Light or Shadow?

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

And what is the most direct and powerful way for someone to express their belief in that aspect of their identity? For them to say, "I am a Jedi." Whether it's even remotely true or not.

Alethea Thompson wrote:

Resticon wrote: The difference between your view and mine is that I do not believe in "the path". If I believed in "the path" why would I have left the Catholic Church to come here? The Catholic Church has "the path" that defines what it means to be Catholic. I felt that path was not mine to take so I found a place through which I could find "My Path". So the entire basis of your argument is based on the predication that there is "the path", which you still have yet to conclusively show me must be my path for my belief to be valid.

I think you misunderstand me. You don't have a clue what I believe in regards to "THE Path" (very few people do, so you're not left out ), I was specifically referencing that you can't legitimately call yourself a Jedi without walking the Jedi Path.

I do not nor am I arguing what you believe. The only point that I am trying to express is that there is not just one path to being a Jedi. There is not, "The Jedi Path". There is a Jedi path for each person as your own beliefs and opinions say what being a Jedi is for you. The act of defining a word is in what the person using the word believes it to mean. The word Jedi could mean whatever someone wishes it to mean so long as they believe it in their own mind. The fewer reasons one has to believe it is one way, the easier it is to change their belief to another way. This being said until you change their belief to yours, you can not say someone is wrong for believing what they believe, since all beliefs are just opinions. Do I put restrictions on what it means to be a Jedi? Of course I do, I couldn't understand the point if I didn't. But I will never presume to say that another's beliefs that tell them they are a Jedi are wrong until I have convinced them that my beliefs are correct.

Alethea Thompson wrote:

Resticon wrote: Except that, according to their belief they are Christians because they believe in "Christ" just not Jesus as Christ. To say they are wrong you would first have to prove, yet again, that their belief is invalid by disproving, in each of their minds, what it means to be a Christian. Until then, their belief is their opinion, whether you agree with it or not is of little concern to them. Again the burden of proof would be with the person attempting to change the belief, not the person defending their belief. Until you can prove it is false, you must accept that it could be true.

Catholics and LDS aren't considered Christian by a large number of the Christian Community- I happen to disagree with this statement because they do hold to the fundamental core. So it's not far of a stretch to make the statement that someone who does not adhere to the fundamental part of what it means to be a Christian, does not get placed in the category.

Also, as I'm reading over this understanding of Jesus in the Christian Science belief system, you seem to have a misunderstanding of how they view Jesus. From their perspective, Jesus is the only person that is allowed the title Christ. They seem to have the understanding of "Christ" the same way that you would attribute the term "Buddha", only a more profound title in it's relation to God.

Yes I agree, Christian Scientists feel he is the only human who has ever been truly Christ-like. They do not however believe he is the Son of God (one of the original cores of Christianity). Maybe I didn't explain that properly the first time. Other Christians say they don't consider the Catholic church to be Christian but then they listen to the Pope, so...:blink: Anyways the point I was trying to make by all the Christian stuff was that by believing they are "Christian" as defined by them, they are Christians if to no one but themselves.

FraterDavid wrote:

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

And what is the most direct and powerful way for someone to express their belief in that aspect of their identity? For them to say, "I am a Jedi." Whether it's even remotely true or not.

But who is there to say whether it is true or not? You can tell them what you believe a Jedi to be but if they do not believe it means the same thing...they can still believe they are one based on their definition of what the word means. It just doesn't mean that you have to believe they are or call them a Jedi.

UraharaKiskue wrote: 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.

None of us ever said WE would believe them to be Jedi if they acted that way, just that they can call themselves whatever they want in their own mind and it is still true (to them) if they believe it to be so.

So, what criteria would you use to evaluate someone else s actions in regards to the jedi values? Given they are convinced they are jedi.

Alethea Thompson 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.

