Novices of the world, unite!

Lykeios wrote: Just casting a line here

Any training master's willing to take a "novice" apprentice?

I will. I don't know of any rule that prohibits me suggesting something, discussing it and giving feedback.

Vesha wrote: Since we are on the subject of the IP, I’d like to take a moment to offer some constructive criticisms of the IP. I know most of you don’t like criticism, but I really think this will be helpful even if it’s ignored you’d at least know I’m not the only person who feels this way.

1. There is no system of feedback either way. Without posting on the forum and going through the possibility of succumbing to group think there is no way to be sure the messages on the IP are being received and interrupted usefully. There is no encouragement about giving feedback to the council about how much information was gleamed through the IP or what areas can be improved. I’m sure people will say you can contact me anytime ,but I have yet to see anyone actively taking the time to go out and question people going through the IP which would give people the sense that their part of the temple and that people care about their progress. (Just a note I did get some people asking me ,but none of them were knights or above).
2. The IP has no stated mission statement or authority. Most classes or learning programs state what general knowledge should learn by the end. There is no ethos Except for Campbell and Watts there is no part of the IP that states why this exercises can and should be useful.
3. The field is horrible and needs to be replaced and could easily be replaced with something much more scientifically accurate. This would help with not turning off new members that read it think our temple has no idea what they’re talking about from a scientific point of view.
4. Several of the lessons seems to have little to no point like exercise 6 which just has you define 3 words and then they never come up again.
5. The IP is disorganized with parts being extremely dense and well done and other parts being oddly simple. Although this may be cosmetic it’s the first thing people really see and the first chance at a good impression of professionalism. A chance to show that this is a serious religion that can help and do great things and not just a bunch of bloggers who are also star wars fans.

I've thought some of the same things. We're working on making it better. There are some areas where the purpose is not stated and that's intentional. Knowing the purpose would defeat the purpose. If you've ever participated in a psychological experiment where the meaning is not stated or misstated you know why that's necessary sometimes.

I agree and I didn't want to write too long of a criticism ,but you would think the IP is long and complex enough to gether a pretty good psychological profile without directly needing to elicit specific information or at least exercises could be stated in a way that both elicit needed information and offer value without making the person doing the exercise feel like they are being tested and studied which can make some people feel uncomfortable. In most psychology experiment people are lied to about what they are being tested on only to be thoroughly debriefed about it later.

I have always thought of the IP as an opportunity for the individual to partake in a personal journey of self-discovery. What is the point of the IP? I would also think that for each individual it will be different. What is to be learned from each of the lessons… again, that will depend on the individual.

To anyone reading, I am sure that if feedback is desired all they would have to do is contact one of the knights via PM and strike up a conversation. Most of us are pretty friendly and will to help when we can. But all we can offer is what we got from working the IP and not what another might get from it.

I don’t mind criticism at all. Other views are very helpful when working something out.

Vesha wrote: Since we are on the subject of the IP, I’d like to take a moment to offer some constructive criticisms of the IP. I know most of you don’t like criticism, but I really think this will be helpful even if it’s ignored you’d at least know I’m not the only person who feels this way.

Good post, Vesha.

Vesha wrote: 2. The IP has no stated mission statement or authority. Most classes or learning programs state what general knowledge should learn by the end. There is no ethos Except for Campbell and Watts there is no part of the IP that states why this exercises can and should be useful.

I agree in part, I understood the relevance of most if not all of it (for example, Campbell on mythology explained how a religion originating from Star Wars could be valid, amongst other things) but there was little or no commentary to go along with it. The problem is I'm not sure how much more could be done... part of the joy of the IP is that everyone will and should respond differently, coming to their own conclusions. Any kind of commentary on the exercises shouldn't be available until after the exercise is completed, otherwise it will lead people to write what they think we want to hear.

Vesha wrote: 3. The field is horrible and needs to be replaced and could easily be replaced with something much more scientifically accurate. This would help with not turning off new members that read it think our temple has no idea what they’re talking about from a scientific point of view.

Couldn't agree more; I almost didn't make it through that one and it really worried me that this place would use such ideas as (what seemed at the time to be) a foundational text. This point is so good it motivated me to reply :laugh:

Vesha wrote: 4. Several of the lessons seems to have little to no point like exercise 6 which just has you define 3 words and then they never come up again.

They remain relevant, but I agree it is weirdly sparse. Especially compared to Exercise 4 which can take weeks or months. As you said:

Vesha wrote: 5. The IP is disorganized with parts being extremely dense and well done and other parts being oddly simple.

