"Jedi Believe" was Tied....

I've added my input as well.
Manu, I'm surprised by how closely we answered. :lol: :woohoo:

Right? There's a very similar pattern to responses so far
Where's the contrarians when you need them haha

I've added my input as well.

Regarding to this I think that political area shouldn't be included in Jedi beliefs.
One could argue that political stuff are related to it also and that's right, however I think that doctrine has enough informations which are related to it already.

It took me all week to sort my thoughts out on this. I objected to the political bit that i dont really agree with on the grounds that it was too political, but then i realized i was willing to accept the political bits that i did agree with and the incongruity of that kind of stumped me for a time. What ive decided is that I personally believe that our Doctrine ought to be built on principles and ideas that guide and empower us to make our own decisions about life, including politics. I dislike and distrust the idea of instantiating specific political positions into the Doctrine, even the positions with which I agree.

Although imo morality ought to influence politics (as opposed to the other way around), I think we really need to figure out where we ought to take a stand. Freedom of expression especially in the context of religion might seem obvious, but the odd smattering of references to American constitutional amendments seems haphazard.

Should we include that we're for trials by a jury of one's peers? What's our stand on quartering soldiers, term limits, or the rule against perpetuities?

*Bump* This is still running. I'll give it until the end if the first week of March. ^^. And after that I'll post what people said.

https://forms.gle/tmdbR5nwNZhht2rg9

1. In the Force, and in the inherent worth of all life within it.

Retain - 3
2 Rewrite Proposals:
A ) In the Force, and the inherent interconnectedness of all life within it (explanation: the point of this sentence is to emphasize the Force at least as the interconnectedness of all things - since the Force can mean so much more, but its definition is beyond the scope of the Jedi Believe section)

B ) In the Force, a type of energy field that is connected with all living beings. The force binds the universe together and is connected with everything. The Force acts in mysterious ways . Some people call it Karma, others say it's the will of the universe . But we believe in the Force. We real life Jedi may not have the ability to " use the force " like the fictional Jedi. We do use their teachings in many ways. And incorporating it into our daily lives.

In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, including the death penalty.

Retain - 2
Rewrite Proposals
A ) In the sanctity of the human individual. (Explanation: the second sentence is already covered by "society governed by laws grounded in reason and compassion". I feel the necessary emphasis here is to ensure the human individual is respected ABOVE the community. Not that community is not essential for individuals to thrive, but there should never be repression against the individual based on collectivism - the greater good. Sacrifice for the greater good is one thing, it is WILLING. Imposed collectivism, is tyranny.)

B ) "...including the death penalty when an adequate substitute exists.”

C ) In the worth of all humanity , and the value of every human life . We do not condone the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment .

D ) We believe in the sanctity of the human person. The rest is one persons political belief being woven into our shared Doctrine.

Delete Explanation:
A ) I do not believe that the death penalty should be included here. There are enough Jedi who support it (or have engaged in other form of authorized execution, as in military strikes) that I do not think supporting the death penalty should prevent someone from being a Jedi. It is also my view that negative statements (e.g. "oppose") should be avoided. This is about what we do believe in, not what we don't believe in. Saying that we believe in the sanctity of the human person is enough.

In a society governed by laws grounded in reason and compassion, not in fear or prejudice.

Retain - 3
Delete (no explanation) - 1
Rewrite Proposals:
A ) I approve, but I would prefer for negative statements (e.g. "not") to be avoided. Saying that we support a society governed by laws grounded in reason and compassion is enough, the "not in fear or prejudice" is implicit in it already.

B ) I agree with the basic principle but the way it is worded shifts the responsibility of living up to it onto society and the government rather than placing it where it belongs, which is squarely upon the shoulders of the individual Jedi. This theme I am speaking of will recur throughout this survey.

In a society that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or circumstances of birth such as gender, ethnicity and national origin.
Retain - 5
Rewrite Proposal
A ) The entire “in a society” line makes this whole section into a political position. Jesus said something about taking the beam out of our own eye before we go trying to take the mote out of our neighbor’s eye, and I agree. If we build a doctrine that encourages good, critical thinking as well as compassion and empathy within each individual Jedi, it stands to reason that we will end up with a group of people who are cumulatively pushing their respective societies in positive directions. We dont need to churn out political activists, we need to help people understand who they are, who they want to be, and how to bridge the gap between the two.