If that's the point, then that's easy to explain. To actually live as a Jedi, you first must think as a Jedi. The mind is the source of all actions. The thinking part is what TOTJO is about, and the living part is so diverse that its addressed at TOTJO openly for individuals in there individual circumstances to share and maybe grow. In my opinion its actually the realism movement that run's the risk of falling into the same mold of old religions, by setting a cultural snapshot in time which can become stagnant and irrelevant as society changes around it. TOTJO seems to focus on the important stuff (pursuit for education/knowledge) while remaining fluid enough in the other areas to suit for differences. There is most definitely a place for learning things like first aid and martial arts, but the being a Jedi probably shouldn't become an occupation which anyone can 'act' like a Jedi. It should be about becoming a Jedi as a person, and then doing everything as a Jedi for it would be an expression of yourself as a Jedi.

I personally see all Jediists as also Realists, and so am unsure what Realists disagree with that actually makes sense to me. If the Realists constantly act's like a movie Jedi then they are a cosplayer. If the Realist constantly act's like what they 'think' a Jedi is, then that what they 'think' is actually their spirituality, and therefore they are a Jediist IMO - unless they have fixated their represenation of what a Jedi is, which takes me back to my previous post about stagnation and inflexibility.

Andy Spalding wrote: So, what criteria would you use to evaluate someone else s actions in regards to the jedi values? Given they are convinced they are jedi.

This will be my final post in this topic (mainly because as much as I love to debate I believe this debate has run it's course and anything else would simply be a rehash). Have fun and good luck to both sides of the debate!

I will leave, however, with an answer to this question. I would evaluate someone else's actions in regard to what I believe a Jedi's values to be, HOWEVER, I would not tell them they are not a Jedi if their actions do not meet the definition that I have for a Jedi. "I shall never seek so much to be understood as to understand". If I see someone who claims to be a Jedi, who believes they are a Jedi, but who is doing something that I believe to be Un-Jedi, I would respectfully ask them why they attribute that action to their belief. I would teach them what I believe and then leave it at that. They could choose to make my belief their own or keep their original belief. It is not what they believe themselves to be, but rather what those who look at them believe they are, that will change should they change their definition of a "Jedi".

Resticon wrote: Unfortunately tone does not translate well within text without subtext.

Agreed, and understood. I apologize for having misconstrued your intent. Although as an aside, I would assert that there exist ways that can be found, if you look for them, to largely avoid the appearance of having a negative tone in your writing. Tact and empathetic anticipation are art forms unto themselves and have to be learned over time. Don't assume that such issues are unavoidable. And if anyone feels I need work on this area myself, please feel free to let me know.

Resticon wrote: 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 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.

Fair enough. I have respect for your desire to keep an open mind, to always be willing to update your beliefs or opinions based on new information. I just think you take it a little too far when you say that nothing can ever be known.

If that were true, then there would be no point in discussing anything, ever. Think about it. New information or ideas would serve no purpose because you can never know them for sure anyway, and they can never make your life better, because you don't know what better is! You wouldn't be able to state your opinions, because that would be tantamount to admitting that you know what those opinions are. If you don't know them, how can you say them, much less state them as yours?

Resticon wrote: 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.

Thanks. And about the rest, fair enough. For my part, I will try to be less sensitive about your tone in the future and disregard instances that might seem to be reoccurrences.

Resticon wrote: 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.

Do you realize how contradictory that is? Being "certain only that you are certain of nothing" is still a certainty unto itself! It's no less dogmatic than saying everything can be known (which I don't believe, by the way; just that many things can). Or else it implies that you are uncertain even about whether you are uncertain. Which is a statement that basically says nothing and serves no purpose in being said. Pick one or the other: are you certain of something or are you not? If you are certain, even if only that you are certain of nothing, then that is still being certain, which by your own definition is knowing something.

Resticon wrote: 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.

You really don't seem to know what science is all about. The above statement alone demonstrates this. Science does not deal in "beliefs". Any constructs in science can be changed or discarded to reflect new experimental data or observable facts. Science deals in theories, which are based originally on factual knowledge that cannot be refuted due to being self-evident. In other words, the facts simply are what they are. For example, you will never see a scientific theory that says statistically "normal" human beings have five digits on each hand. Why? Because this is just an observable fact. It is knowledge. Anyone (who's not trying to be argumentative for its own sake) can see that most people are born with ten digits.

