why didnt anakin rescue shmi before?

Discussion in 'Attack of the Clones' started by dark_charlie, May 2, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DarthTerrious Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 16, 2001
    star 5
    Hmmm why is this still being argued?

    Its funny how people here claim that they watched the movie but they don't seem to pay attention (or listen to important parts of dialogue for instance).

    "Attachment is forbidden. Possession is forbidden. Compassion, which I would define as unconditional love is central to a Jedi's life. So you might say we are encouraged to love." - Anakin

    Now the important thing here is attachment, the Jedi Code dictates that Anakin cut his ties with his mother....so there is no attachment.
    Which is why he hasn't been allowed to see his mother or react upon the nightmares and visions he has been having for a month or so until AOTC comes about.

    It isn't a large leap of logic and its not difficult to deduce (though those of you who can't put 2& 2 together may disagree).

    Now who's fault is it that Anakin didn't go and rescue his mother earlier? His own or the Jedi Order he serves and their strict code which must be adhered to?

    Unfortunately, everyone jumps on Anakin when the real problem is the Jedi Order and the Code itself. The strict adherence to it set this whole thing up, and incorrectly Anakin gets jumped on.
  2. MeBeJedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 6
    "Case in point, Obi-wan Kenobi. He accepts direct orders from Palpatine (a politician) to guard Padme (a politician) even while he expresses disgust for politicians during said mission. Therefore, it wasn't a mission that he liked. Yet he took it nonetheless. Since he did this, it is therefore shown that Jedi don't go exclusively on missions that they like."

    Key word being "exclusively". You are attempting to use one example to prove something about every mission they would take. Here's another quote...
    MACE WINDU: We are keepers of the peace, not soldiers."

    Sounds to me like Mace is telling Palps what they won't do.

    Furthermore, this assumption that the Jedi follow every single order given to them ignores the fact that the Jedi order has been around much longer than the Republic.
    A noble order of protectors unified by their belief and observance of the Force, the Jedi hearken back to a more civilized, classical time in galactic history. Their order is ancient, spanning over a thousand generations. As the Galactic Republic throve and grew over the centuries, the Jedi came to serve it as guardians of peace and justice. - OS: The Jedi Order

    The fact that they work with the government doesn't mean they are required to work with the government.Another clue to this lies in the intro to TPM...
    Turmoil has engulfed the Galactic Republic. The taxation of trade routes to outlaying star systems is in dispute.

    Hoping to resolve the matter with a blockade of deadly battleships, the greedy Trade Federation
    has stopped all shipping to the small planet of Naboo.

    While the congress of the Republic endlessly debates this alarming chain of events, the Supreme Chancellor has secretly dispatched two Jedi Knights, the guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy, to settle the conflict.....

    The fact that such an act is not expected or appropriate is pointed out soon afterwards...
    NUTE : (shaken) What?!? What did you say?

    TC-14 : The Ambassadors are Jedi Knights, I believe.

    DOFINE : I knew it! They were sent to force a settlement, eh. Blind me, we're done for!

    "I've never really asked for anything more. The problems the Jedi have committed themselves to handling are innumerable. Why does Shmi merit attention over all the rest of those problems? For their organization to run efficiently, for any sort of resource management, there has to be a good answer to this question. As I've said before, it has nothing to do with how easy it would be for them to do it. It has to be a thing worth doing regardless (Ex. it is quite easy to leave your shoes untied, why don't you do that? It is easy enough to get drunk, why isn't everyone an alcoholic? et cetera)."

    If I recall correctly, it was also easier to let the CIS separate from the Republic. Let's also not forget that the whole reason for the CIS split-up in the first place, as well as Dooku's decision to leave the Jedi order, was precipitated on the fact that many people did not like the way the Republic/Jedi Order was running things. In that view, your contention that the Republic and Jedi Order would act only for the better good is once again missing the big picture of the films. Even in our galaxy, such beliefs as the ones you provide as "proof" describe a very utopic government/police structure. While your description of the way these organizations should function is very noble, it does not accurately describe the way they always function in the real world.. Hell, even after disasters like 9-11, we still can't get the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. to work well with each other for the benefit of the US. There are meany territorial and non-trusting people in charge of these organizations, or crucial departments thereof, tha
  3. gezvader28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2003
    star 4
    Not to say that they still aren't, but its almost never a sanctioned thing like Shmi's rescue would be. I wouldn't expect the Jedi to break the no attachment rule anymore than I'd expect a devout Muslim to eat pork.

    Freeing Shmi doesn't break the no attachment rule. The only way it might break that rule is if she went and lived with Anakin, and no-one is suggesting she should.


    I said it could be violated by freeing Shmi, depending on the Jeid's motivation for doing so. Which, insofar as I have shown, and you haven't objected to, seems to be true (or at least something we agree on).

    ?[face_plain] But I don't agree. freeing her doesn't break the rule.

    That is, I don't think they actively want to keep Shmi enslaved. Rather, I think that they keep having more important business to attend to. All my posts come from this angle, so its important that you understand this.

    Ah, the classic cop-out excuse "I meant to do it but I was too busy." It's been used down the ages by everyone who couldn't be bothered.
    We're talking about a 10 year period, thousands of Jedi, a job that doesn't even require a Jedi to do it, they can send a memeber of staff, a job that would require very little resources or effort .
    But came the answer back : "We were too busy."

