the logic of the Star Wars cosmos

[ProtoAvatar]

Which of course is stupid. What's the "balance" in that? What's unique or interesting about it? The Jedi just do the same shit Starfleet does - run around the galaxy with their snoots in the air, bossing everyone and imposing their brand of morality. (I'd pay real money to see Starfleet and the Jedi run across each other someday and watch them try to out-holier-than-thou the other guys.)

Unique - maybe not. But then again, neither is good-evil taoist balance.
But neither is it stupid or non-interesting - as proven by star trek and other productions.

Of course, Lucas stumbling over his own words, using 'balance' and then trying to retcon the hell out of the word - and still failing to come up with someting that actually makes sense (convoluted fan explanations aside) - and all this in a hundred million dollar production IS STUPID.

No, it's not stupid at all it's all part of the Taost philosophy of the Force of having good and evil in Jedi and not having it seperated. It's the Yin-Yang part of the philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

In taoism, 'balance' means a balance between yin and yang, good and evil.
For Lucas, 'balance' means only good - definitely NOT taoism.

There is no good and evil in Taoism just as in the end good and evil in the Force is a choice and Luke choose not to e converted to the dark side, even though he used the dark side to defeat Vader.

DWF, you yourself posted the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

There IS good and evil in taoism; everything is in balance between yin and yang, good and evil, opposites (every choice has yin and yang in it).

Things are NOT so with the star wars force according to Lucas' retcon regarding 'balance of the force' meaning only 'good', no 'evil'.
That's contrary, different from taoism on a fundamental level.

 

[DWF]

Unique - maybe not. But then again, neither is good-evil taoist balance.
But neither is it stupid or non-interesting - as proven by star trek and other productions.

Of course, Lucas stumbling over his own words, using 'balance' and then trying to retcon the hell out of the word - and still failing to come up with someting that actually makes sense (convoluted fan explanations aside) - and all this in a hundred million dollar production IS STUPID.



In taoism, 'balance' means a balance between yin and yang, good and evil.
For Lucas, 'balance' means only good - definitely NOT taoism.

There is no good and evil in Taoism just as in the end good and evil in the Force is a choice and Luke choose not to e converted to the dark side, even though he used the dark side to defeat Vader.

DWF, you yourself posted the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

There IS good and evil in taoism; everything is in balance between yin and yang, good and evil, opposites.

Things are NOT so with the force according to Lucas' retcon regarding 'balance of the force' meaning only 'good', no 'evil'.
That's contrary, different from taoism on a fundamental level.

Try reading the link.

There is a perception (especially in the West) that yin and yang correspond to good and evil. However, Taoist philosophy generally discounts good/bad distinctions as superficial labels, preferring to focus on the idea of balance.

There's no good or evil in Taoism like I said and you can clearly see Luke using the dark side to defeat Vader then rejecting it, just as Vader became Anakin later on. It's also interesting to that n the novel of the movie Luke entered into the Emperor's presense as a blank slate hating niether Vader of the Emperor.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I like the fact that we're having basically the same discussions on the Force that Jacen had in the novels...I wonder if that means we're all being manipulated by Vergere and will become Sith?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

There is no good and evil in Taoism just as in the end good and evil in the Force is a choice and Luke choose not to e converted to the dark side, even though he used the dark side to defeat Vader.

DWF, you yourself posted the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

There IS good and evil in taoism; everything is in balance between yin and yang, good and evil, opposites.

Things are NOT so with the force according to Lucas' retcon regarding 'balance of the force' meaning only 'good', no 'evil'.
That's contrary, different from taoism on a fundamental level.

Try reading the link.

There is a perception (especially in the West) that yin and yang correspond to good and evil. However, Taoist philosophy generally discounts good/bad distinctions as superficial labels, preferring to focus on the idea of balance.

There's no good or evil in Taoism like I said and you can clearly see Luke using the dark side to defeat Vader then rejecting it, just as Vader became Anakin later on. It's also interesting to that n the novel of the movie Luke entered into the Emperor's presense as a blank slate hating niether Vader of the Emperor.