In the ethic of reciprocity, and how moral concepts are not absolute but vary by culture, religion and over time.

Retain - 2

Rewrite Proposals
A ) This needs to be rewritten or scrapped. If we support subjective morality, it lessens the value of what we say about any moral, ethical, or political subject -- including the entirety of the doctrine which is filled with ethical stances.

B ) "...reciprocity, and how societal norms are not absolute, and inform morality"

C ) We have two different ideas being lumped together here. One is reciprocity and the other is a sort of moral relativism. We need to separate these and deal with them each independently. On reciprocity: I’d like to submit “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” as a starting point for our discussion on reciprocity. On moral relativism: its a very specific box on the ideological spectrum and one of the very few things that virtually all of us agree on is that we don’t belong in that box. Morality is nuanced and highly contextual but recognizing this complexity is not the same thing as being a moral relativist. Lets hammer out what the difference is and put the results into the Doctrine.

Delete Explanation
A ) ”Society governed by laws grounded in reason and compassion" already imply ethic of reciprocity. The second part sets a slippery slope for moral relativism.

In the positive influence of spiritual growth and awareness on society.

Retain - 4
Rewrite Proposal
A ) Make this more specific to us as individuals. We cant push “spiritual growth” on society. We can only attempt to produce growth in ourselves, as individuals. We believe that if we can drive ourselves towards nobility and goodness that some of those around us will see this and realize that they can do it, too. We believe that if we bring the best out of ourselves that we will help others to see that they can also bring out the best of themselves.

In the importance of freedom of conscience and self-determination within religious, political and other structures.

Retain - 3
Delete (no explanation) - 1
Re-write Proposal:
A ) Again, I completely agree with premise but I’d much prefer the emphasis were on encouraging the individual Jedi’s willingness to become self-determinate and to courageously exercise their own conscience, regardless of what “society” has to say about it.

In the separation of religion and government and the freedoms of speech, association and expression.

Retain - 3
Delete (no explanation) - 1
Rewrite Proposal
A ) Its like someone took the bits of the American Constitution that they liked but then threw out all the rest. If you believed in the separation of religion and government then you wouldn't be using the Doctrine of your religion as a tool to recruit people into your political agenda.

We're all in Quarantine, seems like a good chance to ponder the input by our fellow Templemates (yes, I made that word up ). What's the insight from others?

I'll toss in rationale for my change suggestions:
"In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, including the death penalty."

My suggestion was to append "...when an adequate substitute exists."
A lot of the principles are redundant, so while paring them back would be a bit nice, I think the bigger issue here is the never death penalty stance. I believe that as stands in the US, it is cheaper and more ethical to have inmates serve a life w/o parole sentence. However, I recognize that not everyone will have the means to make that happen, and that there certainly are crimes which could justify the death penalty (war crimes, aggravated sexual crimes, several crimes against children, etc.). I added in the last bit to recognize that while we strive for an ideal, we're unfortunately far from that place, and don't want to be snobby.

"In the ethic of reciprocity, and how moral concepts are not absolute but vary by culture, religion and over time."
For this one I really saw a quibble between two views that aren't mutually exclusive, but still competitive: that moral views aren't this monolith innate to all humanity and that morality is arbitrary. My suggestion was to change the last half of it to:
"...and how societal norms are not absolute, and inform morality."
Because while I believe that our morality is based on our experiences (and thus passed down to us by our culture), the idea that it can't be anything more than relative screams laziness. I think we can all agree that norms inform how we perceive morality and that norms aren't universal, so I suggest narrowing that position.

And although I didn't add it in back then, I'd suggest clarifying the last one to say "In the removal of government from religion and the freedoms of speech, press, association and expression."
And just to clarify, those last freedoms are not a blank check to communicate whatever content wherever you are. There are obvious areas where those freedoms are curtailed or non-existent such as: fraud, credible threats or incitement to imminent and serious violence/illegal actions, child pornography, and speech which violates intellectual property.

I think the overall ethos here is to gather principles upon which we can (almost) all agree or suggest that it needs go further. I think the doctrine has the most power when it really is shared by all who are here

It doesn't feel as though surveys and discussions are going to clear this up. Indeed, what do Jedi "believe" beyond having a faith in the Force ?

Lists of noble sounding words do not necessarily give a very good indication of what people actually believe. Beliefs are a little more elusive than it may appear on the surface of things.

