Questions for educ admin and council

I have not gotten much (any) response to my questions in the other thread so thought I would bring them here and direct them accurately.

When will the pax templi be published?

Is the AIP still in use and if so are the points still applied to the A-div?

Are there teaching options for those obtaining the degree but not knighthood?

Why is there no published policy and procedure manual for apprenticeship?

Are there official transcripts kept of our academic journeys here? I would assume that if we are earning degrees and they are accredited by the educ admin dept there would also be a requirement to maintain official transcripts by that dept. So how do we get access to them?

Have you tried PM-ing Senan, Firewolf, and Alexandre with these questions? Although it's commendable to open a new thread I'm not sure the mechanism is going to work that way. There are no published "expectations we may reasonably have from councillors and those who fill titled roles at TotJO" with which to hold people accountable. There is no duty to respond, whatsoever. Not even with an "I'm just not interested in doing all that work. You draft it, and I'll let you know".

I've had difficulty too with official channels. I'm thinking we probably have to, with patience, walk the path of mutual understanding with the individuals involved. Try opening communication up with individual councillor(s) and/or role holders. Maybe they will respond with a "Sorry, been busy, remind me in a month", or a 'in my view, we're never going to get around to it". It might be perfunctory, but at least it's communication. This thread may get some social pressure added to a persons "cause"; but I'm not sure it solves the problem of the fact the individual(s) with whom we are communicating don't feel compelled to respond. It may, in fact, make the miscommunication worse, as people will feel pressured, rather than invited, to show a shared interest in our interests.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I have not gotten much (any) response to my questions in the other thread so thought I would bring them here and direct them accurately.

When will the pax templi be published?

Is the AIP still in use and if so are the points still applied to the A-div?

Are there teaching options for those obtaining the degree but not knighthood?

Why is there no published policy and procedure manual for apprenticeship?

Are there official transcripts kept of our academic journeys here? I would assume that if we are earning degrees and they are accredited by the educ admin dept there would also be a requirement to maintain official transcripts by that dept. So how do we get access to them?

The Pax Templi would be published when it is ready to be published. I find the name a bit curious ; documents rarely bring peace -- they most often bring litigation over their scope and applicability, not to mention interpretation of meanings.

There is still the AIP (or SIP) although I'm not sure who is heading it up just now. The credit given for +IP work was never to be applied to the A. Div. -- it was to be kept on record and the credit given at the end of an Apprenticeship for inclusion in the progress toward the B. Div.. This measure was to ensure that all apprentices would indeed do a complete degree during the Apprenticeship (there are various reasons for that).

Here again, we have to recognise that the A. Div. does not grant knighthood in and of itself. The A. Divinity degree is a necessary but not sufficient pre-requisite for eligibility for Knighthood, In theory, one could work through the IP, some +IP lessons (AIP/SIP ... or whatever we're calling it now), an A. Div. a B. Div. and probably many - if not all - lessons in the Seminary without ever being Apprentices, much less ever Knighted. Likewise, since the degree work is part of, but not all of, what is to be done during an Apprenticeship, then it is quite probable that many Apprentices can accumulate 100+ dqs points over the IP to make for a degree but not yet be anywhere near ready for Knighthood. In this sense, the degree can be conferred - that pre-requisite met - but the training continues ; there is no reason to wait to confer the degree until the other requisite factors have been satisfied. Granting the degree is recognition of the (academic) work done -- it is not a coupon to be redeemed for Knighthood. I have one quite un-official "apprentice" who will probably remain so for quite a while who is not really interested in getting a degree or a title in the TotJO, but is is very sincere in his interest in the fundamental values of the Temple. Interestingly enough, we never see him moaning about how unfair things are here...

It has even been the case recently where the learner has been told "not yet" for Senior Knight and one for the rank of Master. The degree is only part of it, not the whole (perhaps not even the most) of the consideration taken. So, you see, it is not merely arbitrarily deciding who gets Knighted...

Personally, I would acquiesce to granting the possibility for teaching to someone bearing the A. Div -- just not teaching Apprentices. On holding the A. Div. would be a valuable asset to the IP Team and even good at working with AIP/SIP learners. But that is going to be very conditional and selection based too, character being a very influential aspect of who is going to be allowed to teach (share whatever they think they have learnt). Yet, that is personally. It would have to be discussed in Council and some pretty firm boundaries set -- and then respected.

It is hard to set a policy on Apprenticeship, except in how they are formed and the obligations of both Apprentice and Mentor. Ideally, the Apprentice and Mentor get to know one another quite well ; that is how the lessons are decided -- by what the Apprentice needs to learn, via what process(es) and when according to what one is confronting/being confronted by in Life at that moment. It is for this reason that I find "Apprenticeship Lesson Plans" just absurd. A fixed palette of lessons can be proposed to someone who is just wanting to pursue a degree - a "curriculum", if you would - but Apprenticeship needs to be now to be pertinent to a degree aimed at acquiring Knighthood.

As far as records go, we don't have a registrar's office. With regard to most of degree work, the Journals are the record.

Has this helped ?

Thanks twigga, but do you agree with this attitude?

These people take on a leadership role and with that role comes responsibility. They love the idea of the mantle of responsibility and they bask in the glory of their worship by others but when they fail to fulfill that responsibility to the people they just become another bloated glory hungry politician drunk on power.