Please:
Yin and yang are opposites - day and night, masculine and feminine and good and evil (that's part of their meaning, DWF).

And in the OT, this 'good/bad' simplification of taoist balance was glaringly obvious.
Dark side - bad; light side - good.

And, of course, I was talking about the PT, where Lucas said 'balance' does NOT mean balance between good/evil, yin/yang, retconning the hell out of the OT and your Luke/Vader example.
Lucas said 'balance' means ONLY good, yang.

 

[DWF]

DWF, you yourself posted the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

There IS good and evil in taoism; everything is in balance between yin and yang, good and evil, opposites.

Things are NOT so with the force according to Lucas' retcon regarding 'balance of the force' meaning only 'good', no 'evil'.
That's contrary, different from taoism on a fundamental level.

Try reading the link.

There is a perception (especially in the West) that yin and yang correspond to good and evil. However, Taoist philosophy generally discounts good/bad distinctions as superficial labels, preferring to focus on the idea of balance.

There's no good or evil in Taoism like I said and you can clearly see Luke using the dark side to defeat Vader then rejecting it, just as Vader became Anakin later on. It's also interesting to that n the novel of the movie Luke entered into the Emperor's presense as a blank slate hating niether Vader of the Emperor.

Please:
Yin and yang are opposites - day and night, masculine and feminine and good and evil (that's part of their meaning, DWF).

And in the OT, this 'good/bad' simplification of taoist balance was glaringly obvious.
Dark side - bad; light side - good.

And, of course, I was talking about the PT, where Lucas said 'balance' does NOT mean balance between good/evil, yin/yang, retconning the hell out of the OT and your Luke/Vader example.
Lucas said 'balance' means ONLY good, yang.

But there is still no good or evil in Taoism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao

Tao can be roughly stated to be the flow of the universe, or the force behind the natural order, equating it with the influence that keeps the universe balanced and ordered. The flow of qi, as the essential energy of action and existence, is often compared to the universal order of Tao. Tao is often considered to be the source of both existence and non-existence. It is compared to what it is not, which according to Keller is similar to the negative theology of Western scholars.

If you notice there's no reference to the "light" side of the Force, there's only the Force and the dark side, Luke does as much evil in the movies as good, he killed thousands on the first Death Star. Good in the Star Wars movies doesn't mean the opposite of evil it's a matter of intention. The Jedi do what people to be evil as well, the question of the slavery on Tattoine is one example, just because the Jedi are the "good guys" they always follow our moarl code, their only interest is with the Force and becoming one with it, which is a Taoist point of view.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

DWF

The ideea of yin and yang, opposites that complement each other, is central to taoism. You claiming this is not so (and supporting your affirmation by quotes taken out of context) won't change this.
In everything - in every objective fact or in every subjective intent - you'll find both yin and yang.

Good and evil are a facet of yin and yang.


As for there not being any reference to the 'light side' - the jedi speak every 3 sentences of the dark side (rather simplistically representing evil) and they define their 'side' of the force as opposed to the dark side (rather simplistically good).
Everything Luke did when using his 'good' side of the force - destroying the death star, for example - is unambiguously defined as good, and everything Vader did is 'evil' - by writer's intent.

It's an oversimplification of taoism - star wars is morally quite simplistic -, but at least it allows for a vaguely implied (in the OT) ideea of "balance" between good and evil.

In the PT, "balance" does NOT mean good/evil anymore.
It means good, yang. Yin has to disappear in order for balance to exist.
This should apply to objective reality, to intent, etc.
Which is fundamentally CONTRARY to taoism.

