Apprentice Arisaigs article on Grey Jedi

I agree with the article. And I love over thinking (or narrow thinking) this sort of stuff, so if I was to ramble a post on it...... I think there is a delicate fulcrum at work throughout 'Jedi', which trips people over in how I'd view the most effective path - being its connection and involvement of 'feeling'. For it's not quite a stoic path, but then its also not a libertine path. So its easy to go and call it a middle way, grey blend, and 'feel' correct in doing so. The fiction is replete with tasty distractions IMO, and the tools along the path do have benefit enough to distract as the path on their own also....

... and I don't mean to say its wrong. We each make it our own, and hopefully that involves a process of refining that understanding for progress. The fiction was so popular, being a dramatic representation of circumstances in some nature of benefits having radical influence and therefore becoming pivotal. Things like spatial processing, novel logical constructs, physical dexterity, technological prowess all come into play in that context of their path - which is relatable to us in the audience, but explained by some bizarre simplification (the Force) 'as' path. Obviously the path for us then can seen not as pretending to be like them, but the nature of focus and application of its results, or even how we see ourselves somewhere between that fictional idealism and our efforts. I think its the wrong approach to use the fiction this way, but I think I can understand it happens.

For example when the Ben Kenobi character talks about letting go of your conscious self and trusting your instincts -- its easy to see that as a green light to be emotional, but to me its use/application in the fiction was very specific to the situation which allowed a short distance, short duration, acceleration of body benefiting specifically from connection to the subconscious over the conscious. The key essence of the teaching here being the relationship between the various parts of the mind and body to best work in the environment and circumstance one finds themselves. IMO, because we know the subconscious instinctual reaction will be quicker in a zapping droid defence exercise then trying to watch and then process and then move under logical thinking. Not to suggest 'forms' are without benefit, as the real benefits of the integration of systems and environment is that the integration gives broader capabilities which can serve more diverse circumstance better... but a sip of coffee does not make a coffee expert, and so the concept of mastery might just require ground passed under ones feet in application of something, ie experienced. But 'experienced in what' is another question, perhaps the most true answer to that is of self.

That said, its easier to say your grey sometimes.... and I have, while at the same time saying I think its a defunct concept. As communication is about understanding and complex things often simply cannot be communicated in the circumstance. The reality is they are the most readily adopted and widely understood, things like; compassion v evil, sensitive v dull, weak v strong, logical v emotional, organized v disorganized, communal v individual, hot v cold hehe etc or heaven forbid good v bad - all valid things in their own right but not really entirely relevant (except the first one) nor even necessarily accurate, to my Jedi path or how I see the best use of the theme. To me its a bit like climbing a lighthouse and calling yourself a step, staircase or ladder just because its what your dealing with and solving. It might even be your focus, and superficial intention of being (or else), but probably not the essence of the wider activities intention. So to me its better to define yourself by your goal, then define yourself by your stage of progress to it. The later is what ranks are useful for in a structure to assist progress, like the ladder in the lighthouse... just imagine how much easier it will be to climb without that big lightbulb on your back (at the risk of forgetting that your climbing to change the bulb). But a person might have real practical definitions that they use which best serve the label of grey, I guess again it comes down to that pesky individual nature which at least serves as a platform for connecting to discover.

TLDR that was my cull'd version

Kehta Neir wrote: Having read through the Grey Code(admittedly, that is *all* I have done- a quick read through) I see nothing about not recognizing or improving on flaws. I'm curious on why that seems to be your defining point of the difference between the two subsets?

I think the thing to take into mind is that there is a plethora of Grey Codes, not a single Code. Therein lies the heart of the issue. Some encourage growth, if not many. But many are chosen to fit with a current lifestyle, doing little to encourage or stimulate growth.

Kehta Neir wrote: Overall, it carries a pretty negative connotation that smells strongly of the superiority complex involved with the "Us vs Them" mentality.

Perhaps that may be how it sounds. I am a bit rough around the edges at times, one of my flaws. But it is more of an honest take on Greys, after studying their many and varied views, even having written an article on a certain philosophy of Grey, Potentium. It is to get people to look at their own views and see if they are stagnating. Sometimes stirring the waters is the only way to get it running again. And if someone feels that stirring, perhaps this article will reach them and encourage continued growth.

