You actually hit on a VERY big question there, and if one applies a little thought to it, there IS an answer:

Consider the basics: the films A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back established that the Force was an energy field created by all living things, that life both created it and made it grow. The book Star Wars: The Annotated Screenplays (p. 181) confirms this and specifies that the very act of living is what generates the Force.

The simple point, made by Kenobi and Yoda, that life is what creates and sustains the Force can give us a rough idea – albeit on an unimaginably vast timescale – of how long the Force has existed and how long it is likely to exist, especially if one takes seriously the proposition that the Star Wars galaxy exists in the same universe as our own, though it is situated very far from our galaxy in both distance and time. The existence of the Force, it would seem, depends on the existence of life itself, so the Force would have to have sprung into elementary existence not long after the most elementary forms of life began to appear in the universe. The Force would have become larger and more powerful as life became more complex, and especially so when sentience first emerged. But if the Force was both created and sustained by life – indeed, by the very act of living – then the Force can only exist as long as life itself exists, and modern cosmologists are beginning to suspect that there is in fact a point when all life in the universe will cease. As life can exist in some of the harshest conditions imaginable, this will take an unimaginably long time to happen, but according to the Big Freeze theory advocated by most cosmologists, the universe is expected to eventually expand to the point where every element within it essentially runs down, achieving a state of complete equilibrium where there is no thermodynamic energy to sustain motion or life. At this point, called the heat-death of the universe, life – even the raw materials for life – cannot exist anywhere. The Force would thus begin to weaken and eventually dissipate as it loses its source of generation. It thus may be the last remnant of life to exist in the universe, but it too may fall prey to entropy.

Of course, if Star Wars physics chooses not to acknowledge the heat-death concept, all that goes out the window; but more than one EU source has made specific mention of heat-death, so there is at least a precedent (even when factoring in how shaky the ground on which the EU stands is right now).

 

Yeah this kind of seems what i originally thought, The Force seems much like various Universal Energy Fields in other fictional works as well: Emotional Spectrum from DC Comics/Green Lanter, Power Cosmic/Primordial from Marvel (to a degree), Morphing Grid from Power Rangers. They are nearly all energy fields simply fueled by Life itself (emotions of all life in the case of Green Lantern), but they all very functionally similar. They all grant various types of powers to those who are specifically equipped/trained to use it, be it either by gadgetry like the Green Lanters & Power Rangers, or simply by ones own inner ability like Marvel & Star Wars, (although in the case of the force, they still require a great amount of midichlorians to access it, so its still debatable as to whether they still fall under an external help needed, as no one has been able to wield it without them).

 

I was disappointed how they retroactively try to downplay Mortis.

Whether you love the arc or hate it (I used to love it, now I find it more frustrating than anything), Filoni was hyping the arc up as finally delving into the nature of the Force and getting to the more metaphysical side of Star Wars.

But then in the Yoda arc, apparently there was cut dialogue in which the Priestesses write off Father as having a very narrow view of the Force, as though it's incorrect. I can't imagine that Lucas sat down, outlined the Mortis arc, with the plan in his head that he would just later right it off as not the correct view of the Force.

And to what extent was Father's view narrow? The Priestesses seemed all about getting Yoda to confront the Dark Side and overcome it. To put selflessness above all things, and to not give power to one's own dark side (which goes hand-in-hand as it represents selfishness).

But Father was all about "balance." It's not like he didn't recognize his Son in the same way that Yoda refused to recognize his own Dark Side. And being his children, Son and Daughter could be metaphorically considered parts of Father. They are the Dark Side and the Light Side of him, and with his death, they are deprived of his power.

But he embraced his Dark Side as his child. He didn't rob it of power as Yoda did. He acknowledged it and he acknowledged his Light Side daughter, and he seemed all about keeping each perspective in balance with the other. While the Priestesses seemed all about the expression of one and the complete rejection of the other. Yes, the Dark Side existed in Yoda, but Yoda rejected it and refused to lend it power, while he favored total expression of his Light Side.

The implication I got there was that Father's view is incorrect. And if it is incorrect, then is the very concept of Balance incorrect? There was zero mention of it in the OT, and the Priestesses don't seem to lend any kind of strength to the notion. If Father's view was narrow and/or incorrect, then so to may have been that of the Jedi in choosing to believe the Force need be in balance?

 

Balance between light side and dark side is like balance between human rights and nazis. In other words, balance isn't what we want. What we want is for one to be destroyed.

Light side and dark side is good and evil, not yin and yang.

 

I would agree with you with you in principle, but Lucas and the concept of balance seem to imply that it is indeed a yin/yang relationship.

 

Lucas thinks that yin and yang are good and evil. He demonstrated such in an interview.

