Taoist struggles to sort out confusion - on darkness and light, issues of balance, and Jedi and Sith

Confusion and questions on some basic SW issues have now reached a level that causes me to look for assistance of the more philosophically minded here. I?m trying to gain clarity on some basic SW concepts and would appreciate any serious, in-depth input on it. This is going to be long and quite complicated; it?s a lot of interrelated stuff that I?ve tried to bring some structure into; hopefully it hasn?t become to convoluted.

SW philosophy seems to be made up as a mixture of elements of several religions, the most important of which seem to be Christianity and Taoism. I assume everyone is familiar with the basic concepts of Christianity, so I?ll just summarize the elements of Taoism that relate to SW. We have the Tao, which basically is a matrix of possibilities of events or ?destinies? with different likelihoods, and which essentially is what in SW the Unifying or Cosmic Force is. We have the two poles Yin and Yang, the polarity of which create an energy field known as Chi. The energy field Chi is what penetrates, makes up and binds together all living and non-living things in our world, so it?s essentially what in SW the Living Force is. The Yin pole is commonly associated with the darkness, the immanent (?this world?), the physical/materialistic, emotions, the female, chaos, the focus on the self, the realm ?down there?. The Yang pole is commonly associated with the light, the transcendent (?afterlife?), the idealistic (in a Hegelian sense), the spirit, the masculine, order, the dissolution of the self, the realm ?up there?.

Taoism is in essence a metaphysical system which stresses the need to achieve balance between Yin and Yang, and to follow the way of the Tao, i.e. one?s ?destiny?. In contrast to Christianity, Taoism is basically a value-free system, which means that there are no value judgements on what is ?good? and ?evil?, it?s a cosmological outlook rather than an outlook from the perspective of humanity.


TOPIC 1: DARKNESS AND LIGHT

I?ve become confused lately what exactly is meant by dark side and the light side of the Force in SW. It seems to me that in SW the dark side and light side somehow seem to be assigned some moral values. Thus, simply applying the value free Yin ? Yang dichotomy outlined above doesn?t seem to fit. Lucas has compared the relationship between light side and dark side with the relationship between symbiosis and cancer. This seems to point to a distinction between forces of mutual preservation and forces of mutual destruction, which is but a small part of the yin yang duality.

So, for this part of the story, the following questions arise for me:
question I : What exactly is meant by the dark side and the light side of the Force? Is the dark side made up of emotions that have the potential to be destructive? How are we to define which emotions have the potential to be destructive? Are these emotions always destructive, or is it a question of their intensity? And is it justified to infer from this that the dark side is assigned the value of ?evil?, given that destruction of the old is always a precondition for something new to emerge?
question II : The dark side and the light side of the Force are issues that seem to relate to the Living Force, the equivalent of Chi. Does the Unifying Force also have a dark side and a light side, and what would they be?


TOPIC 2: WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A JEDI, AND WHAT TO BE A SITH?

Which brings me to the question, what does it mean to be a Jedi, and what does it mean to be a Sith? Since there is no universally accepted notion of what is ?good? and what is ?evil? even in Western ethical systems, much less in Taoism, I find the common answer that the Jedi are good and the Sith are evil unsatisfactory, to say the least. I?d rather look at the basic structures of these two most prominent ways of approaching the Force in SW, and thus I started by looking at the Jedi and the Sith code, which state:

Jedi code:
?There is no emotion; there is peace.
There is no igno

 

I don't think that there is such a thing as the "light side"- for the Jedi, there is The Force, and it has a Dark Side. The Jedi embrace the Force in it's entirety, and their philosophy is all about submission, letting go of their conscious self, letting the Force flow through them, and acting as it's agents. The Sith focus on the more destructive Dark Side; they aren't interested in submission and serving the Will of the Force, but they will use it's power to achieve their own ends. The problem is that even if they start out with good intentions (like Anakin) it's power is simply too much to handle, and it corrupts. As we see with Anakin, what starts out as a quest for power to help people ends up as simply a quest for power, and the reasons he wanted the power to start with get forgotten.

I would say that the Yin corresponds more closely to the Living Force, while the Yang corresponds more closely to the Unifying Force. But I wouldn't say that either are really a direct correlation.

Sounds like a valid interpretation to me, although I don't know much abotu the left/right hand theory.

Afraid I don't know anything about B5...

