Saga Star Wars Philosophy: Jedi and Sith

Right, it's whatever you say it is, much like the Force. I'm sensing a pattern.

No personal attacks to see here, move along.

You really can have it both ways! Is this what they call the "old Jedi mind trick"?

You do if you want to claim that something was not fanon at the time that it was still fanon.

Yes yes yes.

The fact that support for the concept appeared in no official source prior to 2013.

Arguing for the acceptability of "that version" was a strange way to go about it.

Really? You're going to act as if the sources I cited above were about the content of the prequels? In the OT era the living Force/unifying Force dichotomy had not yet been invented. Sources about the production of the OT refer to the same sides of the Force that were referenced by TESB Yoda: the "good side" and "bad side". They make quite clear what the intent of the creative team was. You know, the famous intent of the creative team. That thing that's all-important when it backs you up, and completely irrelevant when it doesn't.

No. Are you somehow trying to blame your own tactics on me?

That is simply an outright lie. Not only do you know that the "good side" and "bad side" ( or "dark side" ) are spoken of explicitly in TESB, you've seen quotes describing them which are indeed within the timeframe of the making of the films. And that is not to mention the content of the Bouzereau text which speaks of them in the same terms, even going so far as to present a somewhat Revan-like scenario in which Luke uses both sides at the same time. As for the imaginary rule which says that Lucas can no longer speak of these things, since the films are done being made? It should go in the same place as all other imaginary rules.

Once upon a time, someone acted as if the intent of the creative team was an important thing. It doesn't have to be a film to reflect the intent of Lucas. Looks like someone actually has a big problem with the intent of the creative team which they allegedly hold in such high regard.

So which scene reflects the belief that "everyone can use the Force"?

No, you're once again resorting to the promising strategy of putting your own position in my mouth. I never claimed any such thing. The point was that even if one plays devil's advocate and goes along with your "dark side = evil" substitution, you still don't get what you want: "the dark side is destroyed". If Lucas wanted to establish such a thing, he easily could have done so. He may not be especially verbose but he assuredly knows how to say "the dark side gets destroyed". Or he just as easily could have had his characters do so. But he didn't, and neither did they. That's not some accident of chance. It's because Lucas doesn't believe any such thing, nor do his characters, and the films do not in any way depict a galaxy in which either the existence of evil or the sapient capacity for evil have been somehow erased. The word "balance" does not mean that you get everything you want. It means you get some of what you want and some of what you don't want. That is a balance, which cannot be said for a situation which is 100% positive and 0% negative.

The adjective "bad" is often attached to a thing without the presumption that the thing in question is, in fact, the sum total of evil in the universe. See: bad cholesterol. ( Also see Taoism, or at least Campbell's presentation of it. )

Utter nonsense. They are explicitly talking about the Force in that entire sequence. Why do you think Luke is even there? To compare T-16 racing anecdotes?

George Lucas created the Force, and his scripts show that his concept of it was two-sided from the beginning. Are you asking why Lucas wrote the Force to be consistent with the way he envisioned the Force? Why do revisionists have such a problem accepting a two-sided Force?

You may have "received" the message "the dark side is a perversion of the Force", but that doesn't mean George Lucas is the one who sent it to you. That message is promoted by the Internet, not by the films. When one watches the saga one learns that the Jedi seek to restore balance to the Force. Balance does not mean 100% light side, 0% dark side.

The Sith are not the dark side. Eliminating the Sith does not eliminate the dark side.

If you've been following it, my argument isn't predicated on the EU. In fact, "the EU", being an aggregate of work by various authors with differing ideas, does not tend to have a single, unified stance on issues such as these. I only cited TCW because of its Lucas involvement and the fact that his statements appear on the Blu-rays, but these only reiterate positions he had already taken elsewhere in interviews that can't be so easily thrown under the bus by resorting to the tired and argument-free anti-EU stance. Feel free to specify the "outlandish theories" which you're alluding to here; if you actually bother to read the thread ( or do your own research ) you'll find that none of it was created by me.

 

The Force doesn't exist in real life, but a lot of the time we also have to ask ourselves what is the difference between good and bad. Because Luke asked Yoda how he would know the right thing to do, there was no mention of the Force. If there was please show me the quote.

Also I repeat: Why would the writers split the Force into the dark side and the good side? You didn't really answer you just changed the topic to something about "revisionists". Light is the polar opposite of dark. So why would GL split the Force into the dark side (introduced in ANH) and the "good side" (referenced in TESB, without correlation to the Force). Please explain. I mean, do we have a dark side and a good side of the moon?



