The two sides of the force: separate or part of a whole?

My impression is that "Light" and "Dark" refer to the actions and intent of the user, and do not apply to the Force itself.

Think about it - all Jedi and Sith are capable of the same powers: speed, jumping, choking, lightning, pushing/pulling. The only difference between Jedi and Sith is how the Force is used, and to what extent. Jedi only use the Force when necessary, for knowledge and defense. Sith use it for everything, including attack. "Light" and "Dark" are simply metaphors describing the will of the user. The Force is the Force, regardless. Like any tool, it can be used for good or evil.

In the end, Palpatine's greatest mistake was over-reliance on the Force, whereas Luke found strenght in his faith for his father - a strength that Anakin finally recognized and drew stength from himself.

 

I think if there were two forces (light and dark), the dark force would probably try to eliminate the light force. people using the light side of the force would be immune and invisible to people using the dark side and vice versa. I agree with those who have said that there is one force and two general ways to use it (light and dark)

 

I think the ultimate way to use the Force would be to walk the middle path.
The light side is the protective side and it wouldn´t be recommendable to protect everything and everyone for the sake of protecting. The dark side, the destructive aspect of the Force, needs to be in the game as well. Sometimes, you have to just let things happen in order to maintain the natural balance.
But of course, you could never prevent every bad thing from happening, so I guess the Jedi way is the right way; to protect as much life as you can.

 

"The light side is the protective side and it wouldn´t be recommendable to protect everything and everyone for the sake of protecting. The dark side, the destructive aspect of the Force, needs to be in the game as well. Sometimes, you have to just let things happen in order to maintain the natural balance. "

Some examples I gave in the past to describe this were like a sunny day and a thunderstorm. They are both "weather", but sometimes several different variables build on each other to the point where rain and lightning are inevitable consequences.

BTW, interesting that lightning is an extreme form for both for weather and the Force. In fact, the third version of Star Wars used this similar mindset...

LUKE - Do the Sith know the ways of the Force?
BEN - They use the Bogan Force.
LUKE - Like Bogan weather, or bogan times. I thought that was just a saying.
BEN - There are two halves of the Force of Others. One is positive and will help you if you learn how to use it. But the others half will kill you if you aren't careful. This negative side of the Force is called the Bogan, which is where the expression came from, and it is the part that is used by the Dark Lords to destroy their opponents.

"Bogan weather' would be "dark weather", or bad weather. The Force is simply another power of nature, to be used as the user sees fit. Nonetheless, like all forces of nature, it can turn on you and bite you on the ass if you don't respect its power.

Another example is a forest fire. The Jedi would maintain the fire for light (knowledgde - being able to see) and its warmth (defense), whereas a Sith would let it run loose (attack), destroying the whole forest in the process (for whatever reason - very little seems to upset a Sith). Either way, they are both using fire, simply for different purposes. In neither case does the fire have a "side" in and of itself, but we can see an obvious distinction in these scenarios nonetheless.

"very little seems to upset a Sith" - sounds like a great "Han Solo" line.

 

"very little seems to upset the Sith". Hmm, that applies to me as well. Am I a darksider?

Anyway, I thought about this a lot last night and here´s what I came up with:
The dark side stems from egoism and the light side from generosity.
These two characteristics are part of the natural world. In a way, we are quite selfish creatures - everything good we do rewards us in one way or another. Either we get a good deed back from someone else, or we simply feel good about ourselves. After all, that´s what we live for, isn´t it? Being happy I mean?
BUT: If you devote yourself to the egoistic part of yourself, you will be consumed by fear, anger and hatred. Fear to lose the things/persons you love, anger over losing them and hatred towards the ones who took them away from you.
Furthermore, you and your possessions will be all that matters to you and you will use any means necessary to get what you want, even if that means killing a town full of people.
In other words: You become evil.
That´s what the dark side is about.

One more thing: The true balance at the end of ROTJ lies not in the galaxy at large but in the heart of Luke Skywalker.

 

"The dark side stems from egoism and the light side from generosity."

[Vader] "Impressive" [/Vader]

That would certainly explain a lot, and fits right into all this reasoning as well.

"The true balance at the end of ROTJ lies not in the galaxy at large but in the heart of Luke Skywalker."

I LIKE that!

Anakin is still the "Chosen One", but he "brings balance" in the form of Luke. Nice!

 

Thanks a lot, MeBe
Boy, I´m smart sometimes....

I like your analogy between the Force and wheather, with the lightning. Spot on! It´s obvious that this is something that´s been an essential part of Star Wars from the very beginning. Perhaps GL´s main inspiration to tell the story?

