ST Trees, The Force and Temples

Yes the dark is important to the equation, I am not disputing that. My point is that the Son and therefore the dark side being equal to the light is not balance. We saw what happened to Mortis. the dark side corrupted everything and broke the balance. A balance with the dark side being allowed to be free and treated as non evil is a false one and will inevitably break. When Luke brought balance it was being defeating the dark side. The dark side being a necessary part of the equation does not mean it is needed for true balance or peace. The dark side like evil in most faiths, exists to strengthen the light and good. Yes we need evil and darkness but that does not make them good, it merely means that we must acknowledged that evil and grow from overcoming it. Luke faced the dark side and turned away from it. He restored balance by fully accepting the light and casting out the dark. I am not saying the dark side is not a part of the force, just that it is an inevitable taint that perverts the light and must be stopped. That is the whole point of the saga. The dark side perverts Anakin and the force and the light is restored when the dark side is defeated.

You said that the dark side being evil is a misconception yet one of the quotes you used has Lucas outright say that the force has two sides one being good the other being evil. The dark side is evil undeniably. It has always been portrayed that way. The dark side being needed in the force does not mean it is not evil nor does that mean it is not a poison. Like I said, evil is needed for good to exist, that does not mean that evil must be welcomed in as if it is as valid as good. You need death to make life meaningful but that does not mean one should relish in death, loss makes the things you do have all the more important but that does not mean you cut your arm off so you will appreciate the remaining one more.

The point of the dark side is that it is the evil that makes good so important. It destroys everything it touches and corrupts just like it did to the Son and it is up to the light and its followers to turn away from the dark and/or overcome it and become stronger people in order to protect the galaxy. The dark side being necessary does not make it good or not evil, look at Mortis, the Son every night kills all life on the planet. The Daughter heals all life and protects it. Now death is needed in life, the Son keeps killing and wants more control till everything is death with no chance of resurrection and the healing of the light side. If the point is that dark is not evil then why does the Son inevitably turn on everyone and break the balance? The Father even admits it was foolish to ignore the dark side's unquenchable thirst for power and death. While darkness and pain and what not might be natural and not evil per se, the dark side is truly evil and just wants more power and hate. While anger and loss are a part of life, we should not let them define us and control us, the dark side however is essentially hate and pain controlling everything. Just cause the dark side is needed in the cosmic machine as you pt it, does not make it any less evil. Evil is needed for good to exist but that does not make evil good or anything like that.

Once again Dark Rendezvous goes into this really well and the difference between loss and natural darkness and the dark side and its never ending thirst for nothing but pain and hate, I copied 3 pages worth of stuff verbatim for another thread but can't find the post sadly.

As for us only seeing stuff from the Jedi viewpoint, that does not really change anything. The point of the force in SW is that the light is stronger and more resilient and the better path. Saying "oh well that is just Yoda's opinion" does not really mean anything when that is the opinion Lucas has consistently shone us. That is like saying "well we see Nazis as bad guys cause we are not Nazis" that does not make Nazism good just cause we are looking at it as non Nazis.

Lucas himself said that of the two sides one is made of hate and fear and the other is made of love and hope. The point clearly is that the light side is the good and righteous path and the dark side is, like Lucas said, hate and fear. I am not saying hate and fear are not needed just that balance does not mean equal hate and love. The dark side is not equal to the light when the force is in balance. The ROTS novelization puts it really well

“The dark is generous and it is patient and it always wins – but in the heart of its strength lies its weakness: one lone candle is enough to hold it back.
Love is more than a candle.
Love can ignite the stars.”

The point being that the light is the good side in the end. While darkness will always exist and be a part of the force, balance and peace are achieved through something purely of the light side: love. What caused the imbalance? The dark side and Palpatine pushing for power and spreading hate. What created balance? Luke's love for his father and his choice to choose the light over the dark. The dark may be a part of the force but that does not change that the light is still supposed to be the right side and the correct path. The entire point of the ROTJ ending is that balance is brought about through the light side and the dark being defeated for the dark is an endless cycle of hate and fear and love was needed to break away from that cycle. Love being part of the light side. Balance does not mean equal light and dark. The dark is needed for balance but in that seeing how pathetic and empty it is, one is given the strength to turn away. It is like Morrison's point with Darkseid, as evil dies you see just how pathetic and weak it really was. Evil might be needed to understand good but that does not mean it is any less evil.