    I've been in several debates regarding the reason why Padme did nothing and it's the same excuse - she was too busy. [/rolls eyes]

    The way you're portraying the Jedi makes them sound like a bunch of bean counters at a Town Council meeting who never achieve anything. (Altho - I get the same impression at times! ) Maybe they are just a bunch of bureacratic bumblers, which leads me back to my original conclusion: they're heartless/inept.

    Why does Shmi merit attention over all the rest of those problems?

    There you go again pitting Shmi against the rest of the galaxy. It's a bogus argument.

    , why is she more worthy of being freed than the hundreds of other slaves?

    You might just as well ask "Why is anyone more worthy of being saved over someone else?"
    It's virtually impossible to answer. But if a person takes this attitude then it's a sure-fire recipe for doing nothing.

    But if you want reasons, here are some:
    1.Conscience. Yoda must be aware of what Shmi did for them, the risks she took etc.

    2. Basic human decency. If someone risked all they had for me I'd feel indebted to them. Or don't the Jedi feel such things?

    3. The Jedi are aware that Anakin's future is clouded by danger, he's started late and he has an attachment to his mother which he will find difficult to break, this is exacerbated by her enslavement. So it would be a good idea to get her freed to at least give him a start at breaking that attachment.

    4. He may well be the Chosen One, Yoda knows this, he was born without a father. Very mysterious. Wouldn't it make sense for the Jedi to want to keep tabs on this woman?
    Or does it make more sense to leave her in slavery and forget about her? I mean we're only talking about the mother of The Chosen One, she can't be important can she?

    5. So shines a good deed in a weary world. Shmi gave everything and asked for nothing, and that's just what she got - in abundance.


    Freeing Shmi is quite a simple task, the Jedi could've had it organised quite easily if they'd wanted to, why they didn't has yet to be justified, although my ears are open and eyes peeled for such a justification to come from one of you guys.

    g
  4. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    I am genuinely baffled by much in this round of responses. I see that I did, though, get gez_vader to actually do the thing I've been asking for all along. So I'll look forward to debating those points. Until then, my questions.

    MeBe, I never claimed the Jedi or the Republic were perfect or right. But fundamentally, those descriptions reflect how the organizations are trying to work, and what they are reaching for. That they fail is a given. But there's a difference between trying and failing, and consciously going against the grain of their principles. A person who commits a murder as a crime of passion in the heat of the moment is much different than a psycopathic serial killer.

    Yes, there are people that cause more harm than good in the Jedi. Yes, many of them are arrogant. But you'd be hard-pressed to sell me on the fact that the wake up in the morning and say, "I want to ruin the organization and make it ineffective." Rather, these happen because (as you said in your RL example) they are trying to do their job and adhere to some extent to the principles, but are bringing their own prejudices (like terriotorialism and mistrust) into their work.

    Finally, I think the problem is as follows. Your argument claims that mine portrays the Jedi's operations as too idealistic, and that they'd never achieve this in the "real" world. So that as a result of their short-comings, my logic for why they didn't rescue Shmi is unworkable. Implicitly, this says that were the Jedi operating as they were supposed to, then my logic would be acceptable, and the Jedi should not have been expected to rescue Shmi. However, you've argued (and continue to aruge), that the Jedi's failure to rescue Shmi is a sign that they are not operating as they are supposed to. It can't be both ways. The Jedi, when operating ideally, either should or should not have been expected to save Shmi. Also, I should point out that this brings up problems with the Jedi operations even in the "real" less-than-ideal world. Again, based on implied agreement, you've here said that the increasing corruption of the Jedi could allow for them to free Shmi. However, you also continue to argue that it is in the name of Jedi's great honor and ethicalness that they should have rescued her. So does the need to rescue Shmi emerge from their good or their evil? When operating ideally, should we expect them to rescue her not? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

    gez, I've explained several dozen times about the Shmi thing. I only said it had the potential to break the no attachment rule. That's it. Potential only. Not that it would for sure.

    Also, taking "that attitude" is not a recipe for doing nothing. Because you can come up with reasons. Like "I don't have enough resources to help everyone, but Group X I can help." Then, "Of all the people in Group X I have the resources to help, Subgroup Y is in the worst situtation, and needs help them most." And then, perhaps, "Of everyone in Subgroup Y, Section Z is most likely to be self-sutainable, so that they can be stable enough to come back and help me help more people in the future." Therefore, you help Group X, Subgroup Y, Section Z. I also gave extensive examples of how you might help. The same way the federal government helps in real life. The government doesn't help individual poor families. the government helps to treat the problem of poverty, and uses subsidies to poor families as a vehicle to do so.

    But now, I thank you for listing some reasons, I'll adress each for their validity:

    1. This is a fairly good reason, but ultimately unworkable. Yoda understands just as well that he's part of an organization. And that organization must act in a certain way, independent of how he feels about things. Normally, I would interject at this point that he might as an individual take action, but that the Order wouldn't. However, the problem is that as a religious institution, the line between personal life and work is heavily blurred. I'm not sure there is a way for Yoda to separate
  5. MeBeJedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 6
    "Yes, there are people that cause more harm than good in the Jedi. Yes, many of them are arrogant. But you'd be hard-pressed to sell me on the fact that the wake up in the morning and say, "I want to ruin the organization and make it ineffective." Rather, these happen because (as you said in your RL example) they are trying to do their job and adhere to some extent to the principles, but are bringing their own prejudices (like terriotorialism and mistrust) into their work."

