Saga Is the light side just as bad for the Force as the dark?

I respect your interpretation of the dialogue and I have my own. But I think that the term "light side" is never used while the term "dark side" is used a lot, shows that the Jedi simply view the "light side" as the Force, in it's completeness. The dark side is an unbalance corruption of the Force. If not then Jedi would be saying "Trust in the light side". Obi-Wan would have been telling Luke "Use the light side" during the trench run.

 

This has nothing to do with the argument you made, which was that because the term 'side' was involved, as a function of language its opposite concept must exist. That is the whole of it.

 

But, right here, is the argument encapsulated. You question whether the Force can be in balance with the destruction of the Sith, but that is exactly what Lucas has confirmed was the culmination of the prophecy; that Anakin would destroy the Sith and bring balance to the Force. The two go hand in hand; they are one and the same thing.

 

Of course it does. Why, what a snook cocked at me, eh? It should be clear that I am referring the coyness of your quoting the particular reference because...it isn't what you say it is. You won't quote it because you know it is weak.

Again, very disingenuous. Let's go right back to what was said, and by whom.

The Supreme Chancellor said; "@Arawn_Fenn...the light side is never mentioned in TESB. That's a fact."

You replied "Facts ain't what they used to be. The light side is mentioned in TESB. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you get to rewrite history."


Now....who's playing games here?

Giving me good reason not to...the one follows the other you will find.

Eerrmm, this was in response to your claim that your point had been "extensively documented", yet all you had actually brought to the discussion in terms of 'documentation' was that un-referenced 'quote'. Have you extensively documented it or not? I don't think that you have.

Let me offer up a quote. By George Lucas himself from the commentary of ANH; "Which brings us up to the films 4, 5, and 6, in which Anakin's offspring redeem him and allow him to fulfill the prophecy where he brings balance to the Force by doing away with the Sith and getting rid of evil in the universe..."

That is pretty categorical I think.

As I said, the best source is the early teachers of this. Would you disagree? You think a 20th Century American writer is a better source for understanding the philosophy of The Way than the adepts who taught it? What was it about my response you didn't understand?

I really don't have a problem with whether or not The Force matches up with THe Way, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Jainisn or any other myriad philosophical/religious constructs. As I pointed out before, in order to try and put you right on this, it is that Lucas seems to understand them poorly going by the 'quote' you gave earlier.

Tut tut. Why did you put quotation marks here? Very dishonest.

Ermmm... yeah. That's the point. He's misunderstood, and therefore misrepresented The Way. You don't have to take my word for it, you can educate yourself. There are plenty of pretty good translations available of the most important writings. None of them, not surprisingly, were written by Joseph Campbell. That only Jospeh Campbell has noted these parallels might give one reason to question it? No?

Thank you for this lesson in philosophy. I am ever so grateful.

NO THEY DON'T. Read man, it does no good to make assertions, or general philosophical arguments when you are clearly arguing from a position of ignorance.

 

Yes, because apparently you haven't.

It's not a matter of interpretation:

“Yes, run! Yes, a Jedi’s strength flows from the Force. But beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan’s apprentice.”

“Vader. Is the dark side stronger?”

“No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.”

“But how am I to know the good side from the bad?”

“You will know… when you are calm, at peace, passive. A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack.”

 

Of course it does, and if that is your response I think you just proved my point. The word does not share it's etymology with words like riverside, unless you want to hang your hat on the "adjacent to" definition. So, that leaves us with the most direct and plausible meaning, right back at square one. If you want to dispute that, make your case. The floor is yours again. The word seems pretty clear to me, and in fact probably to most people.

If you want to tell me that I'm wrong, you should be able to give us the correct answer now, so do so. If it does not compare to words like upside/downside, what would you compare it too? I can't help but notice you evaded the challenge the last time, which is a form of an answer in itself.

 

Is this what you originally said, or isn't it?

The use of the word "side" pretty much guarantees that there is a light side. Just as a function of language.

And I responded to that, which is not the point you now claim I must answer.

But...if you insist. What is "riverside" as a concept? It is a distinctive area of land, made distinct by its proximity to something that is not land. 'River' is not an aspect of 'land', it is distinct from it. The whole point of referencing 'riverside' of the land is because the concept 'river' is distinct from the concept 'land'. Not only that but there is no 'not-riverside' concept that exists because there is a 'riverside'`.

 

So then, if Darkside were to follow that meaning, it's an area adjacent to the darkness. That makes no sense. Riverside isn't the only example of words with that meaning, that was never my point. There is roadside, curbside, and many others. They all share a similar meaning. I think you already know the problem here, darkside does not follow that pattern. It does clearly follow upside/darkside. Unless you can dispute that, and pointing out riverside over and over again isn't going to cut it.