 

[DWF]

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/The_Force

The principles of the Force resonate with those of some real world religions, including the Shinto religion of Japan, Buddhism, Taoism, and certain Celtic druidic concepts. The Force also bears a close similarity to the Chinese notion of qigong, or "chi", and the splitting of the Force into light side and dark sides echoes the concept of "Yin" and "Yang" in Eastern philosophy (though this is not a perfect translation, as the dark side is considered a force of evil by the Jedi and this moral duality is not the same as the Eastern concept). Along with the concepts of "Yin" and "Yang," the concept of a ubiquitous Force is concurrent to the real world concept of a "Tao" or "Way," which is said to flow everywhere in the universe. The concept of the Force also borrows heavily from Hindu theology, which also expresses a belief in a unifying Brahman energy that composes and is a composite of the Universe (and by extension, God), and can be used for either good or bad. In fact, this is particularly similar to the concept of the Potentium and the Unifying Force in that while the power can be perverted for evil, it ultimately leads only to a conclusion that is good.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I think we're starting to come to the conclusion that there isn't much if any logic to the way things in the Star Wars universe works.

 

[DWF]

The Star Wars movies are fantasy movies and have their own logic, but all of them are flawed and people need accept that.

http://cheeseburgerbrown.com/Darth_Vader/Luke_Skywalker_Dork_Destiny.html

A question naturally arises in the minds of thoughtful observers of the saga: how can the elaborate tapestry of fate and personal destinies woven by the Force be consistent with Luke being such a retard?

It is my proposition for your consideration that Luke's failings as a Jedi are not only permissible by the fate that the Force engineers, but in fact completely necessary to ensure the successful realisation of that fate. In other words, if Luke were less of a gimp, the Empire would not have fallen and the New Republic would never have come to be.

This conclusion is based on the premise that the crux of the Force's manipulations comes at the moment when Darth Vader looks on as Emperor Palpatine is blasting the bleating and incapacitated Luke Skywalker with bolts of evil energy. It is at this moment that the persona of Anakin Skywalker reasserts itself from within Vader, wrests the Emperor away from Luke and throws him down a long (and apparently fatal) shaft. Presumably, if Vader had not been moved to intervene, Luke would have been killed and, somehow (see footnote), the Rebel Alliance would have suffered as a result of this.

Why does Anakin act? What motivates him to do that which no argument can, to reassert his non-evil persona? What breaks through the darth veneer of Vader, and reveals the deeply wounded human being underneath? What, in short, melts Anakin's frozen heart? It is pity.

This single moment of pathos is the fulcrum upon which pivots the two possible fates of the galaxy, Empire or Republic. The lives of trillions rest in the faith that one man will be touched by the tortured cries of his dying son. It is a moment that the force has deliberately shaped Anakin and Luke for, built them from the ground-up with this final confrontation as the most important moment in both of their lives. By design, Anakin has become Darth Vader to fulfill his half of the confrontation; thus, by design Luke has to become an earnest but ineffectual failure to fulfill his.

Consider: if Luke were in control of his emotions like a true Jedi Knight, he would have executed Darth Vader when he had the chance, as Luke stood over his fallen foe -- much as Obi-wan Kenobi had executed Darth Maul without hesitation, years earlier. Instead, Luke mutilates Vader to avenge his own mutilation, by cutting off his father's right hand. If Luke had killed Vader, no one would remain to save Luke from Palpatine. Luke's adolescent rage and desire for vengeance assures that Vader will not be killed in one swift stroke.

Consider also: Luke refuses to "strike down" Palpatine after noting the poetic symmetry between the severed hand of his demi-robotic dad and his own robotic limb. If this refusal is as significant as Palpatine would have us believe, then it is of the utmost consequence that Luke is originally wounded by Vader in the climax of The Empire Strikes Back. Once again, one of the symbols that would attain great significance in the Force's great moment of decision is acquired through Luke's lack of swordsmanship, as he leaves himself glaringly open to Vader's attack.

While the inner workings of the fulfillment of the prophecy of "the son of the suns" and the Force's motives (for lack of a better term) for creating Anakin might remain a mystery, it is clear that the role of Luke Skywalker is to present a pathetic enough image to move Anakin to resurface, using the power of Vader to destroy Palpatine, and with him the Empire. Luke's self-inflating pretensions and childish rage ensures the appropriate emotional response, and his impatience and failure to grasp the basics of the Jedi fighting philosophy ensure the appropriate physical response. Luke's foolhardy posturing and poor lightsabre skills set him up for his moment of personal destiny, when everything that he is is called upon to whine and squirm while being slowly roasted by Palpatine.

