Lit Jacens Fall felt forced.

You sure about that? The Will of the Force has been a big thing since TPM. I'm not sure "non-sentient" is a valid descriptor of the Force.

 

'Will' does not imply consciousness. The Force may indeed have goals and even some sense of desires but there's nothing to imply conscious reasoning of the type we are familliar with. And frankly, we should not hope for such a thing - a conscious Force becomes just another fantasy dualistic divine entity without any unusual unique factors.

 

What do you think will implies? And more over, what's the sense in following this will if it doesn't imply some for of cosmic consciousness?

 

Non-sapient animals have a will. Computers have a will, programmed or not, and can think a whole lot faster than you or I. Neither are conscious.

As to the sense in following it, I don't know. That's not my faith. However it bears strong similarities to elements of other religions, particularly concepts of Dao and Brahman from Daoism and Hinduism respectively.

Star Wars has an 'Eastern' religious reality overlaid on a 'Western' social system and secular space. It's a curious mixture, and there is constant tension. The life history of Han Solo, who has to some extent taken a long and bitter journey from one side to the other, is very revealing of this.

 

Computers don't have a will, and animals are conscious.

 

No not even as bad as his grandfather. Anakin loved Palpatine and KNEW him for years and he was a confidante a mentor and a friend, in his own words. One he revered trusted and relied on. Too much. But Anakin's oversight of loyalty have nothing to do with Jacen's selfishness. He is so full of himself as if he were the end all be all of existence.

WTHeck did Jacen know about Lumiya except that she had the force? And how easily he turned on his own sibling parents relatives and friends? Anakin would never have EVER shot at his mother, kill a family member, mind wipe a nephew? Never. The mere thought of it brought him back from twenty plus years of true sithdom.

 

^^How does helping wipe out the entire Jedi Order fit into that? Were these not his friends? He strangled his wife, for crying out loud. He was a Sith for almost two decades and did horrible things to innocent people, and yet Jacen's worse?

No, animals have survival instincts, that is not the same. I agree with your religious overlays onto a social system, but to say that everything in this universe is pre-determined by a non-sentient Force is not something that I can buy into, nor do I think that the Yoda bought into such a thing. If that were the case, than the future would not be in motion, it would be a fixed entity.

I actually agree with your view that the Force just is, but I don't think the in-universe thinking reflects this. Luke clearly believes now that there is a light and dark side to the Force, having eschewed Vergere's (and Jacen's) 'one Force' view.

 

Non-sapient animals are still sentient. They have will, they have desire and intention. That is the lowest ontological definition of "will." Computers, on the other hand, possess no desire of their own independent of what a programmer designs it for. We do not have AI yet, which could be said to possess will... take C3PO and R2-D2, for instance.

The rhetorical differences between the earlier EU, which tended to talk about the flow of the Force, and what we got in TPM and the later EU as a result are important IMO. Will, specifically, connotes sentience. Taoists do not speak of Tao having a will, either because they don't consider Tao to be in possession of consciousness or because they don't wish to speak on matters that are ultimately unfathomable. Arguably, if Tao is Wuji and thus the container of all possbilities and indeed all things that are, can or ever will be... logically Tao is also Consciousness itself. And Brahman is "defined" as Sat-cit-ananda(Being-consciousness-bliss). "Will" carries with it a very specific connotation of desire and intent, and the phrase "will of the Force" echoes the phrase "will of God" and implies the desire and intention of a Higher Power. Which is significant. And of further significance is GL's further defining of the Force as being no just devided into a yin-yang parity of light and dark sides, but also of a hierarchical metaphysics of the Living Force and the Cosmic Force(aka the Unifying Force). The way he defines the Cosmic/Unifying Force takes this "will of the Force" further to connote Cosmic Consciousness. You can certainly say the Force is impersonal, as would perhaps be best with a logical understanding of Tao as embracing all potentialities including consciousness, specifically Pure Consciousness, and certainly with Brahman as the impersonal Ultimate Reality(where-in Atman is Brahman personalized). Which, in truth, is no different from the gnostic traditions of "Western" or Abrahamic religions. The Ultimate Reality of God in the Abrahamic traditions is Infinite and Indefinable. As a Muslim I am most conversant in Islamic terminology, so I will use that as an example: in Islam the Absolute Being of God is called Dhat, or Essence. It is not limited by attributes, names, and certainly does not have form. So in the Islamic tradition even the Name Allah, or the 99 Most Beautiful Names, are only signposts by which we might gain limited knowledge of the Divine. The Reality, the Essence of the Divine, is ultimately knowable on to the Divine Reality Itself.

