Light or Shadow?

Br. John wrote:

Attachment wyp_anythinggoes.jpg not found

B. Kliban

Is he scroggin that thing?!

(speaking of which, I've always been amused by UrbanDictionary's definition #3 for "scrogging"...)

UraharaKiskue wrote: So, if the Jedi path were to lead you to molest, rape, and kill other human beings. That person if they take the name Jedi is more a Jedi than someone who gave up their job as a Banker because they didn't like lying to people and abusing their trust (part of their job) and took up a position as a bouncer so that they may be at least "protecting someone, or something, somewhere" but does not take the name Jedi yes?

This is a bit of a flawed question, because the Jedi path would never lead someone to molest or rape anyone. If they do that, they are no longer on the Jedi path, but something else very different. Killing could happen, but even then, was the killing the result of protecting oneself or others? Having killed does not automatically make someone un-Jedi-like, although if they are perfectly fine with having killed then I think that would require some serious attention and reevaluation. Now if you meant murder, then still, no, the Jedi path would never lead to that either.

Fraternally,
-David

I think that's his point though- that you can't just say "I am a Jedi", it requires you to actually live as a Jedi.

Brother John, that's the stance that Resticon is taking-anything goes as long as you say "I am a Jedi". :lol:

FraterDavid wrote:

Resticon wrote: I think you kind of missed the entire point, David, as to why I posted that.

I see. Well, thank you for letting know. I was uncertain what point you were trying to make there, one way or the other. Keep in mind, ideal communication is a two way street.

Resticon wrote: That is exactly what this whole debate has been about.

I agree, but it was unclear what position you were trying to take in providing that link. Or perhaps I was just being hasty or dense. That is always possible.

Resticon wrote: 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.

This may surprise you, but I was actually assuming that you didn't believe the contents of that site. Which made your obvious sarcasm in referring to it seem all the more needlessly ridiculing. Perhaps this was not your intent, but I can assure you this is how it was received by some people here, and rightly so, because you have done little to avoid that appearance.

I do not believe it at all as the entire site itself was a joke meant to inject a bit of humor into the conversation. I later explained this because of the way you interpreted what I was saying. Unfortunately tone does not translate well within text without subtext. I often find sarcasm to be a form of humor which is not meant to offend but rather to poke fun at a particular topic. Unfortunately, while I can attempt to explain to explain to this to people it is up to them whether to believe it or not based on their own impression. If I come off as rude or ridiculing it is merely an unfortunate occurrence as it is never my intention to ridicule or even annoy. I merely provide an alternative viewpoint through what I feel is/was a healthy debate by using a mixture of humor and logic.

FraterDavid wrote:

Resticon wrote: 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.

That is not a point that I am bothered to have helped support, regardless of who is making it. However, your tone here in saying this is again quite snarky, especially followed by the "". If you go around sounding like you're laughing at people, they're going to fight against anything you have to say, even if what you have to say is completely correct. A Jedi seeks harmony. Learn from Jestor. he finds a lot to laugh about, but he doesn't come across as snarky or insulting when he responds in disagreement.

As for the matter of changing the status quo, passion rules reason. For some people (within certain ranges of their development), I don't know that there is any way to change their beliefs purely with the application of reason, logic, or statement of experience. If someone wants to call themselves something without actually trying to uphold themselves to the higher ideal that such a name entails (based on the source material), then that is their prerogative. But how is that any different than mere vanity or mental masturbation?

In such cases, we can only hope that their taking on of a title such as Jedi serves as a seed which may sprout into dedicated adherence later. Since partaking in this thread, I have come to understand that such adherence is deferred in TOTJO to the rank of Knight. Which I guess is ok, as long as it happens at some level. It requires me to update my inner definitions and expectations a bit, which feels weird but maybe I should think of it like jet lag.

I will attempt to keep the placement of my emoticons in mind, however for the record, I am in no way laughing at anyone. I never laugh at someone, and I would hope that most of my writing would show me as a very accepting person. I use a laughing emoticon to laugh at something. The is in my opinion similar to a "thumbs up" expression in certain cases, which often may accompany a thank you in conversation as a symbol of encouragement. I do like the description of updating one's definitions as being like Jet Lag though.

FraterDavid wrote:

Resticon wrote: 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).

Actually, no, I also have direct experience of the roundness of the Earth. I don't need theories to explain what I have seen for myself. Theories help make it more cohesive or detailed, but they are not always required for understanding. This is the nature of Mystery. I agree that everything is faith, on some level, based on mysteria. But things are here in the manifest world so that we may know them through experience, and thereby eventually know our Self.

Resticon wrote: How do I know that you are breathing? Because I believe that in order to type a sentence you must be breathing.

Actually, no, that's why you would suppose I must be breathing. Supposition is not knowledge, and is the same basis of other fallacies like thinking the world is flat. How do you define "know"? That's probably a big part of the disparities arising here...