I really enjoyed the IP (well, except The Field...) and am very grateful it exists, for free, for anyone who's interested without requiring more than signup. But yes, I think it could be better in some ways and it's good to hear this is being thought about.

Vesha wrote: 1. There is no system of feedback either way. Without posting on the forum and going through the possibility of succumbing to group think there is no way to be sure the messages on the IP are being received and interrupted usefully. There is no encouragement about giving feedback to the council about how much information was gleamed through the IP or what areas can be improved. I’m sure people will say you can contact me anytime ,but I have yet to see anyone actively taking the time to go out and question people going through the IP which would give people the sense that their part of the temple and that people care about their progress. (Just a note I did get some people asking me ,but none of them were knights or above).

This is precisely why I think a social-style group, rather than a forum section, would be beneficial to novices and initiates. If the Council and/or web admins are still against this (i.e., see no need in it) in an official capacity, then I may have to ask "permission" to do this as an unofficial, non-TotJO sanctioned extra-curricular activity with one of my "permanent Hangouts", because this is super important to me.

2. The IP has no stated mission statement or authority. Most classes or learning programs state what general knowledge should learn by the end. There is no ethos Except for Campbell and Watts there is no part of the IP that states why this exercises can and should be useful.

I find Campbell and Watts to be philosophical groundwork for the official Doctrine. While I agree that there's little in the way of what I tend to refer to as "Jedi culture" (defined here as a TotJO Pure Land specific belief structure foundation for the Temple's doctrine, liturgy, etc.) noticeable here sometimes, the underlying Doctrine is pretty clear. Campbell and Watts simply expose you to comparative world religion and Zen precepts before you learn (in the IP) about how the Doctrine is built on them. I find them important in that way, though they may not belong in the same lesson.

3. The field is horrible and needs to be replaced and could easily be replaced with something much more scientifically accurate. This would help with not turning off new members that read it think our temple has no idea what they’re talking about from a scientific point of view.

I hate "The Field", but I will fight to keep it included in the IP. I think it should probably be supplemented with "more scientifically accurate" teachings, but "The Field" itself does a lot to bridge the gap between Lucas' Force and the world we see around us. Even if it isn't scientifically accurate, it still has great philosophical and doctrinal importance because it shows many examples of similar effects in the real world, and provides a cogent (though ascientific) view through which these may be explained.

4. Several of the lessons seems to have little to no point like exercise 6 which just has you define 3 words and then they never come up again.

I call Exercise 6 the " Apologetics lesson," because those are words you need to understand for discussing any religion with a person outside of that faith. I don't think it belongs where it does (it should come later in the IP, imo), and I think it should be a little more clear about what it is, but it's still very important to the overall Jedi education. Without understanding those three words, you run the risk of coming off as a SW fanboy when discussing your religious affiliation with others, and not a "true" Jedi of the TotJO variety. (Even if many of us are both.)

5. The IP is disorganized with parts being extremely dense and well done and other parts being oddly simple. Although this may be cosmetic it’s the first thing people really see and the first chance at a good impression of professionalism.

This has been a HUGE hurdle to me attempting to complete the IP. I've been in Exercise 4 for two years this month, partly because my offline life has thrown me a lot of curveballs, but also because it's really hard to dredge through that much information in one lesson, knowing the remainder of the lessons are shorter (for the most part), and more coherent (for the most part.)

Reliah (bless her heart) asked me what I thought of the IP, and I gave her permission to copy+paste my ridiculously long rant about it to anybody who cares to hear it. If it wouldn't break any protocols or rules, and should she be suddenly inundated with PMs on the topic, I would be willing to post it in my journal or some other semi-public space for those of you who are curious (or may share the same thoughts). My main concerns are coherency and allocation of topics.

Br. John wrote: I will. I don't know of any rule that prohibits me suggesting something, discussing it and giving feedback.

Though I always feel like I'm bothering him when I ask a question, Br. John has been the biggest help for me getting through the IP so far. He's suggested additional reading that could help me ease my way into the lessons, he's been open and upfront about his thoughts about things, and he is very willing to listen. If I ever get over this "Br. John is too busy for you" mindset, I'll probably bug him all the way through my IP.

Wescli Wardest wrote: I have always thought of the IP as an opportunity for the individual to partake in a personal journey of self-discovery. What is the point of the IP? I would also think that for each individual it will be different. What is to be learned from each of the lessons… again, that will depend on the individual.

And I agree. Now. The problem is that this concept that "how you interpret the lesson is as much a test as the lesson itself" mindset isn't explained to you until you get frustrated and ask for help. And, honestly, at that point it feels like a kick in the teeth, because you're already sure the whole thing is going over your head. If you want to make sure that people really believe that their interpretation of these lessons is part of their answer, this should be said very often and very clearly, especially in the Introduction to the IP itself. Elsewise, people are going to get really flustered.

