How is rank about academics and not just a popularity contest?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Adder wrote: . Anyway, that is why its about academics not not popularity...

Only those seen as worthy, regardless of academics, are chosen for Knight of the temple. But anyone can define their path as a Jedi and they can be a member of the temple though right? Wrong, There are Jedi here right now that are in good standing and yet being denied membership just because they are not well liked. Anytime personality and character are evaluated as a necessary component of inclusion that is a popularity contest that academics have nothing to do with.

Except that is not at all how it works, for Knight....... so Id urge you to cnsider how corelation does not equate causation. You then switch topic to membership but that is nt academics or popularity.

I apologize for jumping in on this late been off for a bit. So, admittedly I read a lot but skipped some middle pages but read a good amount to grasp at least the surface and basic nuances of this discussion, 142 responses is a lot to read in a day.

I think those of you who know me know I look at the spiritual side of this pretty importantly to my path, I also looked at being knightly as a set of behaviors fitting the idea of living the doctrine (service or capacity for). At this temple that seems to be the guiding law of Knighthood. That said it takes people to recognize a knighting, so it can be swayed/popularity or what not.

This said, I think I have said this on my personal opinion of rank before but it bears saying in this conversation I believe. Please just take it for what it is just my thoughts, submitted in humility but not necessarily humble.

Rank is literally what you make it, it means what it does to you.
It gives you expanded rights for sure, in any system of hierarchy and that can be the issue of disenfranchisement for all levels of it.

But, what it is, the exact meaning is all up to you. If you see power in it then that's what it is, if you see it as a guide stone in a path, that's what it is, if you see it as an end, that's what it is. Here at TOTJO there is a ton of materials to learn openly and freely, and though I have seen some rough collision with free expression of ideas before, in the end here is a place to discuss them. To me (I mean my personal idea of it) my position in the hierarchy is simply the amount of responsibility I will take upon and commit too in the temple. That could make me look a lot of different ways to a lot of different people. In the end though I suppose whatever the responsibility I take on the bar with the color really doesn't matter. In the end I keep coming back because here is all this knowledge and what I have found to be a decent set of people to discuss it with. Otherwise the way in which I interact with all of you sets others expectation of me, but in the end I'm still here to learn, talk or share for selfish ole' me.

Just my 2 cents
Much Love, Respect, and Peace,
Kobos

P.S. Manu can you please be a sports announcer or movie reviewer/riffer you would be soooooo good at it

ZealotX wrote: It's one thing to know something. It's another thing to be that thing. Someone can know all there is to know about Jediism but does that automatically make them a Jedi?

So what does make one a Jedi in your mind? I believe that according to the doctrine of this place anyone can be a Jedi simply by claiming they are one. In such a qualification its often stated the each individual path is the Jedis own and no other can say it is an invalid Jedi path. But if this is the case what is the difference between a Jedi and any other person on the face of the planet? It is really just the declaration of that name, Jedi? I have always failed to see the point of this and of course many discussions have been brought forth in trying to define a Jedi from a non-Jedi. Every time those discussions have failed to achieve their goal. Its because of these nebulous standards in definition and lack of training standardization that it becomes impossible to actually qualify anyone for a rank outside of sheer popularity. In this idea its pretty obvious that even the title of Member is simply a rank. Guests here are commonly referred to disparagingly and even the basic Jedi must meet popularity standards in order to be accepted as a member.

Makes me think of something that I've agreed was pretty true and relevant to one's attitude toward being a Jedi:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sJY7BTIuPY

With that said, the difference between a Jedi and non Jedi has two different answers depending on the context: Are we talking about site membership or the spirit of the human beyond the temple?

Outside the context of the temple, I interpret the idea of being a Jedi as simply a symbol representing all humans going through the journey of being human (the hero of surviving life with all the suffering it entails, and growing through that suffering). In this context there are no non-Jedi. In the context of the site, it is just a matter of being acknowledged for confirming any particular state of that growth as a human. Rank is just a confirmation of these phases as acknowledged by the temple and what has been both academically and behaviourally demonstrated to it, with the addition of being granted certain responsibilities in suit of it. The doctrine is a verbal, summarized description of what these phases of growth ideally results in.

