Light or Shadow?

Alethea Thompson wrote:

Hundreds of years ago, everyone believed the world was flat. In reality, we now know that it was not. But to people then, this was not a belief, this was indisputable fact.

And this actually proves my point. You see, just because someone says they believe something does not make it reality. In order to help them grow it took someone to challenge the current system and prove them all wrong. In order for growth of an individual, it takes people challenging them to really come to terms with what they are claiming to be able to stake claim upon their beliefs.

Those that believed the world was flat, were happy remaining as they did in ignorance of the truth because they didn't challenge it. They became slaves to complacency in their search for scientific knowledge. They were so caught up in pushing their beliefs that the world was flat, that they missed opportunities to connect with the world around them. Once the ideas were challenged and someone set out to prove them wrong, the world opened up to them in ways they had never perceived possible. So is the same of pushing people to actually become Jedi, rather than merely stating they are Jedi. Same with pushing people that claim to be Christian to become Christian rather than just saying they are. And Muslims and so forth.

True, however, can it not prove both points simultaneously? It does not make it reality to those looking at it from outside the belief (you, UraharaKiskue, etc). But to those who do believe, is it not their reality? I would never suggest that it is wrong to question something because that is the only way the status quo can change, by teaching those with a difference of opinion your own opinion. But does that mean that someone else's belief is wrong simply because it is different than yours? Teach them and let them choose what they believe and accept that neither of you are wrong, you just simply have 2 different beliefs (beliefs = opinions).

Alethea Thompson wrote: Also, Jestor, as a note- no, without adhering to the very base traditions of being a Muslim, you are not a Muslim. Let's see if this analogy is taken differently- if I never once studied a martial art of any form, and claimed I am a Martial Artist, would that make me a Martial Artist? Absolutely not, because I've not put ANY time forth on the concept. I just claimed the name because it sounded cool (of note, I don't consider myself a Martial Artist, just someone that happens to occasionally practice martial arts to learn defense and gain control over my body mechanics).

I find that simply calling yourself something is not the best way to view this. To me, this is less about what people call themselves and more about what someone believes themselves to be. If someone were to call themselves a Jedi and believe as you believe, then yes, you could say that they are wrong if they do not meet your expectations. However, if someone were to call themselves any word in any language from throughout the entire world and believed that the definition of it was exactly what they were, then who are you to say that they are wrong? You can attempt to change their belief in what they should be called but only if you can convince them that your belief in the meaning of the word is the correct meaning. They don't have to change your view of what the word means in order for it to still be correct in their mind. You may choose not to call them by that name, but they still may.

Alethea Thompson wrote:

And because he was an accomplished martial artist that immediately means he thought everyone should know martial arts? Or are you interpreting your own view of what Sun Tzu meant from that statement based on your beliefs?

I'm interpreting the quote based upon the work that you pulled it from. Whether he believed everyone needed to be a martial artist or not, does not come into the equation. But the intent behind the work was to teach you the "Art of War". Just as someone takes a quote out of the Bible out of context of it's intent within the story it was derived from, so are you doing the same.

An artist, whether they are writing, drawing, composing, etc, has an intent behind their work. To take it out of context is to dishonor the artist behind it.

Yes, but does the "Art of War" actually say that everyone should be a martial artist? Having read it a few times, I'll give you a hint...No, it doesn't. If you want to include context in with the passage, that is fine by me. The quote itself, in the book, was being used to describe the idea that fighting is not always necessary and that sometimes patience works better. "War" in the book was described as being more than simply 2 people locked in physical combat. Sun Tzu believed that a great general was not one that had fought and won 100 battles. Rather, he believed that a great general was one who won without fighting a single battle. People who have thoroughly read this book for understanding know that while Sun Tzu spoke of winning battles without fighting, he was still realistic and knew that simply understanding can not completely eliminate hostility. That does not mean to say that he believed fighting was better, just that it was often the drawback to living in the real world. The quote was used just to show that there are other non-violent methods that do not require fighting...such as patience. As I said before, I'm looking to study Aikikai for many reasons but none of which have to do with fighting an opponent even though I know that, by living in the real world, there may come a time when I would need to because patience and understanding won't work. But even then, I would attempt to cause the smallest impact on someone's life that I can.

