ATTN: COUNCIL; Updated Doctrine Proposal

Just talking still..
A lot of what I post is quotable and usable for a reason.

Truthfully in case your wondering the term “Jeddist” or modern day Jeddist is off the Disney radar. Using the term”a Jedi or Jedi - still belong to some one else.

What little time I did speak and take with Daniel M . we both realized and use this term for books and quotes so... we don’t get in Trouble. There is also that factor. Filling pages with the word Jedi is kinna dangerous in this day and age too- Disney went against deadmau5 ( a independent dj) on just his mask alone to look too much like the Mickey silhouette... just think what they will do to these books and thing we as a community are pulling out with their words in it? Something to think about as we move tword things like this more and more. As Jeddist we are smart - think about it. That alone in a proposal can’t be ignored no matter the wonderful usefulness or not.


Other unofficial means or un official sites may get away with it but we are a bit more ... of a target as we are official and have the license to loose more than most. Just saying that’s pretty real talk. Things may need adjusting even as they are now as well. Food for thought .
Edit : I don’t ever wanna be the rain in peoples celebration. Not my goal. I’m not saying no at all just - adjust as we go.

“Jedi” isn’t actually a problem or Disney would be all over several people in the community for having published works. And American Jedi would have never made it into production. Even when they went after the lightsaber group “New York Jedi” “Jedi” wasn’t a part of the dispute. We need to lay that fear aside .

A lot of people dislike that word “meditation” because they associate it with strictly Eastern styles, but if you’re thinking deeply upon something, you’re (by definition) meditating.

It’s not that I mind that particular edit. I just dislike all the hate around the word “meditate” .

My screen is really small so I can hit other points later but:

Be objective doesn’t actually cover 15. Because attachments also affect your ability to move in harmony with the Force. There’s a woman i know of whom can’t move on from her son’s death about 5 years ago. Now it’s not that she’s still mourning the loss- it’s that she literally can’t get on with anything else in her life. If we left this to “objectivity”, it ignores the process one has to go through to get through their grief. Okay- I can hear it: But doesn’t 3 take care of that? No, because compassion is an outward illustration we give to others- it’s not linked specifically to what we need to do for ourselves. 15 is entirely a focus on the self and moving past the obstacles we’ve put in our lives- where most of the others deal with interpersonal relationship.

And on 13: Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to limit it down to “A Jedi tolerates what is not Jedi, and only pass judgment against that which inflicts harm upon another being.” i explained it in the other thread but to recap- I felt like tolerance was the primary focus of this particular tenet. Though it seems worded with the intent to get across that Jedi have a “warrior monk” tone to them. Leaving the portion about justice was a nod in the direction of the epic hero’s journey, whom set out to actually help the world around them as they gain further knowledge of themselves.

That’s all I can do for the moment, lol. Gotta get back to work. But I’ll be back ^^, and hoped more discussion will have spurred.

Be objective doesn’t actually cover 15. Because attachments also affect your ability to move in harmony with the Force. There’s a woman i know of whom can’t move on from her son’s death about 5 years ago. Now it’s not that she’s still mourning the loss- it’s that she literally can’t get on with anything else in her life. If we left this to “objectivity”, it ignores the process one has to go through to get through their grief. Okay- I can hear it: But doesn’t 3 take care of that? No, because compassion is an outward illustration we give to others- it’s not linked specifically to what we need to do for ourselves. 15 is entirely a focus on the self and moving past the obstacles we’ve put in our lives- where most of the others deal with interpersonal relationship.

I see your point in that it is two different meanings. I'm not sure that "A jedi cultivates a state of robust of mental health and the ability to cope with loss and unexpected emotional trauma" is a particular goal or trait of Jediism. There may be a better way to phrase it.

And on 13: Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to limit it down to “A Jedi tolerates what is not Jedi, and only pass judgment against that which inflicts harm upon another being.” i explained it in the other thread but to recap- I felt like tolerance was the primary focus of this particular tenet. Though it seems worded with the intent to get across that Jedi have a “warrior monk” tone to them. Leaving the portion about justice was a nod in the direction of the epic hero’s journey, whom set out to actually help the world around them as they gain further knowledge of themselves.

Sure. I was just trimming what was there as I read it, I wasn't really looking into the principles themselves past face value. That Jedi don't proselytise is certainly a good point, as is that Jedi don't go around purity testing everyone for the sheer hell of it, but on re reading (13) a few more times, I'm more and more of the mind that it doesn't need to be there at all.

It's certainly something to teach, in case a student asks "Why don't we go around telling everyone else they are stupid and they should join us?"

