The Knights Code

JamesSand wrote: I enjoy gender bending as much as the next bloke, but wouldn't it be fanboying?

Not with this much squealing giddiness lol

The above post's mention of "rite of passage" - I agree, but the availability of the Code for sake of data and consideration, with the specification that such is only expected to be applied/upheld by those who would be knights, though such qualities are encouraged of everyone's heart as a direction to shoot for, would only be for providing said sense of direction. Even if knighthood not be one's ultimate goal, it provides a sense of direction for the path we all take, wherever upon which we may find our individual place for ourselves. Having the Code available for such inspiration and encouragement is, of course, not the same as *being* a knight, after all. Such would take commitment, as should be made clear upon inclusion, along with stating its availability for directional inspiration for all Jedi.

Should the Code be available to all? Yes. Should it be Doctrine? Maybe not, as it won't be applicable to all TOTJO Jedi, just as seminary training isn't applicable to all. I'm advocating flexibility and specialization as one travels further along the path, rather than putting a ton of information to consider upfront as part of the foundation of TOTJO Jediism. It can be overwhelming as it is. Just my thoughts as I continue to consider the topic.

with the specification that such is only expected to be applied/upheld by those who would be knights

What about those of us who would not be Knights?

Can we opt for being the helpless than the Knight defends? The forsaken that are sheltered? The despairing that are given courage? The lurkers in the dark?

I'm advocating flexibility and specialization as one travels further along the path, rather than putting a ton of information to consider upfront as part of the foundation of TOTJO Jediism

I like this. Part of the attraction (and I know many see it as a failing...) of TotJO Jediism is it's simplicity and flexibility.

I was kicked out of the Taoism club for getting tattoos (and the Anarcy club for having too much money and not sharing it....) - My point is, the more exclusive and specific the rules and guidelines...well, it might look better on a poster, or make a better organisation for the plot of a book...and you can have the finest described club in the world - With no members

Senan wrote: Should the Code be available to all? Yes. Should it be Doctrine? Maybe not, as it won't be applicable to all TOTJO Jedi, just as seminary training isn't applicable to all. I'm advocating flexibility and specialization as one travels further along the path, rather than putting a ton of information to consider upfront as part of the foundation of TOTJO Jediism. It can be overwhelming as it is. Just my thoughts as I continue to consider the topic.

Interesting point. I've always thought that completing Seminary should have been a part of the Apprenticeship requirements because to me the mindset of Clergy is integral to the concept of a 'light' Knight versus a 'dark' Knight, as the concepts around Knighthood can easily be amalgamated into a troop or clique hierarchical brotherhood at the expense of those outside of it.... while to me its the merging of the Clerical and Knightly in the warrior monk ethos which better represents the best model of Jedi Knight. Which is why I view the Knight Code as sitting in the doctrine as the community 'action' and responsibility mode of being a Jedi....... compared to having 'specializations' and fragmenting the core hero journey into two many phases. But then again I"m not sure the doctrine is meant to be memorized necessarily anyway so for me a rich doctrine is not a hard doctrine but one of wider applicability. It's interesting how different perspectives see things differently!!

There are some lessons in the Seminary which are also available to Apprentices in the DQS. I would like to keep it like that.

And, since Seminary is a series of lessons much like the IP, I wouldn't be adverse to these same lessons being done in both pursuits as long as they are done as two lessons (that is, not getting one go at it counted twice).

It doesn't matter to me whether the Knights' Code is Doctrine or not. I would prefer for it to be, but not so much as to get hung up about it.

The symbol that it alludes to is sacred ; the words themselves are not (Te 81). The symbol can be as powerful to those who are not Knights, who do not become nor wish to become Knights as it is to those of us whose vocation it is and for whom we could not not have become Knights.

The images in the Knights' Code are a good exercise in contemplating the self/other/self-other relationships, if the Code is not taken too literally. Beyond discerning who these helpless, despairing, forsaken and wicked are (are they really 'other people' in all cases ?), were I just to ask you "what is Valour ? What is Courage ?" would you be able to do much better with it than Lachès (Plato) did with it ?

I'm not trying to be difficult here. These notions are difficult. That is why we have symbols for them and not actual, concrete signs. Once we solidify what we think about a value, we have to take pause : what is re-presenting that value since a value cannot be presented in the first place ? Is that re-presentation close to allegorical, is it reliable, is it perhaps too broad or narrow ? Have we fallen once again into the trap of letting the simulacre precede the subject of simulation ?