 

>>>> So, if the Will of the Force was "inescapable", then there is no tension in the saga. No matter what anyone did at any point, Anakin would have wiped out the Sith and brought balance? [?] Then it doesn't matter if you are "calm... passive", or letting hate run through you- either way, you'll end up achieving whatever the Will of the Force is?

Yes, Anakin would?ve wiped out the Sith either way, but at what cost? In case you haven?t noticed, Lucas is particularly careful in his films to show how a thing happens. That is to say, he is not at all interested in what forces have made people the way they are; he is completely interested in what people make out of what the forces have made of them.

>>>> If a Jedi (or Sith) can "hear" the Will fo the Force, then they have the choice to work with it, or to work against it. [?] I mean, if characters can "hear" the Will of the Force, then they have the freedom of choice of what to do with that knowledge. How can choosing to work against that be the "will of the Force" too?

When it comes to the will of the Force, there is no ?freedom.? Remember that the Force reveals its will to the Jedi and Sith (and to some degree, everybody else, too, considering that everybody in the SW universe has midi-chlorians), so the knowledge that is ultimately acquired by the individual is just a fractured mosaic of disconnected bits and pieces, whose parts will never add up to a coherent narrative. What?s more, SW cosmology describes a universe in which everything is connected with everything else. Stars, clouds, forests, oceans and human beings are interconnected components of a single living system in which nothing can exist in isolation. So, there is no real ?freedom to choose? because the individual?s choice is based on only what the Force wants that person to know, and that same choice is influenced by the individual?s dependence on the world around him.

>>>> Yes, but if he was a Sith, he would have taken on an apprentice of his own, and the Sith order would have survived. Anakin had to wipe out the Sith order to bring balance to the Force.

---

One of the themes throughout the films is that the Sith Lords, when they started out thousands of years ago, embraced the Dark Side. They were greedy and self-centered and they all wanted to take over, so they killed each other. Eventually there was only one left, and that one took on an apprentice. [b]And for thousands years, the master would teach the apprentice, the master would die, the apprentice would then teach another apprentice, the master, and so on.[/b] But there could never be any more than two of them, because if there were, they would try to get rid of the leader, which is exactly what Vader was trying to do, and that's exactly what the Emperor was trying to do. The Emperor was trying to get rid of Vader, and Vader was trying to get rid of the Emperor. And that is the antithesis of a symbiotic relationship, in which if you do that, you become cancer, and you eventually kill the host, and everything dies.

? George Lucas, ?Of Myth and Men,? [i]Time Magazine[/i], 1999[hr][/blockquote]No, Anakin would?ve had to kill Palpatine first before taking on a new apprentice. What?s more, because of Anakin?s limitations, because he became enslaved to the constant demands of his electronic Vader suit (the very technology that was created to serve him) he became divorced from the source of his very existence, and thus became dulled, impervious and slow. In this state, there is no way he could have brought about Palpatine?s demise without killing himself too. Any way you slice it, Anakin would?ve eliminated the Sith Order whether he remained a Jedi or became a Sith.

 

Foreword:

---

All of us have a God in us, and that God is the spirit that unites all life, everything that is on this planet. It must be this voice that is telling me to do something, and I am sure it?s the same voice that is speaking to everybody on this planet?at least everybody who seems to be concerned about the fate of the world, the fate of the planet.

Wangari Maathai, quoted in D. Suzuki, [i]The Sacred Balance[/i], 1997[hr][/blockquote]>>>>[b][i]Sounds like intent to me. [/i][/b]

No, it?s not merely intent? What if the temptation to do bad things or to gain power over others never even existed? What if the inclination to do good things never existed? What if people didn?t have a sense of right and wrong?

[blockquote][hr][b]MOYERS:[/b] When Darth Vader tempts Luke to come over to the Empire side, offering him all that the Empire has to offer, I am taken back to the story of Satan taking Christ to the mountain and offering him the kingdoms of the world, if only he will turn away from his mission. Was that conscious in your mind?

[b]LUCAS:[/b] Yes. That story also has been retold. Buddha was tempted in the same way. It's all through mythology. [b]The gods are constantly tempting. Everybody and everything.[/b] So the idea of temptation is one of the things we struggle against, and the temptation obviously is the temptation to go to the dark side.

? From ?Of Myth and Men,? [i]Time Magazine[/i], 1999[hr]

[hr][b]The dark side is always there. It is experienced daily by people.[/b] It is like a huge cancer, alive, festering?both a reminder of a moral state and, at the same time, symptom and symbol of a very sick society.

? George Lucas, [i]The Power of Myth[/i], 2001[hr][/blockquote]The dark side is that temptation. Just like the good side of the Force, the dark side is always there changing the current milieu in an effort to influence a person?s decisions. And in each critical moment of truth, the good side and the dark side advise a person what to do, and it?s up to the individual to choose the path of virtue or the path to short-term happiness (evil).