Alethea Thompson wrote:

But to then begin the basic IP training by directing students to read them and the FAQs...is that not active action?

No, it's a passive action. Action can be passive and it can be active, neither is bad or good. But it does not fit into the category of active. Active would be (instead of directing them to the FAQs) taking an interest in teaching them what it means through active listening and participation in discussion. Encouraging someone to learn the path would be you sitting there the entire time and explaining points that may need clarification. People feel put off when all you do is send them somewhere, they want engaging conversation. They want to know that you understand the path well enough to make the statement that you can claim it, otherwise it becomes a waste of their time

Before I ever direct someone to an order, I always engage them and ask what they are looking for in an order. And then I encourage them to join up on one-two different orders based on what they have to say. I've even encouraged them to talk with specific individuals based on whom I believe will benefit them the best in their soul searching.

Sure, action can be both. But who determines where the line is drawn between them? I have felt actively guided to all of the material on this site since I've been here. First, they tell you to read the FAQs, Doctrine, Beliefs, etc. Then they tell you to make a post in a journal, and in a public forum. From these, you are actively sent to the forums...a place where most of the real patience, understanding, and compassion can be taught by example and even direct guidance. In the event, someone doesn't show these values, there is always someone willing to educate them about something. It is still that person's choice then, whether they wish to stay and continue learning or go. If they choose to stay and continue learning there is an entire set of resources both in the library and in the IP (which actively directs people step-by-step on what to study). Once the material is learned and understood, they are taught patience by waiting for a Master. During this time, they continue to study more, learn more, and attempt to understand more. When they are taken by a Master, they are taught even more directly and even more actively guided. So please show me the passive action or rather inaction (which in my opinion would be the correct term for what you are trying to describe) that is so prevalent here.

Also since you guys wish things were based more off "Star Wars", who should be guiding those who are not members yet? Considering before force-sensitive children were discovered, they were not even trained until they reached the "initiate" path and were still years away from becoming a "padawan apprentices" where they would actually be trained for knighthood. It often wasn't until well after knighthood that Jedi knew what path they were supposed to take. So to wrap this up, how could you expect someone who isn't even a member yet to know which path they want to take. Much less how could you know which path they should take so you could direct them to it? People will come, people will go and they will do it all while searching for the path that is their's and their's alone to take.

Alethea Thompson wrote: Let's put it this way, by completely immersing yourself in the teachings of the church, and then passing it along to future generations, does great honor to your order. But without a tradition or some way to keep accountability, you begin to lose people. And as you lose people, you may miss the opportunities that "the Force" has laid out in your life's journey. So, if you really want to help others, it takes creating a stance that you and your group will stand by and constantly enhance as people come along.

Unless if, by creating a stance that is too rigid for people to accept, you force them away instead of giving people with similar ideals but different religions a place to find peace and acceptance. When you turn people away for being too rigid, you are still losing them, just for the opposite reason...an I personally believe it's those people who need more help. There are hundreds of rigid religions that exist out there. Why can't there be ours which accepts everyone and helps to guide them to their own path, little at a time.

Alethea Thompson wrote:

Not necessarily, originally the core belief was in that of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. That was the heart of Christianity when it was formed in the time of Christ. Now correct me if I am wrong but Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christadelphians, Unitarians and Christian Scientists all do not believe in the Holy Trinity. That to me sounds like core changes.

I fail to see just how this core is changed. God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit have always been a part of the Holy Trinity. There was merely a shift in understanding of how the three inter-related. Christians have always held the belief that Jesus died on the Cross for our sins. It is also always been held that he was the one and only true son of God (even by those that believe Jesus is God, the understanding is that he came to Earth, and then became one with God in Heaven- but he has always maintained being the Son of God. Of course, when you get down to thinking about it, that really messes with your mind as to just how schizophrenic God must have been at the time ).

