ATTN: COUNCIL; Updated Doctrine Proposal

Maybe we need a bigger sample size before drawing conclusions? Ideally get more knights and long term members to weigh in

Chances are good it still wouldn’t resolve the problem of how close these words are to each other in competition. We don’t have a lot of active members here. Let’s say another 10 weigh in, the results will most likely still remain that one word is still ahead of the others while the rest are neck and neck. One word may still be the best option.

If I may chime in here , where at Is this poll I could not find it on the polls part of the forum . Maybe if you put the poll on the poll forum here instead of a doc them you will get more people to answer . If it's about privacy or something then limit it to register temple members and not the open public . Or is the vote solely for council members ? If it is then I am sorry for interrupting .

I’ve never used the polls area of the forum...I didn’t even realize it existed, lol. If you believe that will get us more engagement, I’d really love to have more people weigh in.

Alethea Thompson wrote: I’ve never used the polls area of the forum...I didn’t even realize it existed, lol. If you believe that will get us more engagement, I’d really love to have more people weigh in.

you have the ability to create a poll on the community main page.

Righto, well I said I would take the time to think through this at some point, and now that time has come.

(Ironically, my internet is now disconnected, which adds a logistical challenge to the activity....)

Can someone point me to the "latest" iteration of the proposed Doctrine?

It's still in the first post, we haven't done any alterations yet- though we're considering the definition of the Force.

or at least arguing the semantics, which is almost as good.

Righto, well I've got the document. Time to cross reference it with all my favourite pieces of western philosophy and see if I can't have a hand in rebranding TotJO in my preferred image

This is the updated version with the new language on what Jediism is. I also altered #15 to read:
15) A Jedi is wary of attachments, recognizing that such lead to emotional entrapment.

Originally it defined which attachments, but per contemplation written elsewhere in these forums, those definitions didn't cover all attachments.

I wrote a fairly lengthy document earlier in the month, but didn't post it, as for whatever reasons, I wasn't happy with it.

I still think I do not understand what the "goal" of the "Doctrine" is, and pissfarting around with the wording of this or that concept wasn't getting me any closer.