Five Questions for Jedi Knights

Desolous wrote:

SoulSeeker wrote: Well, when you answer the question I'll stop asking it. How's that?

i read this in the voice of my abrasive six year old son. it fit the tone perfectly.

Be nice... put a smily or something in here...like this...

:lol: :silly: :lol: :silly: :lol: :silly:

Jestor wrote: No, we are not equal to the "Knights of olde" in the way that an apple and and orange are not equal to each other...

Well, no... Again, to cite the example of my hypothetical soldier-club: is it different to the true military like apples are different to oranges?

Jestor wrote: (didnt like the positve, how about the negative way to say it? lol)

We know we are not equal to them, it has different requirements and definitions...

We are not trying to be them, we are trying to be us...

I thought before you said you aspired to be a knight even if you only get closer by 1mm?

Jestor wrote: You are stuck on the olde tyme definition of a Knight, and thats according to you...

And what information you base your decisions and judgements on.. lol...

Not necessarily. I think most people think old European warrior in service of king and country when they think knight, it's not just according to me, and therefore it is only natural to base my information on knighthood upon such a definition when others would take it up.

Jestor wrote: Where I would think:

Yea, I feel comfortable with that...

Im just here to serve my fellow men and women...

That's fine, but knights and samurai risked life and limb to serve. Aspiring to be like that is fine- but it's a very noble title, one that requires a measure of merit and worth to uphold. A more appropriate title might be "Jedi Servant". Some generations down the line the term "servant" could then come to be assosciated with honour, bravery and justice, if you served very well. It's also an expression of humility, not great heroics, and would embody the teachings you're adherring to far more accurately.

Jestor wrote: A true knight, would not judge me openly, for maybe my kingdom had less than his...

A "bully" knight might challenge me to a fight....

A true knight would show humility, chivalry, and compassion...

a "Bully" knight would not... Instead, snearing at my tarnished armor, and ragtag banners and flags...



Um, no one ask me, but I like templar knights... They cookies, right?

Accurate enough. The Templar Knights were an organization originally consisting of less than a dozen members with no funding so little money they could scarcely afford the horses they rode on, that would take it upon themselves defend pilgrims on journeys against raiding bandits. It gradually grew into a thriving organization before passing away, as all things do.

Here's more knightly things to worry about. (I'm not even warmed up yet so if anyone want's more just ask.)

In January of 1980, Alfred Hitchcock was made a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire by Queen Elizabeth II. He was a great director but a knight? What's with that queen?

There's the Catholic organization Knights of Columbus and their members are knights of various degrees.

How about the Order of Knights of Pythias?

My own dear Great Grand Father John Henry Phelan Sr. was was made a Knight of St. Gregory in January 1933 by Pope Pius XI.

So what you're saying is, is that the title of Knight does *not* hold any respect because anyone can get it?

It is not the same as it use to be!?!?

One of the only constants in the univers is that things change.

SoulSeeker wrote:

Jestor wrote: No, we are not equal to the "Knights of olde" in the way that an apple and and orange are not equal to each other...

Well, no... Again, to cite the example of my hypothetical soldier-club: is it different to the true military like apples are different to oranges?

Well, if you formed a soldier club, you would do soldier-like things, yes?

Trying your bes to emulate them, right?

It would be closer to a soldier than my Apple and Orange Brigade would be...

Jestor wrote: (didnt like the positve, how about the negative way to say it? lol)

We know we are not equal to them, it has different requirements and definitions...

We are not trying to be them, we are trying to be us...

I thought before you said you aspired to be a knight even if you only get closer by 1mm?

Yep, thats how I be me...

I am being me, which is me trying to be like them, as I cannot be them...

I already said I will never consider myself a knight, so I am just being me, which is trying to be like them...

Simple...

I aspire to be a Jedi Knight... Hasnt that been said...

Jestor wrote: You are stuck on the olde tyme definition of a Knight, and thats according to you...

And what information you base your decisions and judgements on.. lol...

Not necessarily. I think most people think old European warrior in service of king and country when they think knight, it's not just according to me, and therefore it is only natural to base my information on knighthood upon such a definition when others would take it up.

True, most will think that...

Most woulda understood my apple and orange (analogy? Simile? I always get those confuse... Analogy I think...)

And most to would realize that the olde time definition is fading, or rather adapting...

Says Sir Nils Olav... Or he would, if penguins could talk...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26219632/ns/world_news-weird_news/t/king-penguin-receives-norwegian-knighthood/

Jestor wrote: Where I would think:

Yea, I feel comfortable with that...

Im just here to serve my fellow men and women...

