Is belief in democracy required of a Jedi? (RELEVENT TO MY ESSAY).

Hi, I'm only going by this ...

https://whyweprotest.net/threads/how-does-jediism-compare-to-scientology.63220/

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

I think this line is torn straight out of a book I read at some point.

I eagerly await clarification.

I can accept answers right up until 27 May, 2016 at 12:00 pm

I may get into a lot of trouble for this ...

I can state that I firmly believe that democracy can be an excellent model for government. I would also testify to the fact that I have never seen it in action ...

First of all, for a democracy to function, the group has to be a smallish one. Perhaps a federation of smallish groups into a larger one by extension, but even then, one begins to get a break-down of values when that democratic system turns "representational". Getting people to agree on any course of action is difficult, especially when there is self-interest involved on the part of just about all of the participants. Since self-interest is just as hard to avoid as it is to get people to agree on things, the challenge becomes getting people to be interested in the "right" things -- as in ethics, justice, learning, common humanity ... &c. When self-interest is merely viscerotonic or somatotonic - and even sometimes an excess of cerebrotonic -, then the democratic aims go pretty wildly off an altruistic course. And this is not just about the leadership, for, in a democratic system, the "people" have to be involved and informed. On the other hand, "the people" often do not engage themselves much beyond "what they like (viscerotonic)" and do not tend to put the effort into learning what they need to know to be more active, empowered participants in the "demo-"cratic system. Leaders, on the other hand, can "represent" the people pretty well, maintaining their "power (somatotonic)" by giving the people all sorts of feel-good things to cheer about and conversely, all sorts of things to be afraid of. This is how some pretty authoritarian power structures come to pass in democratic (sic) systems. How many of the people are actually participating on any level ? Beyond the charade of casting a ballot, how well cultivated are their opinions on matters that they hope are being "represented" in legislative assemblies ?

Throughout the 19^th and 20^th Centuries, we have prayed at the alter of Progress so much and so well, developing entertainments that distract us from our own humanity, developing addictions to the "image" and forgetting about the underlying reality -- and then creating a whole menu of drugs and treatments to help us through our existential angst (that we actually would best be listening to and exploring).

Thus, so doped up on distractions, mass-induced anxieties and drugs, we're hoping to make the right decisions about who is going to represent our interests in society. As it were, whomever we wind up electing : they are representing our interests.

So, do I believe in democracy ? Yes. I also feel that me living to see the day that the "people", not just the charlatans we 'systematically' put in office and pay a lot of money to take the blame for our egotism as a people, get their heads out of their arses enough to be self-governing, that is almost like hoping that I live to see faster-than-light interstellar space travel, quantum-entanglement transporters or a functional weather modification grid.

Until then, I feel that our only (also unrealistic) hope is for philosopher-kings to show up who could tenderly guide people out of our hyper-real, re-mastered and computer-generated Matrix and into some semblance of ethical, cooperative collaboration.

17

When the Masters take charge,
hardly anybody notices.
The next best leader is obeyed out of love.
After that, there's the leader who is obeyed out of fear.
The worst leader is the one who is hated.

Trust and respect people.
That's how you earn their trust and respect.

The Masters don't give orders;
they work with everybody else.
When the job's done,
people are amazed at what they accomplished.

I guess it would depend on what is meant by democracy.

If we are to take the definition as a system of government ruled by the people through direct rule or representative rule, then I would have to say no.