The point I was trying to make is that many of those religions do not believe all of that though they still call themselves Christians. For example, Christian Scientists do not believe Jesus was Christ although they believe there is a Christ and Jesus was simply very Christ-like. Unitarian Christians do not believe in the Trinity at all but rather all as one. They also do not believe Jesus was the Son of God, merely a prophet. But they are all a part of Christianity, just different views on the same book. Behold! I give you core changes. :woohoo: :silly:

Alethea Thompson wrote: Those that believed the world was flat, were happy remaining as they did in ignorance of the truth because they didn't challenge it. They became slaves to complacency in their search for scientific knowledge. They were so caught up in pushing their beliefs that the world was flat, that they missed opportunities to connect with the world around them. Once the ideas were challenged and someone set out to prove them wrong, the world opened up to them in ways they had never perceived possible. So is the same of pushing people to actually become Jedi, rather than merely stating they are Jedi. Same with pushing people that claim to be Christian to become Christian rather than just saying they are. And Muslims and so forth.

By the way, as a side note. There are those out there who still believe that your belief is wrong. Oh and they have scientific evidence to back it up.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Is it not possible that the earth really is flat and that our belief in it's round shape is a lie? Have you ever seen the entire Earth simultaneously from all "sides" at once (besides in an extrapolated picture)? Perhaps we who believe the earth is round are "slaves to complacency"?

Resticon wrote: By the way, as a side note. There are those out there who still believe that your belief is wrong. Oh and they have scientific evidence to back it up.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Did you actually read any of the "evidence" presented on that site? It's not scientific at all. It's laughably faulty pseudo-reasoning. They think that if the Earth were round, and gravity pulls downward on a man standing at the North pole, that it should also pull in the same direction on a man standing at the South pole, thereby pulling him off the Earth.

Forget that the Earth has mass which generates a field of gravity centered at its core, so it would pull inward on both people. To the awesome geniuses of that site, there is some uniform gravity field of indeterminate origin lying somewhere "below" the South pole of the Earth (out in space), which should pull people off this planet if it were actually round. And they do it again when they compare us to grains of sand on the surface of a beach ball, and say that we should slide down off the sides if the Earth were really round.

Is this the kind of reasoning you want to present as proof that everything is merely an opinion? Or that there is no merit in scientific method? It makes you look like you know nothing about what true science is, or how it avoids these kind of blatant fallacies. You can strike a police officer and then tell him that it's his opinion that striking him is illegal, but he's still going to throw you in jail. Some things are simply a reality, and arguing "opinion, opinion!" doesn't change a darn thing when it comes time to pay the piper (or to do the actual work of conscious evolution).

Resticon wrote: Is it not possible that the earth really is flat and that our belief in it's round shape is a lie?

No... no, it's really not. You can traverse the Earth in a straight line along its surface and end up right back where you started. At the very least, that would make the Earth cylindrical and not flat. Before I would be willing to update my perspective, I would need at least a shred of non-sham evidence that also explains how all the evidence to the contrary is being misinterpreted.

Resticon wrote: Have you ever seen the entire Earth simultaneously from all "sides" at once (besides in an extrapolated picture? Perhaps we who believe the earth is round are "slaves to complacency"?

Oh please. It is impossible to see the Earth from all directions at once with the naked eye exactly because it is round. There are plenty of pictures from space that show its spherical nature, and even from a plane flying at high altitudes you can see that the surface of the Earth is consistently curved in a way that can only be true if it is part of a large spheroid.

There is a fundamental reality underlying all our experiences, and though we may often misinterpret them, that does not mean that we are not capable of making statements about our experiences that are factual and verifiable. To re-use a recent example, "I am breathing." This is not my opinion. I have cast no subjective meanings onto it, and it is verifiable by anyone, anywhere, who cares to check.

We can extend your current train of thought indefinitely, injecting as much confusion and uncertainty as we wish. What do you mean when you say "Earth"? How can you be sure? Maybe nothing is knowable anywhere! Maybe we're not even having this conversation right now... Maybe everyone here is a figment of your overactive imagination. Maybe you don't even exist.