    Well, I never claimed that a Jedi would do such a thing, though ironically enough, I think it's quite clear that Dooku is doing exactly that. Again, you miss key movie plot points in your argument.

    "Finally, I think the problem is as follows. Your argument claims that mine portrays the Jedi's operations as too idealistic, and that they'd never achieve this in the "real" world. So that as a result of their short-comings, my logic for why they didn't rescue Shmi is unworkable. Implicitly, this says that were the Jedi operating as they were supposed to, then my logic would be acceptable, and the Jedi should not have been expected to rescue Shmi."

    Incorrect. I'm simply pointing out that your belief as to how the Jedi organization should work isn't necessarily the case. This has nothing to do with how the Jedi would actually act in the given scenario, since your description of the inner workings of the Jedi organization is based solely on your interpretation of how they should act, and has little to do with what they really would do. I am addressing the concept of the Jedi organization as it exists in your mind, not the one shown in the movie. I think there's a big difference between the two.

    "However, you've argued (and continue to aruge), that the Jedi's failure to rescue Shmi is a sign that they are not operating as they are supposed to. It can't be both ways. The Jedi, when operating ideally, either should or should not have been expected to save Shmi."

    Actually, my over-riding point has been that Lucas simply ignored Shmi's character after Anakin left Tatooine. I seriously doubt Lucas had any of this "principles of effective Jedi organizational management" crap in mind when he created this scenario. Obviously, he felt he'd created enough obstacles to leave Shmi behind for the duration of TPM (slavery, money, bomb implants, etc.), but never really accounted for anything else to occur for the next ten years. Everything you've brought up after the fact to rationalize Shmi being left on Tatooine after TPM is simpy your reasoning to fill the vacuum that Lucas left behind.

    "Also, I should point out that this brings up problems with the Jedi operations even in the "real" less-than-ideal world. Again, based on implied agreement, you've here said that the increasing corruption of the Jedi could allow for them to free Shmi."

    Nope. Simply that the clear existence of such corruption punches a huge hole in your "The Jedi would never do X because they are an efficient organization" rationale.

    "However, you also continue to argue that it is in the name of Jedi's great honor and ethicalness that they should have rescued her. So does the need to rescue Shmi emerge from their good or their evil? When operating ideally, should we expect them to rescue her not? You can't have your cake and eat it too."

    All I'm saying is, it would have been nice for Lucas to give some explanation for why the Jedi never bothered to do anything for Shmi after TPM. Lucas clearly ignored this, and you are attempting to fill in the blanks. I simply disagree with what you propose was supposed to be the rationale....assuming Lucas even stopped to think about it, which is unlikely.

    I will say this, however. Should Lucas use this scenario as a Ep.III plot point (i.e. Anakin gets angry at the Jedi for failing to free Shmi, or not allowing him to free Shmi, or better yet, the Jedi chastise Anakin for going to save Shmi for wh
  6. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    "Nope. Simply that the clear existence of such corruption punches a huge hole in your "The Jedi would never do X because they are an efficient organization" rationale."

    This seems to be the key to everything. I am not trying to argue, that because of my rationale, no Jedi would ever do a certain thing. Exceptions always exist, and they are irrelevant to the dicussion. This is about whether the failure to rescue Shmi was a plot hole or not.

    So if we should have expected them to rescue Shmi, it was a pot hole, since they didn't. If we should not have expected them to rescue Shmi, then there is no plot hole. Therefore, we conclude that exceptions are not of importance, but the overall pattern, which is what we use to predict future action (or, stated another way: the overall pattern, not exceptions ot said pattern, are what are important to this discussion, because it is what helps us decide whether we should expect them to rescue Shmi or not).

    When we look at it this way, things begin to make a lot more sense. Yes, Dooku is doing exactly that. But that's part of the reason that he's not a Jedi anymore. And even if he was, that's still just one exception, not any indication of a larger pattern within the Order.

    Also, my belief in how the Jedi work isn't really that radical or far out. It works on three principles: a level of impersonality, and basic resource mangament, and the Jedi Code as revealed in the films thus far. Point 3 is indisputable, as it does exist in the film. Points 1 & 2 are a feature of all modern governments. Every indication is that governments in the SW Galaxy have these same basic underlying principles as RL ones do.

    Also, evidence is in the history revealed thus far. The Jedi have existed for at least one millennia, maybe longer, in their current role. Based on the size of their temple, they have considerable assets. This is reinforced by the fact that they have the assets to completely subsidize the existence of 10,000 members who earn no income, as well as maintain the largest database of information in the Galaxy, as well as have a large fleet of personal starfighters and transports. Apparently, they also have the money to purchase a clone army large enough to defend the entire Galaxy, and then have the cost be so insignificant that the withdrawls could somehow be made without anyone noticing for almost 10 years. Based on the response of the Trade Federation to them at the opening of TPM, they have tremendous influence. This is an organization that is very well off.

