ATTN: COUNCIL; Updated Doctrine Proposal

More
15 Oct 2019 02:21 #344426 by Alethea Thompson
The book is available on Amazon. :)

The document itself can be accessed here: www.forceacademy.us/library/index.php?ti...y_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 ^^)
The following user(s) said Thank You: Neaj Pa Bol, Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Oct 2019 03:00 - 15 Oct 2019 03:01 #344428 by Proteus

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.

It seems that I know that I know.
What I would like to see is the 'I' that knows me when I know that I know that I know.
- Alan Watts
Last edit: 15 Oct 2019 03:01 by Proteus.
The following user(s) said Thank You: steamboat28, ren, Nicole Judge, Carlos.Martinez3, Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Oct 2019 03:59 #344429 by Alethea Thompson
:) 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.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Oct 2019 04:10 #344430 by Proteus
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.

It seems that I know that I know.
What I would like to see is the 'I' that knows me when I know that I know that I know.
- Alan Watts
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, Rex

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Oct 2019 12:28 #344431 by Alethea Thompson
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. :D I imagine they all go through the same frustrations of trying to change or update our laws.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Carlos.Martinez3, Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Oct 2019 13:09 - 15 Oct 2019 13:10 #344432 by forestjedi
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.
Last edit: 15 Oct 2019 13:10 by forestjedi.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Rex

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Oct 2019 14:28 #344433 by Alethea Thompson
Not at all. Look at the words again- there are people advocating for no change based on “we all got here because of this”. That’s not an advocacy for looking at the possibility of change- it’s specifically against change.

I’m neither an optimist nor a pessimist. I recognize there are people in this thread and the other who are willing to at least entertain the idea. I also recognize that there are those who actively are reluctant to entertain it.

It’s easy to see what I’m saying as an outright hostile attack. Hostility isn’t my aim, getting quality engagement is.

This thread should return to the topic though. We’re getting sidetracked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Carlos.Martinez3, Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Oct 2019 14:59 #344434 by forestjedi
Sorry, but that's just more of the same, and I disagree this is a "sidetrack" - this is the crux of the issue. Some don't want this to change, and before enacting that change I think you need to address that.

We gather here under nothing but the shared doctrine - that is, the core of what this place is, and what brings people here, and what we do here, is contained in the doctrine.

A change could be to add something to the doctrine. A change could be to remove a chat room. A change could be to increase the number of sermons, start a new forum for recipes or bring in a weekly video chat with the Council.

There are any number of changes which do not invalidate that "we all got here because of this", which is in my estimation something meaningful and important (and worthy of the respect of not simply being discarded on a whim), yet which you are all but disregarding - as I say, you are being disingenuous to suggest not wanting to change this specific thing means never being open to any change in any way.

I happen to think this change is a bad one with limited value and significant risk to the people the doctrine is for, and the negativity which is transparent in many responses to this thread is not helping change my mind.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Rex

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Oct 2019 15:17 #344436 by Alethea Thompson
But this discussion isn't about those things. Now it seems you're making the discussion more broad than it is.

When I said I'm hearing "I don't want change", the discussion was in HERE, no? So why would the "I don't want change" be applied to anything but the Doctrine?

As I said, we're getting sidetracked. Let's get back to talking about the only thing this discussion really is targeting: The Doctrine. If we get caught up in other discussions, this thread will just become a Filibuster to eat up time until people are sick of hearing from anyone else.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Oct 2019 16:56 #344441 by Lumella
This discussion is very ego driven , and the responses are not very promising. Much flexing , much ruffled featheres , little consideration for eachothers replies.

A few questions :

Who wrote the Doctrine?
How does He/She feel about changing it ?
Is said person consulted ( if still able off course )?
The following user(s) said Thank You: Nicole Judge, Carlos.Martinez3, Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.