In this context I define knowing as "to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of". I am certain only that I am certain of nothing. Even that which is believed to be known by science can be changed at any point by using the scientific method to disprove something else. If all science is built on other science then what if our concept of what originally made up science was incorrect. For example, I have never said that gravity does not exist. What I have said is that I can not "know" with absolute certainty that it does, because no matter what I believe, the fact that everyone/everything else says it does is not a valid argument. Do I believe gravity exists...of course. Do I "know" it exists...No, nor will I ever.

FraterDavid wrote:

Resticon wrote: But for all I know while you were typing that statement you were holding your breath.

But why? Because you weren't physically in a position to directly experience otherwise. If you had been directly experiencing sight and sound of me while I wrote that, or if you were to do so in the future, you would know I was breathing. That is, you would have direct awareness of it by various information stemming from observing me.

Being able to do something at one time, does not disprove the fact that at another time you could not be. If I saw you do it, I would be able to agree that you are breathing as far as my current understanding of the word allows me to but it does not mean that if you said it while you were in fact not breathing that it would be true simply because I have seen you do it once before.

FraterDavid wrote:

Resticon wrote: All things are considered fact based on the knowledge of the time it is known in.

How things are considered does not concern me. What are actually facts is what interests me. Anything else is just noise, and the world is full of a lot of it. Just look at the Internet. What you mean is that possibilities arising as mental imagery are considered facts based on the knowledge and suppositions of the time. What we must look at is only what can be verified through duplicable demonstration. What can be directly experienced? All else is supposition and opinion. This is what makes the existence of the Force more than an opinion, for those who have direct experience of it. They cannot prove it to you until you have the experience yourself, but by then there is no need.

How do you define fact? I define it as "the quality of being actual" with actuality hinging on evidence. I believe direct experience is nothing more than how we perceive the world around us. Maybe my senses are being fooled...maybe I don't actually have senses at all. This debate could go on forever in my opinion because I feel you are attempting to prove what can not be proven in my mind. That doesn't mean that I don't believe much of what you believe. I do but only such that it has not been disproved in my mind. Should the time come one day that someone sufficiently disproves Gravity, I would stop believing in it. Simple as that.

FraterDavid wrote:

Resticon wrote: 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.

Maybe we will. But there are still truths we can discover that will remain true even in such an event as you describe. Some things are intrinsic to the nature of the universe itself, such as consciousness. And in the mean time, it does not behoove us to live our lives in an untrusting way that doubts every experience we've ever had, on the off chance that we are all being simulated or some such. That smacks of paranoid delusion.

I did not say I live my life always doubting, but for the purpose of this argument (which in my opinion has been entirely about beliefs and opinions) there will always be an alternate possibility. I have never said that I believed Gravity did not exist or that the world was flat or that the sky was not blue or that water was not wet or whatever. I just said that it was possible. That is the point I have been arguing, not what I believe is fact but rather that what I believe and what others believe is there belief and can not be entirely disproved except to the individual and only by disproving the basis for their belief by using your own beliefs.

FraterDavid wrote:

Resticon wrote: The fact is no one ever truly knows anything.

According to your own past statements, then this assertion of facthood is really just your opinion too. And can you demonstrate that no one knows anything? Have you directly experienced absolutely no one knowing literally anything? "Supposition, supposition!" You know your own given name in this incarnation, don't you? (To answer 'no' to this question, or to say you "believe" you do, is just plain silly and argumentative.) So there, you do know something after all.

This is true. I did not mean to say fact (idea was the word I was going for) and with it only having come out once in like 30 posts I must simply ask you to forgive my typo. As for my name, I believe my name is Adam Jones but what if I was actually kidnapped at birth and my birth name is Joe Smith? Do I believe I was, no but is it possible? Being argumentative in a debate is kind of the point, no? I believe that it is possible to "know" something based relatively on the knowledge of the time. But how many times have you heard of the phrase absolute knowledge? I've heard of it a few times, usually along with the word impossible.

FraterDavid wrote:

Resticon wrote: The more we learn, the more we discover that we do not know. This is what is known as an "Existential Discussion".

We are able to know things all the time, depending on how you define "knowing". You are confusing knowledge with omniscience. Just because the more we learn, the more we discover there is to learn, is not an indication that we are not accumulating knowledge as we go along. I have no problem with existential discussions until/unless people start trying to make logical arguments using inaccurate, inapplicable, or purposely evasive terminology.

I am not confusing anything, I am just using the word knowing in the relativistic sense instead of the universal sense.

FraterDavid wrote:

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

That quote disproves itself, and thus offers nothing (is inapplicable) to this discussion.

Again, two different forms of knowledge being used in this statement. Still don't like it? Here have another one that was more clearly defined.