 

Yin and Yang do not mean good and evil, but good and evil are manifestations of yin/yang, as are hot/cold, light/dark, masculine/feminine, water/fire, etc.

Opposites that help to define and give rise to each other, and that without one you cannot understand the other. A sentiment echoed by Son. Though Father adds that too much light or dark is bad.

Which doesn't make sense if you literally say that too much good is bad.

The implication is that the Dark Side does have necessary aspects to it that are productive when tempered by/counteracted by the Light Side, such as death giving way to renewal.

Throughout the OT, I do agree that Light Side (though it was never called this) and Dark Side were pretty much used as synonyms of "good' and "evil," and there was never any indication that the Jedi wanted to achieve balance between the two.

But then in the PT we start hearing about "balance of the Force" with no real explanation of what that means.

And when we get to Mortis, it does seem to indicate that there is a yin/yang nature to the Dark Side and Light Side with one requiring the other to counterbalance it. While when we get to the Yoda arc, this balance isn't indicated anywhere. Instead it seems to go back to the OT notion of good triumphing over evil, not striking a balance with it.

 

I meant to imply that Lucas is wrong about yin and yang. Lucas thinks that yin and yang are good and evil, when in reality good and evil are not yin and yang at all.

 

Exactly; as TaradosGon said, they just mark the distinction of pairs of opposites - no moral stance is given to either opposite. According to Joseph Campbell, what yin/yang refer to is "the sunny and shady sides of a stream." One side is cool and moist; the other is dry and warm. Neither is seen as better than the other. That, at least, is my understanding.

 

Mortis is a focal point of the Force, especially of the Balance. What happens there influences everything else, like the keystone of a building. The home of the priestesses is almost like a museum: what happens there only influences the visitors, and it is up to THEM to spread that influence elsewhere.

Also, as I have heard the comparison made, the dark side is like disease: a healthy body (the Force) tends towards homeostasis (a.k.a. balance) without disease, and only when the disease is introduced is homeostasis disrupted. Therefore, the Force theoretically could be in balance without the dark. But on the flip side of that coin, the immune system of the body must be trained to respond to disease, therefore some dark is necessary to "train" the light.

Thirdly:
TaradosGon - We must consider the fact that immortality is a "life power", in that it is specifically meant as a beneficial power that causes no harm. In keeping with this, it would fall more towards the light side of the spectrum. Maybe balance is the overall important thing, but for this power, total expression of one's light side is the only way to gain it.


TG: Combined triple post

EDIT: Thanks for the combine

 

But when the Priestesses say (in cut content) that Father has a narrow view of the Force, that implies he's missing a bigger picture. Kind of like when Palpatine tells Anakin that to understand the Force, one must study all of its aspects, not just the narrow view of the Jedi.

It doesn't mean that Father's view is necessarily wrong, but that perhaps he's focusing on one aspect of a larger picture, and is missing some of the pieces.

Filoni didn't explain exactly how Father's view was narrow, just that the Priestesses were originally supposed to mention him and say that his view was narrow.

Though we also know that perhaps Father had done the same trials and had met the Priestesses, since he disappears at death just as Obi-Wan and Yoda do later. So, he apparently passed the trials, or otherwise achieved that state of nirvana necessary to meld with the Force upon death and yet retain one's identity. But the Priestesses still assert that he's missing the big picture.

I'm kind of guessing it was just a cheap trick to suggest that the Force is so mysterious that Yoda doesn't understand it, nor even did Father who was at least 2,000 years old (or over 1,000,000 according to the wiki). Which makes me wonder if Filoni or Lucas even had any idea in mind as to how Father's view was narrow, or if it was just a throwaway line to introduce some mystery.

 

Indeed, I think it was a throwaway line. From the EU, the Ones were immortal because they were Celestials, and they did incredible things with the Force. The Son was also immortal, and he WAS the embodiment of the dark side. I think that the Priestesses' route to immortality was only for beings that started as corporeal.

 

Maybe that's why it was cut.

I also hate that the prequels brought balance into the picture. The Chosen One prophecy should have been about "restoring light to The Force" instead of "bringing balance to The Force".

 

True... and if it was cut, then it's not canon.

 

I would assume that the Priestesses were not particularly impressed by the Father's narrow worldview that the balance of the universe could be secured by lording over two beings, no matter how powerful they may be. The galaxy's slide toward darkness didn't halt because he kept the Son locked up on Mortis, and likewise, the galaxy wasn't saved from darkness upon the Son's death. The Banite Sith and Palpatine were the true danger, and it was in the physical world they inhabited that Anakin's role as the keeper of balance was required, not Mortis. The mistake of the Father was to believe that the fate of the galaxy began and ended with his children, with their power, but while they were powerful, there was so much more to be concerned about than two unruly gods in a transdimensional realm. In his arrogant self-obsession, he missed the larger picture, misinterpreted the prophecy of the Chosen One, and brought about his own destruction.