    No organization has ever been that successful and that large over a period of one millenium without adhering to these rules to some extent. So while they might not adhere perfectly to the rules of resource management, certainly haven't been indulging in grossly inefficient resource management for the last thousand years.

    So yes, these are extrapolations. But none of them are unreasonable to make. Based on the depiction of the Jedi throughout the rest of the Saga, they should not have been expected to rescue Shmi.
  7. gezvader28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2003
    star 4
    gez, I've explained several dozen times about the Shmi thing. I only said it had the potential to break the no attachment rule. That's it. Potential only. Not that it would for sure.

    I don't know how many times you've said it, but I'm still challenging it because it doesn't break the rule at all.

    The government doesn't help individual poor families. the government helps to treat the problem of poverty, and uses subsidies to poor families as a vehicle to do so.

    Except that the Jedi aren't the government. They're more like a religion or Church and they're very pro-active (putting it mildly!). And churches do help individuals, so do governments actually.
    And anyway - Shmi's problem does not require the whole of the Jedi institution to help her.

    1. This is a fairly good reason, but ultimately unworkable. Yoda understands just as well that he's part of an organization. And that organization must act in a certain way, independent of how he feels about things. Normally, I would interject at this point that he might as an individual take action, but that the Order wouldn't. However, the problem is that as a religious institution, the line between personal life and work is heavily blurred. I'm not sure there is a way for Yoda to separate his "public" and "private" faces like that.

    ?[face_plain] How does that negate my point? And I seem to remember Yoda giving orders without having to refer to this 'organisation' you speak of. If Shmi's release required enormous resources then he may have to get Council approval, but since it doesn't ....

    2. This is nice--except the Order is an institution, not a human being. It doesn't have emotions, it has operational principles. Freeing Shmi either fit with them or they don't. It's not nice, but its reality. Same thing with corporations. What's the big fuss about out-sourcing? That the companies "owe" the employees or the country something. But fundamentally, whether its good or not, that's not how they work. Outside the terms of the contract and the legal system, those corporations don't owe anyone anything at all. Same thing with the Federal government, too. You can't claim that because you helped a mailman find an address, that the government "owes" you a favor in return. Neither can Shmi claim the Jedi "owe" her anything.

    Well I don't know where you're getting all this from, but frankly I find the idea of comparing the Jedi order to a corporation a bit ? well ? let's just say I totally disagree with it. I mean they aren't Hasbro. And while I'm sure the Jedi don't legally owe Shmi anything (there was no contract) it's not really the sort of debt I was talking about, I'm talking about basic, common, human decency and you're talking about corporations and governments and legality. !! What are they a bunch of lawyers?

    You can keep talking about this matter as if it required a huge resources or breaking Jedi laws but it doesn't and I really think you're reaching to try and make it so just to explain it away. But it's not working.


    3. I would argue that that's not really making it easier to let go. That's indulging the need to hold on. Which is the opposite of what the Jedi want to do. Fundamentally, her freedom or enslavement is an issue not of "Can I separate myself from her?" but of "Is she safe?" This second question is one that is only asked when one is attached. To say that you could let go as long as she was safe is just like saying you don't care what happens as long as things happen the way you want. It's fundamentally contradictory, and doesn't stand up. Bad reason.

    No. That would only be true if Anakin was making it a condition, and he isn't.
    When a parent takes their child to school he has to 'let go' of the child, he has to entrust the child to the care of the school, this is difficult but all parents do it, however if the school was a dungeon I don't think we'd expect the parent to 'let go' . Would you?
    freeing Shmi is not indulging the need to hold on, it's a reasonable form of help, b
  8. gezvader28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2003
    star 4
    Apparently, they also have the money to purchase a clone army large enough to defend the entire Galaxy, and then have the cost be so insignificant that the withdrawls could somehow be made without anyone noticing for almost 10 years.

    So they have so much money that they don't miss this huge amount going missing, but when it comes to freeing Shmi they're suddenly short on resources. ?[face_plain]

    g
  9. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    gez-vader, allow me to address all your concerns.

    "I don't know how many times you've said it, but I'm still challenging it because it doesn't break the rule at all."

    The terribly irritating thing about this is that you obviously haven't even read what I said? Why, because if you had at any point, you'd know that what your saying isn't even in opposition to what I said. Once more, freeing Shmi has the potential to break the rule. It does not have to break the rule, but there are ways that it can. That's all I've ever said. And what you yourself have even said at some points. We can't continue have a debate if we aren't even considering each other's points.

    "Except that the Jedi aren't the government. They're more like a religion or Church and they're very pro-active (putting it mildly!)."

    No, the Jedi are not the government. Neither was the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. Neither was the Spanish Inquisition during the reign of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabel. Neither was Osama Bin Laden an official part of the government in Afghanistan. All were just influential religious groups or leaders that happened to be "very proactive, to put it mildly."

    I hope you see the point I'm making here. In each case, though not officially part of the government, they held great power. Powers "behind the throne" if you will. All of them had direct influence on the public policy of their time. Given that they were power-holders, they each had to make adaptations in their organizational structure to handle that power. Those adaptations, at their root (which is what I'm addressing) are the same for any kind of group. Therefore, you make some of the same considerations for the official government of the time as you do for these groups. The same rules apply to all who are in control. The Jedi are very much powerful, influential, and in control.