Does anyone see where I'm going with this ? :laugh:

Adder wrote: Interesting point. I've always thought that completing Seminary should have been a part of the Apprenticeship requirements because to me the mindset of Clergy is integral to the concept of a 'light' Knight versus a 'dark' Knight, as the concepts around Knighthood can easily be amalgamated into a troop or clique hierarchical brotherhood at the expense of those outside of it.... while to me its the merging of the Clerical and Knightly in the warrior monk ethos which better represents the best model of Jedi Knight. Which is why I view the Knight Code as sitting in the doctrine as the community 'action' and responsibility mode of being a Jedi....... compared to having 'specializations' and fragmenting the core hero journey into two many phases. But then again I"m not sure the doctrine is meant to be memorized necessarily anyway so for me a rich doctrine is not a hard doctrine but one of wider applicability. It's interesting how different perspectives see things differently!!

Not everyone views a Jedi as a 'warrior monk' which is why, in my opinion, it is a good thing that they are not made to be part of the same path here. Besides, one can be the 'monk' on the 'warrior' path, without needing to be clergy and without considering themselves the 'warrior'. And being clergy, does not make one a 'monk'...

Edan wrote: Not everyone views a Jedi as a 'warrior monk' which is why, in my opinion, it is a good thing that they are not made to be part of the same path here. Besides, one can be the 'monk' on the 'warrior' path, without needing to be clergy and without considering themselves the 'warrior'. And being clergy, does not make one a 'monk'...

Yea, I wasn't trying to recruit for the Clergy, which is why I said 'mindset of Clergy' and 'completion of Seminary'. Noting one does not automatically be Clergy just because they successfully complete the Seminary. In the real world there is not much use for a monk or warrior outside of their narrow job descriptions, but Knight and indeed Jedi Knight can bring the benefits of those areas into broader application into the modern world. At least that is how I see it.

Adder wrote: ...I"m not sure the doctrine is meant to be memorized necessarily anyway so for me a rich doctrine is not a hard doctrine but one of wider applicability.

Yeah, the entire doctrine is *way* too much to memorize all at once... or at least, to be expected of any to do. Therefore, not adding the Code because it would be too much to have there just isn't very realistic a reason, imho... it's no worse than adding a small paper cup full of beer to a keg - people will still gladly drink from that keg without feeling overly burdened.

But I should mention again that I'm not *as* all-fired to include it on the same page as the Doctrine as much as I'm concerned that it should be readily available to see and ponder anywhere, wherever, as opposed to *only* being a link tucked away in a specific IP lesson. The idea of it being included (even if only the link to it itself) on the Doctrine page, if nothing else, is simply convenient. But if not there, then *somewhere* plain to see, and readily available to the inquiring minds who seek it.

Is that so wrong/difficult/inappropriate??

I don't know - maybe it is? I'm open to understand it.

Why would anyone want to memorise the Doctrine ?

Contrary to popular belief, memorisation is not the most efficient way of learning something. Refer to it often enough and it gets familiar as to be able to guide us without us having to quote it word-for-word or know which of the sixteen teachings is what number...

As it were, memorising it would not ingrain it in our subconscious as to its intent ; indeed, one is risking that it should become idle mind-chatter.

Take the "Lord's Prayer", for instance. I uttered that quite often enough to be able to recite it whilst actually thinking about something entirely unrelated. And honestly, it was only in the past few years that I really had an understanding of what those words were alluding to -- beyond 'popular belief' (again).

It would be much better to have it written down in a small book for convenient consultation (Ruggad was making those for a while). But I would actually counsel not memorising it in order to keep it useful.

Tarran wrote: Yeah, the entire doctrine is *way* too much to memorize all at once... or at least, to be expected of any to do. Therefore, not adding the Code because it would be too much to have there just isn't very realistic a reason, imho... it's no worse than adding a small paper cup full of beer to a keg - people will still gladly drink from that keg without feeling overly burdened.


Is that so wrong/difficult/inappropriate??

I get where your going with this, I do. However I am unsure if alcohol or the vessels one places it in is a worthy metaphor for the Knight's code in addition to the Doctrine. Surely we can do better, even if it doesn't hold the same significance to you as it does for others...