Jedism?

[Tgace]

Actually I was referring to some posters tendencies to automatically challange any and every belief or opinion posted rather than any specific content...if there were some random agreement every once and a while those posters would at least seem "human". The repeated challanges lead one to believe its more of a game to challange beliefs than any vested interest.

 

[Adept]

Damn those damn critics! They keep seeing what's actually there!!

Wait, let me guess, you believe the Lord of the Rings was racist propoganda as well...

 

[Corporal Hicks]

Sorry you guys you kinda lost me somewhere along the line. Some of you stated that Jedism was just a watered down religion of some others (with long names and difficult to pronounce) could you tell me where I could read up on these beliefs and concepts and what books and religions they are. Which ones would be the best? Are you just generally stating that Jedism is taken from other religions and simplyied down? Thank you.

As for the racism in the star wars films I think that its just nitpicking. Surely any film you can pick out something that is racist in some way or another. Its just a film in its own right, its not meant to offend anybody I'm sure. No film is perfect, surely a perfect film would have a balance between the amount of white and black people in it. Black as a colour not as a skin is meant to represent darkness hence the Dark side, not that black coloured skin is evil. To pick every little thing out is just trying to be politically correct and believe me we have had enough of it over here already!

Regards

 

[heretic888]

Actually I was referring to some posters tendencies to automatically challange any and every belief or opinion posted rather than any specific content...if there were some random agreement every once and a while those posters would at least seem "human". The repeated challanges lead one to believe its more of a game to challange beliefs than any vested interest.

Yeah, I know. I was just covering all my bases.

I do get where you're coming from, though. "Blind" skepticism can be just as much a barrier as "blind" faith...

 

[heretic888]

Some of you stated that Jedism was just a watered down religion of some others

That's because it is.

could you tell me where I could read up on these beliefs and concepts and what books and religions they are.

Running a search engine on any number of the names and traditions I cited would give a number of sources, some of which are well known. For example, it doesn't take a master researcher to figure out that Plotinus wrote the Enneads or that Vedanta philosophy has its fundamental source in the Upanishads.

Which ones would be the best?

Whichever one works best for you. Same as martial arts.

Are you just generally stating that Jedism is taken from other religions and simplyied down?

More or less, yes.

"Jedism" is typical of New Age belief structures on the whole. They take a few intellectual strands found in Eastern religions and the mystical currents of Western religions (such as Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, Christian contemplative practice, Sufism, and Kabbalah), "filter" them and "interpret" them in a way that they think is "relevant" to modern Western people, and give you a severely watered-down and rehashed take on the original thing.

And the giveaway behind it all is the narcissism. In all the religious traditions I mentioned, the goal is to conquer the measly little rational ego-self, to transcend it, and identify with a deeper Suchness (as it were). This is done through years of hard work, discipline, and contemplative/meditative practice. Y'know, again, kinda like martial arts.

The goal in most New Age and quasi-"postmodern" belief structures is to belief intellectually in the new paradigm --- and the world will be transformed!! No real work or discipline involved, all's you gotta do is change your intellectual beliefs and the world becomes flowers, lollipops, and candycanes. None of that "taming the ego" bull, all's I gotta do is get my precious ego to worship the Force instead of Jehovah, Donald Trump, or Dubya Bush.

All this usually gets tacked on as "self-realization", "self-actualization", or "self-improvement". And, the goal behind it all is to make one's ego feel safe, secure, and invincibly immortal.

As for the racism in the star wars films I think that its just nitpicking. Surely any film you can pick out something that is racist in some way or another. Its just a film in its own right, its not meant to offend anybody I'm sure. No film is perfect, surely a perfect film would have a balance between the amount of white and black people in it. Black as a colour not as a skin is meant to represent darkness hence the Dark side, not that black coloured skin is evil. To pick every little thing out is just trying to be politically correct and believe me we have had enough of it over here already!

If I may...

I believe what Robert was trying to say was that the feudalistic mythology and ideology that sci-fi works like Star Wars are built upon is, by nature, rooted in pre-modern political beliefs and worldviews (such as inherited monarchies, caste systems, subservience of women to men, racism, and so on). This isn't quite the same thing as saying Star Wars is intentionally racist or projecting an overtly racist message.