Let go of the idea of the "Light Side" and it makes more sense; the dark side is what creates the imbalance, and balance is restored when the Sith are destroyed.

AOTC illustrates exactly how the Dark Side can create this imbalance in a way that the Jedi don't, and how the Jedi have created a situation where the Sith can exploit this; in the past the Jedi have been able to "see" through the Force and have knowledge of what's going on throughout the galaxy. However, they have clearly become complacent and over-reliant on this knowledge. (eg. Mace Windu not believing that the Sith could have returned without their knowing.) This is represented in AOTC by the Jedi Archives, and the librarians attitude that the archives are somehow bigger and better than what they are supposed to represent; "if it does not appear in our records, then it does not exist." It takes a child (ie. someone not yet indoctrinated by the Jedi beliefs) to point out the obvious- that the records have been tampered with. And only a Jedi could have altered the records...

When the Jedi learn of the existence of a clone army, they realise that their attitude to the Force has been the same as the librarians attitude to the archives.

Just as only a Jedi could have altered the records, only someone with knowledge of the Force could have created the disturbance

 

question I : What exactly is meant by the dark side and the light side of the Force? Is the dark side made up of emotions that have the potential to be destructive? How are we to define which emotions have the potential to be destructive? Are these emotions always destructive, or is it a question of their intensity? And is it justified to infer from this that the dark side is assigned the value of ?evil?, given that destruction of the old is always a precondition for something new to emerge?

The light side of the force refers to the attributes that lead to balance - compassion, love and selflessness. The Jedi mandate is to keep the balance. Good and evil always exist but they must battle to stop the Dark Side from eating away at the balance. So a Jedi uses the light side of the force to keep it balanced.

The Dark Side of the force refers to the attributes that lead to imbalance (more power for the Sith) - hate, anger, greed and selfishness. The Sith strive to gain more power and the more evil there is the more powerful they wil be. Likewise they can never stamp out the light. So by striving for more power they create imbalance as they are the ones that 'force' the force out of balance. If the galaxy has more compassion that greed then that is ok - that doesnt mean that evil is destroyed - thats impossible. It just means that good and evil co-exist but on top of that their is peace and freedom. Its the dark side that causes imbalance.

question II : The dark side and the light side of the Force are issues that seem to relate to the Living Force, the equivalent of Chi. Does the Unifying Force also have a dark side and a light side, and what would they be?

The unifying force (cosmic force) refers to the powers the force users get from the force - ability to see the future, ability to move objects. The living Force, on the other hand, is their connection to other beings and to the universe on a more personal and intuitive level. It is through the living Force that they feel compassion, that they receive intuition, that they have a personal connection to others. The PT Jedi mistakenly put their focus into the cosmic force and thought that through these powers they decided what to do and were able to maintain balance etc. Qui Gon saw otherwise. he relied upon the living force. he listen to the force's will knwoing that it was to bring balance. So if you follow what the living force gives you then you wont do much wrong. It may seem the riskier option but it is fact the safest. The risky route is by relying upon the cosmic force - after all the future is not set. This is the trap Anakin falled for. he relied upon his visions of the future without the understanding the living force could hav given him - this is where Obi Wan failed his apprentice.

So I guess my answer is that by using one side of the force you are likely to make mistakes and create further imbalance. First you must listen and use the living force - that in turn will give you greater knowledge and ability in using the cosmic force.

Both sides have the potential to be used for good and evil. The Sith use the force to gain power and so obviously dont listen to the will of the force.

For example, As I said earlier the living force gives you a connection to those around you. So this is what Sidious used to get close to Anakin - but instead of being compassionate he used the gift for his own lust for power. He then uses the cosmic force to plan how to take over the galaxy and in his duels with the Jedi Masters.

So, this brings me to question III : Do you feel the notion of the Jedi (at least PT Jedi) being a right hand path system and the Sith being a left hand path system, both using elements of white (Jedi) or black (Sith) magic practices is a valid interpretation?

Yes, I agree. It all comes down to Compassion and greed. It is the Jedi's mandate, role in life, to keep the force in balance. The Sith dont have a mandate - they just want more power. So when the Jedi live by this rule they have automatically led a s

 

I agree. The yin ? yang duality applies at each level of it?s own; with regard to the Force, the Living Force is Yin and the Unifying Force is Yang. Within the Living Force again there is another yin ? yang duality.

