Expressions of Sovereignty

Historically this Order has operated with an organically forming hierarchy, formed as a byproduct of individuals earning titles on the basis of their own respective progress, development, experience, and competence as practitioners. In an effort to more consciously, directly influence and manage the overall make-up of the hierarchy, and exert an undue amount of top down influence over the shape it takes as a whole, as a collective, Miles and Luciana attempted to radically (if subtlety) modify the functionality and meaning of the titles, and their roots in individualism. Had the policy remained in place and been allowed to play out the effects would've been extreme, and not just when it comes to the delegitimizing of established practitioners - as a way to prop up the legitimacy / authority of those who conveniently retained their titles? - but in that newcomers would immediately be coming to a place where leaders say you can earn titles, but you only get to keep it if you meet their "standards" - i.e. get and maintain their approval. That wasn't a concern for newcomers under my leadership because I never presumed to lord over the paths of other individuals.

I may Lord over the path itself, in an abstract sense, through my own travels along the way; and I may be Lord of my own practice and an authority on the ideology in my own right, but that doesn't mean anyone who comes along after me must bow down to or even recognize that authority or that I seek to force it upon any of them. Miles doesn't recognize mine anymore, right? E.g. despite the presumption of the right to judge my standing, in substitution for my own judgment... the authority with which he and Luciana tried to "revoke" the titles of their peers was completely imagined. This aspect of it is not personal, it's axiomatic. Is what it is.

In trying to exercise power they didn't have, they generated circumstances that inevitably revealed the limitations of the fantasy. Because you see, what they failed to realize and what I really, really tried to get across to them before they took it to far, was that part of what these titles signify are varying levels of sovereignty. Over their lives, their values, their beliefs, and their individual practice. Declaring yourself or being recognized by the Council as a disciple of the Sith ways is a step towards that sovereignty. Knighthood signifies that it has been established. Lordship signifies that it has been recognized by the practitioner, exploited, and solidified. That's obviously not all there is to the titles or their meaning, but I'm not engaging in a comprehensive exposition on the meaning, nature, or functionality of each title right now. It might be something you see in future lectures but what I'm concerned with here, now, is that you understand what sovereignty is and how it relates to the various titles in play here, as well as to the path as a whole.



In becoming a Disciple, a declared practitioner, the individual is signifying (whether consciously or not) their intention to become more sovereign than they presently are. In attaining Knighthood the individual signifies (consciously) their claim to and possession of sovereignty and their ability and intention to embrace and make use of (i.e. exploit) it, and to retain it in the face of challenges. In becoming a Lord the individual is signifying, beyond gaining or maintaining sovereignty, their intention to expand the depth and scope of it, and in some cases (e.g. through those willing to produce training materials or work with apprentices, collaborations with peers, etc) to share tools, methods, ideas, paradigms, etc - and allowing other individuals to make use of them of their own accord, on their own terms, at their own pace.

Notice I mentioned challenges to sovereignty; it relates most closely to Knights imo but applies to all Sith, whether of 'higher' or 'lower' standing. So given everything I've said thus far, what do you think the policy move by Miles and Luciana really was? A direct challenge to it, and not just mine specifically but to every existing practitioner it effected in real time and every subsequent practitioner thereafter. I fractured the Order in response, for my part, which they didn't seem to think I was willing or able to do; blind to the issue of sovereignty at play I guess, but sovereignty over my own practice is non-negotiable. They don't have a claim to it. Or to your practice; neither do I. With me, once I've perceived someone to be a Knight, publicly confirmed it by recognizing and 'officiating' their title, there are no take backs or redo's. Done deal.

To recognize an individuals transformation and then pretend you didn't see it, or it's been nullified, or that you saw a reversion that somehow invalidates the transformation... devalues the title itself. And can potentially undermine every other individual who is recognized. Can they ever trust it won't be politicized, weaponized, yanked away at a whim or for some personal agenda of the leaders, whoever they may be at the time? Even if an individual does backtrack, devolve, that they've undergone what they have means that they can do it again, of their own accord and without an "approval process" that ignores their sovereignty. Knights and Lords have the exclusive right, after being recognized a such, to determine whether they want to relinquish their title and earn it back. The earning has to be on their own terms, to an extent - so too does relinquishment, and conversely someone who's won title, stumbled or fallen on their ass, whatever... also has every right to retain it as they work to live up to it. No real need to take it away - no real ability to anyways. So why pretend.

Just cuz a rose bush isn't flowering right then, in the present... doesn't mean it can't, hasn't, or won't.

A tree losing a few limbs, or a few leaves, doesn't mean it can't or won't spring back revitalized, stronger.

No matter how bad a shape it's in, or how rarely it dazzles anyone, it's still not a seed (i.e. disciple) anymore.