>>>>[b][i] Agreed. Is there "one will", or two?[/i][/b]

There is one ?will,? but there are multiple ways of accomplishing that will.

>>>>[b][i] Therefore, the Force sends a "guide" to help put Anakin back on the "straight-and-narrow".[/i][/b]

Careful, as much as you hate to acknowledge Joseph Campbell?s influence on [i]SW[/i], what you are describing is already laid out in his books:

[blockquote]From the chapter entitled ?Rescue from Without? (my own additions have been added in brackets)[hr]The hero may have to be brought back from his supernatural adventure by assistance from without. That is to say, the world may have to come and get him. For the bliss of the deep abode is not lightly abandoned in favor of the self-scattering of the wakened state. ?Who having cast off the world,? we read, ?would desire to return again? He would only be [i]there[/i].? And yet, in so far as one is alive, life will call. Society is jealous of those who remain away from it, and will come knocking at the door. If the hero [Anakin] is unwilling, the disturber [Luke] suffers an ugly shock; but on the other hand, if the summoned one is only delayed?sealed in by the beatitude of the state of perfect being (which resembles death)?an apparent rescue is effected, and the adventurer returns.

? Joseph Campbell, [i]The Hero with a Thousand Faces[/i], 1949[hr][/blockquote]>>>> [b][i]Now you are losing me here. Why would the Dark Side want Palpatine killed? Did you not say the Dark Side controls its users? It seems you have the cause and effect reversed.[/i][/b]

And when the dark side of the Force no longer has any use for Palpatine, Palpatine must die.

 

"No, it?s not merely intent- What if the temptation to do bad things or to gain power over others never even existed? What if the inclination to do good things never existed? What if people didn?t have a sense of right and wrong?"

An aspect of philosophy that the films don't seem to touch on.

---

[b][i]The dark side is always there. It is experienced daily by people. It is like a huge cancer, alive, festering-both a reminder of a moral state and, at the same time, symptom and symbol of a very sick society.

George Lucas, The Power of Myth, 2001[/i][/b][hr][/blockquote]

Lucas's own quote defeats your question - the Dark Side is [u]always[/u] there. Every human is capable of good and evil. It all comes down to what they [i]choose[/i] to do, and how they do it. Sometimes, some may do something bad, knowingly or unknowingly, with the best of intentions, as in the saying...
[blockquote]"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"[/blockquote]Case in point, one of my favorite scenes in [u]Bridge on the River Kwai[/u] with, interestingly enough, Alec Guinness. He's been trying to build the bridge for a variety of reasons: to motivate his men, to keep them busy, to show the Japanese what he's capable of, because he is strong-willed and completes whatever goal he sets before himself. It's not until the end, when he sees the Japanese troops crossing the bridge, that he realizes how misguided his goal really was - he's ultimately built a bridge intended specifically for Japanese troop movement. He even kills the American soldier trying to destroy the bridge to [i]prevent[/i] its use. [blockquote][b]Guinness[/b] - "My God, what have I done?"[/blockquote]In his last dying act (or accidentally, depending on your interpretation) he destroys that which he created, in an attempt to right his wrongs.

Interesting that this is very similar to the ending of ROTJ in many ways.

Sorry, but why the Prophecy [i]does[/i] imply that "Balance" is inevitable, the Saga [i]is[/i] about choice, which goes hand-in-hand with intent - what does the character [u]intend[/u] to do with the power given him. Your interpretation leans too far towards the "marionette" interpretation - everything is pre-ordained, and there are [i]no[/i] real choices - [u]including those of Palpatine[/u]! You've just made the Force complicit with Palpatine's plans. [u]If the Force was really [i]this[/i] powerful, [b]why didn't it stop Palpatine in the first place?[/b][/u] It couldn't, because it's not capable of such direct action - it requires assistance on the acts of others. As such, it is also subject to the consequences of their acts. Palpatine pulls the Force out of balance, and Anakin - brought into being to [i]overcome[/i] this imbalance, falls under the influence of Palp's promises of power.

From another thread...

[blockquote][b][i]"My feeling is that the Will of the Force blinded Palpatine in ROTJ just like Yoda is in the PT."[/i]

"I have felt him, my master."
"Strange that I have not."

Actually, my interpretation is that, even though Palpatine can see better into the future than Yoda, his powers are still limited by:

1) The nature of farseeing itself: Yoda says several times that the future is always in motion, because our present actions can affect it. Palpatine, himself, said (according to Vader) that "Luke would destroy him". Well, semantically, he did, but certainly not in the manner in which Palpatine might have thought . If Palpatine had seen that Luke would turn Anakin against him, wouldn't Palps have had father and son eliminated as soon as they both came into the throne room? Clearly, some details were not very specific, or had changed.