The Jedi avoid the dark side ? so they don?t embrace the Force in it?s entirety. You can of course let go of the terminus ?the Light Side?, but I don?t see how this solves the problem. You have the Force minus the Dark Side, and thus by this difference a subset of the Force is defined. It seems to me that whether you call this subset ?the Light Side? or not is merely a question of terminology.

 

The Jedi avoid the dark side ? so they don?t embrace the Force in it?s entirety. You can of course let go of the terminus ?the Light Side?, but I don?t see how this solves the problem. You have the Force minus the Dark Side, and thus by this difference a subset of the Force is defined. It seems to me that whether you call this subset ?the Light Side? or not is merely a question of terminology.

Im afriad I disagree here - a Jedi should never use the dark side. this is what Palpatine suggests Anakin do:

PALPATINE: Anakin, if one is to understand the great mystery, one must study all its aspects, not just the dogmatic, narrow view of the Jedi. If you wish to become a complete and wise leader, you must embrace a larger view of the Force.

Instead they just must know what the dark side it. Where it is. What it is in themslves. they then must overcome it. On top of that they shouldnt just ban everything that can leasd to the dark side - again, this is just running from it. Instead, the should teach how to deal with dark side emotions.

If a jedi ever taps into the dark side of the force and uses it then they are creating a further imbalance. Remember - the Dark Side is the cancer.

 

What do you define as ?Evil?, Master_Shaitan? --- What you call ?Evil? seems to be the potential for destruction. You realize that you are argueing from a humanity perspective, don?t you; as opposed from a cosmological perspective, I mean? While destruction is perceived ?Evil? by humanity, it is not necessarily an ?Evil? from a cosmological perspective, since destruction of the old is a precondition for change and creating something new. From a cosmological perspective, there is no ?the dark side is evil? and ?the light side is good?. From such a perspective, it rather seems that the real matter is about the light side being about preservation and the dark side being about change. And from a cosmological perspective what matters is also balance between preservation and change.

And this is exactly the consistency problem I?m having with this ?the dark side is evil? and at the same time ?all is about balance between everything?. The first part implies a humanity perspective, and the second part implies a cosmological perspective.

With respect to the Shadows / Vorlon issue, the longer I think about it, the more similar it seems. I agree there is some difference, though I can't yet quite spot what it is. But the similarities seem to outweigh the differences. Perhaps I should add that the Shadows also induce wars ? because they view it as a measure to induce change and evolution.

With respect to the matter of right hand vs. left hand systems I?d like to add that left hand systems per se only tend to be regarded as ?evil? in Western culture terms; in Far Eastern culture, they are regarded as equally valid paths for spiritual development.

I didn't mean to suggest what they should do, I just wanted to clarify what they are doing. Which is not using the Force in its entirety.

 

What do you define as ?Evil?, Master_Shaitan? --- What you call ?Evil? seems to be the potential for destruction. You realize that you are argueing from a humanity perspective, don?t you; as opposed from a cosmological perspective, I mean? While destruction is perceived ?Evil? by humanity, it is not necessarily an ?Evil? from a cosmological perspective, since destruction of the old is a precondition for change and creating something new. From a cosmological perspective, there is no ?the dark side is evil? and ?the light side is good?. From such a perspective, it rather seems that the real matter is about the light side being about preservation and the dark side being about change. And from a cosmological perspective what matters is also balance between preservation and change.

I see greed as evil and the products of greed as evil. In the whole scheme of things such acts of greed have only a detrimental effect on the universe and create imbalance.

And this is exactly the consistency problem I?m having with this ?the dark side is evil? and at the same time ?all is about balance between everything?. The first part implies a humanity perspective, and the second part implies a cosmological perspective.

The dark side is evil. But it always exists. That cant ever change. It has to. How could good exist without evil and vice verser? Just because something has to exist doesnt mean its not evil.

I didn't mean to suggest what they should do, I just wanted to clarify what they are doing. Which is not using the Force in its entirety.

I see. But you cant use the force in its entirety. it impossible to use the dark side and light side together. How can you use compassion at the same time as using hate? They should have knowledge of the other side and know how to overcome it. But they shouldnt ever have their hands in both pies. So you are right - the Jedi/Sith dont use the force in its entirety.

 

yes, and imbalance is a precondition for change.