That's fine, but knights and samurai risked life and limb to serve. Aspiring to be like that is fine- but it's a very noble title, one that requires a measure of merit and worth to uphold. A more appropriate title might be "Jedi Servant". Some generations down the line the term "servant" could then come to be assosciated with honour, bravery and justice, if you served very well. It's also an expression of humility, not great heroics, and would embody the teachings you're adherring to far more accurately.

My history is rough, so Ill ask...

Were they trained, then knighted? Or did they have to go risk life first? Fight a dragon or something... Ive fought some of my dragons (please, light golf clap from Campbell students.. lol)

Maybe... Maybe I just have not been put in harms way....

Maybe that gang of kids outside the school when I stood up to 7-8 kids by myself, does that count?

Does the naked stoned guy sitting on my chest (no jokes on this one, I was freaking scared) fighting me so my wife could get his wife to safty count?

No? Shoot...:whistle:

Wait.... So, did the knight make himself a Knight?

Did he just say he was?

Or did someone say he was?

Ive been called one, I was knighted, does thins make me one too?

(Im smiling and playing, no rudeness from me in case anyone thinks Im being a jerkface) :woohoo:

Jestor wrote: A true knight, would not judge me openly, for maybe my kingdom had less than his...

A "bully" knight might challenge me to a fight....

A true knight would show humility, chivalry, and compassion...

a "Bully" knight would not... Instead, snearing at my tarnished armor, and ragtag banners and flags...



Um, no one ask me, but I like templar knights... They cookies, right?

Accurate enough. The Templar Knights were an organization originally consisting of less than a dozen members with no funding so little money they could scarcely afford the horses they rode on, that would take it upon themselves defend pilgrims on journeys against raiding bandits. It gradually grew into a thriving organization before passing away, as all things do.

[/quote]

I know who the Templar were, I was going for humor....

Hello?

Hellooooo?

Is this thing on?

SoulSeeker wrote: So what you're saying is, is that the title of Knight does *not* hold any respect because anyone can get it?

No SoulSeeker, I said, "Here's more knightly things for you to worry about."

SoulSeeker wrote: So what you're saying is, is that the title of Knight does *not* hold any respect because anyone can get it?

No, its not a title that conveys respect...

Those bully knights were not respected, they were feared... big difference...

And not anyone can claim...

It must be given...

I am not yet a Jedi Knight (nor even a Jedi according to some here lately), but I will take a stab at this.

SoulSeeker wrote: In the historical eras throughout which the brave knights of Europe lived and died, becoming a knight could be very difficult.

You appear to have a very high opinion of Medieval knights, that I'm not entirely sure they deserve. Granted, all the famous stories you hear of bravery and gallantry, etc from those times are of knights. But that's because the nobility were the only ones making books at the time. And honestly, would you rather hear the tale of Lancelot the Magnificent or Tim the "ordinary" peasant? No contest, right? But what if in reality Lancelot is some guy who is only called Magnificent because of his martial prowess, but who is otherwise a completely selfish tool?

And what if Tim is someone who saved his entire village from starvation or ambush or some such, especially if at the cost of injury or death? A tree is known by its fruit, regardless of titles. There were many knights who were far from virtuous or deserving of the title they had been bestowed, and there have also been many ordinary people who have exhibited exceptional bravery and skill but were never knights.

Therefore, the title of Jedi Knight is what we make it, here and now. It is as virtuous and brave as we can come to be ourselves. Keep in mind that this Order is, in the grand scheme of things, still painfully new. It is just starting to take shape into what it may later become. That is a big reason why I am happy to be involved here now, because I am able to take part in this crucial formative stage. Who were Medieval knights if not for brave people who fought for those around them, and were eventually given a title? There was a time when people acted basically as knights but there was not yet a title for it, other than "hero".

We Jedi are now working backwards from that -- we already have an ideal, which we title Jedi Knight, that we are working hard to fill with as much meaning and significance as we can. Our only real limit is our imagination. One day this Order will have one or more temples of its own, and dedicated training grounds, and probably more expanded criteria for training. You are making the mistake of pointing at a baby king and saying, "Haha! Your crown fits down around your whole body!" We simply have more growing to do, for which I am very glad, because that means I get to watch the glory of it unfold.

The Medieval title of Knight meant something powerful largely because it was backed by the ruling governments of the time. As Jediism expands, and our personal capabilities increase, we may begin to see a proliferation of highly respectful recognition by various governments, just like you see in the Star Wars movies. You can bet that the Jedi Order there did not start out with that kind of recognition or cooperation. It probably took generations to develop, if not centuries.