2) Palpatine's overconfidence: Palpatine gives a perfect example of this limitation. Assume that this power is not always "on", but is used periodically. Consider these threads. You could check it every few minutes, to see the "direction" of the posts, or you could check it every few hours, in which case the "direction" is more likely to head in an unexpected direction.

 

A few other things that came to mind...

"That is to say, he is not at all interested in what forces have made people the way they are; he is completely interested in what people make out of what the forces have made of them."

Agreed. It is the intent and actions of the characters, not the Force, that drives the story. The Saga isn't about the Force. The Force is simply a plot device used to tell a story about the Characters. The characters are not "controlled", but they can be guided, if they so choose.

" >>>> Agreed. Is there "one will", or two?"

"There is one "will", but there are multiple ways of accomplishing that will."

Tell me, is this "will" from the Dark Side, or the Light Side? According to you, these sides are very distinct (while still being part of the same whole.) So, which "side" has the will? If we go by Lucas' comment that "the Dark Side is stronger", wouldn't it make sense that the Dark Side has the "will".

Again, more problems erupt when trying to discern separate entities within the Force itself. As I stated before, the Force simply "is". I recall you bringing up this point in Balance of the Force

>>>> How can George be doing this, when he doesn't want to be "too specific" about the Force? In fact, he makes a point of stating the concept of the Force became better as [he] got less specific" Which direction do you think he is still heading in by the time he gets to the final product, that being the films? Should I accept Lucas' words, or your interpretation?

Once again you've taken George's words completely out of context. George is talking about the Force as he was incorporating it into his early screenplays for the very first movie. In case you haven't noticed, the story of the Force gets more specific with each subsequent film. What's more, George seems to think that the Force is something specific:

Interestingly enough, Lucas does not get more specific. He's actually saying the same things over and over again...

Note all the references to the "Living" and "Cosmic" Forces

Yoda - "For my ally is the Force. And a powerful ally it is. Life creates it and makes it grow." - This very line speaks of both aspects. There is obviously something "beyond" the life force of the plants themselves.

I tried, in my going through mythology, to distill down into certain basic ideas things that seem to exist in a great deal of mythology. Again, to try to find the themes and ideas that continue over a great amount of time and across a wide spectrum of cultures. The Force is a result of that. The Force is the way that many people view the great mysteries of "Is there other realities at work other than the one we can perceive." ]I think that the Force represents life"I mean another way to describe it is "life-force." It's the spirit of life rather than the physical manifestation of it. - Again, the Force, or spirit, of life.

The Force itself breaks into two sides: the living Force and a greater, cosmic Force. The living Force makes you sensitive to other living things, makes you intuitive, and allows you to read other people's minds, etc. But the greater Force has to do with destiny. In working with the Force, you can find your destiny and you can choose to either follow it or not. - Again, Lucas' comments refer to both aspects that Yoda spoke of. Also, note that one need not follow the "will" of the Force. In fact, Lucas commented on this as well...

LUCAS: Heroes come in all sizes, and you don't have to be a giant hero. You can be a very small hero. It's just as important to understand that accepting self-responsibility for the things you do, having good manners, caring about other people--these are heroic acts. Everybody has the choice of being a hero or not being a hero every da

 

Bad Radio

Me: If a Jedi (or Sith) can "hear" the Will of the Force, then they have the choice to work with it, or to work against it. [?] I mean, if characters can "hear" the Will of the Force, then they have the freedom of choice of what to do with that knowledge. How can choosing to work against that be the "will of the Force" too?

You: >>>>When it comes to the will of the Force, there is no ?freedom.? Remember that the Force reveals its will to the Jedi and Sith [...], so the knowledge that is ultimately acquired by the individual is just a fractured mosaic of disconnected bits and pieces, whose parts will never add up to a coherent narrative. What?s more, SW cosmology describes a universe in which everything is connected with everything else. [...] So, there is no real ?freedom to choose? because the individual?s choice is based on only what the Force wants that person to know, and that same choice is influenced by the individual?s dependence on the world around him.[/i]

It seems that Lucas sees things in a different light to you, as far as destiny is concerned;

The Force itself breaks into two sides: the living Force and a greater, cosmic Force. The living Force makes you sensitive to other living things, makes you intuitive, and allows you to read other people's minds, etc. But the greater Force has to do with destiny. In working with the Force, you can find your destiny and you can choose to either follow it or not.

Lucas is very clearly stating that the individual does have this free will that you are saying does not exist.

