Doctrine Proposal on the Force Poll 2

11 Dec 2019 08:25 #347112 by JamesSand
Can you describe a car?

How well?

Regardless of how well you truly understand cars, perhaps you still feel you can describe them to someone, if you had to?

How many people, who truthfully know very little about the details that make up a car, none the less feel they can describe them to someone? and even more bizarrely, get in one every day and trust that even though they know almost nothing about them, have faith that it will continue to be a car, and do all the things a car does that makes it a car?

That thought aside - this is about Doctrine, not the Force, you could almost have the entire doctrine and still never say what the force is, if you so wanted, perhaps have the Force as the blank space the doctrine all around it, like the arrow in FedEx.

If someone reads the doctrine, they might be able to guess at what the force is, and it allows people to follow Jediism Doctrine without ever necessarily understanding the Force.

It's an option :)
The following user(s) said Thank You: Alethea Thompson, Malicious

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

15 Dec 2019 00:13 #347269 by Alethea Thompson
The following user(s) said Thank You: Cyan Sarden, Rex

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

16 Dec 2019 22:21 #347347 by Malicious

I am a Jedi... and a stronger person because of my experiences rather than despite of them. I learned to let go of the rage and hatred, and now I can look back on my early life as a story to teach a lesson... that no matter how bad it seems, no matter how dark it gets, there is good to be found in any situation, and in the blackest darkness can a single candle shine the brightest.

May the Force be with us all.

--- Master Kyp

=_= Malicious (+_+)
The following user(s) said Thank You: Rex

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

20 Dec 2019 13:56 #347467 by Alethea Thompson
Last Day to Vote on this!!!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

21 Dec 2019 22:47 - 21 Dec 2019 22:48 #347544 by Alethea Thompson

26 votes were cast, and 15 stated they didn't want to define the Force. Of those 15, 11 wanted the longer sentence.

Thus moving forward, this proposal will recommend the Definition of Jediism to be written as:

"Jediism is a religious school of thought based on the observance of the Force, which a Jedi (a follower of Jediism) believes to be the fundamental nature of the universe”
Last edit: 21 Dec 2019 22:48 by Alethea Thompson.
The following user(s) said Thank You: steamboat28, OB1Shinobi, Rex, Anthea

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

24 Dec 2019 08:16 #347618 by Whyte Horse
The force is a myth. Somehow, people miss that after the Joseph Campbell lectures. Wishing could elaborate more but have to do a cannonball in the pool

Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

24 Dec 2019 13:11 - 24 Dec 2019 13:15 #347622 by Adder

Whyte Horse wrote: The force is a myth. Somehow, people miss that after the Joseph Campbell lectures. Wishing could elaborate more but have to do a cannonball in the pool

To me its the effect of extra sensory activity, be it perception, conceptualization, and/or imagination, as a type of metacognition... not wholly explainable by logic but real in action nonethess - as experience. This meansits beyond defining as a thing of itself. Belief then serves as a tool to develop and refine, not grasp in faith. The fiction is myth yes, but the difference between real Jedi and role players IMO is the Force. Belief alone might be a state of the later, but it maybe temporary until experience develops to become the former. In this context then belief leading to delusion would be a fall away from the light (of the practise, ie the Force) to the dark. I discovered the Force in this way before Star Wars was ever released, and to me the myth serves as an abstraction to it, not the other way around.
Though I'm curious as to what others think....

Knight ~ introverted extropian, mechatronic neurothealogizing, technogaian buddhist. Likes integration, visualization, elucidation and transformation.
Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med ~ Dis
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu
Last edit: 24 Dec 2019 13:15 by Adder.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Alexandre Orion, Kira

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

25 Dec 2019 02:06 #347634 by Alethea Thompson
@Whyte Horse:

Taking a Comparative Theologists' Theory of the supernatural as law doesn't mean it's law....It's a Theory he came up with after researching a bunch of religions.

It doesn't matter what Campbell's conclusions were, Lucas wanted to inspire youth to ask the question "Does God exist?", he wasn't trying to tell them the answer, but instead inspire them to look. Campbell got to one conclusion, and Lucas came to another. Just the same, we are all capable of making our own decisions. Who cares what someone else's conclusions are- form your own.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

25 Dec 2019 02:51 #347635 by Carlos.Martinez3
Who cares what someone else's conclusions are- form your own.

I concur

Contact The Clergy
Pastor of Temple of the Jedi Order
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Block
Build, not tear down.
Nosce te ipsum / Cerca trova

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

25 Dec 2019 11:33 - 25 Dec 2019 13:18 #347652 by Alexandre Orion

Let's consider "conclusions" as menu selections (this is merely analogy).

Phase one : your body feels hunger. Already, though we all know what it is like to feel hungry, it is pretty hard to actually describe the sensation.

Phase two : intellection of the feeling -- we recognise the sensation and instinctively know what to do about it : eat.

Phase three : intellection of the previous intellection -- we are no longer thinking about what to do with the feeling (we are moved to the act of eating), but now we are trying to decide "what" to eat. This is an interesting phase because it no longer has to do with hunting or gathering but just going to a bistrot or to our own larders, nonetheless it is still rationalising an instinctive process. No one is going to feel hungry and go to the closet with the cleaning products kept therein. (Actually, some may, but this indicates a different problem.)