Jacob Bronowski - "There is no absolute knowledge. And those who claim it, whether they are scientists or dogmatists, open the door to tragedy."

Alethea wrote: I think that's his point though- that you can't just say "I am a Jedi", it requires you to actually live as a Jedi.

And, seriously, we all agree we each must do that... But, as Im not here to judge, you can call yourself the Queen of Sheeba for all I care...

I must do that for me, not you, you, must do it for you, not me...

So, our minimum level Jedi rank is not very rigourous, most folks coming here already agree with the majority of our beliefs...

You kept, (I felt), asking me to justify my self titled Jedi status...

And, my point was, and is, I dont have to prove it, to anyone...

I can claim to be a Jedi, and not live the life as devout as you, therefore, you may not call me a Jedi... You will judge me as you see fit, which to me, is not a Jedi trait...

Resticon wrote:
Actually, I was encouraged to stay through multiple PMs after my 4th post which involved another member whose views on other members was deeply discouraging to me. But even before that I felt encouraged to continue because of my desire to find a path that could be my own...not my desire to find "the path" that should fit all members.

Then you got more than I did as Randi Oxford (a name that no one in the community knew was me until last year).

Randi Oxford was a Knight here at TOTJO...

Remember my PM asking about it?

We dont know someone needs help, until they show it, or ask... By your own admission you were pretty absent from here...

How were we going to know?

UraharaKiskue wrote:
So, if the Jedi path were to lead you to molest, rape, and kill other human beings. That person if they take the name Jedi is more a Jedi than someone who gave up their job as a Banker because they didn't like lying to people and abusing their trust (part of their job) and took up a position as a bouncer so that they may be at least "protecting someone, or something, somewhere" but does not take the name Jedi yes?

FraterDavid wrote: This is a bit of a flawed question, because the Jedi path would never lead someone to molest or rape anyone. If they do that, they are no longer on the Jedi path, but something else very different. Killing could happen, but even then, was the killing the result of protecting oneself or others? Having killed does not automatically make someone un-Jedi-like, although if they are perfectly fine with having killed then I think that would require some serious attention and reevaluation. Now if you meant murder, then still, no, the Jedi path would never lead to that either.

Agreed...

At the most basic of definition, Jedi are good... (Sorry Sith brotheren) And Sith are bad...

Someone doing those acts would probably align themselves to the dark side...

However, as has been stated, if, in his head, he thinks himself a Jedi, and maybe slaying and debasing, the Sith, he feels he is doing good...

Who is to say what goes on in the mind of another? Let alone a sick individual...

FraterDavid wrote: I agree with the spirit of what else you've been saying, that even if there are strict definitions for the Jedi ideal, there IS no Jedi Police. It is up to each person to pursue being a true Jedi to the best of their abilities (or not). I think the length of this thread has started to kill the conversational fire with too much coal.

Again, I agree...

But this has been fun, Im going to keep playing...

Provided anyone wants to...

Thank you for your words David, and I look forward to our next exchange...



Im prety done too...

Thank you everyone for your input...

Im still watching... lol...

I know this was said to me about 15 pages ago, but I'm just getting around to it. Sorry!

Learn_To_Know wrote: what you descibed a Jedi as being can aptly be written with no change in substance except the subject in question to this:

"What makes a Christian is a Code of honor and upright behavior, one that upholds the law so as to exalt virtue, defends the weak and the innocent, speaks honestly, seeks out the truth, respects all life, and has as a primary focus the fostering of Love and Service within the heart of each Christian."

Above that paragraph you said "But a Jedi is not simply a Force user" yet that is precisely (in my opinion) what makes us different from the attributes you applied to a Jedi that could just as easily apply to a Christian. Whether you believe in the Force literally or as a myth that gives your life direction, this is the separation between Jedi and other good people.

I agree. That's why I said "not simply", implying that Jedi are also Force practitioners. It requires the whole package.

Learn_To_Know wrote: I also believe there are such things as facts and opinion, but your brief definition of a Jedi is still opinion. In my opinion, haha!

You said it's not a matter of [your] opinion, but it is! Haha. Even though I agree with how you described a Jedi to be, it's still your opinion, no? How could it not be? Again, it's a well-reasoned opinion, and I agree with you, but it's still completely subjective and you might even have a Jedi here come out and say honesty is not always the best policy, thus negating one of your Jedi attributes. Who is right in that case?

No, I agree that what I asserted there was my opinion (albeit an opinion that I feel is based on the facts found from observation of the movies). But that's not what I meant when I said "not a matter of my opinion". If you'll go back and check, I was saying that statement right after this one: "The needless dilution of meaning by wanton ambiguity of the word Jedi does a disservice to everyone here except the lazy or fantasizing." That is what I was referring to. Not my specific definition.

Fraternally in the Force,
-David

Alethea Thompson wrote: "any of several arts of combat" AND "self defense". The () describes the self-defense portion, not the conjunction of both. Military Strategy still falls within the definition.