I don't think Luke can be said to have eschewed the view that the Force is One, at all. However, he has confirmed that the Oneness of the Force includes the polarities of the light and dark sides of the Force. Personally, I tend to view the light and dark sides arising in the ontological descent of the Force from the Cosmic/Unifying Force to the Living Force. The light and dark sides are realities in the state of the Force known as the Living Force, however they are not distinct or necessarily meaningful realities in the Oneness of the Cosmic/Unifying Force. They just cannot be ingnored, because they are never at any point not in play for beings that can only exist at this ontological level that the Living Force is at. Take Taoist cosmology, for instance. Wuji is the non-delineated phase of Tao that contains within itself all potentialities. Taiji is the emergence of yin and yang and Taiyi is the interplay of yin and yang. yin and yang are not entirely separate, as indicated by the yin-yang symbol(Taiji tu) for yin is contained within yang and vice versa. They are a reality that the Ten Thousand Things must always deal with, even though the ultimate truth is Wuji. In Islamic mystical cosmology you have pretty much the same thing in an Abrahamic package. The Ultimate Reality of God, containing all His Names, is the indefinable Divine Essence, while on the level of existence the only way to know God is by way of the Divine Names... which are then traditionally divided into Names of Mercy and Names of Justice... or alternately theologians and mystics speak of tashbih(nearness) and tanzih(distance). God is both Transcendent and Immanent. The Unifying Force is the Transcendent Force, the Living Force is the Immanent Force.

 

Whoa! Good stuff. I confess that I had to read this a couple of times to grasp it, and I'm not sure I still get all of it.

However, I am not sure that having a desire to survive is the same as having 'will'. Will implies being able to make conscious, rational decisions with a look towards the future. I'm not sure my cat has that type of forward thinking--she sleeps when she's tired, eats when she's hungry and plays when she's bored.

Getting back to Jacen--this is why I'm bitter that they killed him off. The 'Jaina' page doesn't have these types of existential discussions. Vergere's lesson of 'why being the most dangerous question' is one that none of the other EU characters would have been able to grasp, with the exception of Danni Quee, perhaps.

 

It does seem like the EU has steped away form thinking and embraced "Take our word for it" stream of thought.

 

That's up for debate, scientifically and philosophically. There's some question as to whether or not that can ever be reliably known, given the differences in our forms of consciousness. The fact that my cats show a desire for a thing, and endeavor to get what they desire is enough for me to consider that having a will. Will is a desire, purpose and determination. So my cats' desire to be pet, their coming to me and rubbing on my leg until I pet them is showing their will to be pet. Their meowing in the kitchen incessantly displays their desire, purpose and determination to get food.

Even without Jacen the EU could still have these kinds of discussions. I actually yearn for that, but it would require an interest and familiarity of the authors with not simply GL's intended metaphysics of the Force, but metaphysical traditions more generally. I'd really be interested in seeing what someone more informed by the various gnostic traditions of the world would do with the Force. I think that's what made Stover's work in Traitor so compelling, he's got a familiarity with Taoist thought via his martial arts training. If an author spent some time reading Rene Guenon, Fithjof Shuon, Ananda Coomaraswamy and Seyyed Hossein Nasr we could end up with a very interesting examination of the Force. I think one could make an argument for why the Jedi actually need to stick to their own knowledge of the Force and how to approach its study, while affirming other traditions like the Fallanasi, Aang-Tii, Baran-Do Sages, Matukai, Zeison Sha and other traditions. And even offer a rebuttal to the dark side affiliated traditions and the Potentium and Vergere without having to have turned Vergere and Jacen into a Sith.

I really don't see the Jedi Way as rejecting the dark side of the Force existentially or even vilifying the dark side per se. They clearly accept the dark side as a necessary component of the Living Force and the balance between the light and dark sides as necessary for the healthful existence of the cosmos. The difference between the Jedi Order and the Je'daii is in the willingness to use the dark side of the Force at all. Clearly something happens, probably related to the Rakata, that makes the Je'daii realize the very use of the dark side is too dangerous a path to walk down. I still don't get the impression that they put it to use all that often anyway. It's when sentient, sapient beings use the dark side that problems arise. I've read interesting stuff from the religious Taoist traditions, including sorcery, that are very very Star Wars-y. I need to find the issue of the Qi Journal that had this great article about Taoist sorcery. It was really really good.

 

If that's the case of it, you need to use utilitarian means. Not "randomally". That doesn't make you more "right" or "lightside" to choose randomally. To roll your D2 dice and see if it lands Nelani or if it lands Luke. You need to weigh it.