If we are to take a more liberal definition and say democracy means rule by voluntarily selected leadership, then perhaps I'd give my assent. Take a look at the training structure of our Temple: you join the Temple forums, apply to become a member, and then you study on your own until you've completed the Initiate Programme (IP). After the IP you can either wait to be approached by a teaching master or, if you have a certain gumption, approach a teaching master. If the prospect of an apprenticeship is mutually agreed upon and the Council has no objections, then the apprenticeship begins until one or both parties decide it's no longer beneficial (or they complete the training and the apprentice is promoted to Knight). At no point is someone coerced into doing something they don't want to do. Yeah, it's slower this way and sometimes it's inefficient. The benefit is that the people involved in this process are doing it because they want to be doing it. They're not doing it out of a sense of fear (i.e. "I will go to hell if I don't complete my training") and the master-apprenticeships are completely free of coercion so there's no inherent violence to the relationship.

https://youtu.be/DyitF-6tBu4

As with just about everything in the Doctrine, the term democracy is relatively open to interpretation but in its most diluted the quoted statement is about self-determination and freedom to choose how one will live their life. There are broader implications that can be drawn from it, but that is up to the individual to interpret. The quote you're using is an older version of our "Jedi Believe" statement and can be found on our doctrine page here . Note: the word "democracy" is no longer included in the Jedi Believe statement.

The founding fathers of the USA went out of their way to ensure that the government could not exert it's will over the people without their consent. Even back then, they recognized the power of the media (newspapers) to shape public opinion. So, they endeavored to create a republic governed by laws that could not be easily changed by a simple majority vote of the people. While we use democracy to elect representatives and approve proposed laws, we cannot use democracy to, say, alter the bill of rights. Those are rights that should be afforded to any human being by virtue of being born human.

Since ancient Greece, democracy has been a vital part of any civilized society, but it must be tempered by a moral code that respects the rights of others regardless of their opinions. We already have laws that prohibit doing physical harm to each other, but political correctness and hate speech are starting to shift from the realm of free speech to this idea of physical harm. Like a frog in hot water, we don't notice our free speech being gradually restricted by legal definitions.

Rather than link to the doctrine page as I always do, I'll just say that if every person on the planet was a fully altruistic Jedi, I would not be afraid to support a full-on, new world order, pure democracy with every person having an equal say in all decisions made by government. The internet would certainly make such a system technically possible. Sadly, the world is still full of anarchists, trolls, and general evil doers. Just look at Microsoft's Tay.

This may be a question for a whole new thread, but what could go wrong if Jediism became the dominant world religion and hence, Earth's moral code? I ask with genuine curiosity. Barring church splits and so forth, what could go wrong?

To the best of my understanding Jedi do not believe in using force to make people act a particular way. In fact we are encouraged to act as teachers to guide but not to force. So while I can say that most Jedi believe in democratic processes I dont think that is a requirement. Myself for example would loath pure democracy as that means that 51 percent could vote to enslave the remaining 49 if that was what was felt is best for the majority. I instead prefer a system like the US where we can vote on those that represent us but even those people have legal limits on what they can or cannot do.

as per OP

i dont know what else you might believe in - monarchy? communism? facism? despotism?

you might make a case for socialism, but then again you might not

but anyway, its not required to believe that any specific system of government is more likely to produce a "better" society in order to be a jedi

generally, jedi do believe that freedom is prefered to slavery and that individual autonomy is preferable to culturally mandated conformity

and if you can produce a system more likely to allow these ideas to be lived than democracy, i would say go for it

https://youtu.be/DyitF-6tBu4

i "have to" respond to this

this is the same kind of tinkering with words and ideas that leads to the notions that only white people can be racist and that looking at a woman because you find her attractive is tantamount to raping her

we could tinker with the word "dead" to mean "died at the hands of the oppressive, patriarchical institution" and then argue that white men cant actually "die" either
but it is (obviously) false, and agenda driven: he wants to redefine violence as "the removal of choice" so that he can more easily make the case that his particular segment of society is being "violently opressed"

but it is semantically impossible to integrate "removal of choice" as a DEFINITIVE of violence, for the simple fact that people can choose to subject themselves to violence and because people may lose or simply never have choices under conditions which are not in any way violent

now, it may actually be that there are groups within society which ARE being violently oppressed, but if this is so then you should be able to demonstrate that under the existing definition of the word

and im fully supportive of that!

but doing it this way dilutes the significance of the word/s (violence, in the case of the video, and also racism, and rape, in the examples i cited) and it sacrifices honesty on the alter of a socio-political movement, which is NEVER, EVER healthy for a civil society

I think it works best when truth, honesty, transparency and otherwise good ethics exist within all elements of its operation. There will be limits to this, information itself cannot meet all those requirements all the time for valid reasons, but human behaviour can at least strive for it, if not for its success in meeting those things but for the effort to.