You said: The Sith are not the dark side...okay. But that doesn't really address the fact that: Balance is thus achieved by eliminating the only users of the dark side (the Sith).\



Then you said: " That message is promoted by the Internet, not by the films. When one watches the saga one learns that the Jedi seek to restore balance to the Force. Balance does not mean 100% light side(or do you mean good side?), 0% dark side." I don't know where on the internet SW quotes can be found, but if you just watch the movie, there's a scene where Obi-Wan explicitly states "is he not to destroy the Sith and bring balance to the Force." Let me remind you that the Sith are the only users of the dark side present in the saga. I don't know about percentages, and as we confirmed there is no "light side"..Which implies that their use of the dark side is tainting or corrupting the Force.

 

Uh-huh...

Oh look, here's the laughing face. Seen that before.

Indeed. Much as I really don't want to have to get into this I want to put this nonsense to bed. So, let us back-track just a little here.

Where did this aspect of the discussion begin? let me remind you. t began when you suggested that;

in Post #98. This, of course, having nothing to do with the discussion. You have entered it here as nothing other than an attempt to 'blacken' my reputation; based upon the notion that I argued this as if I believed it. Not the first time you have entered into this form of 'argument'.

So, let me remind you of what I said during that discussion

Having brought the subject up (in order to highlight how much of our perception of 'truth' in a fiction is predicated on how we choose to view it - about which more later)

"This is where you have me wrong. I don't believe that at all. BUT, there is nothing explicit within the movies that leads you to call it an outright lie."

"I'm not sure whether you have missed the point, or whether you believe there is a 'hard' argument for the position you hold. If the former then I will re-iterate that I don't believe that the Jedi are 'child-stealers', my point was to highlight how loosely some of our (yes, even your) interpretations are actually based on the evidence of the movies."


"I can only presume that you are being obtuse when you claim that I am "fabricating false allegations" (a strange concept for all sorts of reasons). I don't have a case against the Jedi, I am merely pointing out (and I shouldn't have to repeat this for - at least - the third time) that whatever I believe is not based upon what is in the films but what I have taken from the films."


"As I have already said - on at least three occassions - I don't agree with this interpretation. How could you think I am certain of something I've told you I don't agree with....? The point is, nothing is certain, though you seem certain that your interpretation is the "correct" one. Anything other than your interpretation is deemed, by you, as "revisionism""

I think it was pretty clear that I did not argue the case except to point out the fallacy of your position , which amounts to you believing there is a 'true' way of seeing the saga (which matches pace for pace what you see) and deluded ways (which amount to seeing anything you don't)

What this amounts to is that the real ad-hominem here is your bringing up a falsely attributed position out of context of the discussion we are actually having.

On to the actual discussion.

And how did you define this as fanon? Let megive you a little example

My words: "But your proposition seems to be based upon an idea (easily falsifiable) that GL always had the story as is in mind, and by extension that such was obvious from the OT and only a fool would not have seen it. This is preposterous nonsense."​

Your response: "That is a strawman, so you're right - it does count as preposterous nonsense. The point is that your version of "the story" was not actually presented in the content of the OT. By implication of the above you seem to imagine that Lucas secretly shared your view of things in the OT era, only to change his mind with the advent of the PT. But this ideation is only the well-known fantasy of all revisionists. It cannot be proven because there is literally no evidence backing it up anywhere."

So here, it is you who claims to know what Lucas had in mind. You it is that claims here that it is 'author intent' through only the auspices of direct quotes that can determine the 'facts'. I warned you against believing in such 'facts' within a fiction but....you wouldn't listen. It turns out that...."secretly" Lucas did share my vision. So...the revisionism is....all yours.

Oh..I see what you did here. yes, you part-quoted me and failed to respond to the actual content of the post. So, do you have anything to say with regards to the content (it has to do with your assertions as to authorial intent, in case you forgot)?

But...quite clearly your position was equally not supported by any official source. So, why was your assertion not 'fan invention'? (which, if authorial official source is an a-priori it was and is) This idea that, somehow, 'official source' is the basis that we understand movies is a ridiculous notion invented right now to cover the obvious fact that you were wrong. And, let me be clear here what I am saying you were wrong about. You were wrong to claim that you knew how the films ought to be seen. You were wrong to claim that those who saw the films a particular way were wrong for doing so.