Luke delivers, Anakin is moved, Palpatine dies, the ewoks dance, the computer-generated people vandalise Palpatine's statue on Coruscant, and the galaxy awaits the birth of the New Republic. And none of it would have been possible if Luke hadn't been such a pitiable goof.

 

[Python Trek]

1. In TPM, Qui-Gon talks about "the will of The Force".

2. In both ANH and TESB, we are told (by Obi-Wan in the former and by Yoda in the latter) that life creates The Force.

3. If 1. and 2. are both correct, then The Force is the collective will of all life---something akin to the Collective Unconscious made real. So what would constitute balance? Peace, I would say. Couldn't cancer be described as "the body at war with itself"? If the Dark Side and/or the Sith are a cancer, then cutting them out will bring balance. Unfortunately chemo and radiation often kill healthy tissue, as well. The healthy tissue is, of course the Jedi Order and their innocent younglings.

Thoughts?

 

[O'Dib]

I'd agree with that. Equilibrium might've been a better word than balance if that is the case, but still, it makes sense that balance means giving all sentients the opportunity to live to their fullest before death naturally takes over. Force ghosts being in play is and interesting development though. One could posit that they give an intelligence aspect to the force, and even become what gives it will and direction. Dead jedi and sith could be like the angels and demons of our cultures, and some might even grow in fame and power to be regarded as deities.

What I dislike is the idea that some abilities are inherently light, while others are inherently dark. I guess with all this talk of a dark side of the force (as opposed to one's own dark side) it makes sense, but bear with me - pet peeve. For example, a Jedi was never seen wielding lightning in the movies. Thankfully, Jedi Knight II corrected this. But then Jedi Academy, its sequel/expansion, warns you you're heading down a dangerous path by developing that power. In KOTOR, droid stun and lightning have the same visual effect, but are developed separately, and one costs more depending on your moral standing. I always figured it wasn't the power, but how one used it, that made someone evil. So it would make more sense that if you wield lightning to kill organic foes (i.e. in an extremely painful way), you gain dark side points, and if you use it disable robots only, you're a good guy. Same with push/pull/choke, they're all aspects of the telekinesis power, and should have one development tree, but how you used your skills would matter.

BTW, I made a thread a while back with some of my own musings about the nature of the force. http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=116040

 

[Set Harth]

In this view of the Force, the "Dark Side" wouldn't be a distinct element of the Force at all, but merely a human way of interacting with the Force - by using it to destroy. The "Dark Side" is powerful and tempting because human beings are destructive creatures, so using the force in this way both appeals to us irresistibly and is easier for us than more positive uses. This easiness makes the "Dark Side" appear to be a more powerful mode of employing the Force.

The prequels and the EU really screwed up a pretty simple concept.

According to the Annotated Screenplays and other sources, the dark side was considered a distinct element of the Force during the TESB story meetings and production, while it was "half of the Force" in early drafts of what eventually became ANH. This is not a concept introduced by the prequels or EU ( though it is supported by the AOTC script and novel ). It is reflected in some of Yoda's dialogue in TESB, such as his reference to the cave as a "domain of evil" regardless of what Luke brings into it.

For example, a Jedi was never seen wielding lightning in the movies. Thankfully, Jedi Knight II corrected this. But then Jedi Academy, its sequel/expansion, warns you you're heading down a dangerous path by developing that power.

In the AOTC commentary lightning is called a "dark side power", and it is indicated that Dooku's use of lightning identifies him as a dark sider. The book Rule of Two takes the same approach. In the case of abilities exclusive to the dark side, they are dark side not by virtue of their effect ( for example, saving someone from dying, as in Legacy ) but due to the fact that use of the dark side was required to conjure them in the first place. The gaining of what the RPG would call "dark side points" is really a separate issue, given that they can be accumulated with the mere swing of a lightsaber.

Where was the "balance the Force" idea introduced? In the OT, PT or maybe EU?

The Phantom Menace.

How does minimal dark side constitute balance?

In the same way that an ascendant dark side constitutes imbalance.

