Some questions from a passer-by

TheDude wrote: Sorry, I'm a little late to this, but I'll try to answer your questions as best I can. I'm sure other people have gotten to it but I'll say what I can.

Hi there! Nice to meet you (first of all thanks for the lengthy reply, I really appreciate it)

TheDude wrote: I believe that this is the result of the vast majority of people coming from an Abrahamic background and not taking into account that others may need education on their religion of origin as much as they may need education on less popular and often misunderstood religious traditions such as Shinto or Vedanta. Bias is found in most places and should rightly be uncovered and removed. You should be delighted to find, however, that the TOTJO library does include religious texts from these traditions as well as a decent collection of works from Eastern and Western philosophers, some (Spinoza, for example,) coming from an Abrahamic background. The expansion of the library is, in my opinion, a wonderful thing, and there are members that you can contact if you have suggestions for the library.

This is a good thing and I appreciate the attempt to share such knowledge with people.

TheDude wrote: I can safely say that the majority of classes I've taken in philosophy and theology have taken this approach. As a college student, I think that the main approach of education is teaching someone to teach themselves; that goes back over 2000 years, with Socrates promoting much the same thing in Plato's dialogues.

Yes, Socratic dialog is extremely important and it's what I'm trying to establish here among others and myself. Nevertheless, you are right that philosophy courses do this, but a philosophy class does not claim to be a religion in and of itself.

TheDude wrote: Anti-theism deserves its spot just like everything else. Metaphysical concepts and religion are not one in the same. For example, the law of cause and effect is itself a metaphysical concept, strictly speaking. An anti-theist may or may not be accurate in asserting that God(s), often specifically Abrahamic, is a failed metaphysical concept, but that is a discussion for another time.

This is all well and good, but you're just providing more evidence that this organization is sort of just a eclectic learning platform rather than a religion in its own right as it claims to be.

TheDude wrote: The only requirement of Atheism is that they don't believe in God(s). It has nothing to do with science;

Atheism is heavily intertwined with scientific method because it only accepts things measurable by said method of being worthy of any consideration or belief.

TheDude wrote: indeed, long before science as we know it existed, the subfields of philosophy (specifically ethics, metaphysics, and natural philosophy) were filled with people who rejected any Gods. The association of Atheist and scientifically minded itself is false, though it is part of the popular image that has come along with the "new Atheist" movement.

They rejected God/gods because to them they were absurd/meaningless/un-measurable concepts. You are kidding yourself if you think atheism is not heavily reliant on only accepting measurable (scientific) things.

TheDude wrote: If I remember correctly, the Campbell section of the IP (the first "real" lesson) included a lot of information about exactly this. Lots of stuff on religious metaphor. Star Wars presents a fiction with ideas that are easy to understand and which are responsible for many of us becoming more interested in theological questions; which was, after all, part of Lucas's intention for Star Wars in the first place. Personally, I couldn't care less how seriously people take Jediism. Let the actions of members of the community speak for the qualities of the community, on all sides. But I think if two Jedi want to get married and they take their religion seriously, they should be able to have a Jedi wedding ceremony -- and when they die, they should be allowed to have a Jedi funeral.

Yes, but this is not what Campbell means by myth though. He does not mean superficial appearance in the form of funeral practices, but rather myth as story-driven explanation of why/how things exist in the world as they are.

TheDude wrote: Also, I don't own any robes or lightsabers. The fiction has little to do with what I personally believe.

May I ask then, do you call yourself a "Jedi"? and if so, what does it mean to you? Do you consider it your religion? If so, why?

TheDude wrote: These are not necessarily a part of Jediism.

Surely you can understand why someone coming into it would assume such? Especially since the site within its maxims mentions "the Force" but fails to define it in any meaningful way.

TheDude wrote: Alan Watts does well to communicate basic Chinese and Indian principles that recognize duality and at the same time recognize how trivial duality is. His book in the IP only takes 2 hours or so to read, and there's an audiobook version. I get that it's a little preachy, but it's a basic approach to the metaphysical aspects of some eastern religions and could provide you with some direction to understand why duality is unimportant, at least in the opinions of others.

