New Degree System of Jediism?

Connor L. wrote: So, the next step would be to say... what are the areas of study we would want somebody with a B Div. to have under their belt? And, so on with the M Div. and D Div.

As mentioned earlier, I'd use an advanced application to the IP material, such as this which I'm working through
http://jordanbpeterson.com/Psy230H/ which is here;
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?action_edit=1&list=PL22J3VaeABQAhrMCQUa6sde_Y9DVbLYRv
.. and additional set stuff. With electives as well so people can personalize their study.

Then make the D. Div. a research and thesis project.

steamboat wrote:

And I personally and wholeheartedly believe we should reincorporate the M.Div and the D.Div into course-level or measurable activities, as well. Especially the D.Div, which I mentioned earlier is typically only an honorary title and not one that showcases work on a topic.

i agree, and it's something i'm considering/working on...the trick is getting everything sorted and getting enough on board for it....i'm still in the "getting everything sorted" phase...as has been mentioned a few times, things are a bit of a mess, at no one's fault as the system was kind of just thrown together, then modified and adjusted over the years....a complete overhaul will take considerable time and work

IMO, degrees must represent experience and achievements, not books read or books written.

Zen was passed pretty much binary, AFAIK. Either you are or you are not. And all based on simple passage from one hands to the other.

Seems to me that those with Master- and Doctorate-type titles should be groundbreakers in some way. Like, really have done something significant as far as developing and adding to Jediism with some major kind of effort. It should be appropriately time and life consuming. Maybe the reward for earning a Doctorate-type of deal could eventually be some kind of a (humble) monetary grant to support their research.

The Noben Prize.

*giggles to herself*

Sorry, I'll show myself out.

D.Div was awarded to cardinals/Councillors at totjo.

The degree scheme was created at a time when rank was randomly given to people. It was started as a trial scheme for knights and above by Mark Anjuu, who had himself become GM and Bishop with very little training here. It was later made a requirement within the ranking system, in order to "repair" it. That's why these days apprenticeships last such a long time.

People with degrees get certain titles. At totjo, We call a graduate (bachelor's degree) a "senior knight" or a "master" if they have also trained a few knights. I don't see what's so wrong with that.

To Bring the question back: if degree system is for selfstudy purpose. How does it make difference if we have ranks?

Aqua wrote: To Bring the question back: if degree system is for selfstudy purpose. How does it make difference if we have ranks?

If you think about it, it makes all the difference. There are two ways to read self-study here :

• Study that one does by oneself
• Study of oneself by oneself

A teaching master - like a Zen master - is just an accompaniment, a reference, someone to tell you that you're fooling yourself. The Knight who can teach has nothing to teach - not in the way your college professor does. One cannot teach someone else who they are. Let's liken the path of the Hero to that of Individuation (again, that does not mean individualism, which is very much the contrary) - the encounter with the Self (not the phenomenal "me"). What we do here in the TotJO is "the way for stupid people" as Watts talked about. It is hard, we rigorously go looking for that "right way", "that special thing" that'll get me to enlightenment. "The easy way for smart people" is just to recognise the "tat tvam asi" and let it go at that ...

So, since we're on the "hard way" (which, frankly, most everyone is), then we need to break it down. The IP is where one could very well be encountering some of these ideas for the very first time in their lives. These are not just things to be considered and done to get on to the juicier bits later ... They are the principles at the very core of that pathway - which, every individual's path is unique to that individual. The reason why the core lessons in the IP seem so vague is because precision is impossible. This can only be talked about symbolically. And symbols do not do the same as signs do ; symbols are never - nor can they be - adequate to convey an accurate conception of that to which they refer. It has to be a vital, not a mental, experience.

Our ranks show to what degree one has actually interacted with these ideas, these principles and paradoxes ... With someone else who does (not "has done") the same with some regularity. It is "self-study" because one cannot be "taught" this stuff the way one gets "taught" history (though it may be very well like once could be "taught" piano). It is "self study" because one is 'studying' oneself, in order to get to know what we mean when we say "I". "Who am I ?" is one of the very elemental existential questions (sein < ~ > da-sein) .... A Knight may not be any closer to or better than anyone else who allows him/herself to be confronted by the question (in other words, takes off their comfort/convenience armour), but is someone who has, time and time again, dealt with this sort of questioning. And it is the sort of questioning that one finds in the very first part of the very first lesson in the IP.

Aqua wrote: To Bring the question back: if degree system is for selfstudy purpose. How does it make difference if we have ranks?

Ranks here are only level of commitment to the path, and showing TOTJO membership your seriousness..

I like think "the higher the rank, the more aware of how little they know"... hahaha...

The ranks are unimportant, yet, their symbolism lets folks "know" something at a glance about them....

Alexandre Orion wrote:

Aqua wrote: To Bring the question back: if degree system is for selfstudy purpose. How does it make difference if we have ranks?

If you think about it, it makes all the difference. There are two ways to read self-study here :

• Study that one does by oneself
• Study of oneself by oneself

:blink: That are some serious words there. When I mind about things I see hundred and one things, when you say it like that I think: ,,Why did I not see that more early.'' Your minding about these kind of questions is opening for me, if I am allowed to ask a little bit further to it, what is the purpose to have ''two sections'' in the study of the self? What is the reason to create A and B div?

Why not creating more or less? What is the idea behind the two? What is the purpose of letting a other person know how far we are in the study of the self if it is an individual path? We all study together, it may help with interactions. Honestly I have never found a need to ask someone about their div. because I know when someone his/her mind is ahead of my own. :blush:

How do we know when the way of display is not needed? When does one person knows that a other person needs it? Why does the temple hold on to this ''layered'' way of minding when every person is different from a other? And how should I understand what a other persons ''layer'' of minding is? What would it do with me? And is it fair to give one a ''layer of minding'' while we all mind different about different parts of the self? How should I deal with these questions?

~ Aqua

Aqua wrote: To Bring the question back: if degree system is for selfstudy purpose. How does it make difference if we have ranks?

Degrees are for communicating our dedication to outsiders.
Ranks are for communicating our experiences among ourselves.