If I was to play the devil's advocate and impersonate a Shadow for a moment, I'd say: Many character traits we perceive as "Evil", like selfishness, fear, aggression, are driving factors of evolutionary change. Without them, there would be only preservation, which means stagnation and degeneration, in the end. /Shadow impersonation off. Interestingly, stagnation and degeneration was the state the Republic was in after a millenium of absence or inactivity of the Sith.

I realize that probably doesn't agree with GL's philosophy, and I'm not sure it agrees with my own. But it's what a radical cosmological outlook would imply, I think.


I'd encourage you to meet B5, MS

 

yes, and imbalance is a precondition for change.

If I was to play the devil's advocate and impersonate a Shadow for a moment, I'd say: Many character traits we perceive as "Evil", like selfishness, fear, aggression, are driving factors of evolutionary change. Without them, there would be only preservation, which means stagnation and degeneration, in the end. /Shadow impersonation off. Interestingly, stagnation and degeneration was the state the Republic was in after a millenium of absence or inactivity of the Sith.

I realize that probably doesn't agree with GL's philosophy, and I'm not sure it agrees with my own. But it's what a radical cosmological outlook would imply, I think.

Exactly -this is why evil must and will always exists. Like all relationships, good and evil are symbiotic - they need each other to exist. But that doesnt stop something from being good and evil. if we dont label such things then we run the risk of creating an imbalance. For example if we dont say that greed is evil and wrong then the universe will be overrun by it. We must say - greed is bad. Then we know that compassion is good. We still have the choice to do wither but with it we carry the knowledge of consequences.

But for me - good and evil does exist - as long as you dont overcomplicate it.

Greed - bad.
Compassion - good
Hate - bad.
Love - good.

Etc etc.

I'd encourage you to meet B5, MS

One epic Sci-Fi is more than enough for me.

 

This is the cosmological perspective - I think I'm with you with this, I just have some problems with assigning the value levels "good" and "evil" here, because "evil" somehow implies that it is something that should be eliminated and not something that needs to exist. Taoistically indoctrinated as I am, I prefer the preseverance vs. change dichotomy.

And this is the humanity perspective.

Imbalance can also be created by trying to be "too good". In the "Star Wars and Philosophy" book by Kevin Decker (I'm reading that these days) one of the authors elaborates on this.

I don't understand what you mean by this - overcomplicate it?

Pity. Sometimes additional info from other sources not just complicates, but also clarifies things

 

I'm not necessarily interested in debating the nature of good and evil, or "good" and "evil" as a Taoist might say, but I would definitely agree that the Force is presented much differently in the PT than it was in the OT.
The OT was essentially the classic good vs. evil tale, rooted in Western, Judeo-Christian morality. The heroes and villains were well defined.
Lucas attempts in the PT to present a more nebulous moral standard. Which is to say, he'd like us to sympathize with Anakin's betrayal, appreciate the Sith Code for simply being a 'different' route, without implying judgment. George is really bating us in this trilogy to view Anakin/Darth as a flawed person, rather than an evil one.
As a person, I can appreciate both concepts and find reason in both. As an audience member, I'm not thrilled that Lucas opted to combine these two differing philosophies into the same saga. The net result leaves one half of the saga unsatisfying, at least for me. In other words, if I'm to recognize valor in Anakin's actions and sympathize with his choices, it really undermines Luke's quest in Eps. IV-VI. After all, he was on a quest, at least by ROTJ, to "save" his father. If Anakin's actions are simply seen as valid choices, in a morality that embraces no immoral, invalid choices, then what exactly is Luke saving Vader from???
This is the most glaring example, between the two trilogies, of two great tastes that don't go great together.

 

i think i'm with you on the difference between cosmological and human perspective. also i'm with you on the preservation vs progress.
i noticed something like that with the elves in LOTR, they tried to preserve everything, but in the end they had to leave to make room for the new.

in that sense the cosmological balance is brought about by anakin, destroying one order completely, and giving the new jedi order room to develop a more humane perspective.

also i've come to the conclusion that there must be some kind of good and evil in a sense that some things are just wrong. if everything is relative, as some people claim, then there is nothing we can rely on. in other words, we make laws and we interpret them and we apply them to certain cases. that does not make the laws absolute, though. from a human perspective that's necessary, we do not have the big picture.