Of course, I could be completely misreading his arguments here. Whadda I know??

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Pretty much, yup, that's exactly it. it's another of these "no document of civilization is not also a document of barbarism," arguments.

2. The "racism," in "Star Wars," has nothing to do with the number of black people and white people, or even necessarily color at all. That's the sort of distortion of the theory you'd find on, say, Michael Savage. What it has to do with is the films' repeated, persistent, stubborn insistence upon coding EVERYTHING in terms of biological determinism, inheritance of special powers and ordinary attributes, and power passed on through elite families.

3. I can't even sort through the sentence structures--and last time I checked, we don't get to decide which approaches to questions everybody else takes. You've flipped through a buncha stuff on world religions. Mazeltov. Me too--just enough to know that when we claim they're "all the same," we're being reductionistic.

4. I did not make these movies, write their stories, invent science fiction. I am not responsible for the monotony of cultural practices. Call Lucas and kvetch.

 

[Cryozombie]

2. The "racism," in "Star Wars," has nothing to do with the number of black people and white people, or even necessarily color at all. That's the sort of distortion of the theory you'd find on, say, Michael Savage. What it has to do with is the films' repeated, persistent, stubborn insistence upon coding EVERYTHING in terms of biological determinism, inheritance of special powers and ordinary attributes, and power passed on through elite families.

Youre losing me here... you are focusing on one group of heroes out of the whole series of films... the Jedi. What about the 16 year old girl with no "powers" or "heredity" who becomes elected queen? What about the Low Life Pirate Smuggler who is central to most of the victories that the "elitist" Jedi Luke Skywalker has? What about the Gambler who is responsible for saving the rebelion's fleet and destroying the Empires superweapon?

Sure... the Star Wars fims had thier "Elite Ruling Class" so did "Gladiator" "Exaclibur" "Mists of Avalon" "Battlestar Galactica" "The Messenger" "From Hell" etc etc etc...

I dont think its an issue of "racism" as much as "Whos Story are you telling"... If you are telling a story about princes and kings, well...

 

[heretic888]

1. Pretty much, yup, that's exactly it. it's another of these "no document of civilization is not also a document of barbarism," arguments.

Ok. Just checkin'....

And, while I can partially see where you're coming from, I do think you're overexaggerating the significance here. Yes, Star Wars has, as its background, a quasi-feudal mythology (after all, it was during feudal times that the "hero" myths first emerged signficantly). This does not mean, however, that any kind of feudalistic message or intentionality is being projected.

After all, its just a bunch of movies.

2. The "racism," in "Star Wars," has nothing to do with the number of black people and white people, or even necessarily color at all. That's the sort of distortion of the theory you'd find on, say, Michael Savage. What it has to do with is the films' repeated, persistent, stubborn insistence upon coding EVERYTHING in terms of biological determinism, inheritance of special powers and ordinary attributes, and power passed on through elite families.

Racism, in my opinion, is the wrong word to use here. What you are talking about sounds more akin to a general elitism or subtle caste system (where you "inherit" your lot in life), as opposed to anything particular to ethnic groups. And, even then, it is nothing overt enough to worry oneself over.

Again, they're just movies.

3. I can't even sort through the sentence structures--and last time I checked, we don't get to decide which approaches to questions everybody else takes. You've flipped through a buncha stuff on world religions. Mazeltov. Me too--just enough to know that when we claim they're "all the same," we're being reductionistic.

Reductionism?? Heh, that's an interesting take on things...

Just for the record, I never claimed these religions are "all the same". My perspective on the universality of certain religious truths and experiences is more akin to the perspective of Huston Smith than, say, Catholic 'divine prefigurement' (which fundamentally claims that the similarity of religions can be explained as 'preperations' or 'prefigurements' for the One True Faith) or the Baha'is (who fundamentally claim that all 'true' religions are just variations on theirs).

