ATTN: COUNCIL; Updated Doctrine Proposal

I should point out that TotJO is pretty explicitly not force realist.

In my opinion, force realism is just larping and not even religion anyways, so it's pointless to discuss it. Our understanding of the force is informed by our prejudices, so the idea that someone isn't a real Jedi if they follow a different religion is reductionist.

Also the Gaia hypothesis is pseudoscience and not a religion because it does not make the claims that religions do.

I use often “a modern day Jeddist” for a reason, mainly it’s not about the labels . Most any one can reasonably apply any chosen label in place of “modern day Jeddist” for whichever flavor of Jeddist they choose and receive the same value of the idea.
But that’s me.
Where did these definitions come from if I may ask? Where do they come from?

So... in force realism is jediism? and jediism is what is done here? so larping is done here? Were there old time jediists?

@Rex Well fortunately for the rest of us, you never published the definition of "Force Realism"- I DID. I even had several platforms named "Force Realist" over the last decade: Force Realists Magazine, Force Realists Radio, Force Realists TV. All of which focused on the real life philosophy of those which followed them. I even have run an annual event called "Force Realists Meditation Relay" on New Years Day. The term came about when I tried to find a way to create a magazine that allowed all three Aspects at Force Academy to contribute without misrepresenting them as "Jedi".

Ren may have historically used the term to talk down to people, but I was unaware of his use of the term until long after I began FRM. Throughout the community, it's my definition which won out. So let's not talk down about the various other groups which exist and follow the various philosophies that fit into the category. Philosophies which you clearly know nothing about if you're calling them Larpers. Thank you.

@Carlos- as for the other definitions. Pragmatic Jedi was created by Opie, the "description" I provided was loose and just a way to give a very brief understanding of how Opie applied it. It's not a term he uses anymore and settles with "Jedi" as he doesn't believe there should be any distinctions between the different Jedi "archetypes". The other two are based upon how they are used outside of TotJO. As I explained in my post- there is no distinction here at TotJO between a Jedi Realist and a follower of Jediism. Here we just call it all Jediism.


@Fyxe let me put it another way:

All Jedi are Force Realists, not all Force Realists are Jedi
JUST AS
All Roses are Flowers, not all Flowers are Roses.

Going BACK to Rex- there's one more thing:

The Gaia Hypothesis may not be a religion, but it is none-the-less a way that I've encountered a few Jediists try to describe their understanding of the Force to explain how the Force has a "Will", but we still maintain our own free will within it. Just because it's not YOUR way of describing (it's not mine either) it doesn't mean they cannot use it for themselves as they explore the Force.

Absolutely. There's no mention of most of those terms in the doctrine, I was just borrowing your definition in order to clarify something about TotJO. We are a lot of things here, and welcome force realists, but are not force realists organizationally. My comment on larping is based on how in order to purposely delineate one's self from the larger jediism community, in my experience I've seen force realism come across as a sort of single-minded dedication to star wars which in a non-pejorative sense is very reminiscent of larping (and also a common misconception that all Jediism is essentially a star wars fan club). If you want to help me remedy my ignorance of your system, my mailbox is open to you.

Thank you for your work in defining those Alethea, it takes a lot of effort in order to make a distinction like that come into parlance.

I'm right with you there on the Gaia hypothesis.

My apologies if I came off too heavy-handed. I have many friends who follow the Sith, Shadow and (a more recent developed philosophy) Dark Jedi (which came about out of the Krath philosophies) and I'm not fond of seeing them being disrespected. Admittedly, I'd have to say that the majority of fan club people I have encountered come from the group which wants to identify as "Grey/Gray Jedi" or in general on Facebook we attract a lot that just like the idea of being called Jedi.

Facebook, as FB does, has created a number of it's own problems as we move forward. Some of the software creator's better ideas came nearly a decade too late for them to be useful (such as the "Units" system within FB Groups).

Returning to the original discussion though ^^

Going back to "divine" vs. "metaphysical", after having gone through and considering the wider definitions of both words- I wonder if "sacred" would actually be more appropriate?

We use "ubiquitous" which describes that it is everywhere in the definition as it is. Sacred, having a secondary definition of "entitled to reverence and respect" leaves the question of "why is it sacred" more open, rather than the way that "divine" is defined as being from or of God/a god.