I have read much of Alan Watts, but are you suggested that Jediism is in fact "Alan Wattsism"? If not, why mention him?

TheDude wrote: Nah. Like I said before, there are plenty of old and new philosophical arguments in the fields of ethics and metaethics which provide reason for objective morality without the necessity of any Gods. And there are plenty of good arguments for subjective moral standards. To insist that (1) God is necessary for objective morality and that (2) subjective morality is a problem, seems unreasonable to me without further argument.

Yes, but I'd like to know what the Jedi faith defines its ethics/metaphysics (if applicable) as and from what type of logic it comes.

TheDude wrote: There are plenty of Taoist writings on this topic which define certain boundries as naturally objective, but I wonder if the people here can help me to understand whether there is an objectivity or not?

You tell me. So is Jediism actually just Taoism with Star Wars dress-up games? You mention a lot of these things yet I don't see how it has anything to do with Jediism since none of these things are listed as official doctrine.

TheDude wrote: Jediism isn't necessarily dualistic. Reading the Watts book will answer a lot of your questions about that, though; winners don't exist without losers, losers don't exist without winners, both require each other to exist at all. That general kind of thing. It's not that darkness is the absence of light, it's that without light the concept of darkness loses all meaning.

Again, is Jediism actually just Alan Watts/loose Tao philosophy with Star Wars trappings?

Thanks for the response

Some local case law concluded that;
"We would therefore hold that, for the purposes of the law, the criteria of religion are twofold: first, belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief, though canons of conduct which offend against the ordinary laws are outside the area of any immunity, privilege or right conferred on the grounds of religion.

Those criteria may vary in their comparative importance, and there may be a different intensity of belief or of acceptance of canons of conduct among religions or among the adherents to a religion. The tenets of a religion may give primacy to one particular belief or to one particular canon of conduct. Variations in emphasis may distinguish one religion from other religions, but they are irrelevant to the determination of an individual's or a group's freedom to profess and exercise the religion of his, or their, choice."

Well the Force is that first criteria, and its capacity to be defined for you is therefore limited by its supernatural element. So given its supernatural nature, a strict definition is not required IMO in the above conclusion.

Regardless, a loose definition of the Force is provided in the Doctrine, but the focus of practitioners is the personal relationship to the Force and not the Doctrine, and therefore is left open for the individual to develop, explore, experiment, walk etc. A more dogmatic religion forces people to develop a relationship within a stricter path. This is really the only main area of difference here, and instead invites exploration in more Eastern ways to foster an experimentally driven shift in ones perception and worldview - through personal growth, in a more maximized real world capacity (by not limiting the framework to some specific established dogma).

The second criteria is covered by the other guidelines within the Doctrine which serve to allow an individual to inform contemplation of action about conduct in this regard.

Reneza, if your argument is that it is not a religion, then its not been presented in anyway which has relevance to my local legal interpretation as far as I can tell, hence why I disagree with you, and your subsequent assessments about our motivations..... and why I asked earlier how you prefer to define religion?

Reneza wrote:

Br. John wrote: There is Right and there is Wrong. There are Truths and Falsehoods.

How do you define them? ....

I was not talking to you.

Attachment h7b5b000.jpg not found

Attachment hd04b3fb.jpg not found

So close to God atheists don't believe in me either.

Reneza wrote: Yes, Socratic dialog is extremely important and it's what I'm trying to establish here among others and myself. Nevertheless, you are right that philosophy courses do this, but a philosophy class does not claim to be a religion in and of itself.

Neither do all Jedi, to my knowledge. There is open discussion as to whether Jediism should be considered a religion, legally or categorically, or if it should be seen as a philosophical system; after being in this community for nearly a year, I’ve come to see differences of opinion on this matter on this website as well as in other places.

This is all well and good, but you're just providing more evidence that this organization is sort of just a eclectic learning platform rather than a religion in its own right as it claims to be.