To me it does not have to be anymore complicated then that, and the sniff test is how well someone meets those things first, and policy details second - if you cannot trust someone then why bother giving them the time to talk in the first place.

Unfortunately that doesn't really sound like politics or elections... which are often now more about popularity, and part of that is attacking those things about the other person. So the degree someone needs to attack another person's character is another sign to me they cannot allow themselves to operate in the domain of their own truth - or at least they can but choose not to because it would be insufficient if revealed.

Garbage in, garbage out. Democracy is only going to work with the pieces you put into it, and bad results I think are less to do with any failure of democracy but rather the failure of how information is managed around it. In perhaps system dynamics terms, if you don't know how to manage (information) flow then your not going to be happy with your (decisions) stock either.

No, I do not believe it is necessary to have a belief in democracy. I believe in multiple models, because only through diversity will we ever find the right model that truly works for the world. Furthermore, some groups do not respond well to a democratic state.

For example, tribal groups tend to function perfectly fine and this helps maintain their identity in a way that a democratic state might strip it of it's identity.

When talking about democracy, you should maybe involve the direct democracy model as is practiced in Switzerland:
http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch

So you have a further idea of what democracy could be and you probably can "merge" the best aspect of each form and define the best way of democracy.

What's that Churchill quote about democracy? "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." Something like that. That pretty much sums up my views on democracy.

I don't believe that as a Jedi it is required that we believe in democracy, but I think it lines up most with what I would consider Jedi beliefs. It would surprise me to see a lot of Jedi who didn't believe that democracy was the best way (or the least bad way) to run a government.

The interesting part of the question is not the "democracy" though ...

The interesting notion herein is the "believe in" part.

What would it even mean to "believe in democracy" ? Is that the same as believing in God, or the Easter Bunny or 'sex before marriage', or painless dentistry, or aliens ?

Where does this notion of "belief" come from ? How does it influence the consideration of the question ?

Alexandre Orion wrote: The interesting part of the question is not the "democracy" though ...

The interesting notion herein is the "believe in" part.

What would it even mean to "believe in democracy" ? Is that the same as believing in God, or the Easter Bunny or 'sex before marriage', or painless dentistry, or aliens ?

Where does this notion of "belief" come from ? How does it influence the consideration of the question ?

I was wondering that myself. I think the intent of the OP was to ask if the Jedi agree with democracy as opposed to other methods of government administration such as communist dictatorial or monarchy. I think most citizens of westernized countries agree with the concept of democracy.

Alexandre Orion wrote: The interesting part of the question is not the "democracy" though ...

The interesting notion herein is the "believe in" part.

What would it even mean to "believe in democracy" ? Is that the same as believing in God, or the Easter Bunny or 'sex before marriage', or painless dentistry, or aliens ?

Where does this notion of "belief" come from ? How does it influence the consideration of the question ?

I see question marks, risky move putting them in there, now I feel compelled to answer!!! I wasn't going to post this as its too early in the morning for me to know if I'm making any sense, so perhaps later I'll re-read this and smack myself in the face for making no0sense.

Not questioning of anything, or especially any something, seem's unJedi to me :silly:
Belief tends to infer within me cessation of critical thought, around something, and while this has usefulness and even is probably a vital part of how our minds handle complexity, I reckon belief works best when viewed as an attribute of history, and when used for the future is instead called faith. I don't know if anyone else thinks this way, so feel free to disagree!!

So, do I have faith in democracy; not entirely, but my belief in it is a measure of historical examples and the projections of expected current and future iterations hold some utility for me in decision making. I think those things have to be seen as what they are and not get them mixed up.