Ah...I see, You're bringing up that hole'there must be good and bad...just like chrisitanity etc.' quote. Did we not undermine that by producing a contradictory quote? Let me be more specific about this aspect of the argument. It is you who seem to define 'authorial intent' as being predicated by some quote that may or may not be seen to have validity within the framework of the movies (ie, whether it matches up with what is shown or not) - let alone whether it has any philosophical or logical merit. Yet... you seem perfectly capable of dismissing equally valid quotes which contradict the position you hold.

And ad-hominem. More to the point, very deliberately so. Given that you understand that I am working under a mis-apprehension (ie, you know that I believed you were talking about a different quote) this is, surely, simply an extension of that error. the use of the word 'lie' is .....most innapropriate.

You and I have nothing more to say to each other. I, certainly, have nothing more I wish to discuss with you.

 

Kind of like the evidence that backs up the claim for Lucas' conceptual intent for an older Anakin all throughout the production of the OT films , and thus not just a 'side-trail' that he took with ROTJ. Or the evidence that shows that he intended for Obi-Wan to have been the Jedi to discover Anakin. You get the picture.

"Why do SW fans have a problem with the importance of the "two-sided Force" being OVER-INFLATED* in regards to the OT???" is a better question.

*This also goes with the 'Jedi vs. Sith' aspect from the PT being back-projected onto the OT

When watching the OT by itself one doesn't learn this. But saga harmonization is a funny thing.

 

Or having everything to do with it.

Now why would someone get the idea that you believe the things you argue?

Still having trouble with the whole time travel thing, I see. Once again, when you made the claim there was no evidence backing it up. The evidence only emerged later. At the time the claim was first made no support for it existed in official sources. And you still haven't managed to identify even one scene providing specific indication of the concept anywhere in the almighty OT. So what does that leave us?

"I know you are but what am I", eh? Forgetting the films and the EU? Or are those things not official enough for you?

No, the TESB material of the Annotated Screenplays, and I believe there's a text devoted to the making of TESB which expresses the same concepts.

No. There is in fact no quote which states the result you desire, something Lucas has mysteriously avoided saying anywhere, even in Rinzler-confessions. But once again we find that authorial intent means nothing to you, since any possible quote only exists to be "undermined" through the usual illogical misrepresentation, fallacy, and game-playing. I believe the putative "undermining" in question was a misrepresentation of the quote to imply that the Force must be bound by the structure of Christianity.

If you're going to imply that there are no quotes from the timeframe of the films which contradict you, that's an issue of the sum total of quotes that are out there, including ones that you've seen. So the above approach isn't going to work.

In what way do the relevant quotes fail to match up with what is shown in the films? In what way do they lack "philosophical or logical merit"? You haven't demonstrated any such thing. Ridiculous assertions such as balance being somehow inconsistent with duality fail to suffice. What the quotes "fail to match up to" is your revisionism, and if you're looking for something that lacks philosophical merit, try the stance that the Force ( or anything else ) is whatever you say it is. If you're looking for a quote that fails to match up with what is shown in the films, I regret to inform you that it's the one you're using.

Why would anyone have a problem with a figment of your imagination?

Gotta love those older padawans. Where's the TESB-era evidence?

Thanks for the history lesson.

 

@Arawn_Fenn and only one kenobi - enough. Any more of the personal attacks & baiting and you can both take a vacation.

 

Sorry, in that entire scene they're talking about the Force, not how to recognize bad behavior. Luke is supposed to be around his early twenties by that point, so he's not asking to be instructed in concepts more suited for children.

YODA: 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.

LUKE: Vader. Is the dark side stronger?

YODA: No...no...no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.

LUKE: But how am I to know the good side from the bad?

YODA: You will know. When you are calm, at peace. Passive. A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack.

It should be sufficiently clear from the above that when Yoda says "the dark side of the Force" he's talking about the dark side of the Force; that when Luke responds with a query about "the dark side" the topic is still the dark side of the Force; that when Luke asks how to know the good side from the bad side, the bad side means the dark side of the Force, because they are still talking about the Force and have not suddenly diverged into a separate discussion.

I'm having a problem understanding how this question is meaningful or how it can be answered in any meaningful way. We could ask the same thing about anything Lucas did. We know that the Force was split into two "halves" even before the script for what became ANH attained resemblance to its 1977 form. So this wasn't something that was changed by Lucas or other writers. So why did Lucas envision a two-sided Force in the first place? Who can say? It may have something to do with his influences, such as Joseph Campbell.

