Doctrine proposal on defining the force .

I still feel like the best chance I'd have for a working definition of the Force here would be to let everyone define it in their own words and then just find the similarities in the answers.

Adder wrote: I like to be guided by etymology more then popular usage, so:
from dē + fīniō (“set a limit, bound, end”)

Seems unusual to set limits on something defined as so limitless.

Precisely.

It cannot be defined, only described -- and that description is pretty flimsy. We do not need a working definition ; the work is in getting on without one. As it were, we can only define the things we can objectify. The Force cannot be objectified.

Basic phenomenology : "objects" present themselves to "subjects" perceiving them as phenomena. Adder is very prudent in referring to the origins of words rather than how we have been conditioned to make meanings of the things we say. Indeed, if we were to really pay a sincere attention to what we say "normally," according to "normal" usage of language (especially if one speaks but one language), we would find a lot of contradictions.

The 'unbound' (used here as the contrary of 'defined') phenomenon would be unrecognisable because it would be so decontextualised ; the numenon - the thing in-and-of itself is inaccessible to perceiving subjects because it is entirely "other" - or, "not I". That which we recognise (re-cognise - think again) is not that thing in itself but the way in which prior perceptions of related (even if it is only the perceiving subject doing the 'relating') things are re-presented in presently occurring memory events. These representations are not the presentation of the object to the perception of the subject, but the meaning being re-collected by the subject.

Thus, we cannot define the Force for it is non-objective -- the "Eternal Thou" of Martin Buber or the "Infinity" of Emmanuel Levinas . It is not observable as phenomenon for it presents itself only in the In-Between (as in "between you and me" - that sort of 'between'). To perceive the Force is describable only by allegory, not by objective detailing.

Hmm i tend to agree that the Force cannot and will not be defined and trapped in a certain definition because it cannot be defined or caged within the human boundaries of the mind. That leaves us with the relationship you have to the Force which is much more interesting to explore than you limit ourselves to defining what said Force is?
Some people are more interested in cladding things down and trying to get people together under set rules and definitions than to explore their relationship with the Force and their place in this universe and the obligations it actually brings calling oneself Jedi. Some are very good at both.
But for that same reason i am inclined not to define the Force but to only give my personal experience with the Force and what i think it is , and i therefore think it is unthinkable that a website should create a defintioin for others , telling them what "we" ( meaning TotJO ) think the Force is and therefore limiting everyone else that has a different definition for themselves.
As far as i know Martin Buber says that everthing leads back to an ever present God ( Jahweh) , if there is an comparison with the Force i agree that it is impossible to tell for anyone else how to define the Force or to tell how ones path leads to the Force.
Conclusion? I dont think its a good idea to make a definition of the Force and i cannot vote because i dont agree with any of them.

Anyone who thinks an organizational "definition" of the Force would prevent individual interpretations by squelching creativity of expression or experience obviously has no idea how people actually work. Any organizational description is a jumping-off platform for new members and an interpretive exercise for anyone with experiential learning.

Any such description would necessitate a more vague understanding, but would give new students a common phrasing with which to fall back on and to communicate with others until they could develop their own understanding.

I see your point very well Steamboat but that still leaves the question : Can you really construct a definition of the Force when the Force itself cannot be defined? How does one define something that cannot be defined. Will such a definition surely be a jumping off platform or will it put people off ?

As for how people actually work , i have no idea , that takes years of study and observation. But what i do know is that people dont like vagueness. So my advice would be to refrain from making a Definition of the Force. That is just my opinion ..and i just really feel we dont need a definition of the Force ....

It wouldn't outright prevent the interpretation, but it would certainly condition the hermeneutic processes. That conditioning would prevent the inner-outer-inner reflexivity of the vital experience and most likely defigure its description when sharing with others.

People already have a common language, but, as we have already illustrated, it is that common language that gets in the way of the interpretation. The Force - and communion with It - can only be described through allegory : saying what something is "like". Definitions and common languages, moulded from agreed upon motives tend to disqualify interpretations which do not fit that conventional definition according to dominant language acception. There is often very little hermeneutic going on when accepting a previously agreed upon definition ; what is there to interpret ?

Psychology, social psych, sociology and ethics as well as medical sciences have had a bugger of a time knocking out "how people work", Mitchell. I sincerely doubt that anyone has the answer to that in her/his pocket. The "how people work" complaint is brushing dangerously up against the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. You know better than that ...

I see a considerable difference in an interpretation and a definition , a definition that we all know is

" In a right angled triangle:
the square of the hypotenuse is equal to
the sum of the squares of the other two sides."

An interpretation of that would be a lot harder but just as interesting Not even mentioning the numerous scientific proof that we can find on the internet ...

Well even though most other religions say that they or you can't comprehend god , they still have a basic definition defining god or gods

Even Obi Wan defined the Force. He did it in terms that were available to him and accessible to his pupil, but he did it all the same.

Its not a bad example.

Malicious wrote: Well even though most other religions say that they or you can't comprehend god , they still have a basic definition defining god or gods

Do they, or is it a post hoc determination? Also what do you mean by basic definition? Maybe throw out an example and show how TotJO isn't up to snuff in comparison in your opinion