To anyone reading, I am sure that if feedback is desired all they would have to do is contact one of the knights via PM and strike up a conversation.

In a system with a hierarchy, that's not always a possibility. I know that the hierarchy isn't meant to cause division, but to some folks it naturally will. Unless it's someone who has repeatedly shown their willingness to take the time to literally answer any question or PM, or they PM me first, I hate trying to strike up conversations with Councilors and Masters, and even many Knights. That whole lesson 6 bit about "etiquette" comes into play here, for me--I've been raised since birth that we don't bug our "betters" unless they acknowledge they have time for us.

The reason I keep suggesting (in public and in private) a Novice/Initiate group is that it would be an actively evolving conversation about the IP, and any Knight, Master, or Councilor that wanted could just enter the group, lurk for a few discussions, and see exactly what everyone currently in the IP (and freshly out of it) thought of the presentation of the material. If there is a problem, it will come up more than just two or three times, and this way you don't have to ask a Novice to go out of their comfort zone to seek out someone who may be too busy, or having a bad day, or swamped with sermon-writing or sitework to ask your "tiny question" to. As an FNG at this site, some of that was super intimidating to me in a way that I don't experience in my daily life.

I know you guys are working on a revised/new/improved IP, and I understand it takes a long time and a lot of energy and effort. I do feel that TPTB know best, but I also think that those of us in the IP currently (or those who are fresh out of it, or those who have dropped out of it but are still on the site) have a lot of insight to give, and we've not been asked for input. From a PR standpoint, rather than restructuring it the way you want and then fielding complaints if it's not any "better" from a Novice's standpoint than what came before it, you'll win more points by asking us our opinions and then doing whatever it is you wanted to the IP regardless. At least the latter way we're content with the illusion of choice, even if you ultimately feel our ideas are detrimental to the design process.

But this is all just my opinion. YMMV, MTFBWY

I loved and hated the IP and found it almost impossible to ask complete strangers questions when I felt I didn't understand or wanted something clarified.
But, one of the main things I found was that I was doing this for myself, in order to do this journey and improve my life and the lives of those around me, I had to have the strength to do this alone at first, I had to discover for myself if what I found made sense, if my beliefs and the beliefs here fit, many times I considered leaving, The field was one of my sticking points but I re-read it again and again and while the science is beyond me, the lessons it contained were valuable.
I think talking over ideas would be useful, not just to novices, there is always something we could learn, but one danger would be that others who you talk with could find your explanation or ideas better than theirs and what they then wrote in there journal would not be a true expression of themselves.
Everyone see's something different in each lesson and I'd rather understand them and try to help if I can individually than read a group idea of something. Not that a discussion group is bad idea.

Whenever I ran an organization the most important thing I ever did was go and seek out feedback from people ,because if you just say anyone can contact me you only get a certain kind of person that will go out of his way to contact you and that's people who are already happy and engaged. It's the people who are not that into it and who you want to be engaged that you need to find out why there sitting on the sidelines. Simply engaging them makes them feel important and gives them the opportunity to possible give ideas which turns the temple from "a jedi temple" to "their jedi temple." In my experience some of these introverted people have some of the best ideas.

Some people do try to talk and involve others, even when they first don't ask for help. But it is down to the individual too.
Have you actually started a group? Is there something you need to ask about the IP?
People will join in if you start a thread on a particular topic , even if they won't pm.

I am all for creating a sub-community of novices. I think that it would give a bit more structure and support for those starting out. I am not big on chats, mostly because I like to pop in and out, and take time to compose thoughts, but perhaps we can have a forum section that is open to novices and higher, as I assume apprentices do. This would give a semi-private place away from guests and members for those who are actively involved in the IP and working toward their intiatehood. But, I also think that the "Confused?" section of the forum does this job quite well already. I consult it from time to time for clarification, and that has been all I needed to keep myself on track without bugging others too much.

Going along with this point, and responding to some of the comments I have seen regarding the IP, it seems that a simple solution to some of these frustrations would be an addition of an introduction to the IP past exercise III. Basically, it would more clearly explain the purpose of the exercises, and why they are vague and somewhat open-ended. Much of what I am hearing is that people don't get the "how you interpret the question is as important as how you answer it" spiel until they get confused and come running to the forum for help. Maybe having this explained more explicitly from the beginning would remedy some of that confusion before it starts.

Consider my $0.02 deposited.