There is indeed a so-called dark side of the moon, so that might not have been the best example for you to use. But if you were to find an example of something that is not viewed as having sides, what difference would that make? For the Force to have light and dark sides, is it required that all other things must have light and dark sides?

No, "we" did not confirm anything of the sort. The light side is openly spoken of in one of the most popular films in the saga, and has been referenced by Lucas on various occasions. It appears in his 1975 draft under a different name. It was referenced in the opening narration of an episode of the Clone Wars television series. The idea of its nonexistence may be popular on the internet, but that doesn't equate to validation.

And there is no scene where Obi-Wan ( or anyone else, for that matter ) says "he is to destroy the dark side". Destroying the Sith does not destroy the dark side.

Actually, though the Sith are the only dark side users that we see on screen during the films, that does not mean that they are necessarily the only dark side users in the galaxy ( in fact, in certain sources which do not happen to be theatrically released movies, they are not ). In one source it is even said that the Jedi use the dark side involuntarily when they fight, but we can leave that aside for now, as it may have debatable relevance to the released films. There is a more significant problem with the above: the implication that the dark side ceases to exist if there is no one using it at any given point. This does not follow. A thing may exist without being used by people.

 

Arawn_Fenn lol you literally didn't answer any of my questions.

I mean, do we have a dark side and a good side of the moon? I know there is a dark side of the moon. But the other side is called the light side. Not the "good side."

Why would the writers split the Force into the dark side and the good side? <--Please answer.

LUKE: Vader. Is the dark side stronger?

YODA: No...no...no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.

LUKE: But how am I to know the good side from the bad?
-So let me understand this..the two sides of the Force are the dark side and the "good side"? Or the more sensical answer that he was asking what action would be the right one to take?

 

Refer to my last post. How is a question of this nature meaningful? What is accomplished by demanding an "answer"? Lucas, an individual as opposed to a group of writers, invented a two-sided Force. What is the question?

Why would he do such a thing?

Why not?

How am I supposed to explain why he did anything?

Why did he make Luke male instead of female? Why wasn't Greedo orange and yellow? Why did he make Lando's copilot an alien? Et cetera.

These are not questions that are contingent upon me to "answer".

How is it "sensical" to assume that as a young adult raised by a strict foster parent, Luke has no concept of right and wrong? Or to assume that in a conversation explicitly about the Force, in which Yoda explicitly refers to the dark side of the Force and no one uses the words "right" or "wrong" even once, Luke's reference to the sides of the Force - even going so far as to use the "side" terminology - is somehow not really about the sides of the Force? Why is Luke on Dagobah in the first place? To be trained in the Force, or to receive a lecture on identifying the rightness or wrongness of behavior?

 

It's very possible that he was there to receive a lecture on identifying the rightness or wrongness of behaviour. Yoda was a mentor to him, not only in Jedi training but in personal development. Yoda also discussed with him that he was not ready for the burden of learning about his lineage, that had nothing to do with the Force.

What is the question? The question is Why would the writers split the Force into the dark side and the good side? I ask this because I'm trying to make you see the distinction. The moon has a dark side and a light side, Light is the opposite of dark. It is nonsensical for the Force to be split into a dark side and a "good side". Which is why it is clear the "good side" (which you constantly argue is the "light side") refers to actions, not a "good" aspect of the Force.

 

So why didn't Obi-Wan tell Luke to use the good side during the trench run?

Why didn't Yoda tell him a Jedi's strength flows from the good side?

Why isn't the saying "May the good side be with you?"

Please explain.

 

No, it is not. He is there to be trained in the Force. At his age, and given his upbringing, there is no indication that he has any kind of deficit in "identifying the rightness or wrongness of behavior". In addition to blatantly and cynically rewriting the entire purpose of his visit to the planet, you've rewritten the character into a mental incompetent.

And for the third time, this is an essentially meaningless question which serves no ultimate purpose other than what we might refer to as rhetorical stalling. What is the point of asking why Lucas would do something, if you cannot glean the answer from observation of the storytelling devices appearing in his films?

You've failed to show that it is in any way nonsensical. It is merely unpopular with certain people. These are not the same concept. Since the Force is a fictional energy field created by Lucas, it defies reason to say that Lucas' version of the Force is in any way "nonsensical".