    "I'm talking about basic, common, human decency and you're talking about corporations and governments and legality. !! What are they a bunch of lawyers?"

    Admittedly, some institutions are better than others, but all institutions have some common characteristics. One is a certain level of impersonalness, especially in larger institutions. Personal interaction is different than group interaction. What governs the actions of an individual is different than what governs the actions of an institution. You can't really mix the two this way. At most, all you could say is that a few individuals within that institution "owe" Shmi. But seeing as how they have taken a monastic oath, all their actions are on behalf of the institution. Unable to separate themselves from the institution, they are unable to do anything about the feeling of "owing" Shmi, since the larger institution certainly doesn't.

    Also, I would again assert that governments (with the exception of monarchies, dictatorships, etc) do not single out certain families or people to help. However, this doesn't mean the government never helps anyone. Quite to the contrary. But the reason the government helps is to help allieviate the problem, not because of concern for any particular individual being helped.

    "When a parent takes their child to school he has to 'let go' of the child, he has to entrust the child to the care of the school, this is difficult but all parents do it, however if the school was a dungeon I don't think we'd expect the parent to 'let go' . Would you?"

    This is not a good example? Why? Because "letting go" has different contexts in this example and in what we're talking about. In what we are talking about, letting go means eliminating entirely all form of attachment with the person in question. In your example, its a parent taking their child to school--we should all hope that parents continue to feel attached to and to love their children after they begin their education.

    Fundamentally, Anakin has to stop loving Shmi. How will that be any easier or harder to do based on what her circumstances are? He'd love her regardles
  10. MeBeJedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 6
    "When we look at it this way, things begin to make a lot more sense. Yes, Dooku is doing exactly that. But that's part of the reason that he's not a Jedi anymore. And even if he was, that's still just one exception, not any indication of a larger pattern within the Order."

    It's still a direct contradiction to your earlier statement. Let's also not forget the "Lost 20", nor Qui-gon's constant head-butting with the Council over what he thought was right. Clearly, these examples, along with Yoda's comment in AOTC, point to rising problems in the Jedi order. 1,000 years or not, all good things come to an end. Lucas stated as much in the quote I gave.

    "Also, my belief in how the Jedi work isn't really that radical or far out."

    It doesn't mean it was Lucas' reasoning, assuming there was any.

    "certainly haven't been indulging in grossly inefficient resource management for the last thousand years."

    This is what you would call freeing Shmi? More exaggeration.

    "No organization has ever been that successful and that large over a period of one millenium without adhering to these rules to some extent."

    Are you saying that the problems in the Jedi order, including Qui-gon's, didn't even exist until TPM? They just suddenly "popped up"?

    "Once more, freeing Shmi has the potential to break the rule. It does not have to break the rule, but there are ways that it can."

    Training Anakin as a Jedi DEFINITELY broke a rule, yet it was allowed nonetheless. Is this what you would call an example of "grossly inefficient resource management"? Surely there were several ready and able padawans who'd spent years training, ready to have a Jedi Master take them on, right?

    "Fundamentally, Anakin has to stop loving Shmi."

    Interesting, since he contradicts this very statement in AOTC.

    "Would she want to live out the rest of her life as a lab rat to the Jedi?"

    Or free on Tatooine, which she did anyways. Quit trying to make her freedom any more of a burden than it really is, okay?

    "So they have so much money that they don't miss this huge amount going missing, but when it comes to freeing Shmi they're suddenly short on resources."

    "They have a staggering amount of resources."


    Uhm, guys? This presumes it really was the Jedi who purchased the Clone army. Surely, neither of you believe this to be the case, right? ?[face_plain]

    "there's no way Han should have failed to pay the bill to Jabba when he had the necessary money by the end of ANH."

    Han already had enough trouble with the Imperials before blowing up the DS. He was really up **** creek afterwards. Jabba was the least of his worries at that point.
  11. gezvader28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2003
    star 4
    The terribly irritating thing about this is that you obviously haven't even read what I said? Why, because if you had at any point, you'd know that what your saying isn't even in opposition to what I said. Once more, freeing Shmi has the potential to break the rule. It does not have to break the rule, but there are ways that it can.

    :( Actually I've read every one of your posts in response to mine.
    You said previously:

    "I said it could be violated by freeing Shmi, depending on the Jeid's motivation for doing so. Which, insofar as I have shown, and you haven't objected to, seems to be true (or at least something we agree on)."

    To which I responded:

    " But I don't agree. freeing her doesn't break the rule."

    I don't see any potential for breaking the rule in the Jedi freeing Shmi.
    If I've missed something glaringly obvious go ahead and remind me.

    But seeing as how they have taken a monastic oath, all their actions are on behalf of the institution. Unable to separate themselves from the institution, they are unable to do anything about the feeling of "owing" Shmi, since the larger institution certainly doesn't.

    Institutions offer thanks to individuals all the time, they're called awards, honors, statues, Knighthoods etc. etc. Obviously I'm not suggesting the Jedi give her a medal, helping her in a more practical way would be appropriate.
    I imagine Yoda would feel grateful and compassionate towards her and no reason why he would think the 'institution' would disagree with him.

