ATTN: COUNCIL; Updated Doctrine Proposal

I should point out that TotJO is pretty explicitly not force realist.

In my opinion, force realism is just larping and not even religion anyways, so it's pointless to discuss it. Our understanding of the force is informed by our prejudices, so the idea that someone isn't a real Jedi if they follow a different religion is reductionist.

Also the Gaia hypothesis is pseudoscience and not a religion because it does not make the claims that religions do.

I use often “a modern day Jeddist” for a reason, mainly it’s not about the labels . Most any one can reasonably apply any chosen label in place of “modern day Jeddist” for whichever flavor of Jeddist they choose and receive the same value of the idea.
But that’s me.
Where did these definitions come from if I may ask? Where do they come from?

So... in force realism is jediism? and jediism is what is done here? so larping is done here? Were there old time jediists?

@Rex Well fortunately for the rest of us, you never published the definition of "Force Realism"- I DID. I even had several platforms named "Force Realist" over the last decade: Force Realists Magazine, Force Realists Radio, Force Realists TV. All of which focused on the real life philosophy of those which followed them. I even have run an annual event called "Force Realists Meditation Relay" on New Years Day. The term came about when I tried to find a way to create a magazine that allowed all three Aspects at Force Academy to contribute without misrepresenting them as "Jedi".

Ren may have historically used the term to talk down to people, but I was unaware of his use of the term until long after I began FRM. Throughout the community, it's my definition which won out. So let's not talk down about the various other groups which exist and follow the various philosophies that fit into the category. Philosophies which you clearly know nothing about if you're calling them Larpers. Thank you.

@Carlos- as for the other definitions. Pragmatic Jedi was created by Opie, the "description" I provided was loose and just a way to give a very brief understanding of how Opie applied it. It's not a term he uses anymore and settles with "Jedi" as he doesn't believe there should be any distinctions between the different Jedi "archetypes". The other two are based upon how they are used outside of TotJO. As I explained in my post- there is no distinction here at TotJO between a Jedi Realist and a follower of Jediism. Here we just call it all Jediism.


@Fyxe let me put it another way:

All Jedi are Force Realists, not all Force Realists are Jedi
JUST AS
All Roses are Flowers, not all Flowers are Roses.

Going BACK to Rex- there's one more thing:

The Gaia Hypothesis may not be a religion, but it is none-the-less a way that I've encountered a few Jediists try to describe their understanding of the Force to explain how the Force has a "Will", but we still maintain our own free will within it. Just because it's not YOUR way of describing (it's not mine either) it doesn't mean they cannot use it for themselves as they explore the Force.

Absolutely. There's no mention of most of those terms in the doctrine, I was just borrowing your definition in order to clarify something about TotJO. We are a lot of things here, and welcome force realists, but are not force realists organizationally. My comment on larping is based on how in order to purposely delineate one's self from the larger jediism community, in my experience I've seen force realism come across as a sort of single-minded dedication to star wars which in a non-pejorative sense is very reminiscent of larping (and also a common misconception that all Jediism is essentially a star wars fan club). If you want to help me remedy my ignorance of your system, my mailbox is open to you.

Thank you for your work in defining those Alethea, it takes a lot of effort in order to make a distinction like that come into parlance.

I'm right with you there on the Gaia hypothesis.

My apologies if I came off too heavy-handed. I have many friends who follow the Sith, Shadow and (a more recent developed philosophy) Dark Jedi (which came about out of the Krath philosophies) and I'm not fond of seeing them being disrespected. Admittedly, I'd have to say that the majority of fan club people I have encountered come from the group which wants to identify as "Grey/Gray Jedi" or in general on Facebook we attract a lot that just like the idea of being called Jedi.

Facebook, as FB does, has created a number of it's own problems as we move forward. Some of the software creator's better ideas came nearly a decade too late for them to be useful (such as the "Units" system within FB Groups).

Returning to the original discussion though ^^

Going back to "divine" vs. "metaphysical", after having gone through and considering the wider definitions of both words- I wonder if "sacred" would actually be more appropriate?

We use "ubiquitous" which describes that it is everywhere in the definition as it is. Sacred, having a secondary definition of "entitled to reverence and respect" leaves the question of "why is it sacred" more open, rather than the way that "divine" is defined as being from or of God/a god.