Try telling that to your landlord as reason why you shouldn't have to pay rent any more. See how far that gets you. Or convince your stomach that its hunger is merely its own opinion, and can't we all just get along without food from now on? Some things in life are capable of being very black and white, no matter how much we'd like to think that everything is shades of grey.

Fraternally in the Force,
-David

FraterDavid wrote:

Resticon wrote: By the way, as a side note. There are those out there who still believe that your belief is wrong. Oh and they have scientific evidence to back it up.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Did you actually read any of the "evidence" presented on that site? It's not scientific at all. It's laughably faulty pseudo-reasoning. They think that if the Earth were round, and gravity pulls downward on a man standing at the North pole, that it should also pull in the same direction on a man standing at the South pole, thereby pulling him off the Earth.

Forget that the Earth has mass which generates a field of gravity centered at its core, so it would pull inward on both people. To the awesome geniuses of that site, there is some uniform gravity field of indeterminate origin lying somewhere "below" the South pole of the Earth (out in space), which should pull people off this planet if it were actually round. And they do it again when they compare us to grains of sand on the surface of a beach ball, and say that we should slide down off the sides if the Earth were really round.

Is this the kind of reasoning you want to present as proof that everything is merely an opinion? Or that there is no merit in scientific method? It makes you look like you know nothing about what true science is, or how it avoids these kind of blatant fallacies. You can strike a police officer and then tell him that it's his opinion that striking him is illegal, but he's still going to throw you in jail. Some things are simply a reality, and arguing "opinion, opinion!" doesn't change a darn thing when it comes time to pay the piper (or to do the actual work of conscious evolution).

I think you kind of missed the entire point, David, as to why I posted that. That is exactly what this whole debate has been about. I did read it and was in no way posting that to say it is true considering it is not what I believe at all. That being said, there are people who believe in a difference of opinion on whether the world is round or not. Is it ok for them to question the status quo? Of course! But only when they show sufficient evidence to change a firmly held opinion (known as a belief) should someone else's beliefs (aka yours and mine) be changed. This goes directly to the heart of the conversation. If Alethea and UraharaKiskue wish to change the status quo they must first sufficiently change that which someone (others who believe they are Jedi but do not meet their criteria for what makes up a Jedi) believes. So thank you for helping to further prove my point.

FraterDavid wrote:

Resticon wrote: Is it not possible that the earth really is flat and that our belief in it's round shape is a lie?

No... no, it's really not. You can traverse the Earth in a straight line along its surface and end up right back where you started. At the very least, that would make the Earth cylindrical and not flat. Before I would be willing to update my perspective, I would need at least a shred of non-sham evidence that also explains how all the evidence to the contrary is being misinterpreted.

Again you are just furthering my point. In order to change someone's belief you must first convince them that they are wrong on certain points (such as the definition of a Jedi or that the world could be flat) before they will accept that their belief (they are a jedi or that the world is round) could be wrong.

FraterDavid wrote:

Resticon wrote: Have you ever seen the entire Earth simultaneously from all "sides" at once (besides in an extrapolated picture? Perhaps we who believe the earth is round are "slaves to complacency"?

Oh please. It is impossible to see the Earth from all directions at once with the naked eye exactly because it is round. There are plenty of pictures from space that show its spherical nature, and even from a plane flying at high altitudes you can see that the surface of the Earth is consistently curved in a way that can only be true if it is part of a large spheroid.

There is a fundamental reality underlying all our experiences, and though we may often misinterpret them, that does not mean that we are not capable of making statements about our experiences that are factual and verifiable. To re-use a recent example, "I am breathing." This is not my opinion. I have cast no subjective meanings onto it, and it is verifiable by anyone, anywhere, who cares to check.

We can extend your current train of thought indefinitely, injecting as much confusion and uncertainty as we wish. What do you mean when you say "Earth"? How can you be sure? Maybe nothing is knowable anywhere! Maybe we're not even having this conversation right now... Maybe everyone here is a figment of your overactive imagination. Maybe you don't even exist.