Science may then proceed to construct a theory as to how it is that most people are born with ten digits (and important to note: science does not even attempt to address the "why"). Even if the theory is repeatedly verified, it is never considered "proven" but instead "accepted". As long as you are always willing to update your thinking, it is wise to accept experientially confirmed information as knowledge so that progress can be made, and so that you can take actions in life with confidence and lack of hesitation. Such confidence also makes positive suggestions to the Force processes that govern the evolution of cellular consciousness in our bodies.

At any rate, basic observable facts are not theories, because they are self-evident. Gravity may be a theory, but the observation that bodies of mass exert an attractive force on other bodies of mass is a confirmable fact, i.e. we can experience it and measure it, regardless of what belief we have as to what the origin of this force is, or whether we even call it gravity. Just because we have thought in the past that we knew something and it turned out to be incorrect does not mean that we can never know anything. That's the same kind of thinking involved with believing that if you make too many mistakes within the span of a single lifetime, God will send you to burn in Hell forever once you die.

Resticon wrote: 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.

Now you're just being purposely difficult. We all (i.e. all mentally developed, legally mentally competent people) know what breathing means. There is no "current understanding" of it, breathing is breathing. And yes, I even said, if you were here to see me (i.e. "If you had been directly experiencing sight and sound of me while I wrote that"; my exact words). I'm not trying to trick you. I understand fully that the world can change while we're not looking.

I agree that at another time I might not be breathing, for whatever reason. But if you were here with me at that later time, you would be able to determine again with certainty whether I was still breathing at that future time or not. And certainty implies knowledge. If you were actually trying to understand what I'm saying, as though it could actually be true, instead of being slippery, you would not have mentioned any of these other conditional statements to begin with (about my breathing remaining true while you're not looking, etc).

Resticon wrote: 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.

I would define fact similarly. Experience is the only avenue we have for acquiring evidence, and it is largely perception, yes, if you mean it involves the five senses. But fortunately it also involves our inner sense of the Force. The ways in which we interpret our experiences may not always prove correct or beneficial. But our experiences themselves still always arise from something real. We must learn right discrimination in order to interpret our experiences accurately and thereby perceive reality as it truly is. This CAN be done. The reports of the wise throughout the Ages of recorded history all confirm this. Although admittedly this depends on who you consider to be a very wise person; to me, people like Socrates and Nietzsche don't count. "The lips of Wisdom are sealed except to the ears of Understanding."

Resticon wrote: 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.

Again, it is good that you do what you can to keep an open mind. Perhaps it is I who am being close-minded.

Resticon wrote: 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?

It wouldn't matter, even if you were kidnapped at birth. It would simply mean you might find out you have two given names -- Adam Jones AND Joe Smith. But that wouldn't make Adam Smith any less a name you have been given, have known all your life, respond to, have a signature for, etc. It is a part of your sense of identity. So still, despite your continued slipperiness, you do know your name.

Resticon wrote: Being argumentative in a debate is kind of the point, no?

To a certain necessary extent, yes, but being needlessly, gratuitously argumentative, slippery, obtuse, etc are not objectives of rational debate, and actually hinder it tremendously.

Resticon wrote: I believe that it is possible to "know" something based relatively on the knowledge of the time.

Not everything depends on a time period or societal view. The number 1 will always be the number 1, indicating a singular quantity of something, regardless of how far into the past or future we might delve. Our word for the concept may change, and is already different for every language other than English, but the knowledge of what the word represents is universal and unchanging. That's why math is the language of science.

Resticon wrote: 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.

Knowledge need not be absolute to still be true knowledge and not opinion.

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

I haven't even been talking about absolute knowledge (Gnosis), just relative knowledge. The number 2 is relative to the numbers 1 and 0, etc. But while we're talking about it, Bronowski obviously never experienced Samadhi. There's no "claiming" it; you either experience the glorious joy of unity with the Force for yourself and know its lessons to be true and absolute, or you're a bitter skeptic who believes nothing can be known. That's ok, the world needs bitter skeptics too.

Either way, I think I'm done with discussing this particular line of thinking. I wanted to respond to something else from earlier in this thread involving justice and injustice.

Fraternally in the Force,
-David

You know, I believe I will stop discussing this thread with you, Resticon, because the resources I am looking at suggest you do not know what you are talking about. All resources I have looked at, Christian Scientists DO believe that Jesus is the Son of God.