>>>No, Anakin would?ve had to kill Palpatine first before taking on a new apprentice. What?s more, because of Anakin?s limitations, because he became enslaved to the constant demands of his electronic Vader suit (the very technology that was created to serve him) he became divorced from the source of his very existence, and thus became dulled, impervious and slow. In this state, there is no way he could have brought about Palpatine?s demise without killing himself too. Any way you slice it, Anakin would?ve eliminated the Sith Order whether he remained a Jedi or became a Sith.


Nope. What if Luke had killed the Emperor and become Vader's apprentice? What if Luke had killed Vader and become the Emperor's apprentice? What if Luke had killed them both, but turned to the Dark Side?

There's plenty of ways the saga could have ended without Anakin fulfilling the prophecy.

In fact in AOTC, Mace Windu implies pretty directly that Anakin could have just as easily not fulfilled the prophecy;

"If the prophecy is correct, then your apprentice is the only one who can bring balance. You must have faith that he will choose the right path."

The clear implication of this statement is that as far as Mace Windu is concerned, it's entirely possible for Anakin to NOT choose the right path, and NOT bring balance.

 

While I find it hard to believe that bad_radio is trying to say there's no free choice whatsoever, it does seem like he's trying to come to some sort of halfway point, to put the Force's influence at least on par with that of any other character's influence.

"The clear implication of this statement is that as far as Mace Windu is concerned, it's entirely possible for Anakin to NOT choose the right path, and NOT bring balance."

Agreed. The alternative is to believe that everything was pre-ordained, which not only takes most of the suspense out of the films, but also means that eliminating the Jedi Order and destroying Alderaan (both of which were a tremendous blow to the Force) were ultimately necessary - not to mention all the lives lost between the trilogies. If the Force had that much "influence", why does it allow so much life to be lost? In that regard, why would any "side" of the Force assist Palpatine in his plans? Even if there was a distinct "Dark side", does it not still get its power from life? This scenario cuts off its own nose to spite its face.

Unlike Anakin who slides into the dark side, Christensen says it's a question of making the right choices in life. "We're all presented with influences, sometimes very opposing ones that motivate us and affect our decisions. Hopefully we choose wisely." - Interview with Hayden Hayden Christensen

So how will Lucas, who once created an angelic Luke, morph his new hero into Lucifer? "He turns into Darth Vader because he gets attached to things," says Lucas. "He can't let go of his mother; he can't let go of his girlfriend. He can't let go of things. It makes you greedy. And when you're greedy, you are on the path to the dark side, because you fear you're going to lose things, that you're not going to have the power you need." - Time Magazine

"In Episode I, when we saw Jake Lloyd, we wondered where's the dark side? Why isn't this kid creepy?" recounts McCaig. "And then, in Episode II, Hayden Christensen came across as a justifiably angry teenager more than a kid who crosses over to the true dark side. Killing the Sand People... they killed his mom! I could go mad and do something like that. So, I kept waiting for the dark side to take hold. In this film, you realize, it's more about Anakin making the wrong choices. He's given a glorious moment by George -- I'm so happy with part of the script -- where he truly has to make a choice. In the end, I think that's a smarter way to go than a slow transformation. It's more tragic this way." - May 29, 2003: Homing Beacon #68

Agreed. Otherwise, Anakin, Luke, and Palpatine are all simply pawns, being shuffled about into various places by the Force. Hardly mythic.

When you apply the Dark/Light metaphor to films using the similar Satan/God scenario, even then, it is the actions of the characters - which are "guided" by the higher powers - that make the difference. God and Satan rarely get personally involved, at least not until the very end. One of my favorite films is The Prophecy ("Go Walken!" ). It's not until the dark soul is exposed at the end of the film when God intervenes with his divine powers. Everything prior to that had to be set up by the human characters (who, by the way, needed to be convinced to follow God's will, rather than simply being puppets of God.)

BEN - Remember, a Jedi warrior can feel The Force flowing from him.
LUKE - You mean that it controls your actions?
BEN - Partially, but it also obeys your commands. - ANH

"Partially", not totally. And it also obeys

 

I apologize for such a late reply?

>>>> An aspect of philosophy that the films don't seem to touch on.

Look again?

---

[b]QUI-GON:[/b] Without the midi-chlorians life could not exist, and we would have no knowledge of the Force.

? From [i]The Phantom Menace[/i]?s screenplay, 1999[hr]
[hr][b]MOYERS:[/b] When Darth Vader tempts Luke to come over to the Empire side, offering him all that the Empire has to offer, I am taken back to the story of Satan taking Christ to the mountain and offering him the kingdoms of the world, if only he will turn away from his mission. Was that conscious in your mind?

[b]LUCAS:[/b] Yes. That story also has been retold. Buddha was tempted in the same way. It's all through mythology. The gods are constantly tempting. Everybody and everything. So the idea of temptation is one of the things we struggle against, and the temptation obviously is the temptation to go to the dark side.