 

While its strange to think of Star Wars with no Jedi, but since the Sith out already gone by the time of ST, (because ROTJ) I think it is a definite possibility. Plus, it would be nice to see Luke's wisdom lead his philosophical world view to move beyond that of an order which has already failed twice.

Also: with regard to the visual representation of psychology in the fantasy genre, psychodynamic Lightsabers as Anakin's internal moral struggle:

The blue blade (super-ego (light-side), represents the guilt of Anakin's moral side over the death of his 'unarmed' (geddit), defenceless prisoner, and because he has not dealt with this in the most socially acceptable way. 'Its not the Jedi way.'
The red blade (ID-survival instinct (dark-side), newly acquired from the now deceased Dooku, represents the evil of the act that Anakin has just committed. He has indulged his ID, by exacting 'revenge' as Sidious will rationalise it, against the man who maimed him.
Anakin begins the fight with only his blue Lightsaber, the acquisition of the second red blade demonstrates the unbalancing psychological effect that giving in to his hate and anger, to accomplish his goals, has on him.
http://www.simplypsychology.org/Sigmund-Freud.html

Edit:

I'm sure I know of a quote where GL describes the dark side as a cancer. I've been thinking about this dilemma myself with regard to the ST.
I think the point is that evil can take many forms, and that we must always be vigilant against it. So although the Sith have technically been destroyed they didn't take the dark-side with them. This philosophical approach seem to be taken my the writers of the ST. 'Through the years I have seen evil take many forms. The Sith, the Empire, today it is the First Order.'-Maz Kanata

IMO what balance in the force actually means, is that instead of completely rejecting ones dark-side, like the PT era Jedi (note the disbelief of the High Council, when faced with the return of the Sith in TPM), one must instead accept that the potential for evil is always present. Both in themselves and in others, therefore one must always be vigilant against evil, even when it doesn't seem obvious.
It was failure to do this that was the Jedi Order's initial undoing.

 

exactly. great example of visual/thematic representation of psychology. Two saber colors = inner struggle. Understandable to everyone 8-88.

 

vncredleader To me, the problem with applying ethical dualism to the light and dark sides ( the cosmological forces, not the Jedi and Sith ) is that we're told repeatedly that the Force exists naturally in a state of balance. Balance isn't something that can exist with just one side. It would be impossible for the Force to be conceptualised as a balanced system if the ultimate goal of this system was for the light side to conquer the dark.

In theology, cosmologies such as these are described mitigated dualism, wherein the power struggle between two, unequal sides ( the good side usually being perceived as morally superior ) are locked in a struggle for dominance which will ultimately result in victory for one side, usually the 'good' side. These aren't belief systems that aspire to balance.

Balance in the sense that Lucas refers to is something that is more commonly found in religions such as Buddhism ( wherein the the individual would seek to transcend concepts of good and evil ) or Hinduism, which presents an ordered system of creation and destruction. The fact that we're told that the Jedi aspire to balance, even if they don't seem to understand what that means, should tell us that the goal here is some kind of symbiotic cooperation between these two forces. I don't see how this can be otherwise.

In the case of the Son, his actions are born out of the circumstances of the story. The father tells us that he struggles to maintain control between the Son and the Daughter. Either side might threaten to overwhelm the other, but yes, the Son as a personification of the dark side is more likely to be the aggressor. Their struglgle though, is symbolic of the natural push and pull between the light and dark.

We as living beings can apply a negative ethical value to concepts that may be said to stem from the dark side, such as fear, pain, death, because all of these things provoke a strong emotional response in us. This doesn't mean that these things truly are born of evil, or of an evil intent, though we might deem to describe them as 'bad'. In truth, they are not malevolent, but indifferent.

 

I am not saying balance would be one side. That is not it at all. My point is that balance in the force, to me, is peace or at least calm within the force that being that the force is being used to help others and is not being perverted to kill or make one live longer or any of the other clearly evil and detrimental things the dark side uses the force for. The dark side is a part of that balance but in that it is the inherent evil that makes the light take up arms and bring balance to the force that being the force not being perverted. Fear and death are fine as long as they are just a part of life, but to me the dark side perverts these ideas and fixates on them. The dark side is not natural concepts like fear which can be beneficial but rather fear brought to an extreme to the point that it leads to anger and hate and then more anger and hate until one is consumed by their hatred till there is nothing left but empty hunger. I see the dark side as being more like a crucible that breaks someone till they just want to keep suffering more and more.