Who is better apt to help the galaxy at large; Nelani or Luke? Who is more apt to do more future good? Luke or Nelani? Who is more "worthwhile", who has more "intrinsic" value. And don't give me that garbage of "we're all equal" or "all sentients are the same, and morality says we're all the same and equal and that no one person is worth less than another" - because that's a BS statement. "Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others." Is a common quote for a reason, and least of all because it was Orwell saying it - its a common quote because its true.

Compare my life vs. Barack Obama. Sure, I have 3 daughters and a wife. But if I'm killed, a small family is affected. If Obama is killed, a lot more are affected. His small family. The entire political structure of America. The American military, the American economic situation can be changed, wealthfare, political agendas, current laws, future laws, gun laws, possible military actions and strikes needed to quell whatever terrorist attack killed the President of the United States, the future loss of life at the bumbling idiocy of Joe Biden, etc.

 

Much of the purpose of the above philosophical discussion is to the point that the Force (the Living Force anyway) rejects utilitarian means because it is incapable of conscious thought. The ethical doctrine of the Force is not based on utility, it does not hinge on the greatest good for the greatest number, but the emotional choices of the individual. The Force does not reason.

The OT explicitly rejects utilitrian moral thinking: Luke cannot strike down the Emperor even though by just about any utilitarian standard you can possibly articulate that would absolutely be the right choice. He can't do it because doing so would be an act of hatred, and the consequences of his emotional choice would bring him to the dark side - to give in to hatred actually outweighs any utilitarian good killing the Emperor might accomplish.

The morality of the Force is ruled by intent, not action. Why you want to do something, how you feel about it, these determine moral outcomes, not actual actions. The Jedi properly trusts his feelings over logic or data, which going back to the 'who to kill hypothetical' means a Jedi should go with their feelings in that situation - specifically the feeling not to act to take an innocent life, which probably means they should refuse to answer and force whom or whatever is positing the situation to choose (which if it were a computer program might well be random).

It's worth noting here that the above situation really applies only to Force-users whose decision making is immersed in the Force. Star Wars has generally confered significantly greater amounts of moral flexibility and utilitarian convention upon those who cannot feel the will of the Force. To make the point using the aforementioned Emperor comparison - Luke cannot strike the Emperor down without falling, but Mon Mothma can explicitly designate the Emperor as a kill target for the Endor mission and not have any issues. Outcast makes this point in reverse: if you take away the Force as a moral justification the Jedi suddenly become criminals.

 

We can make an even more specific situational comparison, I think, where Luke cannot strike down the Emperor on the DSII because he's a Jedi essentially. If he does, he actually runs the risk... if not the certainty... that he will become as dangerous as the Emperor, and he'll be at Vader's side doing it. It actually raises an interesting point, in this regard, when you consider that Vader didn't let Luke strike down the Emperor despite it seemingly being in Vader's best interests as a Sith to have his Master struck down. Arguably this is the first sign of Vader's return to the light, since he is actively preventing his son from killing Palpatine in a moment of anger. To continue with the situational comparison, in Empire's End Han Solo can literally shoot Palpatine in the back with anger and no moral consequences(at least that we are aware of), because he's not a practitioner of the Jedi religion.

I think, arguably, there is some wiggle room for a Jedi to be more utilitarian than you are suggesting. The Force most likely operates on a greater spectrum than a strict light/dark divide.... meaning, you can skirt the edges of the dark side without falling. For instance, Windu regularly used Vaapad which essentially did just that. More to the point, Obi-Wan Kenobi was without a doubt touched with anger when he cleaved Darth Maul in two. That, however, did not sent him plunging inexorably into the dark side. I think the difference is in how much anger, and hatred is invested in an action. If Luke were to have struck down Palpatine on the DSII without having been goaded to anger and hate, he certainly wouldn't have turned to the dark side. It's possible that he could have done it while somewhat angry, but it could be a matter of degree.

That said, Jacen's decision to kill Nelani was tainted by the dark side and his desire to learn the secrets of the Sith. He'd already chosen the dark side of the Force, he just believed it didn't effect his moral compass. And his vision wasn't about Luke or Nelani being of the most value to the galaxy... that's unquantifiable, really. Both are Jedi, both have the same potential to be of value to the people of the galaxy. Nelani Dinn was a Jedi Knight, she's even more likely to be on active duty than Luke... who is essentially a politician as Grand Master. Jacen's choice was not about the value of these individuals to the galaxy-at-large. It was about their value to him personally, and his not wanting to be the one to personally kill Luke Skywalker... and also his desire to learn the secrets of the Sith. The real crux of that choice was not the greater galactic good, it was not about the value of Luke or Nelani, but the greed of Jacen Solo. And, Lo and behold, Jacen Solo's decision plunged the galaxy into darkness twice over... between Jacen's becoming Darth Caedus and actually trying to kill Luke in contradiction with his justification for murdering Nelani, and the loosing of both Abeloth and the Lost Tribe of the Sith on the galaxy.