I can see what you are saying Proteus and I can bet that many would disagree with your idea that all humans are Jedi in one capacity or another. I wonder if you find this definition you have put forth as restrictive here at the temple then? It seems to me that by your definition, "Jedi" out in the wild get to decide their own worthiness for rank while here at the temple that worthiness is decided by others, and even others that are not as close to the candidate as those deciding. Meaning a candidates own mentor can find their student worthy but then be overruled by those that have not walked the path with the student.

Well, there are no ranks out in the wild, there is only the natural acknowledgement and results of where the individual is at in their life. Once you insert them into an organization dedicated to fostering this kind of growth, ranks become a necessary means of measuring apparent growth. However, growth is not a static event. On specific levels, beneath an average, more stable base of transformation, it fluctuates and it wavers depending on the circumstances; people are going through emotionally/mentally gruesome tasks of reconsidering so many things brought on by past social conditioning during their time learning, that it can't all stick and some of it returns. The thing is, the state that the Jedi is in, is made up of more than just what the mentor sees in them, it is also determined by what effect they have toward other people, for instance, around the temple, and if that effect is in alignment with the vision of the temple (such as what the doctrine describes). If the mentor sees promising growth with the apprentice between them but when they go to interact with others around the temple, multiple people can't without drama ensuing, that apparently says something objectively about the student that they still have certain things to work on, if they ever want to actually get constructive results with their involvement toward other people.

Constructive results equates to "cooperative" or "agreeable" results actually. Not something I am convinced is the most effective method of evaluation. In addition, casual interactions are not enough to even begin to evaluate such a thing. It takes a much deeper understanding of the individual that a mentor would be more likely to possess. Consider that contrary person at your work. To you that person is moody or disagreeable or hard to get along with. That is your perception of them because of the limited environment. But your limited and casual perception is not the reality of the situation when it comes to the true personality of the individual. It takes something greater to actually make an accurate accounting.

Should rank be about academics? Does rank even matter? In my view, the lessons in the IP, AIP, apprenticeships, the seminary, and the DQS are all just preparatory work aimed at solidifying the principles of Jediism in a person. The academics are a means to an end. If a person lives a good life, is of service to others, is at peace, and understands/follows the Will of the Force, they will have done a better job at being a Jedi than someone who simply does the lessons and collects titles. Just as a Catholic priest doesn't necessarily represent the principles of Catholicism as well as a recent convert, a Jedi Knight doesn't necessarily represent the values of Jediism as well as a "guest" or "initiate" or what-have-you in TOTJO. Without being defamatory to any individual, I'm sure you have met a Jedi Knight or two who didn't seem to embody the tenets of Jediism -- whether from TOTJO or another group.

If the rank is had without its essence, nothing has been gained other than brownie points in an online forum. If the essence of what is represented by rank is had without the rank itself, everything has been gained other than brownie points in an online forum. I am a Senior Knight. What does that do for me? It adds a little icon under my avatar, and that seems to be about it. Remember the 4th of the 16 teachings: "Jedi are wary of attachments, both material and personal. The obsession over possessions and people creates the fear of losing those possessions and relationships which can cause ourselves to be trapped in a state of depression and loss."

Constructive results equates to "cooperative" or "agreeable" results actually.

No, not necessarily. That is a simplification of something more complex than it seems. It INCLUDES cooperation and at some point, some kind of agreement (read as acceptance in this case, and not even necessarily on the outside, but on the inside), but there is much more to it than that. There are so many other things going on during a single interaction between two people, even online. It isn't about just being agreeable, it is about clearly communicating what you mean so that the other person understands you and can see where you're coming from. At that point it is about WHAT in a point being made can be agreed with and what cannot.

In any case, what makes up the truth about a person is indeed reflected on multiple levels: 1. what is going on within them, 2. in those who know them deeply and 3. those who only know them by their casual impressions and everything between the three. For example: There are things others here at the temple can see about me through more simple interactions that people in my own family do not. So all of these layers must be considered. Again, this isn't a simple cut and dry state of affairs when it comes to this kind of personal development, so we can't simplify things down the way I see you often do.

Proteus wrote: so we can't simplify things down the way I see you often do.

And this makes me unworthy to be a Knight in your eyes right? You simply could not say "we cant simplify things down that way", you had to make it a personal slight towards me. I find this an interesting pattern and its what I speak about here. You are a Knight here at this temple, but do you think you would be a Knight, given the same training, at my temple? There are those here I would grant Knighthood to, but I'm curious where you think you would fall on that scale.