In fact, nothing could be less "clear", as this is a concept promoted by random people on the Internet, not by Lucas or his films, and it is contradicted by the evidence we have. The dark side of the Force is a side of the Force, hence the name. It is not a categorization of actions, as indicated by the fact that it's not called the dark side of actions; actions are not the Force. ( This comes down to the significance of the words "of the"; in similar fashion, the balance of the Force is a balance of the Force and not a balance of anything else one might be concerned with. ) Lucas has said over and over again that the Force has two sides. Not actions. The Force. In Lucas' original conception the light side was something you made contact with. You don't make contact with actions. You make contact with a component of a mystical energy field.

 

The question is Why would the writers split the Force into the dark side and the good side? <--- You still haven't answered. If you have no reason, admit it.

He is there to be trained in the Force...Okay but he did not only talk to Yoda about the Force. What about when they talk about his relation to Vader? What did that have to do with Force training?

Lucas has said over and over again that the Force has two sides. <---Sorry but I just watch SW movies bud, not GL's back and forth interviews over the last 30 years. And in the movies, there is no mention of a light side.

A Jedi;s strength flows from the good side Force.

May the good side Force be with you.

It was said you would bring balance to the good side Force.

You don't believe in the good side Force do you?

The good side Force is with you young Skywalker.

 

Try reading my posts. I'm not going to address this trolling for a fourth or fifth time. ( By the way, the Force was invented by an individual, not "the writers". )

How does that change the fact that they're talking about the Force when they're talking about the Force?

It wasn't colloquially named "the light side" until some point after the conclusion of the OT. Thus, when mentioned during the OT, it is referred to via its OT-era nomenclature. That is the way reality works. A name change doesn't allow you to pretend something never existed.

 

Indeed, that was my point. Why would someone get the idea that I was arguing that when a) I made clear statements on at least five occasions that I didn't hold that belief; do not agree with that reading and b) when it was actually not the central theme of the discussion.

The theme of the discussion was whether there is an actual truth to be discovered one way or the other. There isn't. What we take from the films is based largely on inference; from what we deem reasonable given what we have seen of characters and situations in the films. You seem to have a notion that a fictional universe has a true basis upon which all answers can be derived, and I was addressing that point.

That links in very nicely with the discussion here because that came about because you claimed that those who had taken, from the OT, that the Force could be used by anybody was nothing other than fan delusion ('fanon' as you have deemed to express it), and that (this was your assertion) that was never the intention of the creator.

I want to absolutely get this on the button, so that there is no confusion that you can hide behind here: I merely stated that I, and others, had taken from the movies the idea that the Force could be used by anybody. Again, let me be specific about this; I made no claim that such was the intention, merely that I , and others, took from the movies that idea.

Any claims about the intention are and were entirely yours. You claimed that it was not the intention and (therefore) anybody who took that from the movies was delusional.

So, bearing that in mind;

Your response here misses the point by miles. In fact I will accept that I may not have helped because I have done a disservice to the point being made. I should not have written "equally not supported" because my position was never an expression of what was intended, only what I, and others, had taken from the films. The assertion as to what was allegedly intended was entirely yours. Given that no direct quotes supporting that proposition exist or existed, why are you asserting such?

I did try and make the point earlier. I said that what you were wrong about was the assertion as to intention. In other words; I am not gloating about being right about that aspect of the story (and as my argument was about the incorrectness of the idea of 'right' within a fictional construct that should be clear) but that you were wrong to confuse your own reading of the movies as being equivalent to the intention of the author.

No trouble with time travel at all. I never made any assertion except that I took from the OT an idea. You made the assertion that that idea was clearly incorrect and not intended. Your assertion. No official support exists for your assertion that I and others were wrong to have taken that from the movies and that it was not as intended. Given what Lucas has said it seems odd that you are disputing whether the author's intention actually existed in the movies.

I am trying to get my head around the idea that you have of arguing author intent as vital, but then questioning whether - once we have confirmation of authorial intent - that actually came about in the films. You can't have it both ways. Which is it? Does authorial intent define the films or not?

 

Your argument that they were talking about the Force rests upon the idea that he as there to learn about the Force so he wouldn't be talking about anything else except the Force. If it can be shown that he talks about things other than the Force that undermines the central (and only) pillar of that argument.

It wasn't named (colloquially or otherwise) anything at all throughout the creation of the next four movies. Bit of an odd omission for such an allegedly central theme I think.