This is true, with it being impossible to physically see it with your naked eye, everything that you "know" about the shape of the earth is attributed to firmly held opinions (beliefs) based on famous theories (theory of gravity, ether theory, theory of relativity, etc). To change your belief in the concept that the world is round someone must first debunk every other theory that explains it. Am I anyone, am I somewhere? How do I know that you are breathing? Because I believe that in order to type a sentence you must be breathing. But for all I know while you were typing that statement you were holding your breath.

FraterDavid wrote: Try telling that to your landlord as reason why you shouldn't have to pay rent any more. See how far that gets you. Or convince your stomach that its hunger is merely its own opinion, and can't we all just get along without food from now on? Some things in life are capable of being very black and white, no matter how much we'd like to think that everything is shades of grey.

All things are considered fact based on the knowledge of the time it is known in. Maybe one day we'll die and find out we're all characters in God's video game. Maybe we will find out that everything we believe in is simply a series of simulated code. The fact is no one ever truly knows anything. The more we learn, the more we discover that we do not know. This is what is known as an "Existential Discussion".

"Knowledge is knowing that we cannot know."
~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

Who's running Jediorganization? Not Relan Voklum is it?

No clue, it's the last remaining copy of Kharis Nightflyer's site though. Just goes to show how impermanent all of this can be.

That being said, I'm bowing out of the conversation. I have so many other things to do that to bat this ball back and forth over that net isn't doing me or anyone else any good. If I get called back in because of some point of interest I'll pop back in but otherwise on this one.

TTFN.

Yes, you are breathing (I didn't read the flat earth society, but I will tomorrow... sounds fun!)

We can play with words all we like... Your chest is moving in and out... Now the terminology you use is fun....

Maybe in the now you are simply inhaling... And breathing makes one think of the in-out motion... But, as you didn't define parameters, you could be right, as could I... Or, its my opinion you are inhaling, yet, you say are breathing in... Huh, we are both right....

Prove one thing to me David...

As I said in the PM, all my senses have been fooled, so can I trust what I "see" with my own senses?

In a dream, I see "dream David"... and "dream David" asks me if this is opinion...

Shoot, if I control "dream David" he should just agree right? No... this is just another part of me....

I can tell my landlord I don't want to pay rent, and I don't have to, this is my opinion... But I will have to deal with the consequences...

It is my opinion, I can live without food for the rest of my life... I just may end up shortening it, by refusing to eat, but, with the will power, I can do it....

How far am I going to hold my opinion? Will it change? Will I decide my opinion to have a roof over my head is greater than proving to my landlord I'm right?

Will my opinion that I should live longer override my opinion that I no longer need to eat?

You stumped me in the other thread, but my opinion is how I look at things... Like this thread, I could said how my wallet is full of air, but at some point things get silly.... :lol:

I also just want to state, for the record, that this has been the most enjoyable "Argumentum ad populum" that I have ever had the opportunity to be a part of. I did one in school a few years back that was nowhere near as complex as this one has evolved into.

For those of you who haven't read the Flat Earth Society's page yet...please read the fine print at the bottom to understand what this website is actually for. Thanks to David for still letting me turn what started as a joke into further explanation of my point. :laugh:

Somewhere between 2005-2007ish: Opie MacLeod remains irrelevant.

LMAO!!!!!

I don't consider "Jediists" to be separate from Jediism, because that's what they call themselves. But if you want to look at it as "Jediists" incorporated all of them, then that's fine as well.

Resticon wrote: Yes, but does the "Art of War" actually say that everyone should be a martial artist? Having read it a few times, I'll give you a hint...No, it doesn't.

THAT is your argument????? WOW. Trying to use Martha Stewart's work on cooking an apple pie as a philosophical point of interest does not bode well either. Now, what you don't get, is that YES, the reality is in order to win a war you DO need to be a Martial Artist. Martial-Military, Artist-one skilled or versed in learned arts, Martial Artist- One skilled/versed in a Military Art. Art of Tactics is a military art. The point, he doesn't have to say it, it's implied, and the ENTIRE BOOK is teaching you the basics of a Martial Art.