I can't get behind the idea that the dark side is just indifferent. It brings about nothing BUT death and pain. Those are fine as fuel for becoming a better more righteous person, but the dark side uses them merely as a way to prey on others and make itself stronger. it is strength for strengths sake. It is the quick and easy path and to me that is always the wrong way to go. It has been shone to be corrupting and when let in and not pushed out it seems to always destroy. That is telling of its inherent evil. Necessary fear and pain do not just break people down, they should be trials and tribulations for people but we have only ever seen the dark side corrupt people while those that choose the light face pain and loss and do not become defined by them. That implies that the dark side is those elements used to corrupt while the light takes them and uses them to build.

But hey this is all my thoughts on the force. I love that with SW we can look at the same exact things and have two very different takes likely affected by who we are as people. I really hope they don't tell writers what the force in balance really is or what the light and dark need to be 100% of the time cause otherwise we would not be able to have this diversification of beliefs.

 

vncredleader Fair enough, I understand what you're saying, even if I can't really agree with it. And as you say, a little ambiguity is good, and probably even necessary for a subject such as the Force.

 

Yeah look what happened last time they tried to give a nailed down explanation of something connected to the force. The fan wars still go on.

 

I guess it goes into what your beliefs are.

Are you of the mind that "Guns don't kill people, gun users kill people."

"The Force doesn't kill people, force users kill people"

 

And that of course become more layered when you think about the fact that it can be argued that the force and each subsequent side is possibly sentient or has a will of its own. So in a way the being using the dark side often becomes the gun and the dark side is the user. Same goes for Jedi like Gin who let the force control them almost entirely while those like Windu serve its will while not being totally its puppet.

 

100% truth here.

Fixed by the way.

I am a gun user but I only use to hunt game and fowl and for protection.

When hunting deer I am sitting in a Tree stand. (there I've stayed on topic)

 

Let's avoid a gun debate in here.

 

The Last Jedi is at the First Jedi Temple. or went looking for it as Han stated.

Wonder how this connects to Rey?

Wonder how this connects to Snoke?

 

This morning I recalled one of the best films I saw last year...... Song of the Sea. For everyone who reads this thread, and has not seen this great animated film, do yourself a favor and order yourself a copy of the Blu-ray or DVD or Amazon rental/purchase, etc. Note: this should not be confused with In the Heart of the Sea.
There are several elements in Song of the Sea that seem to also be in The Last Jedi. I won't start listing what those elements and things are, as it's nice to watch the film and be surprised by the journey.
In addition to there being the shared elements, it's a 2014 Academy Award Nominee for Best Animated Feature Film. Plus, it's hand-drawn, and as Carlos Aguilar puts it: "One of the most blissfully beautiful animated films ever made!"
Peter Debruge said: "Dazzling! A marvel to behold!"

I wouldn't be surprised to read an article someday where Rian Johnson talks about Song of the Sea.

 

Siphonophore Oh, you bet that Rian will reveal many other influences once the movie's out. Influences that are much more spoilerific than what he named so far.Also, thanks for the movie recommendation. Always appreciated.

 

http://screenrant.com/darth-maul-voice-actor-explains-chosen-one-line/

 

Death Stars don't destroy planets, etc...

Just watched the destruction of Jedha on YouTube. So beautifully done with debris going into space. I hope Jedha is mentioned. I wonder how it can be connected. It can't be the birthplace of the Jedi as that's not apparently where the first Jedi Temple is.

 

is KMT a Jedhan? It's far-fetched, of course, and already discussed in KMT thread



But the population seems to be mostly Asian-looking (cause in SW all humans are just humans):

 

TBH I doubt KMT's character is any more likely to be 'Jedhan' than Sei Taria. The destruction of the Holy City likely occurred more than a decade before she was born.

Mon Mothma and Leia Organa are both white women, but they don't originate form the same planet.

 

An offspring of a refugee Jedhan? Oh, wait, there was a rumor that KMT character was a refugee (not specified). But the rest of the rumor was BS.

 

The little girl from Jedha died when Death Star fired. Confirmed in novelization :/

 

I only hope we don't get a darker Luke only because 'dark' is 'in'.

 

For someone desperate for Luke not to die, your extremely narrow and specific criteria for how Luke can be written and portrayed means that the character might as well be dead for how crystallised your expectations for him are.

 

we have the OT and from this a very clear picture about Luke's character. Some little changes can be expected over a period of 30 years, but not a 180° turn.

 

And what evidence do you have that Luke will have done a 180 turn?

 

Not much, but we now have a few novels that strongly suggest he didn't go dark. But there is nothing displacing the rumor that he may be slightly off (really hope not).