 

Direct quotes don't answer any of these questions.

So why didn't Obi-Wan tell Luke to use the good side during the trench run?

Why didn't Yoda tell him a Jedi's strength flows from the good side?

Why isn't the saying "May the good side be with you?"

If Yoda and Obi-Wan wanted Luke to only use the "good side" then why didn't they say so? Does that mean when they say "the Force they are encouraging him to use both the dark side and the good side?

 

No, my "argument" that they were talking about the Force rests upon the fact that they were talking about the Force during the exchange in question.

YODA: 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.

LUKE: Vader. Is the dark side stronger?

YODA: No...no...no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.

LUKE: But how am I to know the good side from the bad?

YODA: You will know. When you are calm, at peace. Passive. A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack.

Wrong. They are talking about the Force when they are talking about the Force; in another exchange, if they are talking about other things, then they are talking about other things. Having a conversation about Vader in scene #2 does not somehow mean that they are no longer talking about the Force in scene #1. This is stultifying illogic at its finest; by this rationale, if one discusses more than one subject during one's lifetime, any subject one discusses can be misrepresented.

I think you mean to say something like "it wasn't mentioned on screen in the next four movies". It was mentioned in the ROTJ script, and I believe the script writing process has something to do with the creation of movies. And you're still forgetting the implicit role played by the sides of the Force in the balance plotline of the PT, not to mention the explicit reference to the light side in a television show overseen by Lucas in 2011. There seems to be a common thread emerging here: to establish a concept in the films, it is not enough that the concept is expressed once or twice on screen. It must continually be expressed ad nauseam, or, if you like, ad infinitum; it must be repeated in each and every film, and if it is not repeated enough times, it can be thrown out. But who, pray tell, established this imaginary rule?

Fanon, not fan delusion. Your insistence on calling it "delusion" misses the point. Fanon, by definition, must include things that start as fanon, only to be confirmed as canon at a later date ( an example would be Zannah/Rain channeling Force power into Darovit ). Otherwise, nothing is fanon, because any idea dreamed up by fans has the theoretical possibility of being made canon at a future time. But even if it's later confirmed that doesn't change the fact that it started as fanon.

And that's why it was called fanon, because the movies did not present the concept, and non-film sources did not support it until recently. You haven't identified what specific scene or scenes gave rise to this idea that some "took from" the movies. Where is it presented in the films themselves?

 

So, what did you mean by;

"Utter nonsense. They are explicitly talking about the Force in that entire sequence. Why do you think Luke is even there? To compare T-16 racing anecdotes?"

and

" Why is Luke on Dagobah in the first place? To be trained in the Force, or to receive a lecture on identifying the rightness or wrongness of behavior?"

I am merely pursuing the idea that this line of argument is redundant.

As I said, in terms of what you responded to I was discussing the idea that he must be discussing the Force because that is the reason he is on Dagobah.

In terms of what you argue here (and earlier) that they are talking about the Force because one conversation leads straight into another; lets say I take this at face value. Let's say that I agree to interpret that Luke might mean the 'lightside' when he refers to the 'good side'. What response does he get from Yoda? Yoda tells him that he will know; that when the time comes he will know. He further goes on to say that a Jedi uses the Force (singular, definite article the) for knowledge and defence. Never for attack.

So, the only connection we could make to some notional 'good side of the Force might exist in Luke's mind. The response that Yoda gives makes no mention of it. He is specific in talking about the Jedi's use of a singular, definite entity which he calls the Force. He does not say that the Jedi use only the good side of the Force (which would surely be appropriate if that is what the scene were there to illuminate). Yoda is the Jedi teacher, Luke his pupil. The only inference regarding the 'good side' as an aspect of the Force can be imagined in Luke's mind - but Yoda's response contains no such concept.

Okay, if you require that I be more specific. It seems an odd omission that the idea of a 'lightside' or 'good side' of the Force is never mentioned in the next four movies if it is such a central tennet of the Force. It also seems odd that the authors would not use Yoda's response to highlight the distinction between these notional sides of the Force in the one scene you demand it is being discussed.

 

Not the one you're looking for.

Do teachers correct their pupils when they get something wrong, or do they allow their pupils to make incorrect statements without offering the slightest hint of contradiction?

Yoda, the great teacher, fails to contradict Luke's notion. For those who are unable or unwilling to accept that this means Luke is not wrong, we have out-of-universe documentation from the TESB production which confirms that Luke is not wrong.