Military Strategy is a form of Military Applied Art which is a form of Martial Art. Martial Arts is not a form of Military Applied Art which is a form of Military Strategy. If the second sentence were true then you could say that Military Strategy were a part of all Martial Art. However the only thing you can accurately say, in my opinion, is that Military Strategy could be related to one form of Martial Art.

Alethea Thompson wrote:

Resticon wrote: While I'm very sorry to hear this and wish that I could have helped in that situation

I'm not, and what you think is my point is in fact not the point. My only point is that I had a different experience, and I've known plenty of others that had similar experiences to mine. You can't use your own experience to prove that the membership takes the same interest in you as they did others.

Also, I'm not hurt that they didn't take a particular interest in me. I was everywhere as it is, it probably saved me a number of headaches trying to jump between here and everywhere else keeping up the persona of someone that was me but was not me, lol.

Again, my belief is my belief. I am trying to prove nothing. I am merely defending my own (or possibly someone who is unknown's) belief. You attempted to alter the belief that TotJO is not actively engaging it's new members. To do this you must disprove other beliefs that it is. "Burden of proof" is the same concept which gives us "innocent until proven guilty". The accuser is the one who the burden of proof will always fall to.

Alethea Thompson wrote:

Resticon wrote: This is true but you still must prove in the mind of everyone that calls themselves a Jedi, what the exact definition of a Jedi and why it should be such before it could be considered another definition.

And in my home order, I'm more than willing. But ToTJO isn't necessarily my home order, and that's not my aim for this particular thread. However, in time, I may make the post as to how I define the Jedi Path. It wouldn't be in this thread though.

Also, I was editing my post above, so if you'd like to comment further on points I made, well their up there. Thought I'd let you know before you missed out on the opportunity for further debate.

I feel that this was how the entire discussion we are having now started in this thread. By someone (Charles?) explaining what the proper path was to be a "Jedi".

Also I will take a look...I do so love to debate. :woohoo:

Alethea Thompson wrote: Brother John, that's the stance that Resticon is taking-anything goes as long as you say "I am a Jedi". :lol:

I apologize but that is in no way what I said actually. I said as long as someone BELIEVES that they are a Jedi.

Jedi Believe:

In the inherent worth of every person. People are worthy of respect, support, and caring simply because they are human.

In working towards a culture that is relatively free of discrimination on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, national origin, degree of ability, age, etc.

In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment including the death penalty. (1)

In the importance of democracy within religious, political and other structures.

In the separation of church and state; and the freedoms of speech, association, and expression. (2)

That the systems of truth in the field of morals, ethics, and religious belief that we have studied are not absolute: they vary by culture, by religion, and over time.

In the generally positive influence that most religions have had on their followers and on society. (3)

In the importance of individual believers determining evil influences and policies within their chosen faith group, and advocate for their correction.

In the importance of education. We believe that people are not truly educated unless they have studied at least the world's major religions and ethical systems. They need to learn of the good and bad impacts they have had on society. (4)

In a just society with laws grounded in reason, compassion, health and human rights and in which fears and prejudices have no part.

There you go, a standard. It's hard coded, it's more than just "I'm a Jedi because I think I am" and it defines what Jedi do and do not do. Mind you I think there is more to it than that, but I will say this, I think this much is included IN what I view a Jedi to be so it is not so far distant that I would say we are completely dissimilar.

Agreed...

At the most basic of definition, Jedi are good... (Sorry Sith brotheren) And Sith are bad...

Someone doing those acts would probably align themselves to the dark side...

However, as has been stated, if, in his head, he thinks himself a Jedi, and maybe slaying and debasing, the Sith, he feels he is doing good...

Who is to say what goes on in the mind of another? Let alone a sick individual...

Ok so we have another qualification. Jedi do good, we could say then they also seek "Right Action" in their lives. However one who goes about doing great and terrible deeds to do that is evil no matter HOW good THEY THINK THEY ARE.

As for them being sick or what goes on inside their mind. This is not a question of that. This is a question of do you have a line drawn for the day when some half crazed koo koo goes out and kills 20 people in "The Name of the Jedi and The Force!!". If the line is drawn and clear you can say with certainty "That was NO JEDI that did that, we know what Jedi are, and that isn't it!" However "If you think your a Jedi then you are" well then, I guess he was a Jedi. Good PR there and all that.

We draw the lines for the entirety, not because we're elitists but because without SOME lines drawn in solid steel we RISK this kind of personality and this kind of action using our mantel. You'll notice I'll sway on a lot of lines in the sand and even offer alternatives on any line I draw save a few. So I can never say "Just because you think your a Jedi you are" that would be insufficient and irresponsible of me. Irresponsible to the community I'm a part of, and irresponsible to the name Jedi.