General Assembly of the Clergy July 8, 2023 10:00 AM Pacific

I would actually argue that the current wording leaves greater room for interpretation.

"5. Jedi understand that well-being consists in the physical, the mental and the spiritual. A Jedi trains each to ensure they remain capable of performing their duties to the best of their ability. All of these are interconnected and essential parts of our training in becoming more harmonious with the Force."

Regardless of whether or not certain interpretations of Soul and Spirt differ from common use, they definitely carry connotations that extend beyond an anthropological perspective. The "threefold essence" language suggests this, and "Body," "Soul" and "Spirt" are language uses that hardly seem more appropriate to me than the current language.

Furthermore, the current language conjures a very specific focus: that of wellbeing as a holistic experience. The terms are more generic, with "physical, mental, and spiritual" uncouched in glossy terminology. That room for interpretation is precisely what I feel is muddied - and, frankly, outright lost - with the suggested changes.

Furthermore, the new wording loses the very valuable focus on the concept of wellbeing, which is actually quite important (and is also a matter for personal interpretation).


To be frank, I'm giving all these new Teachings a closer look now, and finding further areas where I disagree most heartily in the changes that are under consideration. The use of the term "incarnated" and the "mere matter" line in #7 bother me, and I stress that "mere matter" should be removed.

Could we discuss these disagreements in discord ?
I've sent you a message in there...
It would be good to have Andy (Loudzoo) with us in that conversation, but for the moment, he's in Portugal.

I'm certainly willing to discuss them one-on-one, but I'd also like to have this discussion present in public at the same time. Changes like this shouldn't be undertaken lightly, and not without some rather significant exploration by the broader community of Jedi present. Small-party design and implementation backed by council ratification is absolutely not acceptable.

Since the “decision to adopt them” will be made, apparently, “shortly thereafter in Council,” and since I cannot make the live meeting due to work commitments, it hardly seems like this is something that can be left out of the light.

The issues I have are pretty fundamental to the chosen language of the new Teaching #5. While I appreciate that, as you suggested in your Discord message to me, you “and Andy worked pretty earnestly on the linguistic soundness of [the new Teachings],” saying as much doesn't invalidate my points.

I am concerned that two people were (apparently?) the arbiters of their creation.

Likewise, about the fact that they will apparently be considered for ratification (rather than for merely further study and exploration, as would be proper for a community of peers).

And the mere fact that I am able to bring these concerns—that I have them in the first place—is proof positive that, regardless of their multifaceted meaning, or the intention behind them, they contain potential for problems.

Now, with all of that said, I'm willing to hear clear explanations and explore possibilities for resolving this. As I mentioned, I have issues with other areas. The word “incarnated,” for instance, carries commonplace connotations that I dislike - but the potential for exploration and growth is vast, here.


Alex, I'll reach out to you on Discord, as well as continue to keep an eye on this thread for responses.

This can be public, and probably should be. But this is going to require some flexibility in actually listening to and accepting that there are sound reasons for the proposed version. You have said that you have concerns about a few words. When this project was undertaken, the Teachings as they currently are were recopied, upon which the problematic phrasing in each of them was underlined, italicised and thus corrected. The problems with the current version are indeed many.

It is not a problem that two of us - especially the two of us we are - to have undertaken this project. The version of the Teachings we have was actually written by one person who - though he would listen to suggestions - was not old enough, open to insight enough nor literate enough to write them well (albeit he thought he was). Moreover, he is not here anymore and didn't care that much about this anyway.

As stated before, I'm willing to concede on a few alterations, but not the whole of the text.

Would it be worth it to consider some of the ideas available here:
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/The_Force/Legends

Particularly, the idea that the Force, in legends, was broken up. Not necessarily seen as one thing. Seeing as the Force is not considered to be one thing, wouldn't it be prudent, as instruments of the Force, not also to be considered just as one thing, but to have multiple parts all of which need training to attain balance?

We are not just our bodies, and we are not just our minds, and we are not just our spirits, and we are not just our souls (though I still get confused on what the difference is between each of them) We are all of them.

I'll admit Locksley that I can see the Christian bend with #5 and I prefer the current version of this teaching better than the new one, because how does one train the soul or spirit?

It seems also that the current teaching #5 is more aligned with the tenents of Focus, Knowledge and Wisdom, but that is just my thought

When we are learning things like morals, ethics, mathematics, arts, sciences, Humanities ; developing emotional intelligence and discipline this is the training of the Soul.