Rather, this is just recognizing the similarities along with the differences. Much of the differences are culturally and historically conditioned, rather than being qualitative impasses. Its fairly obvious that the mystical adherents in any of the world's major religions are touching upon the same basic concepts. Usually, it is the literalists and non-contemplative "believers" that quibble over doctrinal details (i.e., Pat Robertson argues that only Christians will go to a mythic-fantastic paradise, whereas Paul Tillich and Thomas Merton do not).

The only point I was trying to make is that the Buddhist 'shunyata', Vedanta 'nirguna brahman', Neoplatonic 'formless godhead', Sufi 'luminous night', Catholic and Eastern Orthodox 'dazzling darkness', and Tillich-Eckhartian 'ground of being' all seem to be touching upon something very, very, very common.

Its not that big of a stretch to make, I think.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

...The only point I was trying to make is that the Buddhist 'shunyata', Vedanta 'nirguna brahman', Neoplatonic 'formless godhead', Sufi 'luminous night', Catholic and Eastern Orthodox 'dazzling darkness', and Tillich-Eckhartian 'ground of being' all seem to be touching upon something very, very, very common.

Its not that big of a stretch to make, I think.

Granted, I'm joining a little late. I've been an avid fan of comparative myth and religion for many years. Before Campbell showed up on public telly with Bill Moyers, he authored a series of books called "The Masks of God." In 4 parts (I think...been awhile), they are divided into general topics (i.e., Volume I, Primitive Mythology; other volumes included Oriental and Occidental, etc.). He touches on this quite a bit. I recall a linguistics table in one of the volumes which had some impressive comparisons. He takes a word for something like "dog", and then has a table of languages from around the world...people who supposedly have never met because of the geographical barriers of the ancient world (oceans, and the like). In this comparison, there are striking similarities in the words.

Similar, but different...my Pops is wrapping up a meta-analysis of ecstatic experiences from 150+ autobiographical sources, irrespective of traditional backgrounds (kind of like a spiritual version of a Cochrane review). Has input from folks who popped their cork after studying the works of people ranging from St. John of the Cross, to Yogananda, to self-declared followers of Zen and neti-neti practices. Phenomena described by authors is subcategorized, and cross-referenced for similarities & differences. Turns out, much the same, regardless of how they got there or when they got there (old world accounts vs modern accounts). His findings, strangely, do not support participation in organized systems of thought: individual breakthroughs came after abandoning orthodox practices. They also do not support participation in the pseudo-mythos of the New Age spirituality (number of enlightenment experiences resulting from meditating with crystal & whole grain suppositories? None.). They do seem to support a common theme of predictable experiences, and post-experience perceptual and philosophical changes.

So my burning question...do all our brains, deprived of oxygen or logic, go to the same place ideographically?

Regards,

Dave

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. What 16-year old-girl? The one from the planet where the white people on the surface have kings and queens, and the Jar Jarians below the sirface have kings and queens? The one where half the plot of the last two movies revolves around her marrying somebody explicitly described as genetically superior in the ways of the Force, so they can give birth to Luke and Leia?

2. Folks, look up what racism is. If you claim that some people are genetically superior to the common herd, argue that politics should be structured accordingly, associate certain easily-identifiable ethnic stereotypes with characters consistently (STILL waiting for the explanation of the Trade Delegation and the Italisn junkman!), and build your whole story around passing down a biologically-determined authority--wellp, that's pretty much what that is.

3. Sure, Han Solo. Whose class status and "unfitness," is made an issue again and again and again, whose best buddy, Lando, is explicitly a Playah and pimp-eventually-to turn good. Why does it violate royalist fantasies of biology to establish that the pureblood line needs a little shot of the street dawg from time to time?

4. There's all sorts of sf that tells different stories. A lot of sf, from that dope L. Ron Hubbard and Gilman's fiction on down, revolves explicitly around fantasies of race. Sorry; I didn't write the stuff.

 

[Cryozombie]

1. What 16-year old-girl? The one from the planet where the white people on the surface have kings and queens,

The "Queens" of Naboo were elected positions, not Inherited ones. And, depsite your claim of colorlessness, there ya go calling them "White People"

Cuz Captain Typho was White?

And Captain Panaka?

Yep. All those White People from Naboo.