EDIT: all this to say there is no problem with Grey, but one should be wary if they walk that Path, akin to the Grey of the fictional universe. The temptation to fall short, to stop, slow, or even go back is always great. Having something that could excuse shortcomings increases the power of said temptation. So feel free to walk it, but I caution one to tread carefully down that Path.

I think I got the point, or "spirit" of the article, and I actually think it was well done (if I understoood it all)

I'm one of the vaguer sorts of "Jedi" and I'm not getting my back up about it, so if anyone else, perhaps they should wonder about their own, uh, self esteem, for lack of a better word.


If you want to get offended by Ari, you need look no further than that beard. :laugh:

The feedback i got from this article was mainly very positive. One Grey Jedi sighed " woah i had no idea people could see me/us like that "

I explained to him that its an opinion, one of many opinions of other peoples paths. But its always good to get "feedback" from the wider community.

Also, the reason imo why Greys get more critique than Sith is because the general idea seems to be that Grey Jedi don't know what they want .

But then...not many humans know exactly what they want do they? A lot of critique is therefor projection of our own incertainties.

Now, Arisaig, can you challenge your own points with a piece on the same topic? What qualities about "being grey" do you think are commendable and/or valuable?

Thank you for writing this, Ari, and thank you for sharing it, Serenity. This has been a great discussion. Now, on to my possibly annoying question...

Are there any Jedi who are not Grey?

Allow me to elaborate. While it is true that there are a variety of codes, guidelines, tenets, creeds, and entire doctrines out there meant to define Jedi, I challenge everyone here reconsider the definitions that we create based on these. Each describes an ideal to strive toward or certain conditions to meet, but no Jedi could ever reach the ideal of "Light" and no "Sith" will be entirely "Dark". Someone who identifies as a "Grey" Jedi is simply someone who is being more pragmatic and recognizing that the middle is a more realistic goal to reach, while the more idealistic "Light" Jedi or "Sith" are setting a very high bar knowing they will never reach it, but it is worth working toward.

It comes down to what kind of motivation is best for the individual. Goal oriented people are more likely to prefer concrete and attainable goals that can be checked off as they are reached. These are people who respond positively to rank advancement and recognition for their accomplishments. These Jedi are more likely to identify as "Grey" as that path has more realistic and attainable goals that more closely align with the day to day reality. People who identify as "Light" Jedi or "Sith" are more likely to be big picture thinkers. Goals are set, but they are constantly being modified. The finish line is always moving based on the current environment and most recent assessment of progress. The definition of "Light" or "Dark" is more fluid. These Jedi will never reach their final goal because when they do, they just set a new one further out. No "Light" Jedi will ever be light enough and no "Sith" will ever be dark enough.

Based on these observations/opinions of mine, I'm lead to believe that all Jedi are "Grey". We just have a different way of measuring progress and setting goals. Rather than judge ourselves based on titles or definitions, I like to judge actions. What we do is the true reflection of our Path. When we evaluate our most recent actions, we can see which code or Doctrine they seem to align with most closely. This gives us the insight we need to determine which path we are walking and which studies might be most helpful along that path. In other words, if your actions are constantly reflecting the Sith code, you are walking a Sith path. You then need to decide if that is your goal or not. It it is, study to become as dark as you can be and become a bad ass Sith. If it isn't, study ways to adjust your behavior to be less "Sith" like.

In the end, I don't believe we are "Light" or "Dark" or "Jedi" or "Sith". We are humans. We are not flawed. We are simply being judged based on someone else's subjective standards. Be the genuine person that you are. Act with integrity and honesty in mind. If you do this, it won't matter what others define you as.

Proteus wrote: Now, Arisaig, can you challenge your own points with a piece on the same topic? What qualities about "being grey" do you think are commendable and/or valuable?

An excellent question.

Being Grey, of course, has its merits. If it didn't, no one would go to it or identify with it.

In a world polarised by two sides (typically the left and the right sides of an argument in politics) it is comforting to find a middle ground. Many have done this with movements such as libertarianism. It only makes sense. If both sides are biased to a point, the middle ground is the logical point.