Training the Spirit is curating our relationships with one another, in our communities, and as I said to Odin, refining our "eulogy qualities". Conditioning our openness to the "I - Thou" or just to the "Thou" tout court...

One cannot say that the Force is multiple. I don't know that it is singular either, but we've been on about the threefold nature of Humankind since Antiquity (Plato, for just one example, M. Fromaget for a more modern)

Alexandre Orion wrote: When we are learning things like morals, ethics, mathematics, arts, sciences, Humanities ; developing emotional intelligence and discipline this is the training of the Soul.

Training the Spirit is curat8ng our relationships with one another, in our communities, and as I said to Odin, refining our "eulogy qualities".

One cannot say tha the Force is multiple. I don't know that it is singular either, but we've been on about the threefold nature of Humankind since Antiquity (Plato, for just one example, M. Fromaget for a more modern)

I can see where that would be true, yet I think the current teaching #5 does a better job of helping the general populace understand what needs to be trained, whereas the new version is quite open to interpretation and confusion. As much as the doctrine is for us, it is also for the general membership of the Temple

Alex, you wrote: "and accepting that there are sound reasons for the proposed version" (#373358). I accept that there are reasons, and am not willing to accept that they are sound, simply because I am told that they are sound.

Here, Alex writes about (what I presume to be) one portion of how the process of revising the Teachings was undertaken: "the Teachings as they currently are were recopied, upon which the problematic phrasing in each of them was underlined, italicised and thus corrected." It is good to know something about the procedure that was undertaken, though it is hardly a surprising aspect of any reasonable revision process.

Now, I imagine that significant thought went into the revision, and that those who worked on it care about the hard work that they poured into it. As Alex wrote in a Discord message, he and "Andy worked pretty earnestly" on the teachings. I respect that earnestness - though earnestness is not an answer to my concerns. Likewise, anyone who worked on something like this might have strong feelings about how their personal views are represented - a point which mirrors my own concern. But neither does this addresses my concerns.

As Rosalyn mentioned, "As much as the doctrine is for us, it is also for the general membership of the Temple." This is a key point. I do not feel represented by the language of #5 - even though I am not blind to the argument that there is an attempt being made to connect to a certain philosophic legacy.

Now, I do not understand Alex's meaning in the phrase, "It is not a problem that two of us - especially the two of us we are - to have undertaken this project." If Alex's meaning is that the two people working on this project are such experts in the subject matter that their work is beyond critique, then I definitely have a strong objection. However, the gist of the remaining paragraph in (#373358) seems to be added background information on the Teachings as they currently are -- specifically, how the current teachings were devised.

If I am correct, Alex is saying that the current Teachings were created by a single person who lacked both formal training and sustained interest in the project. Alex seems to have some personal interpretations about the character and abilities of that person as well. This is all interesting, but it doesn't address my concerns.

I've had issues with aspects of the current Teachings as well, and it seems reasonable that an update of them take place.

I am not arguing against an update in any form.

I am concerned about this particular draft of this particular update. Specifically, as I have mentioned, the language of #5.

Therefore, let us take a stab at correcting this issue.

Alex wrote that "When we are learning things like morals, ethics, mathematics, arts, sciences, Humanities ; developing emotional intelligence and discipline this is the training of the Soul."

Fine, let us find a different word than "Soul."

Likewise, Alex wrote that "Training the Spirit is curating our relationships with one another, in our communities, ... refining our "eulogy qualities". Conditioning our openness to the "I - Thou" or just to the "Thou" tout court..."

Fine, let's find a way to describe that without the use of the word Spirit.

If we do away with those two words, and if we remove the language: "The Jedi comprehend that we are the fruit of a threefold essence," then we'll be a large part of the way to sorting things out, from my perspective. (My perspective alone, there may be other Jedi who, given the chance, have additional criticisms to levy).

Alex, in Discord, said that: "As I said, I'm willing to concede on [the use of the phrase] "mere matter"," which was another one of my concerns (though a less intense one that my points on #5). Clearly, therefore, we can reach a point of mutual understanding - or, at least, compromise.

I might still contend that, like Rosalyn, I believe "the current teaching #5 does a better job of helping the general populace understand what needs to be trained." But, this is also exactly the reason why a draft that has not been publicly critiqued and workshopped should not be considered for implementation. There are going to be things that don't work, no matter how earnest the original writers were, and that matters deeply in a community such as this.

Hey . Sorry...this is a complete aside, but the person you are referencing in you're reply...his name is Alexandre or Alex

Not Alan

Dyslexic problems, I corrected that. If you see any point where I didn't edit that in my previous posts, please feel free to do so to avoid confusion.