Respect for our Ranking Members

Maybe this is why I would never be suited for a higher rank.

I see life as life, people as people. Which is why I also do not like higher authority. I chose to join this site to be able to communicate freely and without an authority completely governing my opinions, actions and the way i choose to confront someone. The way I talk to someone is dictated by my own ability to see right from wrong and choose to do so; I would never disrespect someone but I also believe that if an individual mocks me I have the right to stand up for myself regardless of someone's rank. A higher rank does not mean that person of higher authority lives outside the law of commonsense. Which can also be the product of this type of authoritarianism. May it not be the aim of it.

The issue of structured society is the belief that without a governing body over the mass, that it would eventually crumble. Which is a completely ridiculous statement and is rather illogical. Certain villages (anarchism) maintained order by the people for the people, opposed to a governing body of officials. These villages were rather successful. Thank you Emma Goldman and may you rest your soul.

People choose to be stupid. It's bound to happen. Yes you don't want it to and you would rather avoid such a confrontation; however humans are rather fragile organisms. Something goes against their mold of thinking they become rather irritated and defensive in a heart beat.

Certain villages (anarchism) maintained order by the people for the people

This would be direct democracy, not anarchism.

Ranks are games. The duty of a Jedi is to do what his name means, To bring light, a bringer of light. A Jedi is supposed to humbly serve those who are in need of his service. A Jedi must purge Dark side emotions through deep meditation. A Jedi must bring knowledge and wisdom not folly. Ranks are folly. Thats because every being is equally worthy of respect. Jedi give their full respect to all that lives, I give a master no more respect I give a snail or a spider, which is nothing less than my full respect. Jediism is not even a religion it is a philosophy. Religion is folly because it is speculation, unquestioned blind faith. The only way to interpret the will of the force is through Science because Effort and Science allows you to collect knowledge. Knowledge yields wisdom, wisdom yields fulfillment and it is only when one is fulfilled that one can interpret the true nature of the force. I mean no quarrel my brothers I just will not bow to silly things like ranks and labels, one follows the path of light in service to the living force not in service to a church or an organization. I hope I fulfilled my duty as a Jedi. I thank you for your time, I leave in peace

This would be direct democracy, not anarchism.

I used to be, well still kind of am quite fond of Kropotkin. His invention was known as communist anarchism. Which is considered to be the golden haven of mankind. In which no higher authority governs people. People govern people. That is the fundamental basis of his type of anarchy. The definition of anarchy that is known today is muddled and dirtied, corrupt and only a fragment of what anarchy really is. The villages actually existed within the US, until our sweet government shut them down.

Direct democracy is similar to communist anarchism; however politicians still exist and it still restores parliamentary government with representatives so direct democracy is still a form of a higher authority having influence over the people. This time it's people controlling people opposed to individual choice. If something is voted in, the majority rule. You cannot get out of something you wish not to do.

Direct democracy is the term used to describe particular forms of voting within any democratic system. direct democracy is commonly used to refer to three distinct types of votes: referendums, citizen initiatives and recalls. Quite frankly this is could be used within any political system, by itself it is possible to still elect politicians to carry out the will of the people. Thus going from a direct democracy to a representative democracy. But still the thing about anarcho-communism is that direct democracy is a part of the theory.

Make it easier, the anarchy I refer to is defined as:

Anarchist communism (also known as anarcho-communism and occasionally as free communism or libertarian communism[1]) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, markets, money, capitalism and private property (while retaining respect for personal property)[2], and in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[3][4] direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".[5][6].

Reference from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

The problem with direct democracy is that the majority is always right. The idea behind representative democracy is that someone who knows better than you decides on your behalf.
Taking things like the mob effect and the majority generally being retarded into account, I'd prefer dictatorship to direct democracy.

Very provocative, but I see your point Ren. I really never saw it like this.

ren wrote: The problem with direct democracy is that the majority is always right. The idea behind representative democracy is that someone who knows better than you decides on your behalf.
Taking things like the mob effect and the majority generally being retarded into account, I'd prefer dictatorship to direct democracy.

And I as well. Artistotle talked about the 'tyrannie of the majority', and even in representative, or participatory (whatever the hell that is ... it is tendancy in the French left presently), this undesirable phenomenon is found.

On the other hand, someone who knows better than you is risky representationalism. Politicians often do not know better than their constituants. Were this the case, and with a greater application of true statemanship, we would not be blundering along from crisis to crisis to crisis. We would not be obligated to change governments as frequently either.