SoulSeeker wrote: You generally had to be born into the aristocratic class, or at least adopted by a noble

Yes, and not just any aristocracy, but the aristocracy of only a relatively few nations in one part of the world. And, with very few exceptions (mostly French), women could not be knights until very recent times. So already we can see how our current perspective is more inclusive and thus more enlightened than theirs was. We include women as equals by default, and Jediism spans the globe.

SoulSeeker wrote: then you had to be trained from a very young age in warfare. Such training procedures would probably have included things like swinging heavy metal axes repetitiously for long lengths of time, as well as mental training so that the Squire wouldn't panic in situations of war.

Yes, but for good reason. Back then, people were old if they lived to be 40 or 45. There was no electricity, or air conditioning, or plumbing in many cases, or clean water. People took baths very infrequently. Disease and superstition were rampant. There were no breast implants. In short, the world was brutal, cruel, and dark. Why would you want to compare us to that? They trained like that because they HAD to, to survive. They were constantly at war or in danger of invasion. That didn't mean they were inherently better than us or more brave, capable, etc. "Wars [do] not make one great."

You give a Medieval kingdom the kind of freedom and security that we have today in the UK or US, and offer them modern amenities like television and computer games, and I'll show you the development of some very undertrained, potbellied Medieval knights. The point being, that kind of lifelong training is no longer necessary. There are no more barbarian hordes in the world to guard against or go conquer. There are no more Crusades. For that matter, there are no more global frontiers.

The battles have largely turned inward. Jestor is right. We are our own worst enemy. This is not opinion or supposition, but fact. And it applied just as much to Medieval knights as to ourselves today. Their success with bravery and risking life and limb depended largely on their mastery of themselves on the inside. Anyone can have big muscles or learn martial arts.

SoulSeeker wrote: In my personal opinion, the knights were not "honourable" in the a moral sense as history shows that they often abandoned the code of chivalry to protect "women and the weak", "defend the church" etc. whenever it suited them. However, there *is* a sense of honour when you consider their bravery, such as charging into cavalry on the battle-field and risking life and limb, and also their hard work and dedication, so that through training they were able to wear heavy armour many today couldn't even lift, and become professionals in horsemanship.

You need to update your thinking. Have you ever had the pleasure of seeing how hilariously ineffective plate mail armor is against bullets? Or horses against tanks? People today (even if there were modern day warrior knights) have no need for wearing heavy plate armor or riding horses. What is your point in saying all of the above? If we today were under constant threat of attack or invasion that could only be thwarted by our physical prowess and daring, then we could very easily define Jedi Knighthood in terms of our abilities in that respect.

But that is not the case. It hasn't been since the invention of guns. They are the ultimate equalizers. With them, a child can kill several grown men very quickly. A woman can kill a rapist who is much more physically strong or trained than her. A small armed force can defeat a much larger force lacking firearms. The old values surrounding physical prowess no longer apply nearly as much. These days, self-control and self-knowledge are the coins of the realm, if they haven't always secretly been.

SoulSeeker wrote: Basically, the title of "knight" was attatched to 1. feats of bravery on the battle-field

I have learned from first-hand experience that modern life presents us with many ways to perform feats of bravery that have nothing to do with battlefields or physical combat. Open your mind. Some of the bravest people in the world have no medals to speak of.

SoulSeeker wrote: and 2. the completion and continuation [of] rigorous training throughout childhood that could be compared to the training of modern day boxing-champions (except, of course, with swords).

One day, as the Order grows, and the level of Force mastery of Knights and Masters here increases, then parents may begin to want to submit their children for training just like you see in the movies. And it may become quite rigorous. Again, you are judging an oak while it is still a sprouting acorn.

SoulSeeker wrote: Now keeping all this in mind, my question for Jedi is: do you consider yourself a knight?

No, I probably will never consider myself such in this lifetime, even if I am granted the title. But NOT because I'm not expert in going out and killing people. The very notion seems ridiculous.

SoulSeeker wrote: If so, do you also consider yourself an expert S.A.S. soldier, or a member of Black Ops, or some other kind of expert in warfare who has truly earned the title?

No. Again, those titles describe only those specific things. They have earned their respective titles, but that has no negative reflection upon Jedi Knighthood just because we don't train our members in committing violence. You seem to have a very monkey-fisted perspective on being a Jedi Knight. But hey, any problem can be solved with overwhelming physical violence, right?

SoulSeeker wrote: My second question for Jedi is: if you consider yourself a knight, what act of valour on the battle-field caused you to be knighted? Or what intense, extreme, rigorous, professional military training did you have to work through before earning that title?