And the Gungans under the water? They had no Kings and Queens. They were ruled by a council. The leader of which was referred to as "Boss"

And before you jump on the "Jar Jar was a racist portrail of black people" perhaps you should consider that JarJar was PLAYED by a black commedian.

http://www.starwars.com/bio/ahmedbest.html

 

[Tgace]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.....

 

[heretic888]

I've been an avid fan of comparative myth and religion for many years. Before Campbell showed up on public telly with Bill Moyers, he authored a series of books called "The Masks of God." In 4 parts (I think...been awhile), they are divided into general topics (i.e., Volume I, Primitive Mythology; other volumes included Oriental and Occidental, etc.). He touches on this quite a bit. I recall a linguistics table in one of the volumes which had some impressive comparisons. He takes a word for something like "dog", and then has a table of languages from around the world...people who supposedly have never met because of the geographical barriers of the ancient world (oceans, and the like). In this comparison, there are striking similarities in the words.

Don't get me wrong, I like Campbell's stuff. I was way into his writings when I was younger....

But, he (along with other Jungians) is really talking about something different than what I'm referring to here. The archetypes, as Ken Wilber has pointed out, are generally of a pre-rational, mythical nature. They aren't what you'd generally call "spiritual" structures. Instead, the archetypes are simply pre-rational structures inherited by humans due to millenia upon millenia of shared experiences (i.e, we all experience "mother" in one form or another). Both Jung and Campbell point out that the archetypes are biologically based and instinctive in nature.

Jung and Campbell had a tendency to "elevate" the archetypes to a sort of transcendent, suprarational status -- which, I believe, is a mistake. Jungian therapy generally emphasizes trying to recontact the "lost" archetypes in scripting sort of techniques. Which, granted, can be useful --- but really has nothing to do with ego-transcendence.

The religious traditions are clear on this matter: contemplative practice of some kind is the key, not re-connecting to mythic-membership role/rule structures.

Similar, but different...my Pops is wrapping up a meta-analysis of ecstatic experiences from 150+ autobiographical sources, irrespective of traditional backgrounds (kind of like a spiritual version of a Cochrane review). Has input from folks who popped their cork after studying the works of people ranging from St. John of the Cross, to Yogananda, to self-declared followers of Zen and neti-neti practices. Phenomena described by authors is subcategorized, and cross-referenced for similarities & differences. Turns out, much the same, regardless of how they got there or when they got there (old world accounts vs modern accounts). His findings, strangely, do not support participation in organized systems of thought: individual breakthroughs came after abandoning orthodox practices. They also do not support participation in the pseudo-mythos of the New Age spirituality (number of enlightenment experiences resulting from meditating with crystal & whole grain suppositories? None.). They do seem to support a common theme of predictable experiences, and post-experience perceptual and philosophical changes.

Hrmmm.... sounds interesting.

Ken Wilber has done some similar research in some of his books. Of course, he was also concerned with mapping the pre-rational and rational consciousness structures, as well. In his system, he breaks up spiritual experiences (barring interpretation and just the raw experience itself) into four general subcategories, in a hiearchical order:

1) Nature mysticism (union with the "gross" realm of physical existence).
2) Deity mysticism (union with the "subtle" realm of forms, archetypes, illuminations, and visionary experiences).
3) Formless mysticism (union with the formless ground, the void, abyss, and so on).
4) Nondual mysticism (union of the formless with all levels and types of forms --- subtle to physical).

I'd be interested to hear how your father's research differs and/or coincides with Wilber's model.

So my burning question...do all our brains, deprived of oxygen or logic, go to the same place ideographically?

Dunno if I'd word it like that....

... but, sure. Of course, its important to take into account how differing cultural environments can condition and filter what is experienced and perceived in meditation.

Laterz.

 

[Adept]

STILL waiting for the explanation of the Trade Delegation and the Italisn junkman!

Oh for gods sake. TheTrade Delegation don't even sound Japanese, and the little blue trader guy doesn't sound Italian either.

Oh, and kings and queens are elected on Naboo.