so, in that sense, the sith embody the evil that we carry within us, like master shaitan says, the evil which we have to face up to, each one of us, but their embracing the dark side (the evil), completely giving in to it, makes them a branch of force users that cannot be tolerated. overall i think the whole idea is that force use is a very exclusive thing and the jedi have been restricting themselves in using it.

i think the overall message is that the force is imbalanced through the jedi and not necessarily through the sith. even without the sith, the jedi would still need to redress their approach and find a more human perspective. the sith merely seem to embody the evil on th outside while the real conflict is within.

you could make a case of them overlooking the real conflict within throughout the PT, they focus on the outward by concentrating on the sith, while they ignore anakin's struggle.

regarding the left hand, right hand dichotomy, i don't have too much to offer.

my take is that you can apply several concepts to the force, the force use and the saga itself. i'm not really sure it creates a contradiction as such. i think we create the contradiction by saying it's *this* or *that*. just like characters can be seen to embody several things at once, i think the force can, too.

wow. that was hard to write.

 

wow. that was hard to write.

But beautifully done.

 

I agree with that notion. I?ve posted something along this line a few days ago on the PT board in Master_Shaitan?s prophecy thread. I?ll just cross-post the relevant section, since I think it fits here:

I've always wondered what the Jedi thought "bringing the Force into balance" means by the time of TPM. After all, they thought the Sith had been extinct, so why would they assume that the prophecy was about destroying the Sith?

I think the imbalance the prophecy refers to is not the re-emergence of the Sith, but rather the neglect of dark side issues by the Jedi for over a millenium, with the result being a Republic in a state of stagnation and degeneration. It was an imbalance of preservation and change (accompanied with a number of other issues of imbalance), which allowed the Sith to reemerge in the first place. Any situation that is in the extreme at one end contains the seed of its own destruction and the beginning of the pendulum swinging back to the other side. The taichi-sign symbolizes this by the black dot in the white area and vice versa. Given the dominance of the light side and preservation for over a millenium, the pendulum had to swing back. And given the enormeous dominance of the Light Side powers at that time, it swung back with equally powerful vehemence.

Maybe the Chosen One's decision to join the dark side wasn't even necessary for this. Maybe the point of the Chosen One turning to the dark side was to put him in a position to be able to destroy the Sith from within. At least that would explain why Anakin's "choice" in ROTS so little resembles a real conscious choice and instead is portrayed as an act of impulse resulting from bad influences, unfortunate chains of events, and extreme emotional pressure. The real act of choice Anakin did was at the end of ROTJ. And after that, there was balance - no prequel Jedi order and also no Sith.

 

i think i stole that from there, too. thinking no one would notice...

Maybe the Chosen One's decision to join the dark side wasn't even necessary for this. Maybe the point of the Chosen One turning to the dark side was to put him in a position to be able to destroy the Sith from within. At least that would explain why Anakin's "choice" in ROTS so little resembles a real conscious choice and instead is portrayed as an act of impulse resulting from bad influences, unfortunate chains of events, and extreme emotional pressure. The real act of choice Anakin did was at the end of ROTJ. And after that, there was balance - no prequel Jedi order and also no Sith.

well, i guess you could make that case, too. to me both choices are somewhat on an equal level. both are done with emotional pressure. i guess it's fitting that anakin would not consider these things much, he'd still react from his guts. that's my take anyway.

i'm not very well-versed in psychology. it seems the sith symbolize the external of the 'evil' the seeds of which anakin carried in himself. as you said, facing them would have been a matter of balancing the force without wiping out both orders. what also annoys me is that the very fact that the jedi are who they are and impress their dogma on anyone makes them ideal candidates to be manipulated. the balance could not have happened without jedicide, i guess, simply because the order is too deep into their dogma. from what i understand they had lost touch so mightily, there was no way they could have reformed and changed.

what bugs me along this externalisation/internalisation line of thought is that the sith actually do exist. normally, i'd expect the system to break down after the sith take over, but they actually manage for 20 odd years. the facts remain: both orders are wiped out, a reformed school is there.

i guess it still boils down to applying a variety of concepts and not one in particular.

 

My lack of knowledge on the subject matter would make anything I added to this fairly redundant, in light of everyone else's fairly knowledgable posts.

great thoughts. this thread is a lot to take in at once.