They may have believed the Sith were still extinct, but they knew something was wrong with the Force (or their interpretation of the Force, at any rate).

And it's important to remember that they didn't all scoff at the notion that the Sith were back. That was mostly Ki-Adi-Conehead, who I'm convinced had nothing but cheese whiz in that giant noggin. Yoda, for one, had no problem with the idea.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Hey my old thread is still going!

I think we're starting to come to the conclusion that there isn't much if any logic to the way things in the Star Wars universe works.

Yepper. But my objective here is to try to devise some logic that might work, and might even form a basis for salvaging Star Wars and making it easier to use it to tell interesting and coherent stories with enough sophistication to interest people over the age of eight, that don't fall back on the more obvious writers' crutches, such as the Motivation-less Evil Villain and the Hero Who is Stupid for the Convenience of the Plot.

For instance, if you face the problem that most people who become Jedi are like most people, namely their self-image is that they are good people, then how do you realistically kick some of them to the Dark Side, or believably depict that as a threat to almost all of them, without anyone needing to be a pathetic, snivelling weakling and/or unbelievably stupid and/or a Motivation-less Evil Villain who just never realized their true calling?

Simple. Make the Dark Side more powerful than the Light, especially when anyone is using violence, of any sort, for any reason whatsoever. It doesn't matter if the violence is in self-defense or in a good cause. The Force doesn't know that. The Force is like a big, blind amoeba. It senses violence and causes the Dark Side to expand to engulf anyone foolish enough to have triggered it because that's how it works.

But sentient beings as always going to be violent and if the Jedi want to have any influence in the galaxy, they have no choice but to use violence, too. Since they are inherently unbalancing the Force every time they so much as a swing lightsaber at womp-rat, they have to shove it back into balance by otherwise leading boring, frustrating and intolerable lives of monkish purity. They pay for their ability to use violence to impose their ideas of order upon the galaxy through self-denial that is bound to drive some of them around the bend.

Now tell me you can't get some great stories out of that. They write themselves! So why do we have to suffer through Dumbshit Anakin, or cardboard Sith like Dooku and his equally carboard cohorts like Ventress and Grevious? The Sith should be like the villains in DS9 - the best characters, always threatening to steal the story right out from under the noses of the comparatively dull heroes.

The Star Wars movies are fantasy movies and have their own logic, but all of them are flawed and people need accept that.

Why accept flaws in anything if we can amuse ourselves by devising ways to correct or mitigate those flaws?

A question naturally arises in the minds of thoughtful observers of the saga: how can the elaborate tapestry of fate and personal destinies woven by the Force be consistent with Luke being such a retard?

The poor guy is not supposed to be a retard! Okay, maybe Mark Hammil played him as a bit stoned and zombie-like in ROTJ - I think the idea was that Luke was "zen" and very different from the Luke in ANH or even ESB. It was a tough assignment since presumably a lot of this spiritual development happened in the time period between ESB and ROTJ, and in any case, it's internal and hard for a big blockbuster movie to visualize convincingly.

Why does Anakin act? What motivates him to do that which no argument can, to reassert his non-evil persona? What breaks through the darth veneer of Vader, and reveals the deeply wounded human being underneath? What, in short, melts Anakin's frozen heart? It is pity.

Oh come aaaaahhhhnnnn!!! Obviously the moral of the story was "love conquers all," in this case familial love. Vader had been planning since shortly after ANH when he learned Luke's surname and home planet to get him to supplant the Emperor, probably because Vader was sick of being bossed around by some wrinkly little troll but also because he genuinely loved Luke, if for no other reason than being Padme's son. Seeing his son in danger is what finally snapped him out of it.

What exactly Vader was snapped out of, is another question entirely. If he'd been depicted as someone who knowingly threw away love for power, then for his story to be concluded by him throwing his life away for love would make sense. But Anakin was depicted as a far bigger retard than his son ever was, who threw away everything because he was an easily manipulated moron. There's just no redeeming that, and therefore ROTJ's ending is rendered idiotic by the prequels.