This is not a military organization, or even paramilitary. It hopefully never will be. But let's get a little semantical here and ask ourselves: what do you mean by "battle-field"? Life has many battlefields, most of which are found inside ourselves. Any outward, physical manifestations we would call battlefields are actually the magnified culmination of psychological struggles having their origins within each of us. The outer reflects the inner. Most of our acts of valour on those inner planes are private. Thus most people will not want to openly discuss with you the details of the struggles they have overcome.

Make no mistake, though: It is all a vicious battle, and a fight to the death. We come out of any genuine spiritual process completely changed. We must die to our old selves in order to become what we may. So we literally do still risk "life and limb" in the process of Re-membering our true Selves. It is an actual death as well as a figurative one. I have met people who have dodged enemy gunfire in warfare, killed quite a few of the enemy singlehandedly (of which they are not proud) and escaped several helicopter crashes, etc, who are still afraid to look inside and face what they find there. So who is really the braver?

SoulSeeker wrote: My third question for Jedi is: if you answered "yes" to the first question (you're a knight) and "no" to the second (you have no experience on the battle-field and have never fought for your king, country or church), do you consider your claiming the title of "knight" as disrespectful to those true knights of old Britain and why/why not?

Of course not, for the reasons I have said above. The world is ever-changing. Knighthoods are given out these days to artists, thespians, etc, not because the meaning of the title has become diluted, but because it has needed to become more broad in order to still honor those who bring honor to Britain. Very few opportunities still remain for bringing global recognition, honor, or glory to Britain by fighting and killing. And thank goodness for that! It says something about the level of evolution of the modern world.

SoulSeeker wrote: My fourth question for Jedi is: is your title of knight, in your own personal opinion, equal to the traditional title of knight?

Equal in what way? Just saying "equal" is like asking which is bigger, the Moon or a dinner plate? From a purely Earth-bound perspective, the dinner plate likely looks much "bigger". But according to "abstract" principles of science and math, we know that the Moon is incredibly larger than a dinner plate. I would say that Medieval knighthood and Jedi Knighthood (as a real world thing) are of equal value, AS IDEALS to be lived up to in our daily lives. The exact details are irrelevant compared to the aim itself.

Both types of knighthood embody the principles of service, freedom, and protection. In some ways Jedi Knighthood extends beyond the values of Medieval Knighthood, because a Jedi also values inner exploration, universal love (as Agape), and equality. In some ways it does not extend as far as Medieval knighthood, mostly in the ways you have pointed out. But in either case, I have not used the words "inferior" or "superior". That would be placing a value judgement where it makes no sense.

SoulSeeker wrote: "Knight" is an ancient and honourable title. Have you taken due care and consideration to its history and tradition before applying it to yourself?

I'm sure they haven't given it any thought at all. You know these spiritual, self-transformational types -- they never think about anything they do.

SoulSeeker wrote: The same can also be said of "warrior", "samurai" etc. Remember, to take it on is a claim to its history and tradition

Or is to reinvent it in a more modern, applicable light. If we called ourselves just "Knights", that would be different. But we don't. Those who have been granted the title call themselves "JEDI Knights". According to your argument, a whale shark should be the same as a whale. I mean, hey, it has "whale" in its name, RIGHT? The Force is a relatively new conception that was not available to Medieval knights, and yet it is a primary facet of our beliefs here, officially. And we don't believe in killing other people who have a different religion than ours. Medieval knights did this with regularity. So there are bound to be quite a few discrepancies. We aim to be like them in the spirit of service, protection, and vigilance only. The other details are... much less relevant.

SoulSeeker wrote: Therefore, it is logical that to claim the title of "knight" is *not* a sign of humility, but actually it is the opposite- a claim to the greatness true historical knights (or warriors, samurai, monks depending on what you call yourself) exemplified.

You seem to enjoy pointing out what you see as logical fallacies in the responses of others here, so it's your turn now. Your statement above is logically invalid. The opposite of humility is NOT greatness, it is arrogance. Some of the greatest people I have ever known have also been the most humble.

I like your idea about calling ourselves Jedi Servants, but "Knight" conveys more accurately the full set of spiritual connotations involved. And service is still implied. Interestingly, the title "samurai" comes from a word meaning "to serve". So we can see the spirit of the thing that we are seeking to emulate, regardless of whom we have the training to kill or not.

I apologize for the length of this. I did not have the time to make it shorter.

Fraternally in the Force,
-David

@FraterDavid

+1000

Very well said.

MTFBWY,
LTK