Insofar as I have come to know religion, a religion offers a code of conduct and a metaphysical explanation for something. For Taoists, there is no afterlife really spoken of in the traditional texts; for Buddhists, there is no dogmatic creation story. TOTJO and Jediism in general meet the qualification in my opinion, providing a code of conduct through the doctrine and a metaphysics through the Force. There can be disagreement on the nature of the Force, but that only means that Jedi are more open to discussion than some more dogmatic religious traditions.

Atheism is heavily intertwined with scientific method because it only accepts things measurable by said method of being worthy of any consideration or belief. They rejected God/gods because to them they were absurd/meaningless/un-measurable concepts. You are kidding yourself if you think atheism is not heavily reliant on only accepting measurable (scientific) things.

I do believe this to be the case while analyzing Atheism categorically or historically. The problem of evil has been used as philosophical justification for rejecting God(s), some say since Epicurus, from only an ethical point of view. If a child is born into an Atheistic family and never is taught anything of any Gods, thereby not holding any belief in Gods, that child is an Atheist regardless of their opinions or knowledge of scientific concepts. Atheism is not an organized belief system by any means. The only thing you can know from the statement “I am an Atheist” is that the person saying so doesn’t believe in any Gods; you do not have the information necessary from that statement to understand their reasoning for not believing in Gods.
Advaita Vedanta Hindus, for example, believe in a non-reductive monistic force called Brahman, and do not believe in any Gods. They’re Atheists.

Yes, but this is not what Campbell means by myth though. He does not mean superficial appearance in the form of funeral practices, but rather myth as story-driven explanation of why/how things exist in the world as they are.

And he held that all of those myths were useful, that problems came to be when people took them literally. What makes taking inspiration from Star Wars, a film, any different from taking inspiration from the Hindu Vedas, a play?

May I ask then, do you call yourself a "Jedi"? and if so, what does it mean to you? Do you consider it your religion? If so, why?

I do, because I believe in the Force as a monistic entity akin to the Advaita Vedanta Brahman while at the same time recognizing the duality proposed by Taoism and the world of appearances berated by Idealism and Nietzschean metaphysics. Jediism encompasses those beliefs while presenting a mythology which I can take inspiration from, and frankly it’s easier than saying eclectic-religion-based-on-various-Eastern-and-Western-religious-and-philosophical-traditions. If the only issue is with the term “Jediism”, I’m afraid that it’s a pretty pointless semantic issue for which we can just look to pragmatism for an answer.

Surely you can understand why someone coming into it would assume such? Especially since the site within its maxims mentions "the Force" but fails to define it in any meaningful way.

Yeah, I can see how someone would assume so, and it may be reasonable to do so, but first impressions are often wrong and I would encourage anyone making such assumptions to set them aside and look further into the subject before passing any judgment. Defining the Force is highly personal and part of each individual’s path, and a lack of a definition is, as far as I can tell, intentional by the site designers. Ultimately the only accepted rule of Jediism is to believe in the Force, but it’s up to the individual to understand what that means. Nietzsche never gave a clear definition of the “superman”, and I don’t see clear definitions of things like “right understanding” from the Buddhists, despite it being an integral part of the eightfold path.

I have read much of Alan Watts, but are you suggested that Jediism is in fact "Alan Wattsism"? If not, why mention him?

Probably because Alan Watts’s entire body of work was derivative from eastern philosophy and religion. I don’t particularly look to him for any inspiration, he just seems to be good at simply stating eastern ideas in plain English. In doing so, his books and lectures are tools that can be used – but not primary sources of inspiration. To be honest, I don't much care for him, and prefer to go to the older source material. Tao Te Ching is a good read, anyway.

Yes, but I'd like to know what the Jedi faith defines its ethics/metaphysics (if applicable) as and from what type of logic it comes.