? From ?Of Myth and Men,? [i]Time Magazine[/i], 1999[hr][/blockquote]The Force is the equivalent in the [i]SW[/i] universe to ?the gods? of mythology that Lucas mentions above. That is to say, without the Force there would be no temptation in the first place.

>>>>[b][i] Sorry, but why the Prophecy does imply that "Balance" is inevitable, the Saga is about choice, which goes hand-in-hand with intent - what does the character intend to do with the power given him. Your interpretation leans too far towards the "marionette" interpretation - everything is pre-ordained, and there are no real choices - including those of Palpatine! [/i][/b]

[blockquote][hr]I'm telling an old myth in a new way. Each society takes that myth and retells it in a different way, which relates to the particular environment they live in. The motif is the same. It's just that it gets localized. As it turns out, I'm localizing it for the planet. I guess I'm localizing it for the end of the millennium more than I am for any particular place.

? George Lucas, ?Of Myth and Men,? [i]Time Magazine[/i], 1999[hr][/blockquote]Throughout time, across generations, various cultures wove together stories whose subject was the world and everything in it. These ?myths,? as they came to be known, were profoundly local, embedded in the flora, fauna, climate, and geology of a region. And locked within them, hidden in a secret language of code and symbols, existed a vast reservoir of knowledge for anyone enlightened enough to decipher their meaning. Wisdom regarding the local environment, knowledge of the local gods, and man?s awareness of his place in the cosmos could all be found therein, and thus each culture?s myths were its priceless legacy for survival.

In the modern world, however, with its emerging ?world culture,? the old myths have lost their meaning. Science has killed all the gods, industry has changed all the environments, and technology has severed man?s connection with the rest of creation. This raises the question: What stories will the next generation inherit that will make their world spiritually significant? Consequently, what is needed now is a new story to replace the old ones, a ?new myth? that encompasses all of humanity. What?s more, science, religion, and philosophy must find some common ground if such a narrative is to be imbued with meaning and embraced, not just by the local in-group, but all of humanity. To his credit, George Lucas has attempted such a colossal undertaking with his [i]SW[/i] films.

George understands perfectly well that we can never go back to the way things were, but he also recognizes that we must thoroughly understand our past if we are go forward. That is to say, we must look over our shoulders at the ideas of the past and unite them with all the ideas of the present. ?There is no reason,? George?s friend and mythic guru Joseph Campbell wrote, ?why anyone should suppose that in the future the same motifs already heard will not be sounding still?in new relationships indeed, but ever the same motifs.? Moreover, one of the resounding messages of the bygone myths i

 

Luke: You mean it controls your actions?
Obi-Wan: Partially...but it also obeys your commands.

 

" >>>> An aspect of philosophy that the films don't seem to touch on.

Look again?

QUI-GON: Without the midi-chlorians life could not exist, and we would have no knowledge of the Force.

- From The Phantom Menace's screenplay, 1999

MOYERS: When Darth Vader tempts Luke to come over to the Empire side, offering him all that the Empire has to offer, I am taken back to the story of Satan taking Christ to the mountain and offering him the kingdoms of the world, if only he will turn away from his mission. Was that conscious in your mind?

LUCAS: Yes. That story also has been retold. Buddha was tempted in the same way. It's all through mythology. The gods are constantly tempting. Everybody and everything. So the idea of temptation is one of the things we struggle against, and the temptation obviously is the temptation to go to the dark side.

- From "Of Myth and Men," Time Magazine, 1999

The Force is the equivalent in the SW universe to "the gods" of mythology that Lucas mentions above. That is to say, without the Force there would be no temptation in the first place.

Ironic. You stretch causality to the breaking point by slapping two disparate quotes together, pretending they are referring to the same context, and yet you berated me for using two "different" quotes that were together in the Annotated Screenplays? Too funny. Apparently what wasn't good for the goose is now good for the gander?

Now, as to the original quote that this referred to...

"No, it's not merely intent- What if the temptation to do bad things or to gain power over others never even existed? What if the inclination to do good things never existed? What if people didn?t have a sense of right and wrong?"

So now Vader and Luke have no sense of right or wrong? I guess that means Vader was never redeemed, since he wasn't even aware of what he was doing, whether it be destroying the Sith order, or saving his son and eliminating the Emperor, right?BTW....

LUCAS: Heroes come in all sizes, and you don't have to be a giant hero. You can be a very small hero. It's just as important to understand that accepting self-responsibility for the things you do, having good manners, caring about other people--these are heroic acts. Everybody has the choice of being a hero or not being a hero every day of their lives. - The Theology of Star Wars

Well, so much for that theory.

Here's some more...