    This is not a good example? Why? Because "letting go" has different contexts in this example and in what we're talking about.

    I think it's a pretty good example. But feel free to offer a better one.

    Freeing her might make it easier for him to stop worrying[/b] about her,

    Exactly, it will help him to stop worrying about her, it's his fear which is the main problem, why not help him?

    And so freeing Shmi, while a good deed, is irrelevant to Anakin's ability to break attachments.

    Well if it's irrelevant then it won't affect him if she's freed, works both ways. Great!

    Still, in the rest of your argument here you have a point. Although it also involves Shmi's agreement. Would she want to live out the rest of her life as a lab rat to the Jedi?

    I said nothing about being a lab rat. I said the Jedi would be interested in discovering more about her and the Archive would be interested in her for obvious reasons, I notice you haven't contradicted me on this. You asked for good reasons to free her I've given them.


    They have a staggering amount of resources. I've never said otherwise.

    Well you've talked a lot about how they have to manage their "severely limited resources " and act like a Corporation etc. You can't have it both ways - if they have so much they don't miss the price of a Clone Army then they obviously aren't acting like the super-efficient Corporation you've painted them as.

    However if you're talking about Jedi Personnel when you say 'resources' - well, they don't have to send a Jedi to free Shmi (as I've said before), in fact it'd be better not to, a Jedi might arouse suspicion, they could just send an 'agent', money isn't a problem.


    g
  12. gezvader28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2003
    star 4
    Uhm, guys? This presumes it really was the Jedi who purchased the Clone army. Surely, neither of you believe this to be the case, right?

    I don't know if the money came from the Jedi or not, I'm just pointing out that, if it's true, it doesn't match up with J-W's theory that the Jedi manage their resources as carefully as he's said they do.

    g
  13. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Forward: You know, I'd written a lengthy response to everything, only to have the thing time me out while I was writing my post. Can't even describe the frustration. In any case, I do wnat to extend my sincerest apologies to gez_vader, who I unfairly accused of not reading my arguments. Please forgive me, as it was written in a moment of frustration. Beyond that, I'll be doing this one "quote and response" style, as is our custom.

    "Are you saying that the problems in the Jedi order, including Qui-gon's, didn't even exist until TPM? They just suddenly 'popped up'?"

    Let me take on a whole host of issues that seem to be tied to this, and very important. First off, I don't think that problems with the Republic just appeared. Secondly, I wasn't trying to imply that freeing Shmi was a terrible waste of resources. Thirdly, I've always meant to talk about overall patterns, so if its a contradicition in what I have said earlier (I don't think it is), I can tell you confidently that there is no contradiction in what I meant. Strangely enough, this all ties together into one answer that I need to give.

    Yes, the Jedi are experiencing more problems, and falling further away from ideal function as time goes on. However, I don't see that they've done so inasmuch as to defeat the reasoning I laid down. For instance, no, they probably aren't the JP Morgan's of their time. But at the same time, they are not like those people that win the lottery and then end up back where they started just a few years later. In order to stay afloat and effective for a millenia, I only think its fair to say that they've done relatively better than worse resource management over the years. That's what I was trying to say, (albeit facetiously) when I said they hadn't been indulging in gross wastes of their resources--it was never meant to be an attack on Shmi. Rather, it was a defense of my original arguments.

    The other issue is Jedi conduct. No, I don't mean to say that they are perfect, and problems have been growing (and indeed, probably always present) in the Order. As an aside, I don't see what 20 Jedi who retired from the Order have to do with this, but oh well. Even more present are natural tensions and conflicts that keep them from doing their job as they ideally would. However, these things don't mean that overall, the Jedi aren't still committed to the principles of serving the greater good. We've seen many Jedi Council meetings, and in none of them do the members appear corrupt. Instead, all the Jedi we've seen have been earnest, if sometimes arrogant or detached. Qui-gon is another perfect example of what I'm talking about. Yes, he is a rebel, and his disagreements probably cause some operational problems within the Order. However, his heart is very much in the right place. Since that, really, is what I've based my argument on, I don't see how increasing problems in the Galaxy (which, btw, may very well have more to do with the Senate, which has been shown to be corrupt, than the Jedi, who are merely associated with them) defeats them.

    "Training Anakin as a Jedi DEFINITELY broke a rule, yet it was allowed nonetheless."

    Indeed it did. Again, I am arguing habitual action. In this specific case, they had a reason to break their custom: he had the highest midichlorian count ever recorded, and there were some suspicions he was the Chosen One. I'm only asking for the same when it comes to Shmi. That is, a reason why they would rescue her, bearing in mind the current situation as we have discussed.

    I also wanted to say that I consider this one of the real plot holes in the Saga. Nothing I saw in TPM semeed like a reason for the Jeid Council to entirely reverse their decision and ask for Anakin to be trained after only a few days before unanimously deciding against it. But oh well, that's a whole 'nother board.

    "Interesting, since he contradicts this very statement in AOTC."

    Not so interesting, really, since Anakin has almost no credibility on this issue. First off, Lucas himself
  14. gezvader28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2003
    star 4
    I do wnat to extend my sincerest apologies to gez_vader, who I unfairly accused of not reading my arguments.

    That's cool, no problem.

    I only said that because the only reason left standing of those provided...

    I think all the reasons I gave are still standing.