It also stands out as being your only principle which is a "Do not" instead of a "Do"

Perhaps something like "A Jedi embraces diversity of thought" (doesn't feel right, but something better has not presented itself to me yet)

I like the use of meditate. It’s still -now- 2019 a word that can still mean moment of recognition / think time - quiet time - pause time- stoping - thinking - time outs - zazen moments- it’s still for me that idea of time reverend. I think that’s the right word. But for me that’s a real every day word. That sacred time. Label it and use it how ever but we all know that’s what that is type of thing. At least for me. I totally understand the idea of diss association from contemporary terms as well. Some times I think more than actual meditate some days. I still have a healthy balance I think of my whole actual practice but as far as that word... I’ll use it till I find others using other terms for it- I’ll use those when I learn of them. Smiley face. And that’s always my question - then what do you call it or use as?

“A Jedi tolerates what is not Jedi, and only pass judgment against that which inflicts harm upon another being.”

Eating inflicts harm on other beings. Are Jedi to pass judgment on eaters? What about those who vote for the wrong political party or candidate? You know, the one thats ruining (thus harming) the whole country? Shouldnt Jedi pass judgment on them?

OB1Shinobi wrote: “A Jedi tolerates what is not Jedi, and only pass judgment against that which inflicts harm upon another being.”

Eating inflicts harm on other beings. Are Jedi to pass judgment on eaters? What about those who vote for the wrong political party or candidate? You know, the one thats ruining (thus harming) the whole country? Shouldnt Jedi pass judgment on them?

No.

lol- maybe we should put “real” back into that line.

Eating animals in and of itself isn’t harm- it’s an engagement in the natural food chain. At some point, you reach unreasonable judgements of each other- food (a necessity for survival) shouldn’t be on the table.

A good conversation to be had, though, is whether or not a Jedi should strive to eat as ethically as they are financially capable.

In terms of political ideology- there is a lot of moving parts there. When you have a corrupt government, it’s hard to judge anyone’s decisions of who should and shouldn’t be in elected leadership positions. I personally refuse to judge anyone by their basic political affiliation. I’ll judge them on the merit of their personality and actions, as those speak more clearly of their intentions than a vote or general support of a candidate. But that’s me, and I place a high emphasis on personal responsibility over Durkheim’s “Collective Conscious”.

This thread, and the post which started it, comes from a place of (perfectly valid and reasonable) opinion. The post above is a great example - your opinion is eating animals "isn't harm". For many others, it is, and they choose not to do it, thus Vegetarianism and Veganism exist.

As you know well Alethea, Jediism is a broad church indeed, taking in any number of perspectives. There are many alternative, er, outlets, which take a greater or lesser influence from the EU materials referred to in this part of the doctrine. Some discard them entirely (my personal practice does, too).

The problem I perceive in instituting doctrinal change is, the doctrine as it stands is what brought this specific community of Jedi to this place in particular. Changing it because of an opinion you happen to have will have the consequence of alienating those of differing opinion and should at least require broad consensus this is "a good thing", something this thread seems to demonstrate is not the case. So the question for me is: is it worth alienating an unspecified number of people who are invested in this community as it is, to appease an unspecified number of people whom:
a) are already here and doing just fine despite this issue in particular,
b) have plenty of choice to go find/start something more aligned with their personal preferences elsewhere,
c) maybe haven't found this place yet, and are thus not invested in it already

For you, it is broken and thus needs fixing. But I don't perceive that as the prevailing attitude? I don't see a ton of chat about this in other threads or hear of significant work to check people actually want this prior to coming forward with a proposal? Of all the problems this place has, which people do talk about... why is this the one to merit change?

Anyone notice that participation (and incidentally opposition) really only seemed to ramp up once this began to look as though it was actually going somewhere?

You know, just sayin'... where were y'all a month ago when this input might have been more relevant??

Just because it's not something said publicly, doesn't mean that over the last decade it hasn't been expressed several times over that there are issues.

I could easily argue that the doctrine itself hasn't actually been useful at all- based on the fact that it is rarely cited. It's just a background piece. In which case, one might even argue that the doctrine should be scrapped entirely and we move forward without one.

But that would ignore the efforts of people before us that tried to make the doctrine worthwhile for the population. It would also ignore that the document itself helps bring validity to anyone that takes on the mantle of "Jedi". Stripping it away entirely would also prevent us from ever getting recognized in the UK as a Religious Charity too. So there's a lot of reasons to retain a doctrine.

I get it, change is hard. But through change we grow. Look around you, ToTJO has had a number of problems in the past few years with retention. Clearly, there are a number of things we are doing wrong, and it's time for change.

I know for a fact that there were members who left simply because they didn't have support from council members to redo the training here at ToTJO. They would start with a project, and were left to use their own initiative. Do you know what some of them felt the reason for that was? I do, I talked with a few- They felt like the knights and masters had already gotten what they came for: Rank. Though, I disagree with that assessment myself, I recognize how the atmosphere created that kind of feeling.

Moving forward is the only way we reclaim this place. And it starts with establishing who we are. The current doctrine doesn't actually reflect who we are. It doesn't even reflect who we want to be. So let's fix that. Let's move forward, not backward, and not standing still.