"The first three really deal with the fall of Anakin - you will just see the saga of a young boy, his relationship with mother, how he grows up, who he marries, the children he has. He makes a pivotal choice in his life: a road that takes him to the dark side and he pays the consequences of that. We see his children grow up and see him finally redeemed." - Rick McCallum

Now, why would Anakin "pay the consequences" of a choice that was pre-ordained? Why should he be punished for doing something that he apparently had no choice in the matter of, according to you? Why should he need "redemption" when he was supposed to do all these things?

Does Anakin Bring Balance to the Force?

"If good and evil are mixed things become blurred - there is nothing between good and evil, everything is grey. In each of us we have balance these emotions, and in the Star Wars saga the most important point is balance, balance between everything. It is dangerous to lose this. In The Phantom Menace one of the Jedi Council already knows the balance of The Force is starting to slip, and will slip further. It is obvious to this person that The Sith are going to destroy this balance. On the other hand a prediction which is referred to states someone will replace the balance in the future. At the right time a balance may again be created, but presently it is being eroded by dark forces. All of th

 

The idea that good and evil are "two sides of the same coin" is flawed and untrue.
To be absolutely good means to be absolutely ballanced.
To be absolutely evil is to be bereft of ballance.
Evil is nothing more than a twisted perversion of something that was once good. Goodness is the perfect ballance between too little and too much. To vear to either side is to become imperfectly ballanced; and the more unballanced a persons attitudes become, the more evil his actions will be.
That being said, it is illogical say that there can be a ballance BETWEEN good and evil.

 

Then you have another view of life than Lucas and me. If you´re only good, if you only give to everyone all the time without ever taking anything for yourself, you will be consumed by your own goodness.
Evil stems from egoism. In order to survive, you have to nourish the egoistic part of yourself, as well as the generous part. You need to satisfy your own needs, not to make someone else happy, but to make yourself happy. That is egoism, but it´s good. It´s good to be both evil and good

That´s balance.

 

"you will be consumed by your own goodness. "

Yoda - "Consume you, it will"

 

>>>>If you´re only good, if you only give to everyone all the time without ever taking anything for yourself, you will be consumed by your own goodness.

I don't think that's quite the way Star Wars is supposed to be seen.

The "pure good" we see in Star Wars (and LOTR, incidentally) is something which never acts in it's own interests, never taking anything for itself; it's the Force. It can never act for itself- the closest it can do is send agents to act for it; like the Jedi.

In a similar way, God's Will (as I understand it) is always carried out by his angels- not directly by God. God himself doesn't directly interfere on earth.

Of course, there's a rather famous story about a particular angel who challenged God's will, and was cast into Hell- which can be defined as the absence of God.

Compare that story to Star Wars, where the Force's "agents"- the Jedi- carry out it's Will, and one particular angel who challenges the Will of the Force and falls to the Dark Side...

I wanted to have this mythological footing because I was basing the films on the idea that the Force has two sides, the good side, the evil side, and they both need to be there. Most religions are built on that, whether it's called yin and yang, God and the devil?everything is built on the push-pull tension created by two sides of the equation. Right from the very beginning, that was the key issue in Star Wars.
? George Lucas, quoted in H. Hart, ?Sneaks 2002; Flaws in a Good Heart,? LA Times, Jan. 20, 2002

Note that the battle between God and the Devil isn't a direct battle, but a battle that goes on within the individual. Although God is the ultimate power, the Devil has the clear advantage of actually being able to act directly- for example, the devil appeared when he was tempting Jedi during his 40 days in the wilderness, but he didn't have God there whispering in his other ear. God never appeared before Jesus- angels did. God didn't fight the Devil in front of him, because that's simply not the way the battle between good and evil works.

Compare that idea of non-interference to Star Wars ideas like "a Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defence- never for attack." Or Lucas' comment about the Dark Side being the only way for Anakin to achieve his own goals.

>>>So even if someone consciously or subconsciously chooses not to listen to the Force, this means the Force had to be there in the first place for that person to decide not to listen to it, and just by being there the Force influenced that person?s decision. Whether that person realizes it or not, whether he chooses to listen to the Force or not, he is still carrying out the will of the Force.

Unless the Force is schitzophrenic and has more than one "will", then that simply doesn't work.

To borrow some Matrix imagery, say it's the Will of the Force that Jedi X takes the red pill. Jedi X knows this (because he's a good Jedi), but chooses to take the blue pill instead (because he's not that good a Jedi...)

If an individual can know the Will of the Force, then he can choose not to go along with it.

Mace Windu says in AOTC: "If the prophecy is correct, then your apprentice is the only one who can restore balance. You must have faith that he will choose the right path."

The implication is clear- that there is the possibility for Anakin to choose the wrong path, not to follow the Will of the Force and not to bring balance.