The historical existence of belief to me is quite static but fragmentary, being parts of truth which can be distorted by perceptions, in fact all of them distortions due to the limited capacity to perceive - belief in a piece of truth. In contrast, the present seems to be an active and fluid representations balancing between delusion and non-delusional to weigh up accuracy from our perception of a constant state of change, which is defined more rigidly by that circumstance rather then contemplation of any static moment. The further we project into uncertainty by contemplating the future, the less accuracy we can afford through direct experience (circumstance) and so it by definition must inherit greater delusion IMO by being built upon so much uncertainty. Both non-delusional belief and belief would require certainty, and so in this regard faith to me is inherently delusional to some extent.
All that assuming certainty, being the whole argument is underpinned by the condition that these hold a high degree of confidence, else they are just another set of contemplations perhaps better called expectations.

I can, for myself, answer the question "Do you believe in democracy?" with a YES!
For one simple reason:

I believe, that the opinion of every individual is worth as much as every other. Democracy is a way to take care of the opinion of each individual.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G935F mit Tapatalk

Democracy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

"You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

It is entirely possible to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments."

Entropist wrote: Democracy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Well in economic terms 'truth' might actually be market share!! But I agree it's not a measure to find a 'right' way, but sometimes it might be the best way for various reasons.

OB1Shinobi wrote: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

"You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

It is entirely possible to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments."

Good luck reasoning this

Adder wrote: Well in economic terms 'truth' might actually be market share!! But I agree it's not a measure to find a 'right' way, but sometimes it might be the best way for various reasons.

What's the relevance of "truth", with market share, with democracy, with a Jedi?

But I'm more interested in the various reasons as examples of how democracy could possibly be the best way? Especially considering the association of democracy with argument ad populum fallacy .

Entropist wrote: What's the relevance of "truth", with market share, with democracy, with a Jedi?

The economic example was just to demonstrate a situation where a majority outcome (in a market) equals correct decision (more profit) - which is the condition of success in economic terms for a decision process, or in terms of logic perhaps 'truth'. When you bought up logic by associating democracy to a logical fallacy, my understanding of logic is that they are structures of types of truth - truth in terms of logic. So my reply is not an effort to define truth, rather it was just reflecting on the association you made between logic and a process (in this instance being democracy). An example.

Really, I imagine any example where the measure of the decisions success is associated to activity of the populace seems relevant and not a fallacy or actually 'incorrect' when viewed in terms of what it represents. It cannot predict the future, rather it is just a measure of the will of the people. So the people in democracy represent the entity of relevance being assessed, and therefore it's apt for decisions to be based around the people. But as mentioned, I think you are correct that as a rule popular cannot be considered as a rule to be correct, but there are examples.... finance and governance being two which come to mind - that is if the government is for the people, as a government for some other reason then the people might not get what it wants by using the people as the metric.

So I guess a government by the people, for the people operates on the premise that even if it makes less then ideal decisions, it was done so by consensus under fair conditions which allow sustainable and broad ranging growth by as many people within that group/nation as possible. In that regard the power of the democratic process is limited to selecting people to run the government, rather then the process of running government - which while impossible today could be imagined in the future to be a possibility with the pervasive growth of IT, in particular the I bit of IT - we have so much more information at our hands then ever before it opens lots of opportunities.

What does democracy have to do with Jedi.... is a good question!
Personally, I think it's an approach to connect to as many people as possible so to maximize learning, growth and understanding between as many people as possible.

Jediism tends to disagree with gestalt understandings of society, and tends to be a bit more teleological. They think that human existence (whenever that starts, something the Jedi haven't defined) is endowed with quite a few rights, traits, and abilities. Participation in democracy falls under the 3rd category. Even though a pure democracy is arguably not the best government (note that the US is a democratic republic), it allows for a certain degree of self-determination while still doing "the greatest good" for the majority as a part of the social contract. Jediism endorses democracy because they believe all people can and should have a certain amount of power rather than vesting it in the elite (regardless of the composition thereof).
So, tl;dr if you're a hardcore jedi: yes.