    So if they are going to go to those lengths, one would presume that they would actually proceed to study her carefully. It is alos worth mentioning that they needn't necessarily free her in order to get the kind of information we're discussing.

    I'm going to have to press you on this issue - are you saying that they'd send Jedi and doctors and Archive people to Tatooine to see Shmi and not bother freeing her?

    Also, gez, I've never directly contradicted this argument because it's a pretty good one, and I don't have much to say against it.

    Well then you have at least one good reason for them to free her. No?

    As you said, once, if Shmi proceeded to live with Anakin after being freed.

    No, I said: " Freeing Shmi doesn't break the no attachment rule. The only way it might break that rule is if she went and lived with Anakin, and no-one is suggesting she should."

    Anakin knows his mother can't come and live with him. Nor would she want to.

    True. But as you've said yourself, they just give out awards and honors and things. The honorees don't get to choose the method by which they are honored.

    No, obviously it's up to the Jedi how they reward her. And if they feel a sense of gratitude I see no reason why they wouldn't do something appropriate.

    Further, I find it unlikely they would honor Shmi anyway. Anakin was the one who did everything, with Shmi's role as ancillary at best.

    :eek: let me re-phrase that - :eek: :eek:
    I disagree with that point FAR more than anything else you've said.
    What Shmi did was incredibly generous.
    These strangers come to her house, she gives them food and shelter. And then she agrees to allow her only child to risk his life in a pod race so that they can get to Coruscant.
    Anakin is everything to her, can you imagine the agony of watching your 9 year old son risk his life?
    I know I couldn't do it. No way.
    It's an act of generosity and bravery which is monumental.
    Ask any mother.

    Or even had Anakin not helped them at all, the situation still wasn't very dire. The Jedi have their own personal transportation, and we know Jinn was in contact with the Order during his time on Tatooine, because he was able to run Anakin's blood test adn get results of a midichlorian count directly from Coruscant. If things were really that bad, they could have asked the Jedi to come pick them up.

    ?[face_plain] You are the first person I have seen on these boards post that idea.
    QGJ and Obi weren't in contact with the Jedi while they were on Tatooine.
    If they were able to call for help from the Jedi why didn't they do it? Why waste 2 precious days on Tatooine - Naboo's situation is critical.

    And anyway - all Anakin and Shmi know is that they need their help.

    But fear is caused by his attachment. That means you'd only be treating the problem temporarily. That's like celebrating that you've "overcome" rabies by keeping the patient hydrated intravenously. The truth is that their inability to swallow is just one symptom of rabies, which will kill them if left unchecked. Also, even if this wasn't the case, Anakin would still have ot break his attachment, as that's in direct violation of the Jedi code.

    Well if someone is ill you help them don't you?
    Help - as in - assist. Of course Anakin has to break the attachment, I'm not saying they should do it for him, but there's nothing wrong with helping him. And since his mother's enslavement is exacerbating his 'illness' why not help him?

    True, but not great for your arugment, which you appear to have lost sight of. This was supposed to be a good reason for freeing Shmi.

    No , I said: " Well if it's irrelevant then it won't affect him if she's freed,"

    You said it
  15. Siphonophore Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 13, 2003
    star 4
    Hi all. I apologize for disrupting the conversation with a slight detour. I searched for a more appropriate Shmi, but figured this was the best choice.

    I happened to catch the last bit of a movie on the Sundance channel today.
    A woman returns to her home at night, walks through her front door and into her unlit living room. She sees a silhouette of someone sitting there, and says:

    "Annie? Annie? What are you doing in the dark? You're so beautiful. My beautiful daughter."

    Note: That's not word for word, but pretty close. There was more dialogue, but I can't remember it. I also searched for the screenplay but couldn't find it.

    To make this even more interesting, the movie is "Unhook the Stars" with Jake Lloyd. Has this already been discussed, and I'm just a bit slow on the uptake?
  16. black_saber Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 4, 2002
    star 4
    when Anakin killed all of the Tuskins why did he blame his mothers death on Obi-wan?

    EDIT: Any Answers?
  17. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    To the last two posters: I don't really how either is at all related to the topic.

    "I think all the reasons I gave are still standing."

    Obviously. But from my perspective, which is the only one I would be expected to respond from, I eliminated all the others.

    "I'm going to have to press you on this issue - are you saying that they'd send Jedi and doctors and Archive people to Tatooine to see Shmi and not bother freeing her?"

    They might very well, yes. They don't fix all the problems in an area every time they go someplace. They fix the problem that they came to deal with.

    On another note, I think the rule of attachment thing has run its course. Especially since we are in essence saying the both thing, only with different degrees of severity. But since you aren't arguing that that would be a reson to help Shmi anyway, we needn't make a point of this.

    "These strangers come to her house, she gives them food and shelter. And then she agrees to allow her only child to risk his life in a pod race so that they can get to Coruscant."

    This is very true, and very noble. But like love, these kinds of acts are as noble and powerful as they common and mundane. Plenty of mother's have had to watch their children risk their lives. Plenty of people have helped strangers before. While that doesn't make it any less of a deed, it does make it less worthy of special recognition, since there's not anything terribly unique or "special" about it.

    "If they were able to call for help from the Jedi why didn't they do it?"