I'm afraid that the posting of what Jedi "believe" is just another form of advertising. There are generic enough statements that people may find in them ideals they would like to hold, but, once tried, find them to be quite slippery. Besides, I don't feel as though believing or disbelieving in any of these ideals would impede one from a belief and a faith in the Force.

This is exactly why we cannot define the Force too. The faith of a Jedi comes from deep within the subconscious (or unconscious) that defies its expression in words. There is evidence of this in neuropsychology, but evidence requires exploration. Much exploration. We have been cautioned time and time again to not just parrot what someone else has said as though it were one's own faith. And we have seen that sort of "faith", that sort of "belief", fall apart just as soon as the ego is threatened.

That isn't to say that there are not some general notions that we can all pretty much agree on, but they aren't really a question of belief or faith. They are the same notions about compassion, simplicity and patience that are the foundations of many religions. They have their place in moral philosophy (if one prefers to remain safely secular) and can even be found here and there in analytic philosophy. And they form the fulcrum of any meeting of two or more "Selves" in existential and transcendental phenomenology.

So, what I'm trying to get at here is that belief is not democratic. Indeed, as the Solomon Asch experiment has shown us, people tend to (say that they) "believe" what others say they believe. That's all any poll or think-tank style discussion will yield.

We do need to discuss these matters though. But not by using debate tactics. They ought to be descussed using genuine dialogue. We ought to be just understanding enough to accept that most of us have not had to face the extraordinary ordeals that puts our belief, our faith, to the test - thus transforming it. Most of us have had gruelling, yet very ordinary trials. Losing loved ones, being in combat situations, overcoming illnesses (or not) ... these are all very heroic trials, but they are not particularly transcendent in most cases. Indeed, they are part of the human condition and have been as ordinary as grass over the course of recorded history. We can't even count on science to let us know what we actually "believe". As it were, Scientism is a pretty flimsy belief system, even for scientists.

Thus, after all that, the question still remains : What do we "believe" ? Let's not take a bloody vote on it. Let's take a good long time to discuss sincerely with one another what we feel. What we "think" is of very little importance...

If the people in this are not discussing these topics with a genuine spirit than they wouldn't be investing a discourse at all.

Alexandre, I love you, but please do not insult the people who have actually taken time to get involved with the discussion as though they aren't being genuine.

I for one do both, I feel and think at the same time, and they are connected. Indeed they seem to generate a 'Cartesian' 2 dimensionality lol, with my varying 'affect arousal' serving as the third dimensionality.... :silly: giving it 'body'

The trick I think is to generate a difference in the feeling and the affect arousal, as without distinction they just remain the same thing (and subsequently trap us to thought), and we remain two dimensional. To me that is what the Force is, and the Jedi make that distinction in their own experience.

PS I like Rex's suggestions.

Alethea Thompson wrote: If the people in this are not discussing these topics with a genuine spirit than they wouldn't be investing a discourse at all.

Alexandre, I love you, but please do not insult the people who have actually taken time to get involved with the discussion as though they aren't being genuine.

I don't feel insulted by Alexandre; however, it's way easier to critique something than to add to the discussion, so I'd encourage Alexandre to add something that's neither obscurantist nor fluffy. If anything, I think my idea of trying to narrow what we're actually saying in order to better include Jedi would align with what he said regarding believing in the force.
If something really doesn't have to do with the force, it's peripheral to the core belief in the force. At the same time, I think a lot of the more humanistic elements of the current (and proposed edited) doctrine really are drawn from the idea that the force makes us appreciate and want to cultivate human flourishing. A bare-bones doctrine would say "Jedi believe in the force" but that's annoyingly vague and empty; so adding on those basic inferences about how the force does and ought to impact us seems to me to be a sensible addition.
At the same time, I'm one person, so I don't want to steamroll other opinions. I'm not trying to "debate" anyone, but rather explain my responses since I didn't explain them at all in the survey, and Alethea asked for a bit more discussion. Alexandre, if you disagree with some of my assertions/explanations, please poke holes in them and offer your own counter-suggestion. We can't really go anywhere if all people do is say "I don't like X as it is" without offering an adequate substitute. I know that I'm definitely a lot more on the thinking side of the scale, so I can stand to talk about feeling more. However, telling me to do so without any sort of explanation beyond that is like telling me to perform an olympics level gymnastics routine, and then getting mad at me when I flop about wearing a leotard.
I look forward to explanations and thoughts from more people

I'm relatively new here. I have submitted an application so at best I'm only an initiate. I don't know if I have the right to share in this debate with members that outrank me and have seniority. If it indeed isn't my place, I meant no disrespect and I apologize in advance. I just wanted to share my opinion.