"It was decided that learning the ways of the Force had to be a constant struggle for Luke and that he would always have to prove himself. In regard to the dark side of the Force, the story meeting transcripts suggest that although one can’t see it, it should be the real villain of the story. In his training Luke discovers the roots of the evil Force. The danger, the jeopardy is that Luke will become Vader, will be taken over. He has to fight the bad side and learn to work with the good side. Lucas felt that at one point during the training Ben should explain to Luke that he should use his powers with moderation. If he uses too much of the Force, it will start using him. For example, to lift objects Luke has to use the bad side of the Force, so if he overuses this power, the dark side will start taking him over as it did with Vader. When Luke fights, he has to use the dark side, but he is also using the good side for protection."

- Laurent Bouzereau, Star Wars: The Annotated Screenplays

And also in Lucas' mind, and in the mind of Ben in a ROTJ deleted scene, and in the mind of the Father, and in the minds of any character in the PT who discussed the balance of the Force.

Yoda's dialogue in the film does precisely that.

 

You are trying to deny that you made an assertion here. You claim you did not call it 'delusion' and re-define what you mean by 'fanon'. Let me quote you directly on this issue (as I have already)

"The point is thatyour version of "the story" was not actually presented in the content of the OT. By implication of the above you seem to imagine that Lucas secretly shared your view of things in the OT era, only to change his mind with the advent of the PT. But this ideation is only the well-known fantasy of all revisionists. It cannot be proven because there is literally no evidence backing it up anywhere."

What do you mean by "fantasy" if not delusion? Revisionists? The accusation of revisionism surely means that you know the intent. (And my argument wasn't that Lucas secretly shared my vision but that the idea was what I took from the movies, the assertions are all yours.) Could you please respond within the context of what you actually said ?

No, you called it 'fanon' because you deemed it fantasy and revisionism - and you don't address the issue here; Does authorial intent define the movies or not? We now know the intent, but here you suggest that we were still wrong to see it..... We were wrong to see in the movies what the author intended?

 

??

As I said, one might imagine that Luke might possibly be under the apprehension that the 'good side' is related to the Force, but Yoda suffers no such concept. he does not even recognise that Luke is talking of a side of the Force. A more pertinent question to ask (with reference to a film; a fiction) is; wouldn't the writers utilise this scene to exemplify this two-sided nature of the Force if it were such a basic tenet of the Force within the movies? And yet, they write only of the Jedi using the Force (singular, definite article)... and then never mention it in the next four movies.

 

I didn't invent the word "fanon". If something is projected onto the film universe by fans, while not being presented in the films or supported by outside sources, it qualifies as fanon.

The author ( as opposed to "the writers" ) may have said one thing to Rinzler, but when faced with a perfect opportunity to present the same idea in the film, he chose otherwise, instead handing the audience a tale about an elite bloodline. If this were another topic, you'd be calling the omission "odd".

You still haven't identified what specific scene or scenes gave rise to this idea that some "took from" the movies. Where is it presented in the films themselves?

Yes, he does; his recognition is not the problem. He's been talking about a side of the Force, so he understands that Luke's immediate response is about the sides of the Force, partly because Luke quite noticeably refers to sides, and partly because it would be highly illogical to assume that Luke is responding to a statement about a side of the Force with a query about a good side and a bad side that somehow has nothing to do with the sides of the Force and is thus out of context.

"It was decided that learning the ways of the Force had to be a constant struggle for Luke and that he would always have to prove himself. In regard to the dark side of the Force, the story meeting transcripts suggest that although one can’t see it, it should be the real villain of the story. In his training Luke discovers the roots of the evil Force. The danger, the jeopardy is that Luke will become Vader, will be taken over. He has to fight the bad side and learn to work with the good side. Lucas felt that at one point during the training Ben should explain to Luke that he should use his powers with moderation. If he uses too much of the Force, it will start using him. For example, to lift objects Luke has to use the bad side of the Force, so if he overuses this power, the dark side will start taking him over as it did with Vader. When Luke fights, he has to use the dark side, but he is also using the good side for protection."

- Laurent Bouzereau, Star Wars: The Annotated Screenplays

In the above it can be quite clearly seen that the bad side is a side of the Force, "the bad side of the Force".

That is exactly what the scene does. That's why revisionists insist on various nonsensical strategies to - what was the word? - "undermine" the scene. So much for authorial intent.