>>>This reality is the influencing principle of the Force: the good side and dark side of the Force working to achieve balance. Both sides ?have the will? because they are working to accomplish the same thing.

The problem with this is that it seems to me to have been set up so that the Force is naturally in balance, because the Jedi philosophy is of working alongside the Force, treating it as an ally.
The Dark Side of the Force is all about manipulating this power for selfish ends, and this is what disrupts it's balance.

The Force that the Jedi follow isn'

 

"Mace Windu says in AOTC: "If the prophecy is correct, then your apprentice is the only one who can restore balance. You must have faith that he will choose the right path."

The implication is clear- that there is the possibility for Anakin to choose the wrong path, not to follow the Will of the Force and not to bring balance. "

---------

"This is what Qui Gon and Dooku are all about. Qui Gon's focus is on the Living Force, at the expense of the cosmic force. He doesn't truly appreciate the consequences of his actions- as is perfectly illustrated by the fact he takes the Chosen One, hands him the power of the Force and turns him into Darth Vader.

He uses the Force to manipulate Anakin's fate (the dice roll.) As a result, his future becomes clouded. (Which obviously means something after AOTC that it didn't before...)"

Excellent points.

 

Thanks Lars. You were right to pick up on the fact that I don't exactly see eye to eye with Mr. Lucas on this matter. But, after all, he was writing a grand space adventure not trying to define a new belief system. So, as with LOTR, I don't expect to find answers that the writer did not intend to provide.
I would agree that self-intrest is a good thing just as confidence in ones own abilities is a good thing. A person has a responsibility to look after himself. However, egoism is characterised by an excessive (unballanced) veiw of one's own well-being and interests (too much). By this reasoning, complete self-sacrifice is also an unballance of wholesome self-interest (too little). This is true of the many doctors and care workers, among others, who suffer eventual burnout or nervous breakdowns due to a near complete self neglect. As mentioned, self confidence is also a good atribute with two similarly opposing evils - overconfidence and undue self doubt; both can cause great suffering. This is true of many other good qualities such as modesty, pride, tollerance, disire, etc.
Good is that which is in a state of perfect ballance, uncorrupted by evil. Good can no more be a ballance between good an evil than clean water can be the product of mixing clean and dirty fluids.

Theologically, God did not create good and evil into the universe; in the beginning there was only good. Evil began when one of Gods angels abused his free will and turned against God, becomming self important and desiring to posess the worship of others.
Similarly, in the world of mythological fantasy, like Star Wars and LOTR, bad guys almost never start off evil. This is true of Vader, Saruman, Sauron (Melkor) and probably Palpatine (long, long ago...). For me, not only does this make a story and a character more dramatic, it also keeps an authentic bearing on real life: a warning that "no-matter how good a person I think I am, if I'm not carefull I could also "fall to the dark side"". However, to say that somehow good and evil are working cooperatively and that, good or bad, everyone is doing the will of The Force/God not only drains the drama and tragedy from the stories but sounds a message that simply says, "It doesn't matter what you do, good or bad".

 

"I don't expect to find answers that the writer did not intend to provide."

Not laughing at you, I just found this comment funny in light of this thread.

"Theologically, God did not create good and evil into the universe; in the beginning there was only good. Evil began when one of Gods angels abused his free will and turned against God, becomming self important and desiring to posess the worship of others."

Meaning God made it allowable. This is crucial, since evil could not have existed (or been allowed to exist) without God.

But I don't wish to get into a religious discussion. Just wanted to make that point.

 

"But I don't wish to get into a religious discussion."

Not winking at you, I just found this comment funny in light of this thread.

Really, I understand what you mean. It's hard to have a disscusion about belief systems in a mythological Sci-fi fantasy and not get involved in a discussion about our perseptions in life, esspecially as fantasy tends to parallel the real world. How far a discussion like this should go is probably down to the question 'When is Star Wars "only Star Wars"?'

 

Well, Star Wars is never only Star Wars, because it´s so obviously connected to the real world.
However, I think that the topic of this thread is about what view we have of the Force, based on the films and GL´s comments. Our view of the Force is strongly connected to our view of life, of course, so if we begin discussing what view of the Force is the correct one, we will have a "religious debate".

I don´t see balance as particularly good or particularly evil. It´s a state of peace, of confidence, of objectiveness. If you are at peace with yourself, if you have confidence in yourself(without feeling "better" than everyone else), if you are objective(which you cannot know whether you are) and if you do what you know is right, some will view what you do as bad, while others will see it as good.
Balance, from my point of view, is right between generosity and egoism. It just is. Which is why balance actually is pretty boring.

Or, to quote Satan from the South Park movie:
"Without evil there could be no good, so it must be good to be evil sometimes."