 

The RotJ novelisation does a fairly good job of explaining Vader's motivations in protecting the Emperor from Luke:

Vader was impressed with Luke's speed. Pleased, even. It was a pity, almost, he couldn't let the boy kill the Emperor yet. Luke wasn't ready for that, emotionally. There was still a chance Luke would return to his friends if he destroyed the Emperor now. He needed more extensive tutelage, first -- training by both Vader and Palpatine -- before he'd be ready to assume his place at Vader's right hand, ruling the galaxy.

So Vader had to shepherd the boy through periods like this, stop him from doing damage in the wrong places -- or in the right places prematurely.

 

There's obviously wiggle room in the emotional spectrum, but i don't think it truly references utilitarianism. More that the Force-users can sometimes take actions that would morally questionable from a utilitarian perspective and remain soundly grounded in the light side because of their own beliefs - through either legitimate misinformation or a sort of self-deception. Mara Jade's a good example. She manages to serve the Emperor for years without being irrevocably twisted by the dark side, largely because the Emperor deliberately shields her from the truth of her actions. Obviously there's a limit towards this sort of self-righteous self-shielding, at some point it turns to arrogance and you slip back over into the dark side once again.

In the Luke case though, it also has something to do with power. Luke couldn't defeat the Emperor, at his current set of skills and abilities without calling upon the dark side. He would have needed that infusion of energy to win, and after winning he would have needed to keep drawing on the dark side more or less continually to serve in his new role. Obi-Wan, killing Darth Maul, foresook whatever temporary boost he drew from the dark side in that fight - one of the reasons why Maul, despite not really getting any stronger in the interim, can beat a more mature and stronger Obi-Wan during the Clone Wars. So I guess that's a second aspect to it - emotionally aligning with the dark side versus actually drawing on dark side energy (this is fairly well represented by certain dark side game mechanics, where you acquire dark side points for doing evil, but you also gain them for using certain dark side powers, meaning you fall much, much faster if you do evil while drawing on the dark side).

Going back to the Jacen case I'd say that one of the reasons Jacen's fall does indeed feel forced is that he never seems to need the dark side, or indeed really use much of the way of dark powers when it actually matters (as oppossed to randomly Force choking helpless officers). He draws on the techniques he learned during his five year journey regularly, but traditional 'dark' powers, not remembering much of anything.

 

yeah, though you could argue that flow walking was dark sided, because he sought to manipulate the future, by seeing the past. Jacen did not really show much darksided tendencies until Fury. It went all down hill by then.

 

He seemed to learn from these though, if the Jacen in Invincible had survived, perhaps we could have seen a 'non-evil' Sith. Pity that.

 

your from North Dakota?? I live in South Dakota.

 

I'm an alum of UND. I'm actually from western WI; I've in the AF and have been trying to get back to Grand Forks, but they keep sending my everywhere else--to my chagrin.

 

Everyone is important, you don't know what the future brings, maybe you progeny will be just as important. Killing people robs them of their destiny. The future will tell wether Obama turns out to be an asset or not. He has half of the country on either side of that argument.


Jacen's decision was for himself, ultimately, considering the utter comtempt he grew to feel for Luke that he talked himself into. He defeated his own purpose then. That's why it makes no sense to use that argument as justification. Nelani had a destiny and purpose. He didn't have the decency to feel anything for any of his wrongdoing. He was always so shallow, but after Nelani, selfish too.

 

How do we know he felt nothing about Nelani's death? Absence of proof is not proof of absence. I do agree that he robbed her of her destiny, but, again, he convinced himself that he had to make a choice right now. Orwell was right, some people are more important than others.

Jacen never actually went after Luke, it was always the Jedi that tracked him down, so I would argue that there was just as much, if not more, contempt from the Order. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

 

Wasn't it one of Orwell's villains that said (or rather, wrote) that though?

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"- Napoleon's replacement for the animal commandments, in Animal Farm.

 

Yeah, they tacked it to the wall. It is disingenuous to think that I, as a lowly flight engineer, am just as important to the country as the Chief-of-Staff of Air Force is.

Here's the thing: in the same book, Jacen has a chance to kill Sal-Solo but whiffs on the attempt. Would we be having this conversation if he had succeeded? I doubt it. We'd be congratulating Jacen for following his vision. So, we are okay with him killing someone for the sake of all, but we get bent out of shape when it's someone not as dastardly as Thracken? The vision was the same, for all intents and purposes, was it not?