I don't really agree with the idea of narrowing anything in order to better include jedi. I believe that even though terms like "Jedi believe in the force" can come off as annoyingly vague, it still leaves a chance to encompass a lot of people. We as people don't always see eye to eye and we have our own opinions, beliefs, and perspectives. So if we narrow down on what a jedi should believe by adding certain things, we're redefining what a jedi believes. Hence what was a broad term that could be interpreted differently by people to arrive at the same conclusion, ultimately believing in the force, isn't the case anymore.

The way things are currently stated is in my opinion the best way possible. It covers all the basics to being a jedi while at the same time gives space for personal growth, opinions and stances. Yes, certain things could be better, but there isn't a way to make it better for everyone. The death penalty for example, people are already split on that, some want to allow it and others don't. I think it means that as jedi we shouldn't opt for having someone killed. In war or other scenarios that's different. However in court, as jedi we value human life and do not agree with killing anyone especially when they could be imprisoned for life instead.

I also don't think adding on to the basis inferences on how the force ought to impact us is a good idea either. Again, no matter what we add, it'll be limiting and impinging for the way other people believed in the force. I mean no one fully understands how the force works and that's the beauty of it. It's open to interpretation in any way. There might be more to Rex's points that I didn't fully grasp. If that's the case I'd really like it if Rex or anyone else that believes in narrowing down and being specific about what a jedi believe in beyond the force could elaborate.

Max-yol, you are very welcome to discuss, comment and participate in an open discussion. As it were, everyone ought to ponder these things. We're all new ; no one has it figured out and no one has conquered wisdom. Let's hope it stays like that.

Ally, I'm sorry to have come of as brash, and it certainly wasn't my intention to insult anyone. Rex, I don't know if you meant "criticise" by "critique" or not. I was not criticising, but was making a ponderous critique. And I shall indeed stand by it. I did try to offer the best suggestion that I have to make towards the end : Certainly, let's have very open dialogue about what we "believe," for that is how we can find out what a belief is and how it differs from an idea. Adder, I also have my cerebral side, that pesky Cartesian (sic - Réné Descartes wasn't as cerebral as we try to be) inclination to pass everything in review of what I "know." That's why the Cartesian element that most "Cartesians" ignore is that we really can't "know" very much. Methodical doubt is indispensible. Indeed, the meaning of the word - hence the notion it conveys - "Reason" has undergone a lot of connotative transformation over the years. We haven't necessarily caught up.

The point that I'm trying to make is that it seems we're trying to be very 'objective' which is a glaring category error in terms of "belief."

We've all been through the IP. It is made quite clear in Campbell and in Watts that by the time we get to putting unconscious states like belief into words, we can really only describe it from a current perspective rather than being able to define it once and for good. I feel that it is not merely a futile effort, but a possibly dangerous one.

In my last comment, "belief" and "faith" were quite tightly bound. Plato's theory of knowledge, holding that "to know" is having a "justified, true belief" has been awkward for 22 centuries because all of those terms are co-relative : it is damned near impossible to qualify any of the terms. Moreover, how often do we indeed believe something that we cannot "know" ? Probably more often than we're willing to admit. Indeed, we often cling to beliefs that we surely want to be true - likewise we reject that which we do not want to be true - but that has little bearing on the actual truth value.

So, I'll go back to my original suggestion : let's explore what we actually "believe." There's a reason why I ask you all to rise with this challenge - namely that it is hard. It takes a lot of intro-outro-intro-spection to separate our beliefs from our favourite personal narratives. We need "faith" (belief) just because we cannot "know." That is what I'm suggesting. Until this exploration is done, all the lexical precision in the universe will have the worth of a grocery list.

Here's a suggestion for how to proceed :

Go through each of the "beliefs" in the original or any subsequent list one by one. Let's say one topic of "belief" per month. Each person take the time to do some sincere, soul-searching contemplation on the matter. This is the importance of trying not to think about it too much (just enough, but not too much, as we can't "not" think - nor would I recommend that). But just sincere self-interrogation. Let's not be too afraid to notice where we are desperate, for that too is part of the human condition I talked about before.