 

Mia Mesharad - Agreed. But the Father did have good intentions... especially because his children were quite powerful. For instance, in the Fate of the Jedi series, they are the only ones who are truly able to stop Abeloth. Otherwise, it took the whole Jedi Order and co. acting in unison in different places, as well as the help of the One Sith to defeat her. Maybe he just overestimated his own power to determine the future.

 

That's what "bringing balance to the Force" is actually supposed to mean; the common fan interpretation that it refers to some kind of balance between good and evil has repeatedly said to be wrong by Lucas.

Of course, it's largely his fault for not clearly explaining these things.

TG: I accidentally edited this post. I think I restored it to how it was originally.

 

As far as I can tell, Lucas himself has not been consistent. I've been browsing the internet and yes, there are sources that claim that "balance" refers to restoring the Force to its natural state - the Light Side - by fighting the Dark Side.

I know a codex entry in TOR states this as well.

And there is a mention of Lucas comparing the Light Side to a symbiotic relationship while the Dark Side is a cancer.

But in Mortis, which came from Lucas, the Father is pretty explicit that too much Light is a bad thing. And that the Dark Side is necessary to counterbalance the Light, that neither can be too strong. Both must exist to counterbalance each other.

I can't remember if it was Sam Witwer or Christian Taylor (I think it was Witwer), but I recall one of them elaborating on what Mortis meant and conveying a really nihilistic attitude that things cannot be renewed without destruction and that the Dark Side is necessary since strife and death allow for advancement and renewal.

He didn't provide this specific example, but I got the feeling that the implication was that something like the Republic had grown stagnant due to the lack of conflict, and that it bred corruption, complacency and overconfidence. Then enters Palpatine who wipes out the Jedi - who were defenders of this broken system - and then proceeds to tear down the Republic and begin an era of oppression. Which then leads to renewal as the Rebellion rallies against him and Luke begins a new Jedi Order. The implication being that the New Republic that they form is better than the one that Palpatine tore down, but that without the Dark Side to tear it down, it could not have emerged better.

That's my personal example, not Witwer's.

But it echoes what Father says in regards to

Each pair exists in balance by cancelling the other out. Without the Dark Side, there was stagnation, with the Dark Side there was destruction, and as the Light Side emerges to cast out the darkness, the Galaxy is renewed into something better.

I'm not saying I support this idea, since then it just sounds like the Dark Side and Sith are a necessary evil that must rise every so often to create progress and advancement, which I think is kind of a sick message - the ends justify the means. But that's what I got from Mortis and Witwer, and it's curious that if Lucas saw the Dark Side as a cancer, why he then outlines a story in which Father implies that too much light is bad, or in which he keeps his Son around to counterbalance daughter rather than killing him.

EDIT: This is the interview, and I remembered it incorrectly, because he mentions that a destructive impulse is necessary to make things happen, and that this is of the Dark Side, but that it can't be carried too far. I did not recall the bit where he cites the Empire as going to far.

 

Near as I can tell the whole "bringing balance to the Force" bit was only added to make the character of Darth Vader appear all the more tragic, for having gone off his rocker and fallen so far. There's not a single hint to it in the OT.

 

Oh, it's quite clear that Lucas keeps changing his mind. But I feel that on balance (no pun intended), overall his intention for what "bringing Balance to the Force" means has been overcoming the dark side, not a yin-yang balance between light and dark. I'd say those deleted lines only support that.

 

Are you suggesting that the Ones are/were never corporal beings? If so are you also suggesting that due to them being descended (supposedly) from the Celestials that they to are/were non-corporal entites, and that they are naturally immortal because of their power?

Also, this may not be what you meant, but i kind of feel what you said implies that the Ones are more powerful than the Priestesses as what they can do only applies to regular mortal corporal beings, as apposed to the Ones who are immensely powerful and linked to the force itself. Like the Priestesses were originally regular beings who learnt their immortality whereas the Ones were always godly beings; and i guess its kind of hard to fully make that assumption until unless we know more about where either of them came from, ergo the celestials, which unfortunately we do not.

 

I am suggesting both that they are/were non-corporal entities, and that they were more powerful than the Priestesses. Along those lines, the Son even drank from something called the "Font of Power"... yet he was equal with his sister and less than his father. This same Font of Power (as well as the Pool of Knowledge, which the Daughter bathed in) was part of the corruption/empowerment of Abeloth, who was so powerful that it is doubtful the Priestesses could stand against her. The Priestesses were each about equals with (or just higher than) Yoda in terms of power... the Ones weren't even able to be ranked by the same system.

 

If you rewatch Mortis the same little "fireflies" that Yoda follows are hovering around Qui Gon's apparition. Pretty cool.