I don't fall anywhere in particular to me. Me being a knight, for me, doesn't mean I know anything more than anyone else here. It only means that I have come to care about the temple and certain kinds of responsibilities offline on a particular level that I am willing to contribute toward it in a way a knight is expected to. Otherwise, I consider myself pretty ignorant compared to most of the temple here.

I am very confused though... I can't see how whether or not you simplify things has anything to do with being worthy of knighthood? Or what me expressing a simple observation has anything to do with personal slights? Perhaps you're reading into things based on how I worded the last statement. In any case, your typical disposition tends to usually favor the same tactic that you assume I have been using on you, when it comes to you confronting others, which further confuses me. But that is neither here nor there on the topic at hand though.

So the question is really whether or not you feel you are worthy to be responsible for those certain kinds of responsibilities. I never said a Knight knows more, but as you said, has more responsibility according to expected behaviour of a Knight. Do you feel you have met those standards is what I am asking?

You may see how easy it is to misconstrue a statement on a post board. You mention clear and concise communication and yet your characterization of me in one in which I "generally simplify things often times". Do you think I would agree with your characterization of me? In fact I would disagree with you and so your statement becomes one of personal contention instead of discussion of the subject at hand. your statement implies that you do not do such things or that they are not typically done by others and so the statement you make that I simplify things becomes a derogatory statement. You believe that my disposition is one of a typical tactic I use in some diabolical manner. How did you come to this conclusion? Is it any different than my conclusion that you do this?

Yes, I know you disagree, but no, it doesn't necessarily make it personal - you have made it personal. It really is just an observation and one that exists for a logical reason, not a personal one. You've done this same thing toward others... but you defend it. When it happens to you, your responses imply that it is wrong and personal. I know you'll disagree with this too, but there are numerous people in multiple ranks here who wouldn't.

I feel perfectly fine in what I have been appointed for at this temple. I have come a very long way in my growth as a human being and I have accomplished plenty both for the temple and in my own life. I am content to also say I have a great deal to continue to learn, from everyone around me, just as I always have. Could you explain how this is relevant to whether or not rank is a popularity contest?

Well I would say at a minimum the hypocrisy is rife then. If you cant even see the comment as a personal attack designed to discredit my argument then I have little more for you.This thread has proven its point.

This thread has proven its point.

Oh... so this thread IS a grandstand for you then... I see...
At one point, I almost thought it was actually meant as a genuine discussion. You almost got me, there.

Also, since you mentioned it, I suppose it is necessary here to point out that there is a difference between hypocrisy and simply letting someone taste their own medicine so they have the chance to become aware of how they make others here feel when they actually Are just trying to have a genuine discussion. Especially newcomers. It isn't right is it? The other person comes off as elitist in their position don't they? I hope you can remember this going forward here. Because when you are out to simply discredit others' views of things, they also will have little more for you in the same way.

Proteus wrote:

This thread has proven its point.

Oh... so this thread IS a grandstand for you then... I see...
At one point, I almost thought it was actually meant as a genuine discussion. You almost got me, there.

Also, since you mentioned it, I suppose it is necessary here to point out that there is a difference between hypocrisy and simply letting someone taste their own medicine so they have the chance to become aware of how they make others here feel when they actually Are just trying to have a genuine discussion. Especially newcomers. It isn't right is it? The other person comes off as elitist in their position don't they? I hope you can remember this going forward here. Because when you are out to simply discredit others' views of things, they also will have little more for you in the same way.

Ahh, the famous argument from assertion followed by the declaration of victory. Lets see how many fallacies Proteus can put in one paragraph!

I'm not sure if it's worth falling back on calling fallacy on something that you literally proved my point on in front of everyone watching here including yourself. But you're free to have your self-soothing by doing so. I won't judge (I do that too sometimes).

Proteus wrote: I'm not sure if it's worth falling back on calling fallacy on something that you literally proved my point on in front of everyone watching here including yourself. But you're free to have your self-soothing by doing so. I won't judge (I do that too sometimes).

Oh goody more unfounded assertions without any evidence or explanation. Keep it up!

Using this site almost exclusively on my phone in Mobile mode I don't even see rank bars next to User posts.

But I make sure to go into Desktop mode on every post I read from a User I don't recognize. That way I find out what their rank is so I know if I should take them seriously or not.