Weed out? That is worrying. I thought the purpose was for selecting apprentices. Teacher / student relationship must be a good fit for both. So if my thoughts / ramblings/ postings are not "a good fit" will I be weeded out? I hope not. Thank you for your post.

No one as far as I know has been talking about weeding people out. If anything, people weed themselves out here unless they're a blatant troll
Edit: having the wrong opinion doesn't get you banned, breaking the ToS will eventually

Alethea Thompson wrote: Changing the definition back to the original "Jediism is a religion based on the observance of the Force" from "religious school of thought" would definitely make it less of a mouthful. I don't see a problem with changing that, or even just keeping the original write up. As you'll recall, I was not the one to propose an edit on that, I only proposed a renaming of the Creed to "Jedi Affirmations", an introduction to the Jedi Code, and streamlining the two documents into one so we could compare the three and choose one.

As for the edit suggested by Zealot to axe metaphysical and replace it with "Divine". I actually think that pulls it more outside the realm of Jedi Realism and across the line into Jediism. It also goes to the heart of the discussion that was had in the "Is Reiki a Force Power?" thread a couple of weeks ago.

When that discussion occurred, we saw a lot of people get upset that anyone would equate alternative healing methods like that to using the Force (I also note that some in the "against" camp noted they could see it being used for calming someone down, but not for legit healing). It would seem that the ToTJO environment is more against Metaphysical studies (of which Reiki, Telepathy, and the like fall into) than they would the idea that something is divine.

Divine also has a lot more connotations than simply a "deity". In many new-age cultures, Humans have their own internal divinity.

I think I better quote wikipedia,

Metaphysics is a major branch of philosophy. It concerns existence and the nature of things that exist. Altogether it is a theory of reality.

Ontology is the part of metaphysics which discusses what exists: the categories of being. Apart from ontology, metaphysics concerns the nature of, and relations among, the things that exist.


When we say the force is metaphysical, what we mean is it cannot be objectively studied. We are in it and cannot observe it from the outside because there is no 'outside the force'. There is plenty of evidence the force exists in the physical world, and that aspect can be studied too, because everything that exists is a manifestation of the Force... However when it comes to the Force as a whole we fall outside the study of physics and fall into philosophy.

Being metaphysical does not imply we accept other metaphysical theories as true or integrate them as part of our own.

In Jediism we have the Force, the reiki guys have their own thing, the wicca guys have theirs, etc, and we are quite happy for things to remain that way.



'Ren may have historically used the term to talk down to people, but I was unaware of his use of the term until long after I began FRM. '

Ren hasn't talked about realists since the way old JRC forum and maybe TJW, except here with you briefly, so I think Rex's observations are his own and have little to do with me.

I'm not quite sure why you insist on streamlining and removing the 2 'documents'. I see the doctrine as one incomplete document which could do with additional headache-inducing text, not less.

Regarding 'divine', no matter who suggested it first or why, the issue we'll find is that it is of god, by god, or God-like in some way and we're going to find ourselves trapped in the pantheist panentheist or other theist definitions, which we have been staying away from.

The closest non-jedi religious concept to the Force as described by the current doctrine is Brahman (interestingly also at the source of other better known religions).

Wiki describes it as 'In Hinduism, Brahman connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe. In major schools of Hindu philosophy, it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes. Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe.'

Doesnt change yet causes changes= what we usually refer to as energy when describing the Force, everything else we could copy/paste and exchange brahman with 'the Force', and 'hindu' with 'jedi'.

So, real talk - is this proposal still being worked on or is it still in rough draft? I haven’t seen anything come by the council as far as something to read.
When it is sent , we will discuss and vote. That’s the procedure.

How can we as a organization with many different clergy and Knights change a doctrine that not every one has has time and effort to weigh in on?
How can we change things like this - this big- with only a few who want the change or even know of the change? Doesn’t seem fair to me.

Hint hint : if it came from the Knights as a collective whole - voted asked discussed and such - maybe it would hold a bit more weight rather than from just a select few. Real talk -Seems likes it’s been done in the dark - I know it hasn’t but it seems shady. Use your resources and procedure. It can be said Br John really loves the Knights here - there’s no doubt. That’s why we are still standing.[one of the reasons ] There is nothing we CANT do here. Maybe a bit more of inclusion and time, rather than being just a quick makeshift draft and it be ever changing never done....maybe we can result in a different outcome?

Solutions
Any other solutions to what we see here? Real ones?