There is an excerpt from the fictional universe book "Dawn of the Jedi: Into the Void" I like to think on from time to time. "A Je’daii needs darkness and light, shadow and illumination, because without the two there can be no balance. Veer to Bogan, and Ashla feels too constraining, too pure; edge toward Ashla, and Bogan becomes a monstrous myth. A Je’daii without balance between both is no Je’daii at all. He, or she, is simply lost." For those out of the loop, Ashla is the Light Side, the Daughter. Bogan is the Dark Side, the Son. Yes, if executed perfectly, the Jedi Path is restrictive. A Jedi will restrain themselves where a Sith will not. But the Sith philosophy, when executed perfectly, can become horrifying (queue image of the Death Star ).

Now I've made mention of the Daughter and the Son, two characters from the fiction that embody their respective sides of the Force. There is, however, two others. The Father and the Mother whom embody both sides, but different ideals of both. The Mother is a destroyer of the universe type character, prophesied to devour the universe at the end of time. One could say this is "balance in freedom". The Father, on the other hand, created a prison for his children and the Mother to keep them in balance, "balance through control (including self-control)". The latter ideal is, what I've found, many Grey try to embody, balance through control of aspects of both sides of the Force (or, as many would say, embracing of the whole of the Force, not seeing "sides").

But there is a catch. The Father is an all powerful being, incorruptible in his own right. He's had eternity to learn to control himself. We are not as fortunate. We are flawed humans. So it may sound to be the more logical, reasonable, or balanced Path... but it is one of temptation. One may say that the Jedi told people to avoid the dark because it was only the most powerful of their order that could handle balancing both sides (Mace Windu, for example). But many powerful Jedi tried and failed (Qui-Gon, for example, tempted the Dark and fell to it for a spell).

There is the argument that it involves self control to be a Grey. To learn to hold the power but not use it. But I could then argue that we all have that power. We all have the potential for great good or evil, so the Grey are no different from the Jedi or Sith (or any other person for that matter). From there, it devolves down into their Code, or to put it more accurately, their plethora of Codes, allowing for choosing various lines that could excuse various shortcomings rather than encourage people to grow from it. (Not true for all Greys, of course. Some do continue to strive forward... and, in that pursuit, I find they cease to be Grey and embody the Jedi ideals)

So what do I find commendable of the Grey? Their heart is in the right place. And, if preformed excellently, the Grey Path could be great. But it is rarely pulled off to such a degree (akin to both Jedi and Sith Paths). So if there are such little differences, why am I placing a warning about it? Because it lacks the focus of the other two. With the many codes, one can find themselves flipping between a few of them when they find one they "like" better. And that leads to temptation to do less. Humans are naturally lazy creatures. We will find the simplest way to accomplish something. That laziness has created many of our greatest achievements as a species. But to tempt possible excuses for shortcoming can leave one open to continuously making excuses for shortcomings.

What we do is the true reflection of our Path.

This is what I believe.
Someone can give themselves whatever title they like, but it's their actions that speak and truly define them. Then comes the difficult bit of trying yo pull my interpretation(judgment?) of those actions from the actions by themselves.

Senan wrote: In the end, I don't believe we are "Light" or "Dark" or "Jedi" or "Sith". We are humans. We are not flawed. We are simply being judged based on someone else's subjective standards. Be the genuine person that you are. Act with integrity and honesty in mind. If you do this, it won't matter what others define you as.

Agreed, but then what becomes the purpose of identifying as anything? I have always been a human, but only the past couple of years have I been a Jedi. As a non-Jedi I failed a lot, had a ton of flaws that I wasn't addressing. As a Jedi I've learned to confront those flaws and grow.

To say we are not flawed is a dangerous statement, however. We are all flawed. To say otherwise is to lie to ourselves. There is always something we can improve upon. We shouldn't, however, rely on other's views on our flaws unless we trust them. I trust Zenchi, for example, to tell me when my face is dirty. I do not trust many others to have my best interest in mind.

Senan wrote: Based on these observations/opinions of mine, I'm lead to believe that all Jedi are "Grey". We just have a different way of measuring progress and setting goals.

Agreed again, but it is a slippery slope, as I've outlined in my response to Proteus. We are all Grey to a degree, fundamentally. But to identify as such is where the problems can start.

Do you believe these Jedi "spectrums" are (or ought to be) static over a lifetime, or do they come on upon certain conditions (ie. age, psychological effects of past experiences, crisis of identity, etc)? I think what I'm asking is - does being light, grey, etc define the person over the whole lifetime or is it more a definition on where they currently are in their life?