We gain clues about language from context, and you clearly can't draw a common meaning between darkside and riverside, you would have by now if you could.


Vader was seduced by that area next to the dark.........................

it makes no sense.

 

Qui Gon Gin represents the "true" nature of the force. What he calls the living force. He is often defiant of the council and frustrated with it. You have to realize that he was the one who was able to come back from the netherworld of the force. He understood the real nature of the force, he knew Anakin would bring balance. The Jedi as an institution have lost touch with the true nature of the force, the balanced force. So the Jedi as they were had to be destroyed, their blindness to the living force made the Sith more powerful and created a way for the dark side to take over.

 

The point being, as it was initially (you are the one who seemingly wants an exact like for like simily here) that there is no function of language that means that there if there is a 'side' to something that there is an equal and opposite concept. It doesn't make sense because you are insisting on something that was never argued as if it must be. It doesn't. Just read back to what I originally responded to and all should become clear.

But, as an aside, given this 'function of language' that you were so clear about, what is the equal and opposite concept of 'riverside'? It should be easy to find as it is a simple function of language, isn't it?

 

I think we are done here, this is the third time you have dodged the basic question. If you want to tie the meaning to riverside fine

According to you darkside means an area adjacent to the dark.

You clearly have no other card to play

 

Dodged what basic question? Read back to what you said and how I responded. This 'basic question' has nothing to do with either the flimsy claim that you initially made (function of language), or my response to it. You have just made up a whole other 'point' that has no relevance to what you said. Anybody can go back and read it.

 

Wow I watched it again...still no mention of the light side. your wrong.

 

I thought we were past the fact that "good side" = "light side" since he was factually talking about the Force. Oh well...

 

The basic question that if we are to ignore the most straightforward implication of the term dark side, that it is an aspect of the force that is defined in part by it's relationship to the light, what alternative meaning would you suggest in it's place?

It's not enough to tell me I'm wrong, you have to show us what's right.

 

So it isn't what I say it is, and it is what you say it is, because you say so? Such a compelling argument. The claim was made that something was never mentioned, when in fact it was mentioned. It was a false claim. No amount of game-playing on your part, including ignoring the explicit content of posts you quoted yourself, can change this fact. Besides, we have Lucas' own words to show that the reference does indeed mean what I say it does, and you know this. So you're just being blatantly dishonest while you try to figure out a better strategy.

You know who.

You misunderstand. I didn't say that I extensively documented it. I said that it was extensively documented.

Only if you insist on taking something literally that, logically speaking, cannot be taken literally. See any problem there? What exactly do you expect a post-ROTJ universe to look like?

So, are you calling Campbell a fraud or aren't you? And I'm still wondering if you can back up what you're saying about Taoism. Doesn't look like it.

As I pointed out, or tried to, that is totally irrelevant.

Right. Since you know the answer to my question is "nowhere", all you're left with is gems like "tut tut". Oh look, more of those dishonest quotation marks!

Even if true, that would be irrelevant to the question of the Force. Lucas' influence was Taoism as seen through the lens of Joseph Campbell. As such it makes no difference at all if Campbell got Taoism wrong. Unless of course you're giving a Taoism lecture which is not meant to have any relevance to the question of the structure of the Force. In that case, carry on. ( I mean, that would have to be your purpose here, because it's not like you're arguing that the structure of the Force should be dictated by the aspects of Taoism that Lucas or Campbell didn't get. )

YES THEY DO. See, I can make assertions in capital letters too!

Still false. You can't make references to the light side disappear by the unlimited power of denial.

 

Nope, no one jumps to conclusions based on their own interpretations of words except you.

 

Arawn Fenn..without any quotes from the films, your arguement is pretty weak. Want me to show you how it's done? Here is a quote about the "dark side":

Darth Vader: "Give yourself to the dark side. It is the only way you can save your friends."
ROTJ

Now if you have one that mentions the light side go ahead by all means!

Stay up!

 

There is no room for interpretation. What do you think 'good side' of the Force means?

 

He didnt say good side of the Force.

 

Which means ur making assumptions based on your interpretation.

 

Yoda: "Remember, a Jedi's strength flows from the Force."
ROTJ

That's weird..he didn't mention the "light side" at all. Hmmm..

 

Then what is the dark side? What is it if it's not defined by it's relationship to the light? Why call it a side? The sith are also using the force.

 

He didn't need to. As seen in their conversation, they were already talking about the Force.

No, I merely listening to what they said.

Are you trolling? Why are you ignoring the rest where the good and bad sides of the Force are mentioned?

P.S: And don't triple post. There is an edit button for a reason.

 

The dark side is the corrupted version of the Force.