After that, we just talk about what we've discovered about what we thought/think we believe. On a neurological level, belief is processed in an area of the brain that has no direct access to language -- that's why this is so difficult. What we're trying to describe has got to get across the corpus collosum and then bounce back several times before we can even begin to get an inkling of what we're trying to communicate. Thus, we certainly ought not tell anyone he or she is wrong about their belief. Absurdity is as inherent to "belief" as "belief" is to "faith."

My opinion is that everything in the Doctrine should be put under review and most of it ought to be updated. Much of it is poorly worded and some of it is outright silly. The plagiarism of St Francis’s prayer, for instance. Its a beautiful prayer but seriously, cant we at least come up with something of our own? We are a different community today. A more mature and an intellectually more developed community. I think we should revise the Doctrine so as to reflect that.

I can partly agree with shinobi, the Code does much follow the prayer. and yet at the same time, the code was made to be around the prayer as something spoken softly between each member. Now I'm not saying that it indirectly follows the code of the code follows the prayer but its not "plagiarism" for the creed yet an adaptation of it, just like many people do now in days with a parody of songs and movies, just how many think harry potter is a spin-off of star wars (Same follows with Star trek but vice versa)

Jediism is way more connected to Hinduism and small chains of Christianity and Paganism, each their own path yet connect through one being and power, hence the Force. Jediism here is just bits of every religion dotted down to being harmony and force instead of Gods/Goddess's.

I say if we want to change then let's not force that change and let's start working together as if we are one instead of many different bits, yes we do need to change the Creed due to how it makes everyone feel as if it was "plagiarism" instead of an adaptation. Its all set to be something that can be spoken quickly to help spread hope and belief, they made it to where if a person feels lost they can recite it quickly and give themselves hope in the time of need. Something the Jedi were to do was spread hope and prosperity,

Just a random thought, but let's say we're able to get around to also updating the IP after we get the doctrine sorted:

Would a better place for the St. Francis inspired Prayer be to include it as an assignment as a meditation and remove it from the actual doctrine itself? A liturgical work need not be a doctrine alone, but also include inspired works and the inclusion of rituals. Perhaps the doctrine could be something shorter, but to ensure we don't lose the rest we can include it as material studied in addition to?

Alexandre Orion wrote: Adder, I also have my cerebral side, that pesky Cartesian (sic - Réné Descartes wasn't as cerebral as we try to be) inclination to pass everything in review of what I "know." That's why the Cartesian element that most "Cartesians" ignore is that we really can't "know" very much. Methodical doubt is indispensible. Indeed, the meaning of the word - hence the notion it conveys - "Reason" has undergone a lot of connotative transformation over the years. We haven't necessarily caught up.

The point that I'm trying to make is that it seems we're trying to be very 'objective' which is a glaring category error in terms of "belief."

I'm not sure giving something meaning necessarily objectifies it, but do think it would enable the objectification of it.... and then so yes the more complex the meaning the more it's defined and potentially limited. But having an objective approach needn't disjoint its integral subjectivity I don't thieel

But that is just me coming from the Force being the integrated 'whole body in environment' state of 'being epistemological', rather then it having an epistemology. So from this point of view defining it is not defining it, but defining doing it, ie connecting, being in a sense we are already of it but this is obscured by layers of inefficient meanings which only serve to distance us from more useful meanings, what we often call truth (when it's convenient). But now I'm starting to sound like I've watched too much 'Lucy'.

Alexandre Orion wrote: We've all been through the IP. It is made quite clear in Campbell and in Watts that by the time we get to putting unconscious states like belief into words, we can really only describe it from a current perspective rather than being able to define it once and for good. I feel that it is not merely a futile effort, but a possibly dangerous one.

In my last comment, "belief" and "faith" were quite tightly bound. Plato's theory of knowledge, holding that "to know" is having a "justified, true belief" has been awkward for 22 centuries because all of those terms are co-relative : it is damned near impossible to qualify any of the terms. Moreover, how often do we indeed believe something that we cannot "know" ? Probably more often than we're willing to admit. Indeed, we often cling to beliefs that we surely want to be true - likewise we reject that which we do not want to be true - but that has little bearing on the actual truth value.

So, I'll go back to my original suggestion : let's explore what we actually "believe." There's a reason why I ask you all to rise with this challenge - namely that it is hard. It takes a lot of intro-outro-intro-spection to separate our beliefs from our favourite personal narratives. We need "faith" (belief) just because we cannot "know." That is what I'm suggesting. Until this exploration is done, all the lexical precision in the universe will have the worth of a grocery list.