 

[loki09789]

Oh for gods sake. TheTrade Delegation don't even sound Japanese, and the little blue trader guy doesn't sound Italian either.

Oh, and kings and queens are elected on Naboo.

Actually, I thought they sounded slightly Chinese....but when you are creating a fictional reality you have to blend and mash together elements of reality...

Lucas took an obscure African (I believe) language to use for Lando Calrisian's co pilot in Episode Six (Return of the Jedi).....so what.

I still don't see the 'racist' thing. If these races were being depicted in stereotypic/charicatures of existing races with all kinds of not so subtle slights ("Hebrew/Jewish charicatures with Big noses and sloped foreheads and names like Kikey for instants) then I could see it as 'racists'.

The worst I could say is that Lucas' pantheon of alien races is ego centric because the majority of these alien diversities all seem to be able to breath earth-like atmospheric conditions. Conversely, Humanoid characters don't seem to need space suits for many of the places they go.

But, then again, that could be becuase it is FANTASY and it is easier to focus on the story instead of the background that the story takes place in.

 

[Cryozombie]

The worst I could say is that Lucas' pantheon of alien races is ego centric because the majority of these alien diversities all seem to be able to breath earth-like atmospheric conditions. Conversely, Humanoid characters don't seem to need space suits for many of the places they go.

Right? Exactly! The same thing can be said of Star Trek???

Hey yeah... Look at the Racism in Star Trek... The Big headed Big Nosed guys are Money Grubbers... (ferengi) The Big Black Guys are all Violent and want to kill each other (Klingons)...

Wow... Now theres somthing to that! <gag>

 

[MisterMike]

I thought episodes 1 and 2 had a bit of an Indian theme with the names (amidala or whatever). Nice that Lucas chose THEM over an american culture to represent the "good" government....I knew he hated the U.S.!! Yea, that's what I'm getting out of this. Maybe he wants the Dali Lama for president.

 

[rmcrobertson]

When you determine social position largely in terms of inherited characteristics, and you tie those characteristics to certain "groups," and you link all this stuff to perfectly common stereotypes right here on earth, what the hell WOULD you like to call it? Didja not LISTEN to the way the characters talk? Jar Jar and his amusing, dancing, rhythym-loving boyos?

Making a few peripheral characters, "different," or doesn't help. it's tokenism--even if, according to your logic, it turns out that the ENTIRE ARMY OF THE, "REPUBLIC," has a dark skin. Clones, remember?

As for the original "Star Trek--" despite its pseudo-liberalism, did you NOT notice that everyplave you went in the galaxy turned out to be America? Did you NOT see the episodes focused on Nazi Germany, on the white, "Yangs," vs. the yellow, "Coms?"

Guys, watch the shows. And keep watching the skies. Sheesh, next you'll be claiming that L. Ron and Lovecraft weren't wacko on the topic of race...

 

[Cruentus]

When you determine social position largely in terms of inherited characteristics, and you tie those characteristics to certain "groups," and you link all this stuff to perfectly common stereotypes right here on earth, what the hell WOULD you like to call it? Didja not LISTEN to the way the characters talk? Jar Jar and his amusing, dancing, rhythym-loving boyos?

Making a few peripheral characters, "different," or doesn't help. it's tokenism--even if, according to your logic, it turns out that the ENTIRE ARMY OF THE, "REPUBLIC," has a dark skin. Clones, remember?

As for the original "Star Trek--" despite its pseudo-liberalism, did you NOT notice that everyplave you went in the galaxy turned out to be America? Did you NOT see the episodes focused on Nazi Germany, on the white, "Yangs," vs. the yellow, "Coms?"

Guys, watch the shows. And keep watching the skies. Sheesh, next you'll be claiming that L. Ron and Lovecraft weren't wacko on the topic of race...

So it's kinda like a sci-fi version of the book of Mormon's? Couldn't resist...:ultracool

 

[Tgace]

....but when you are creating a fictional reality you have to blend and mash together elements of reality...

And isnt that really what the fact of the matter here is? How do you put together a FANTASY universe without using some historical elements and all the baggage that comes with them? Try putting together a story with no elements that somebody could pick apart and lets see how interesting it is.