That’s widely the purpose of the site acting as an open forum. People’s journals are open to view and everyone is encouraged to discuss what they want. Rather than dogmatic principles, dialogue is used more often than not to understand both the ethics and metaphysics of Jediism. I could, for example, say that by my definition of the Force as a non-divisible monistic entity through which all things exist in an illusory fashion, killing someone isn’t necessarily wrong because it would just be a change in the way that the Force is expressed and, anyway, they were illusory. And while justifiable if the premise of those metaphysics are accepted, it would be a practical nightmare – so discussion is necessary. My definition of the Force should, too, be open to debate so that those things which stem from that definition won’t be problematic.

So is Jediism actually just Taoism with Star Wars dress-up games? You mention a lot of these things yet I don't see how it has anything to do with Jediism since none of these things are listed as official doctrine.

You say that as if it’s a bad thing! But really, Jediism either does or doesn’t have anything to do with Taoism, depending on who you ask. It’s a new religion, anyway; there isn’t absolutely clear consensus on anything at all. The other religions have had a much longer time to get all of their ideas together into one package, and if Jediism sticks around – I hope it does – then maybe what you’re looking for will exist eventually.
Even the official doctrine isn’t official. It changes, and different Jedi communities have different ideals. Some take the fiction very seriously. Others, like me, don’t. I find the mythology of Star Wars being used as a tool to represent ancient ideas to be an effective method for spiritual growth, so that’s good enough for me.

Force has many definitions

Here are some definitions:
noun: force; - a person or thing regarded as exerting power or influence
- mental or moral strength or power
- the powerful effect of something

That is just a few definitions, now they are literal definitions. To me the Force represents the energy of the universe, it exerts power and influence. How we use that influence can determine things in our lives, like anger turning into violence, love turning into stalking, and so on. Through knowledge we can use that influence to better ourselves and those around us. A simple example, I remember the first time I stepped on Lego, I screamed and it hurt more than anything. So I use that knowledge and pass it on to those around me so they don't step on it.

I view the Force as an invisible energy, and as per the law of conservation of energy; Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another. So I believe when I die, the energy that forms me will be transformed back into the Force and I will become part of it. What happens after that? I don't know, but I'm sure it will be interesting. And as my knowledge grows, as will my interpretation of what the Force is and does.

May the Force be with you

Desolous wrote: I agree with the assessment of Firewolf and Adder. This 'conversation' has gone on long enough.

Just stop putting fuel on the fire. You know what he wants he tweaks you by always having the last word. IMHO

Internet troll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Trolling" redirects here. For other uses, see Troll (disambiguation).
"Please do not feed the troll" redirects here. For the Wikipedia advice, see Wikipedia:Deny recognition.

Don't feed the trolls sign, near Fløyen, Bergen, Norway
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

Psychological characteristics
Two studies published in 2013 and 2014 have found that people who are identified as trolls tend to have dark personality traits and show signs of sadism, antisocial behavior, psychopathy, and machiavellianism.[42][43] The 2013 study suggested that there are a number of similarities between anti-social and flame trolling activities[42] and the 2014 study suggested that the noxious personality characteristics known as the "dark triad of personality" should be investigated in the analysis of trolling, and concluded that trolling appears "to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism."[43] Their relevance is suggested by research linking these traits to bullying in both adolescents and adults. The 2014 study found that trolls operate as agents of chaos on the Internet, exploiting hot-button issues to make users appear overly emotional or foolish in some manner. If an unfortunate person falls into their trap, trolling intensifies for further, merciless amusement. This is why novice Internet users are routinely admonished, "Do not feed the trolls!" The 2013 study found that trolls often have a high expectation of what it means to be successful, which is higher than they are able to attain, and this results in them resenting others who think they are successful but who fall below their standards.

Have a nice day. Peace

#constructive meta ontopic

On Jedi discourse guidelines thread we, for now, agreed only on ~this:

"Brevity is a sister of talent"
-- A.P. Chekhov

There was a man, we shall call him Zenera...

He went to a small village, and demanded proof of their God...

And despite many attempts, from many of the brightest the village had to offer, and even the village "clown", no answer was good enough...