Phase four : of the available options, which one is going to fill the nutritional requirements (answer the need announced by the sensation of hunger) and be the most enjoyable/gratifying (in the moment). Some of the options (forget the cleaning products for now) are more appropriate on the nutritional level than they are on the gratification level. A balanced meal with all of the nutritional qualities is probably better than a gooey bucket of cholesterol and Omega-6 fat, or a refined sugar-laden ersatz of "food", but in either case one can probably stop the "hungry" feeling.

Phase four bis : 'is it edible ?' This is a learnt cognitive - or re-cognitive - step. We do get this one cocked-up sometimes, from which follows ...

Phase five : intellection of the eating process. We "know" how to "eat" basically from conception. It is not something we have to focus our cognitive skills too keenly on. Yet, we ought to be a little more discriminating in our selection of what to eat. We probably don't have to commit too much mental effort to cognising that a balanced meal would be better for us than the sugary treat, but that alone is not enough to keep us from selecting the "quick and easy path" to calm the hunger sensation. Junk-food and Junk-thought/Junk-faith have some very, very sharp similarities here ...

Phase six : has the hunger (the sensation in the body) been satisfied ? The easy answer is "probably". The more elaborated answer would consist in determining if the body's nutritional deficits, which gave rise to the sensation of hunger in the first place, have been replenished. If one has been wise in the selection of "what to eat", then again, the easy answer is "probably". On the other hand, if one took the quick and easy path, then again the easy answer is "probably not". For the elaborated answer it would require a blood test, but I'm not going to get that involved here.

Phase seven : (this requires some intuition ; some empiricism) has our sensation of hunger been permanently resolved ? Well, evidently the answer to that is a very strong and reasonably certain "NO". In a few hours, tomorrow or just whenever, that sensation - a bodily sensation - of hunger will return. Then the whole string of phases starts anew.

Here's that nasty catch all this has been leading to : does only one 'acceptable/popular' "what to eat" satisfy permanently and for once and ever, the sensation of hunger ? Let's hope that the answer is indeed "probably not" because if that were to be true, then we could dispense with selections at all (neither very gratifying nor enjoyable) and just nourish ourselves with a sticky paste of some sort of nutritionally adequate goop like they do in the "Matrix" ... What the real answer depends on here is "what do we need in this situation" ? This is a little harder to know when just going to a restaurant or to the fridge. The physical sensation of hunger does not give, in itself, very much indication of how to satisfy it.

The need for "faith" is a physical, bodily sensation just as much as hunger is -- and just as difficult (if not even more difficult) to describe. We don't recognise this very much, for we've been inculcated to divide our feelings (either sensations or sensibilities) from our thoughts about them (intellection). We cease to be individuals when we thus divide our- 'selves' ("individual" is by nature "indivisible"). When we take the "quick and easy" path, according to our intellect-designed identities, we are "probably not" getting our actual and true needs met. And our intellects have become pretty malnourished with all the Junk-thought/Junk-faith we put into them opting for the reduced effort. It is easier to nuke some nuggets than to prepare a combination salad or a hearty stew. It is easier to grapple onto dogma than to do interiority-relationship meditation/contemplation. The parallel here is evident.

Spiritual cultivation requires the same effort to condition and maintain as does the biological body. Our "Spirit" is an aspect of us that is as un-definable as the Force, for it comes about in "betweenness" ; it requires understanding, empathy, compassion, true meeting/encounter and engagement in dialogue. It requires alterity, "Other-ness", "not-'I'". Just as if we deteriorate our organes with junk-food, the junk-thought/junk-faith will deteriorate our ouverture to Spiritual development. And another catch here is that the Spirit is always in development -- just like we are always going to get hungry again.

Ergo, come to any conclusions you may feel you like, you'll find that they are as inconclusive as deciding "what to eat". The sensation will come to the body-soul again, and again need satisfaction. Conclude to take the "quick and easy path" and the need inducing the sensation will perhaps be calmed, but not fulfilled. Even taking the "hard and arduous" path, or the "middle way" will not fulfill the sensation of "need" forever. Thus, there is only ever going to be a situational, context - or meta-context - determined, momentary conclusion to be reached - one that does not remain "conclusive". Conclusions can only "conclude" one of the phases - and that, only briefly, not the entire spectrum and certainly not once-and-for-all, forever ...

The idea of "knowledge" is nebulous. Nutrition is a complicated and sophisticated knowledge to come to. Spiritual nutritional knowledge is ever more so. Beware of the "quick and easy" solution, definition, belief or whatnot. Attempting to do so empoisons the body. Doing that to the Spirit literally damns us.

And John was correct in pointing out that no one is beyond Redemption. But one has to move - or be moved - to the Redemption. Grace provides it unendingly (just like the choice of healthy food or junk food are everyday options), but - just like choosing the food, one has to make the right choices. The right choices are, naturally, dependent on context, situation, duration .... and so forth. In short, the "right" choices are certainly not the same ones in all circumstances.

Chaque homme a des devoirs envers l'homme en tant qu'homme.
~ Henri Bergson
Last edit: 25 Dec 2019 13:18 by Alexandre Orion.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: EdanKobosBrick