I've written about this before. Of of the chiefest elements of the 'problem' is that the modern population has been deresponsibilised of our own political lot : we desire not to govern nor to be governed.

May I suggest again, "A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls (1971) ? It's a good ressource also for the root Topic of this thread ...

Alego Soule wrote: Ranks are games. The duty of a Jedi is to do what his name means, To bring light, a bringer of light. A Jedi is supposed to humbly serve those who are in need of his service. A Jedi must purge Dark side emotions through deep meditation. A Jedi must bring knowledge and wisdom not folly. Ranks are folly. Thats because every being is equally worthy of respect. Jedi give their full respect to all that lives, I give a master no more respect I give a snail or a spider, which is nothing less than my full respect. Jediism is not even a religion it is a philosophy. Religion is folly because it is speculation, unquestioned blind faith. The only way to interpret the will of the force is through Science because Effort and Science allows you to collect knowledge. Knowledge yields wisdom, wisdom yields fulfillment and it is only when one is fulfilled that one can interpret the true nature of the force. I mean no quarrel my brothers I just will not bow to silly things like ranks and labels, one follows the path of light in service to the living force not in service to a church or an organization. I hope I fulfilled my duty as a Jedi. I thank you for your time, I leave in peace

You want to know the answer to the question "What is 36 divided by 6"...

You find two people...

One says "The answer is 6"

The other says "The answer is 7"

Who do you believe? You do not know the answer and your mental maths is awful... But there is no way of distinguishing between these two people. You don't know who knows better than the other person and so you have to take a guess at which one is right...

You decide to believe that the person who says "The answer is 7" is correct

Sorry but you're wrong...

If only you had known that the person who said "The answer is 6" had the 'rank' of mathematician and the person who answered "The answer is 7" had no rank or distinguishing academic degrees or certificates to their name

If you had known what their academic 'ranks' were then you could have made a more informed guess

Of course the mathematician could have been wrong... but given the choice between believing someone who is an 'expert' and someone who is just (for all the knowledge you know of them) a random person. You ought to trust those that have more knowledge than yourself in a particular field

Of course the important thing, from your own perspective, is to do the most good that you can

But for anyone else trying to learn and wanting to ask questions... well that's what ranks are for

Kawda Dopor wrote: The way I talk to someone is dictated by my own ability to see right from wrong and choose to do so; I would never disrespect someone but I also believe that if an individual mocks me I have the right to stand up for myself regardless of someone's rank. A higher rank does not mean that person of higher authority lives outside the law of commonsense. Which can also be the product of this type of authoritarianism. May it not be the aim of it.

There have been several comments similar to this over the course of this thread. However, I'm not sure that it has anything to do with anything really. The original point that Wescli was making was that we should treat ranking members with respect and give them our support.

Of course IF a high ranking member 'disrespects' you in some way you are not expected to just sit there and take it. But

a) there are ways of sorting out such a situation, such as reporting the matter, rather than stooping to that person's level and not continuing to treat them with respect

and

b) I find it extremely hard to believe that any high ranking member on this site would intentionally and maliciously 'disrespect' anyone anyway. I can't see it being an issue and so I'm struggling to understand why people keep bringing it up.

Without the higher ranking members of TOTJO this site would not exist, or if it did, it certainly wouldn't be the wonderful place that we all know and love. Who would we learn from and who would provide the framework for our training? Who would deliver services and deal with clerical matters? Who would sort out all of the administrative and financial stuff that we often don't realise is going on?

Anyone who wants to be a member of TOTJO has to recognise this. You cannot choose to be part of an organisation yet undermine the people who provide the basis and framework for it, whether or not you think it's just a bit of a laugh. I think of it in much the same way as school teachers or university lecturers. You may not always agree with everything they say, but you have to accept that they are doing their best to help YOU and that they have a high level of expertise and wisdom, which whilst not making them 'superior' beings in any way, does mean that they deserve a certain level of respect.

And yes, I agree that in a way everyone should be entitled to equally high levels of respect, whether they are of a high rank or not - but to me the difference is that with senior members of the site perhaps the TYPE of respect required is slightly different, reflecting our acknowledgement of their wisdom/expertise and their dedication to the Temple and to US.

hmmm....i hope that i havent misbehaved in such a way...i believe i have though a few times for that i apoligize.
I have always thought that disrespect should be earned..thats just my opinion
i just think you should respect everyone untill they have lost your respect..just my thoughts.