 

"A state may be ruled by correction; weapons of war may be used with crafty dexterity; the kingdom is made one's own by freedom from action and purpose. How do I know that it is so? By these facts: - In the kingdom the multiplication of prohibitive enactments increases the poverty of the people; the more implements to add to their profit that the people have, the greater disorder is there in the state and clan; the more acts of crafty dexterity that men possess, the more do strange contrivances appear; the more display there is of legislation, the more thieves and robbers there are. Therefore a sage has said, 'I will do nothing, and the people will be transformed of themselves; I will be fond of keeping still, and the people will of themselves become correct. I will take no trouble about it, and the people will of themselves become rich; I will manifest no ambition, and the people will of themselves attain to the primitive simplicity'."

 

i guess i'm not up to it today: huh? whose quote is this? can you provide a context? i'm lost.

 

I believe it to be a Taoist quote of somekind. I was reading up on it and located this quote. Kinda makes sense after reading it 100 times!

 

Is it possible that it's from Sun Tze, "the art of war"?

 

I couldnt say. I was on an obscure website that I cant find for the want of trying. It was a crappy little site. I found this quote which had no reference but thought it would spark up a little debate in here!

 

It's not from Sun Tze's, "The Art of War", but rather Lao Tsu, a teacher at the time of Confucius, who riveled him in wisdom or so it is said. His teachings were more spiritual the Confucius, consult his writing of "the Way" for more information.

Shadow
~Fear not your waking enemies, trust not your sleeping allies.

 

It's TTK Chapter 57. Funny, it's just a different translation and although I know that text well, I didn't recognize it.

 

Superb thread! Great opening post, great responses! I'm afraid I'm gonna have to invoke an odd mix of Shakespeare, Hinduism, Star Trek, Carl Jung and Bruce Lee for my answer!

In Star Wars lexicon, the Force appears to break down into two elements: The Force and the Dark Side. By definition, as you pointed out mandagora, what isn't dark must be light - and vice versa. Thus, I think it is safe to use the terms "Light Side" and "Dark Side" as freely as one uses the connectives "and" and "or" in the English language. What needs to be acknowledged has been: the term "Light Side" has NEVER appeared in Star Wars. Lucas is able to place extra emphasis on the Dark Side by stressing the singularity of darkness. Nevertheless, I feel I've presented a valid reason for using "Light Side" and "Dark Side" concurrently. With that out of the way...

In my opinion, the Dark Side is not just "made up" of "emotions that have the potential to be destructive" - that IS the Dark Side. What else could the Dark Side reasonably be? I think many fans see the Dark Side as a tangible entity - like an extra "room" of the Force - but that just doesn't work for me at all. Everyone has the potential for virtuosity and villainy, creation and destruction, good and bad. (Of course, those pairings should not be regarded as synonymous but as mutually exclusive - i.e. creation is not always "good" just as surely as destruction is not always "bad"). Ergo, everyone who is even remotely sentient - from Watto through to Yoda - has their own life essence comprised of a complex psychological/spiritual dance between the Light Side and the Dark Side. No one, no matter how virtuous, is above evil, just as surely as no one, no matter how villainous, is beyond goodness.

According to his entry on Wikipedia, Carl Jung was "a strong believer in the importance of integration of opposites (e.g. masculine and feminine, thinking and feeling, science and spirituality)." So, if Joseph Campbell is the man responsible for helping Lucas shape Star Wars' mythic structure, then perhaps Carl Jung is the man responsible for helping shape Lucas' own philosophy (or, at the very least, a like-minded fellow). Certainly, Jung influenced Campbell, so there is a kind of "Master/Padawan" link regardless. Jung proposed that the human unconscious is proposed of many archetypes - perhaps the most famous of which is "The shadow". Here is its description within that same Wikipedia entry:

 

Thanks for sharing these insights, on the dark side Cryogenic. I completely agree with the Jungian interpretation that really explains the dark side issue very well. I think it is completely valid for the issue of what is the ?dark side? in human (and alien) beings, and thus for the personal part of the story in SW.

My main problem is, the Force, the Living as well as the Unifying part, is a lot more than the psychology of human and alien beings. So do you think this ?dark side? within beings is all there is about the dark side, or is there something like a dark side of the Force apart from that? To speculate and stick to Jung ? could it be that there?s something like a dark side of the ?collective unconscious?? -- But even that would refer only to the Living Force. I still don?t see how the ?dark side? concept might be applicable to the Unifying Force as well.