All I hear over and over is how much the council does for us, how much they sacrifice. Well it's bullshit if it does not translate to prosperity of the membership. It Is just glory mongering. I'm sick of them telling us how much they do, I want them to show us how much they do!! Demand and we will rebel, but prove it to us and we will believe!!!

Alex, thanks for your reply. As for your own apprentice that does not pursue knighthood, cool, but I feel you used it as a tool to slam me, not cool. I was simply asking typical questions that apprentices have not specific cases, so I find your comment in that regard lacking.

In fact I find you particularly lacking in understanding when it comes to the general membership of this place and the inherent issues in that regard. Your mishandling of my case is my evidence for this. Water under the bridge now but I would not wish that on another in my place.

Your answer here in the aip is even different that another given here. It seems that even among the elite there is no consensus as to process or procedure. Why are these things not published to dispel this confusion? My opinion as to why is because you invite the confusion over the policy so you can squirm out from any answer asked as you see fit.

Alexandre Orion wrote:
As far as records go, we don't have a registrar's office. With regard to most of degree work, the Journals are the record.

Has this helped ?

I find this particularly disturbing. I would be one that pursues the b-div now that I have the A-div but I don't want knighthood.

However I am also a controversial figure here so who judges those point if there is no objective standard to tally them? They can't be Indepentantly reviewed according to unbiased standard. So who judges them and how are they judged? Does anyone here want to trust their journey here to such a subjective standard. I feel it completely destroyes the degree scheme and makes it simply a popularity contest.

Well, you may pursue the B. Div. at your leisure. And, since you would record your work in your journal - or a combination of journaux, it makes little difference (though some consolidation is nice) - then your work could be appreciated and appraised by as many as could/would read your journal.

I may have mishandled your case ... my decision to confer you the A. Div. was not based on Alan's recommendation, nor was it offered in consolation of Council's "not yet" response to your knighthood. It was based on what I thought of the work you had done in your journal that you opened thereafter. If awarding you the value of what dqs values were missing from the previous journal based on subsequent work is mis-handling a case, then I'll try very hard not to appreciate anyone's efforts in the future.

Do not lay too much stock on being a controversial figure : "bad" reputations turn out to be just as flimsy as "good" reputations are. We all need to make mistakes in order to learn from them. Our errors and their consequences are often the best pedagogical materials we ever find to help others.

Thanks also, Alex, for your answer.

Kyrin, I understand your question as "Do I agree with the attitude of non communication where it causes no harm?" the answer would be, alas, yes, else I would condemn myself. I might personally wish for more from me and from others - but I do respect people's rights not to respond, and not to have a reasonable reason for not responding. It's not the same as active harm. I unreasonably ignore people. I didn't say "Hello" to the permanent-fixture wheelchair-bound dude outside the store yesterday; even though he's now gained a sort of parasol for the summer. Stuff has clearly changed in his life. I dunno if it's for better or for worse. I don't want anything from him; but he was asking me, as he asks everyone, for money.

I have taken on the role of a person with money, and with that comes responsibility. I currently bask in the glory of the back-light from my mobile phone; one which I will flash at people in SJW gatherings, and say "look, conflict mineral free"... Yes, it's clear I've got money, so he is asking the right kind of person.

Whether I do enough "redressing of the imbalance" with that responsibility comes from where I personally draw the line. I could draw it close to me. I could draw it closer to him. If we sat down and had a conversation together; it is likely that I would draw my line closer to wheelchair dude... What I really, really don't want to have happen is for me to become oblivious/impervious to his requests, and/or, worse still, for me to come to dislike him because he calls me out on my bullshit. I can 100% understand why he sees the situation as non-acceptable; but I personally don't see it at 100% non-acceptable. It's not just my money, it's my family's money, and I've made agreements with them about how we use it. Our understandings differ, so I don't give him money, but we've never spoken to one another about this. I can understand why he would get increasingly upset at my ability, day in, day out, to cycle in on my fancy-pants Kalkhoff bike, which then necessitated the Kryptonite D-Lock and cable for me to keep it safe, and, seemingly subsequently, ignore him.

I couldn't say whether the people love the mantle of responsibility that comes from their council roles. I think I lost quite a lot when our household became a secure one, with an income paid monthly into a bank account, with health insurance. Nowhere near as much as we gained; so the dude is right - I do need to work on redressing the balance - but the councillors here? Being a councillor of what is seen in the wider world as a joke religious order; perhaps even by peoples spouses; possibly subjects them to ridicule from people they hold dear when they take more time out of their schedule to handle our questions and comments. The people in their lives may take it out on them when they invest time here. I dunno. I've not spoken to them. I've not sought to understand their perspectives. But I can certainly imagine why people would hold an attitude of non-communication. As such, I give them the benefit of the doubt. I hope that parasol dude is doing the same for me, rather than feeling repetitively bruised.

Power-drunkeness, I think, would have to come with active harm, rather than a simple non response. I think that would be the case if someone came to them and said "Help", and then that person was ignored. Where I see "Help" requests in the community threads and forums, I usually also see two, three, or more Jedi folks doing Jedi things in response. That sometimes includes councillors and named persons. That does not always include me. A lack of prosperity for the membership is not the same as a creation of poverty for the membership. In this case, I see no harm being caused; only an invitation to act which is not taken up. Disappointing perhaps, but not condemnable.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: TWell it's bullshit if it does not translate to prosperity of the membership.

Your perception of personal prosperity should not be confused with the prosperity of the membership.

@kyrin
Were your questions answered ?