Here's a suggestion for how to proceed :

Go through each of the "beliefs" in the original or any subsequent list one by one. Let's say one topic of "belief" per month. Each person take the time to do some sincere, soul-searching contemplation on the matter. This is the importance of trying not to think about it too much (just enough, but not too much, as we can't "not" think - nor would I recommend that). But just sincere self-interrogation. Let's not be too afraid to notice where we are desperate, for that too is part of the human condition I talked about before.

After that, we just talk about what we've discovered about what we thought/think we believe. On a neurological level, belief is processed in an area of the brain that has no direct access to language -- that's why this is so difficult. What we're trying to describe has got to get across the corpus collosum and then bounce back several times before we can even begin to get an inkling of what we're trying to communicate. Thus, we certainly ought not tell anyone he or she is wrong about their belief. Absurdity is as inherent to "belief" as "belief" is to "faith."

How do you like to define those concepts; belief, faith, truth?
To me truth represents what overt sceptics tend to define as belief, and belief to me is a functional version of what they call faith (not without reason, prone to being wrong but often right), with faith itself being the broad term representing the disconnect of proof to something action in its awareness/engagement. In this approach the difference between belief and truth is that evidence exists tangibly, but they are not absolute things but measures..... that said, its not something I think much on and I'm not trying to define it too specifically for its a functional faith to me :silly:

On the St Francis prayer, might be an avenue for structure to the doctrine, to better highlite the different nature of content. But I'm not sure how best to approach that idea myself. Relegating it to the IP seems a bit heavy but it depends on what the doctrine is trying to represent I guess.

Good morning everyone,

Ally, you're right about the IP needing an overhaul. That has already been done and proposed to the Council. It is based on resources that I had to translate, so now it is in the phase of getting refined. It is aimed at encouraging the learner to come into intimacy with her- or himself, to examine one's perceptions, feelings and thoughts before one gets plunged into whatever the Force may be. Indeed, the term "the Force" never even appears in the newly proposed IP. That comes later.

The current IP (with different essay topics) should become the core lessons of the ADiv - apart from whatever lessons a mentor may give for an apprenticeship. There will also be core lessons for a BDiv, MDiv and DDiv that are quite apart from anything having much bearing on Apprenticeship. The separation between learning for a degree in Divinity and training to be a Knight is nearly complete. Those two aspects of the Temple's mission are quite distinct one from the other.

Adder, you bring up some good points to which I cannot have any very solidly "definite" (yet, they are reliable) responses. I would agree that what you've interpreted from "Lucy" is spot-on. If we could get away from trying to contextualise everything through multiple coatings of utilitarian 'meanings' (sic), then we may have more access to right hemisphere de-contextualised, broad-perspective sensitivity that would permit us to act on our faith with more fluidity.

Sincerely, I cannot define belief, faith nor truth. Belief, I feel, is when we have the feeling that something is true or just without actually drawing that feeling from evidence or other 'factual' information. We may be well abreast of many bits of information that some might be inclined to call 'facts', but it is our beliefs about those bits of information and how they present themselves in diverse situations that constitute an avenue for action (even if it is only epistemological 'action') which could be described as faith. Faith, to me, is something that one acts on, driven by the belief - the acceptance - that the information one has is just valid enough to take a discriminating or well-discerned choice.

Truth is something that we don't have much access to because it would take into account every event of the whole universe over all time. In philosophy, we distinguish between 'Truth' and 'truth'. We also talk about (epistemology) 'truth-values'. Truth, capital 'T', is as wih any other of the major concepts -- it will forever remain inconclusive, concluded only by us not being there to talk about it anymore. That which we feel to be true - truth, small 't' - are just mostly accurate assessments of the environment around us. It does not take into account things which (we think or ignore) bear little influence upon that to which we are directing our attention at the moment.

Please understand that I do not discourage discussion on things like belief, faith and truth. Indeed, quite the contrary, I would like to encourage much, much more dialogue about these things. They are the motive of all of our action, no matter how ordinary. They are the passages between the conscious and the sub- or super- conscious. These are what form us, inform us and deform us in our relationship to the Other, the not-I, and the aperture through which we attain Spirit, the "in-between," where our connexion to the Force is at its peak.