    While, based on my review of TPM, I am forced to retract my original statemetn that they were actually in contact with the Jedi, it is quite evident that they had the ability to contact the Jedi. How do I know? Revisit TPM, after their ship is damaged. Take note of a few facts:

    1. Only the hyperdrive was ever stated as explicitly being damaged. Therefore, the communications systems should be fully functional.

    2. This is confirmed by the fact that long after landing on Tatooine (after meeting Anakin, in fact), they recieve a transmission. What is more, Qui-Gon says not to send a response of any kind, and it is discussed at length how they could trace the connection if this was done. Why go into this if it wasn't possible to send transmissions in the first place?

    3. In AOTC, using the very same ship and R2 unit we see Anakin directly in contact with the Jedi and the Chancellor, both on Coruscant.

    The only thing we can conclude from all this is that the Jedi must have had the ability to contact Coruscant. As to why they didn't, I wouldn't know. Perhaps that's a question you should ask Lucas.

    "You said it was irrelevant, and yet you've previously said that freeing her would validate his attachment."

    Indeed, I've mispoken. What I should have said, rather than irrelevant, is that it would have no positive effect on his training. Indeed, no direct effect. But in that it is an implicit validation of his attachment, it does have the possibility of effecting his training negatively.

    "You've been saying that they use their resources very carefully, obviously if they don't notice the cost of a Clone Army going missing from their bank account that can't be true."

    No it's not. From AOTC, it is clear that there was a highly organized cover-up of the Clone Army. We have reason to suspect (based on the entire Saga, particularly what we know about Palpatine), that this conspiracy goes all the way up to the highest levels of the Republic. That the Jedi were successfully tricked is no indication that they don't use resources carefully.

  18. Siphonophore Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 13, 2003
    star 4
    To the last two posters: I don't really how either is at all related to the topic.

    Jabba-wocky,

    I'm sorry for wasting your time and disrupting the flow. I searched for Shmi rescue threads to contribute something I noticed in a movie that seemed like a very loose tie to Shmi's rescue. I figured this place was better than starting a brand new Shmi thread about something so trivial.

    To anyone else I may have offended, I apologize.

  19. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Whoa, whoa, whoa.

    No need to apologize, and certainly no need to leave. We're open to all differents aspects of the discussion here, so don't feel like your butting in.

    I'd be happy to discuss, or try to find the movie. However, I was just really tired from thinking up responses to all gez's stuff. So when I read it, my mind just went blank, and I couldn't make the connection. It just seemed like you were telling a random story about a movie you saw.

    But now that I read it again, I think I see what you'r etalking about. Was the woman's name Shmi in the movie? Or was teh actor just the same? Or both, or what?
  20. Go-Mer-Tonic Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 22, 1999
    star 6
    Qui-Gon tried to buy Shmi, but Watto wouldn't sell her at any price out of spite. He had lost just about everything on the Podrace, and he accused Qui-Gon of knowing something Watto did not about the race.

    Once Anakin left with Qui-Gon, both Shmi and Anakin knew it was for good. Anakin went right into Jedi Training, and while this is happening, the Jedi forbid him to reaquaint himself with his previous relations (his mother and friends on Tatooine).

    Anakin told his mother he was going to eventually come back and free the slaves, but while he was becoming a Jedi, he had to postpone those plans.

    He kept having these dreams about his mother being in some kind of trouble, and Obi-Wan keeps telling him that they will pass in time. Qui-Gon figures this is just some residual attatchment welling up within Anakin, and Kenobi is trying to quell that. It is just the way of the Jedi.

    Eventually, these dreams become harsher and more specific, to the point where Anakin can't stand it anymore. That's when he tries to find her.
  21. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Actually, since you brought up the dreams, I'd always had the impression that they started relatively close to the time of AOTC. Because Anakin describes them as so bad that he can't sleep. No one can keep up that kind of intensity for ten years without drwaing some kind of attention. Especially living within a monastic order.

    Further, if it had been habitual thing ever since Anakin had joined, Kenobi wouldn't need to ask about it. So by asking if it was his dreams "again," it actually indicates that it was a fairly recent development.
  22. Go-Mer-Tonic Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 22, 1999
    star 6
    I think it all started out with the fear he had about losing his mother in TPM. That turned into a longing to see her again, which eventually turned into those troubling dreams he was having about her.

    I think you are correct that the troubling dreams started close to the start of AOTC.
  23. MeBeJedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 6
    "I think it all started out with the fear he had about losing his mother in TPM. That turned into a longing to see her again, which eventually turned into those troubling dreams he was having about her."

    Interesting belief, since she had been captured and held for a month.
    "CLIEGG: This isn't the way I wanted to meet you, son. This isn't how your mother and I planned it. I don't want to give up on her, but she's been gone a month. There's little hope she's lasted this long.

    Which would mean that his dreams are Force visions of her as she currently is, and why he knows she's still alive.

    You really should watch it sometime. Interesting stuff.

  24. Go-Mer-Tonic Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 22, 1999
    star 6
    I am not sure I understand. Do you think what you just posted has contradicted what I was saying?
  25. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    I really wish I knew how to do one of those confused faces right now.

    Since I don't, I'll just let Gomer know that that MeBe's response didn't make any sense to me either. . .
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.