Resticon wrote: Sure, action can be both. But who determines where the line is drawn between them? I have felt actively guided to all of the material on this site since I've been here. First, they tell you to read the FAQs, Doctrine, Beliefs, etc. Then they tell you to make a post in a journal, and in a public forum. From these, you are actively sent to the forums...a place where most of the real patience, understanding, and compassion can be taught by example and even direct guidance. In the event, someone doesn't show these values, there is always someone willing to educate them about something. It is still that person's choice then, whether they wish to stay and continue learning or go. If they choose to stay and continue learning there is an entire set of resources both in the library and in the IP (which actively directs people step-by-step on what to study). Once the material is learned and understood, they are taught patience by waiting for a Master. During this time, they continue to study more, learn more, and attempt to understand more. When they are taken by a Master, they are taught even more directly and even more actively guided. So please show me the passive action or rather inaction (which in my opinion would be the correct term for what you are trying to describe) that is so prevalent here.

The initiates program is passive, and not an active encouragement. Instead it is there to help weed out those who are serious about taking up the training here at ToTJO and those who are just sort of passing through. That's how I understand it, it's not encouraging at all. Nor is it discouraging, it's just there. This method is neither bad nor good, it's simply a method. You really don't get encouragement from the group until you've shown you are willing to stick around. Before that it's some conversation. Everything falls on you.

Resticon wrote: Also since you guys wish things were based more off "Star Wars", who should be guiding those who are not members yet?

I want the ideals pulled from it, and then after we've come up with that, we can reject the fiction as the primary teacher for the Jedi Path, and move it into real teachings. A little known fact, the fiction has not done much in the way of helping me become a Jedi. I became a Jedi by watching the Old Guard grow into Jedi. I can relate it all to the fiction because I can look back at it and point out how the Old Guard got the answers from it, but I'm not a fan of the fiction in the least. I simply respect it's role within the greater understanding of what it truly means to be a Jedi.

Resticon wrote: So to wrap this up, how could you expect someone who isn't even a member yet to know which path they want to take. Much less how could you know which path they should take so you could direct them to it?

How can you expect someone to determine whether or not they want to walk the path if there isn't anything to keep you accountable to the path? Something that says "This is what the path is, anything else is just you wanting to take elements from the path- which is fine, and encouraged so that you can find your own way, but it is not the entirety of the path, and therefore you are not actually walking the path."

Resticon wrote: Unless if, by creating a stance that is too rigid for people to accept, you force them away instead of giving people with similar ideals but different religions a place to find peace and acceptance. When you turn people away for being too rigid, you are still losing them, just for the opposite reason...an I personally believe it's those people who need more help. There are hundreds of rigid religions that exist out there. Why can't there be ours which accepts everyone and helps to guide them to their own path, little at a time.

Then why call it Jediism? There is a word for people that do this, New Age Spiritualists. They allow you to believe whatever you want while cultivating the spiritual aspect using a variety of different methods from occult beliefs. Just sayin'.

Resticon wrote: The point I was trying to make is that many of those religions do not believe all of that though they still call themselves Christians. For example, Christian Scientists do not believe Jesus was Christ although they believe there is a Christ and Jesus was simply very Christ-like.

Then they aren't actually Christian. They don't actually fit into the criteria for what it means to be Christian, they are a spin off and are their own thing.

Resticon wrote: Unitarian Christians do not believe in the Trinity at all but rather all as one. They also do not believe Jesus was the Son of God, merely a prophet. But they are all a part of Christianity, just different views on the same book. Behold! I give you core changes.

In regards to Trinity being all as one, that is not a change from the views of how the Trinity works, one sees them as three separate entities, the other view sees them as the same entity fulfilling three different niches (I am a mother, a wife and a sister- but one person). If Unitarians do not see Jesus as the Son of God, then they aren't really Christians either. They are another spin off, and there is nothing wrong with that.