"Can you not even provide me proof so I too, may fall to my knees in awe? How difficult a task could it be? Your answers hold, no merit, not meat... Since you cannot answer me, I must take all you have told me, and my vast intelligence, and make my own conclusion that you are "mad" (he meant 'crazy', but they talked like that in the days of old), liars, or children believing in fairie tales! Your words have no weight!" Zenera exclaimed...

After a pause, the village idiot, Nestor, (There was another called Nestor, he was the son of Neleus and Chloris and the King of Pylos. He became king after Heracles killed Neleus and all of Nestor's siblings... , this is a different Nestor) says out loud, to the wind, wonderingly:

"As you must use your intelligence to formulate your own answers about the things we have said, so do we about our wondrous God...

We cannot understand the language he/she speaks, but rather have to look to the clues he (probably 'she', due to superior intelligence) shows us...

So, trying to take all the information we are provided, we have formulated our answers the best we can...

Then, we try to explain our answers to others, they do not speak the same language as we do, as they come from other villages, we have yet further breakdowns, and misunderstandings...."

To Zerera, he said, "Just as you must try to make you own understanding of our ways and customs, so must we about our God... Can u you understand this? Does this 'click the light bulb'?"

(I wrote this, and got interrupted, and can see nothing past my own post with the story, and it has been 30 minutes... Hopefully this is still timely, lol...)

Rickie wrote:

Desolous wrote: I agree with the assessment of Firewolf and Adder. This 'conversation' has gone on long enough.

Just stop putting fuel on the fire. You know what he wants he tweaks you by always having the last word. IMHO

Warning: Spoiler!

Internet troll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Trolling" redirects here. For other uses, see Troll (disambiguation).
"Please do not feed the troll" redirects here. For the Wikipedia advice, see Wikipedia:Deny recognition.

Don't feed the trolls sign, near Fløyen, Bergen, Norway
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

Psychological characteristics
Two studies published in 2013 and 2014 have found that people who are identified as trolls tend to have dark personality traits and show signs of sadism, antisocial behavior, psychopathy, and machiavellianism.[42][43] The 2013 study suggested that there are a number of similarities between anti-social and flame trolling activities[42] and the 2014 study suggested that the noxious personality characteristics known as the "dark triad of personality" should be investigated in the analysis of trolling, and concluded that trolling appears "to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism."[43] Their relevance is suggested by research linking these traits to bullying in both adolescents and adults. The 2014 study found that trolls operate as agents of chaos on the Internet, exploiting hot-button issues to make users appear overly emotional or foolish in some manner. If an unfortunate person falls into their trap, trolling intensifies for further, merciless amusement. This is why novice Internet users are routinely admonished, "Do not feed the trolls!" The 2013 study found that trolls often have a high expectation of what it means to be successful, which is higher than they are able to attain, and this results in them resenting others who think they are successful but who fall below their standards.

Have a nice day. Peace

YOu know, when people are having a conversation in a public area, people are free to walk away, trun to their phone, or simply tune things out, and think about dinner...

No one forces (lol) anyone to read, or participate...

Do you know how many I skip?

THis one intersts me, and like a conversation in real life, I dont feel I am done...

When we are trying to understand our 'anger, and we get pushed, and pushed, to the point of having to control it for fear of going to jail, or some other action....

It is like hitting the wall...

You get so worked up, so pissed, so mad, that at the climax, you either snap (few really do) or, you collapse in upon yourself in resignation that you cannot control the situation, 'deal with it'...

On the internet, we can 'lock' a thread, and MAKE people shut up in t... At least for that thread...

But, if we were treat the internet like the real world, then you just have to learn to ignore the attempts of people to irritate you, and push your buttons...

I recieved an PM saying how' my sarcasm was epic' or something... IM not being sarcastic...

Ok, the last 'story' might have been a touch, but mostly, I was going tit-for tat- against a person ina conversation...

This is called debate, it can get heated, ugly... But, as long as no name calling is done, it is ok...