Discussion about discussion

Ima have to mark those near quibbler in my meditation journal and keep those.
Thanks you as well Adder !

ZealotX wrote: For anyone who wants to be a Jedi but doesn't care about others and doesn't seek to protect others... I just don't understand that person. Perhaps it is the age we live in as they say chivalry is dead. Not to me.

I found this comment quite fascinating. I would venture to say that you have an incredibly limited view of what it means to be a jedi. This is not to say your definition is bad but that you are dismissing the wider range of meaning and thus discounting others definition of what it means. You seem to want to protect others from themselves in this conversation. I and others seek to protect them from falsehood in their lives. I see the second position to be much more productive in the end. It is the catalyst for growth.

Care and protection are aspects of the light path only... And highly subjective.

Character is something that can be present in discussions as well as compassion. Both are often chosen and rarely automatic regardless of label.

ren wrote: Care and protection are aspects of the light path only... And highly subjective.

We're not talking about peoples paths, we're talking about the rules. I agree there is some subjectivity there, but only so much. The only excuse would be ignorance, and that is easily overcome by explanation. So no, the focus is just different. Being selfish is self care and protection, and so the underlying mechanisms of it are known. So if deliberately chosen not to be exerted to others for something like following rules, then they are still responsible. If the path does not align with the rules, then either the rules are not suitable for the intended purpose of the site, or the person is breaking the rules.

But you'd be right in explaining the attitude of the troublemakers I suppose.... and obviously that explains why its like it is and why we have the problems we do. Because if the dark Jedi path etc criticize the light Jedi path then I guess the criticism can go both ways and we end up where it all goes around in circles. Since its not why light folk are here, they leave. So I'm not sure going into a discussion about the natures of different Jedi paths is really relevant.... but rather why I've been saying it fundamentally depends on what the site is trying to achieve. If its conflict among differing Jedi paths because there are Jedi paths which create conflict, then it will be either conflict or empty of other Jedi paths.

So if that is the intent then perhaps considering saving the light folk their valuable time and just change the purpose of the site as such? Unless its deliberate of course in which case the site could be seen to abusing those on the light path.... LOL, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as webdev and say you made it open to all and are just happy with the status quo because your not on a light path.

You miss the point of this discussion entirely. It is not about the rules in any form. It is about the spirit of conversation.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: You miss the point of this discussion entirely. It is not about the rules in any form. It is about the spirit of conversation.

There are no limits on the spirit, or indeed path, the only limits are the rules which are unfortunately necessarily open to subjective interpretation. That subjectivity is being explored and so can incorporate examination and comparison of the spirit... but that is no reason to put the cart before the donkey. So no, I'd argue I haven't and that you perhaps you have, but case in point its just more of the going around in circles because I've been saying this same thing many times to the same people.

For example, your reply. Perhaps a simple hack is to avoid aggravating adverbs which misrepresent the scope of the disagreement. If your first sentence omitted the word 'entirely' it would have said the same thing, been more likely to be correct and less likely to be taken as a personal attack. If the rules say don't attack someone it could fairly be interpreted as don't demean them in trying to make a point... and covert demeaning language tends to sneak in when disagreements are modified by language to exaggerate and introduce emotions into debate, turning them towards becoming arguments ie trolling.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: For anyone who wants to be a Jedi but doesn't care about others and doesn't seek to protect others... I just don't understand that person. Perhaps it is the age we live in as they say chivalry is dead. Not to me.

I found this comment quite fascinating. I would venture to say that you have an incredibly limited view of what it means to be a jedi. This is not to say your definition is bad but that you are dismissing the wider range of meaning and thus discounting others definition of what it means. You seem to want to protect others from themselves in this conversation. I and others seek to protect them from falsehood in their lives. I see the second position to be much more productive in the end. It is the catalyst for growth.

That is interesting indeed. So what if I said that I wasn't dismissing anything and that anyone using the term "dark Jedi" is basically creating their own fantasy? What if I said that term has no basis in reality because even Timothy Zahn, who coined it, is not in favor of its use and only used it at the time because it was (then) the best they had to work with. And therefore this "squishy" term should be depreciated?

Jedi refers to an "order". When "dark Jedi" (actually fallen or rogue Jedi) left the order and eventually created their own they were "Sith". And we can have stimulating intellectual discussions all day but I doubt I will ever call fallen Jedi anything other than Sith or regard such as anything as legitimate as what I consider to be canon any more than many on this site seemed to passionately disagree with a certain member posting their own beliefs. If you have your own beliefs regarding the use of the term Jedi and what it means to you then why should this be considered by others something that they should also accept? What makes you any different from the other poster, crafting a narrative around your own beliefs?

Is it limited not to accept someone else's views outright? Do you have legitimate peer reviewed evidence to back up your personal understanding of the term Jedi? And since you are at "Temple of the Jedi Order" why should others align their views to your own when you are coming to "our" site with your personal views that I have never found sanctioned or expressly accepted by any doctrine of the same? And yet, why should your view enjoy some kind of legitimized status when you question the beliefs of a professed Jedi?

Or perhaps your beliefs are special because they're yours (emphasis on yours as opposed to mine or ours). You talked about truth but you want me to accept your (alternate) definition of a word common to my vocabulary; a definition, which to me, is a falsehood. But you want to use the Open Discussion forum to seek truth and remove falsehood in others. Should we not start with someone closer to home? Why do you get to have a different (alternative) definition of the term Jedi? How is THAT not a falsehood? Is it a question of how many people believe it? Because if it's about numbers than doesn't that legitimize virtually all other religions? Tell me. Why is your belief about the term Jedi not a falsehood and moreover, why should I accept it to the extent that my view is "incredibly limited" if I don't?

@Zealot, Who is using the term Dark Jedi? I for one find the term oxymoronic. I would agree with you whole heartedly that Dark Jedi is not a thing, the term in that case would be Sith, I agree. Actually Jedi does not refer to an order, it refers to a philosophy. TotJO refers to an order. There are many orders with differing Jedi all possessing individual philosophies. (Of course this is beyond the fiction and in real life. I don’t live my life according to a fictional Sci Fi movie and so I see no need to quote fictional “Jedi Cannon” as a basis to justify my position.)

I have never said anyone should accept my views of what it means to be a Jedi. And in fact the difference is that I invite anyone to challenge them, debate them, and tear them apart! So thank you for this reply, I encourage such things when it comes to my belief systems and I believe it is a service to do such things so I appreciate you caring enough to take the time. One of the differences I do see in my personal views vs this other believer you refer to is that mine are a worldview based on subjective opinion and as such not subject to empirical evidence as the other one that is contradictory to actual provable history. There is a big difference there. So in my case I do not need peer reviewed evidence because I’m not claiming anything contrary to accepted evidence.

As for coming to “your” site, I fail to see why you would disqualify me in that way? My views conform to the doctrine here just as much as anyone’s. I have written about this in my IP journals while I was studying here. I believe it is in the interpretation that you are finding issue with my views. I interpret the doctrine in a different way than you may. Does that make mine wrong and yours right? If so I would like to know how? There are no “alternate definitions” being used here, possibly only differing interpretations. You say I want to remove falsehood in others. Well once again you take a limited view of my thoughts. Instead think in broader terms. I want to remove falsehood in ALL, including me. I challenge you to take up that sword with me just as I have done with others. That is why I am here!

So I am a Jedi, albeit one not to your liking. But what makes my philosophy wrong vs just not to your taste?