ATTN: COUNCIL; Updated Doctrine Proposal

My point here is that there's no need to change anything that can't demonstrably be proven broken.

My point here is that there's no need to change anything that can't demonstrably be proven broken.

As there is (as far as I know) no set standard for Jediism, it's also pretty hard to prove it works....

I can defend the lines in the proposed "Principles of Jediism" (again not married to the name if someone has a better name!). Can you all do the same courtesy and cite the lines in each document to illustrate how either the two document system, the 21 Maxims or the 16 Teachings are the best system to go with? Because truly, if there is going to be a real defense of the current incarnation of the doctrine, or even one of the documents that are present to win out, it should be on their foundation alone- not upon the idea of "but this is tradition".

The idea of canning "two documents" in favour of a "single document" I believe is sound (I have a bit of another thought on that, but unless someone else brings it up first, I see no reason to go down that path)

I'm really on board for a nice straight forward plan-on-a-page sort of thing that encompasses what Jediism is, and is enough to start playing the game (like those "reference" cards you often get in board games - not the full rules, but enough to get you started and keep you going.

This still doesn't address what the basic principles should be, but apparently we want baby steps.

Fun fact with these things is that sometimes less is more - ie less people is better. If you (or a small team) comes up with a 99% solution, the rest will probably go along with it if it passes some basic robustness tests - if you come up with half a plan, you'll spend the next forever arguing over the second half.

@Steamboat The fact that so few hold loyalty to it (even as just reference material), IMO, is evidence it’s broken.

@James I hope you’re still considering pulling out a pot of tea ^^

I've worked 40 of the last 48 hours.

I think I put the kettle on half a dozen times, but honestly, I can barely form a sentence, much less remember if I put the kettle on, or approach distilling the key defining characteristics of the Jedi path....

It occurs to me that I don't think I've ever read the Jedi Compass. Is it available in hardcopy somehow?

The book is available on Amazon.

The document itself can be accessed here: https://www.forceacademy.us/library/index.php?title=The_Jedi_Compass-_By_the_Jedi_Community (I’m still on the look out for people that are willing to translate the document into other languages if anyone knows anybody ^^)

Alethea Thompson wrote: You say "I don't think", but what I'm hearing is: "I don't want change."

Hi Alethea.

I want to make something clear here but I really don't want you to feel offended or attacked because I know you're heading this, and it really is a good pursuit, so please hear me out. If what you got out of my words was merely that I (or we if that's what you see) simply don't want change, then, on my end, it doesn't sound like you've been paying much attention here.

Change is important and necessary, and the doctrine can use an update - are we clear on that? But I don't see merely as much importance on... how many documents it needs to be or not be, than on getting a better grip on the most effective and genuine way to even consider the doctrine before even writing one / reading one. Because as long as we are intending to look at the doctrine as, and use it as a slab of commandments to direct people to who we think just need to "Jedi up", any work put into it will be in vain. And I think that includes doing the same thing to one's self with it too. I don't see nit picking over the details of wording is going to change that fact either.

What I'm suggesting is that we not cancel the train altogether, but rather to back it up, and discuss what it is we're doing with it in the first place. There is obviously a reason that the current doctrine is treated the way it is, but I'm not convinced it has to do with what is written in it (or how many pages it is) as much as it is about people's mindset (what people expect to get from it out the gate, and then intend to use it for). This is why you haven't seen me partaking in the project's composition itself. It's not that I don't believe in it - in fact, it's that I care more about it than you likely realize. The foundation is extremely important to any house built. But the way we talk about doctrines around here is showing me that we still have a great deal of the foundation to work on for this.

What I'm saying is that, not only do we need change, but most importantly, we need it done right. Not right now.

Proteus, I've not addressed you up to this point.

From my perspective, you haven't really sided with either side of the "should we or shouldn't we" discussion. You're still weighing the options and your verbiage reflects that.

For those that have come out with verbiage which polarizes as certain way- my goal is to get them to provide a real debate so that everyone on the floor can get a good idea of what the pros and cons are. I'm dismissive of weak stances that are easily written off as "I don't want change" because that's going to get us no where. And let's be honest, the "but this doctrine got us to where we are" is "I don't want change", It's amongst the weakest of defenses- and we can do better.

On the contrary, I'm one of the people who have been in official discussion about the doctrine needing updating. My verbiage is giving a suggestion on how we need to make sure we get the foundation right when we do.

Fair enough. Your engagement in this thread has come off more neutral than anything.

I don't disagree with you- in general getting people to move and discuss things will always be a difficult task. I'm still very hopeful that will happen in this thread.

Random Side Note: It's actually discussions like this one on the doctrine that have caused me to gain considerable respect for political positions in government. I imagine they all go through the same frustrations of trying to change or update our laws.

I find it disingenuous to conflate "I don't want this change" with "I don't want any change".

You say "I don't think", but what I'm hearing is: "I don't want change."

What does this say about you, that you read this negative perception into other people's words when they are apathetic about something you have taken as your personal quest, to make a change which affects everyone here? Do we not deserve a say whatever that may be, without being interpreted so harshly?

6) A Jedi seeks self-honesty, seeking the inner workings of their motives. They are mindful of their thoughts, limitations, and ego.

15) A Jedi is wary of attachments, both material and personal, recognizing that such lead to emotional entrapment

And, crucially,

18) A Jedi bears the responsibility of integrity to the Jedi Path at all times, knowing that hypocrisy is their worst enemy.

Why not seek a more positive, inclusive and constructive attitude when approaching the community with your suggestions? Perhaps the reason you did not get engagement before now, something bemoaned elsewhere in the thread, is that people simply don't care much for the suggestion of updating the doctrine. Perhaps people were open-minded enough to be wowed by whatever emerged, only to find, now, that they don't see a lot of additional value in what's been proposed?

Just thoughts to consider.