Words are by their very nature exclusionary. They have exact, concrete definitions, and though context may help understand the use and intent of a sentence or phrase; the words themselves have exact meanings. That is how language works; now you may have a unique experience of language, your range of vocabulary is uniquely yours, and how and why you use language is yours, but the meaning of words is democratic. How the masses use a word is what the word invariably means; be it the majority of those who speak the language (The English Speaking World) or the majority of the sub-culture in which new words or new uses of words emerge.
This article emerges from the simple question: “What is art?”
“In 1917, Marcel Duchamp, using the pseudonym R. Mutt, submitted a store-bought urinal, which he titled “Fountain,” to an art exhibition. Whether Mr. Mutt with his own hands made the fountain or not has no importance. He chose it. He took an ordinary article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under a new title and point of view and created a new thought for the object.” – Duchamp et al (1917)
The above, of course, expounds on the notion that anything can be art, and indeed is perhaps the great example of context giving art meaning. However, we recognise that act as art, but not every urinal as art; despite aesthetic concerns (and thus artistic expression) being a part of the act of design itself. Thus, what differentiates art from anything else, and indeed returning to the original topic of words being exclusionary; if anything can be art then what is the meaning of the word art?
To be frank; I am far from a great mind, and many of the great minds of history have attempted to answer the question of what is “art”, and all have come to a variety of answers. Plato claimed that Socrates saw art as a poor imitation of life, whereas Georgia O'Keeffe saw the act of creating art the act of filling space with beauty. Invariably, art achieves many things, and many things relate to art. The creative process is intrinsic in all actions, but not all actions exist to be creative to the ends of being creative. This essay, though created for the joy of creation, has several practicable purpose; to engage students/an audience in a discussion, to advertise ArmoniaSeminary as an educational entity, and to communicate a lesson and message. It is not divorced from an innately practical purpose. Thus, is it art? I would argue no; it is not a work that exists for its own sake, and its contexts denies it being an act of creativity to create something beautiful or emotionally moving. However, that is how I would understand the word art as a concrete word:
“The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.” – Oxford Dictionary
However, what does this have to do with the Jedi Path, or being a Jedi? The concrete definition of Jedi to most people is the following:
“A member of the mystical knightly order in the Star Wars films, trained to guard peace and justice in the Universe.” – Oxford Dictionary.
Although the phonetic phrase Jedi existed long before the Mind of George Lucas: Jidaigeki (Japanese Period Drama) and Al-Jeddi (an Arabic phrase referring to a master of the mystic-warrior way) being just two poignant examples, it was Lucas who gave “Jedi” their meaning. As such, to be a Force Realist, Jediist, or more simply a Real Jedi, one cannot entirely divorce themselves from the concrete meaning of the word Jedi.
An aspect of our path is forever married to the fiction that inspired our movement. However, the democratic process is indeed winning out control of the word: Wikipedia has an article (Though biased and dated) dedicated to Jediism, and even the article on the fictional Jedi has a section dedicated to Jediism. Some open-source dictionaries now define Jediism as “A minor modern religion based on the Jedi of the Star Wars series”. Increasingly people recognise the sincerity of our dedication to Jediism through media exposure, and increasingly people know Jedi can mean an adherent of Jediism as much as a Laser-Sword wielding, Hermetic Space Wizard, from The Star Wars.
However, do either of these broad definitions serve us well:
Jedi: An adherent of Jediism.
Jediism: A minor modern religion based on the Jedi of the Star Wars series.
I would argue, that on balance, both are fundamentally true but deeply flawed, because of one simple factor: What, once you get past the superficial presentation, is Jediism? Let us consider the definition of Christian for a moment:
Adjective: Relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings.
Noun: A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity.
We do use Jedi as people use Christian. We talk about behaviours as Jedi-like or unbecoming of a Jedi. We have rites of initiation, and peer recognition, and beliefs which constitute whether one is recognised as a Jedi or not. Linguistically; we use Jedi as an exclusionary term, but our main problem is we all use it in slightly different ways because we have all approached the task of becoming a real Jedi differently. I, myself when I use Jedi, use it to carefully refer to only those living the path; orthopraxy (what one does) is far more important to me that orthodoxy. I care little about other people’s beliefs regarding the Force, so long as they have confronted that important question of spirituality. I care if one is committed to their duty to all; the religious service that defines being a Jedi. I am also rather unapologetic as seeing the Jedi Compass as the key document of our current period of Jediism; it was created by input from people from the vast breadth of the active Jedi community between 2013-2015. It also one of the few documents which outlines being a Jedi available in multiple languages (Six including English).Lastly; it defines our core values, our ethics in broad terms, and the proper practice of being a Jedi. Something few documents do in a systematic manner.
However, for every Jedi who is compliant with the concepts of the Jedi Compass, you will find another who feels its structures too rigid and against the original spirit of being a Jedi. For every Jedi who feels that the Force is a metaphor for the connection between all things, the actions and consequences that all living things impose upon one another, there will be others who give it a devout, metaphysical meaning. Thus, what on Earth does the word Jedi mean when we cannot even decide on the fundamentals of Jediism? Have we allowed Jedi to become as nebulous at the word art in a post-modern world? Have we allowed Jedi to become so broad a term that it can be “anything” so long as the person professes they are a Jedi? I suspect we are closer to the answer of “What isn’t a Jedi” than we are to an answer as to what a Jedi is. It is at least a start however.
Citations
Duchamp, M., Wood B., and Roché, H. P. (1917) The Blind Man.
Georgia O'Keeffe, O. (1977) Art News.
Plato (Circa 380 B.C) Politeia [The Republic] (Jowett, B., Trans.) Lanham: Start Publishing LLC, 2013 Print.