage being incorrect (it wasn't). What a impressively egoic attitude.

To define is to limit. To limit, in the case of something we at least agree is as wide-reaching and universal as the Force, is in his opinion (one I share) unnecessarily parsimonious. Synonyms of parsimonious include stingy and miserly, and antonyms include generous. Surely this is simple enough to extrapolate even if you did have to look up the word.

Who is this "common person" you require all interactions to appease, precisely? Because they sound very much equivalent with either you personally, or the lowest common denominator. Unfortunate to see such blatant anti-intellectualism in a proclaimed place of learning.

Construct a definition of you want, the Force cannot be objectified, it cannot thus be defined, described or known as a thing.

The finger which points at the moon is better taken as an indication of where to look than telling what to see. Definitions do that.

You're right : one does not find truth in elegant words, one finds even less of it in common speech. Common speech derives from common sense - or doxa - which tends to be the worst sort...

Jedi do not strive to be common ; we seek to embrace what is altruistic in our humanity whilst rising above our more beastly tendencies. Obstinate clinging to banal language is obstinate clinging to unexamined life. Simplicity is not achieved by laziness...

Jedi do not strive to be common ; we seek to embrace what is altruistic in our humanity whilst rising above our more beastly tendencies. Obstinate clinging to banal language is obstinate clinging to unexamined life. Simplicity is not achieved by laziness...

I strive to be as common as possible. It would be...inhuman of me to be otherwise.

In any case, my beastly commonness aside, is that what you are putting forward as a definition? Would it upset you to have it quoted in the Great Jedi Doctrine Document (a theoretical ideal reference to understand the force, which obviously can not exist)

Well personally I live by a quote from dr. Seuss " you have to be odd to be number 1 " . So I'm not really the common type if I was to describe myself I would say I'm odd , eccentric , and out going .

Well personally I live by a quote from dr. Seuss " you have to be odd to be number 1 " . So I'm not really the common type if I was to describe myself I would say I'm odd , eccentric , and out going .

See, I don't like that.

I've had a pretty wild few days, so I might not be...mentally sound...right now, but whilst I fully support the concepts of Jediism being focused towards self improvement and mastery, I have no interest in them leading to an idea of "winning"

there is no number one, there is only everything.

Unless being a delightful eccentric sprite is in some way a benefit to you in being in the service of others, what's the point?

Thank you, Malicious and James, that fits in pretty nicely with what I was on about with "not being common."

Indeed, I did not at all mean that Jedi strive to be "number One" ; in these days of plague-worthy individualism and personal value being centred on consumerism and appearances, it is in fact very common to strive to be "number One" - which makes many of our conditioned vices so much more "common" as well.

I'm also fond of quoting Krishnamurti (fully aware of his warnings against it). One of my favourites is his admonition :

... which, interestingly, was the subject of a Thinkerview with Barbara Stiegler just six months ago :



Another is this one :

... which ought to give us some warning about clinging to "common sense" - in other words, lazily accepting the Das-Mann ("they-say") as Heidegger put it. Then again, we ought be very prudent in going "against the grain". We really must be prepared to accept the consequences of our "authenticity" (sic).




One more to consider :


No commentary from me this time ... just a thing to ponder.

Rosalyn J wrote: Alexandre,

I don't understand what you mean by "apophatic"

And why can the Force not be defined by apophatic's counterpart "cataphatic"

I don't really have an answer for that. Actually, it is reflexive, for when one takes the apophatic approach, one implies, through the principle of reversibility, the cataphatic. This is true also if one engages in the cataphatic : to say what (God/tao/the Force) is merely implies also that which It is not.

This is where our language will lead us off in some pretty foolish directions, especially for trying to be as objective and intellectualising/rationalising as we can be (cf. Wittgenstein).



Perhaps I ought to have used the word apodictic, but then we'd all be off into another rhetorical hall of mirrors...