Consider: if Luke were in control of his emotions like a true Jedi Knight, he would have executed Darth Vader when he had the chance, as Luke stood over his fallen foe -- much as Obi-wan Kenobi had executed Darth Maul without hesitation, years earlier.

Luke understands what the Jedi before him didn't, that only by eschewing violence and replacing it with forgiveness and love can the Jedi ever hope to counteract the eternal tragic cycle of violence leading to Sith-ism. The fact that the Jedi caused their own destruction doesn't speak highly of them as role models. Luke needs to forge his own path. Ultimately the smartest thing he could do is throw that lightsaber away and take up knitting.

 

[Silvercrest]

If he'd been depicted as someone who knowingly threw away love for power, then for his story to be concluded by him throwing his life away for love would make sense. But Anakin was depicted as a far bigger retard than his son ever was, who threw away everything because he was an easily manipulated moron.

Ha, that means he was turned to the dark side because Palpatine manipulated him, and he was turned back to the light side because Luke manipulated him again. He's just a big puppet with no will of his own!

 

[Set Harth]

The poor guy is not supposed to be a retard!

Which is the reason I detest the 2004 ANH DVD cover. Yikes!

Balance in this sense means no dark side

Not quite. As LOE indicates, the dark side never completely disappears. Thus the phrasing "minimal dark side" that we have seen in the thread. The EU depicts the continued existence of the dark side after ROTJ's restoration of balance to the Force.

I love how awkwardly the reference in RotS is thrown in, too. Like, make a little more obvious that you just forgot about it, George.

I don't think there's any real indication of that. The prophecy and the balance are mentioned in each prequel, while they are discussed in ROTS in both the first and final acts. That doesn't exactly scream "just forgot about it".

Of course, Lucas stumbling over his own words, using 'balance' and then trying to retcon the hell out of the word - and still failing to come up with someting that actually makes sense

I don't see any retcon. From the first usage of the phrase "balance to the Force" in TPM, it is clear that this is something which the Jedi see as a hoped-for positive outcome. The context in which it is placed by ROTS, with its explicit linkage to the destruction of the Sith, does not change this. It was never said, for example, that "balance to the Force" connoted a stalemate between good and evil Force-users.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

If he'd been depicted as someone who knowingly threw away love for power, then for his story to be concluded by him throwing his life away for love would make sense. But Anakin was depicted as a far bigger retard than his son ever was, who threw away everything because he was an easily manipulated moron.

Ha, that means he was turned to the dark side because Palpatine manipulated him, and he was turned back to the light side because Luke manipulated him again. He's just a big puppet with no will of his own!

That's why Anakin absolutely needed to have a scene where he tells Palps that he's onto him, has been onto him for a long, long time (and the audience has to have seen that and realize that even if all the other Jedi are saps, Anakin is smart and has a clue) but joins the Dark Side anyway. A main character must drive the plot, that is an absolutely fundamental rule of fiction.

Why would Anakin side with Palps of his own free will? Simple. He wants power and will sacrifice everything for it. And no excuses. He doesn't want power to do something good with it - safeguard the poor suffering people of the Republic or save Padme's life. He wants power for its own sake. He can have every other noble quality you can devise but as long as he also has the fatal flaw of power-lust, the story can work and the character can be far more sympathetic than he was portrayed.

He can be smart, courageous, loving (but selective about who he loves), self-confident, resourceful, honest, perceptive, and even funny. He can be somewhat defiant of the repressed Jedi and all their rules, and you know we'll love him for it. The audience should have been in love with Anakin by the end of ROTS just as much as Padme was, and then his fall would have meant something.

The way the PT was written, Palps was driving the plot throughout so the only way for that particular story to work was for Palps to be the main character and the story to be told from his perspective - a slightly interesting notion I guess, but not something most people would have wanted, especially given the lack of any depth to Palps, as opposed to writing the story to allow Anakin to be the true main character and driver of the story.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

This question has been bugging me in the back of my mind for a looooong time now...is there a coherent logic to how the Star Wars cosmos, and the Force, works?

No.

And if so, what is it, exactly?

...A whole bunch of stuff pulled from George Lucas's ass that he swears he preplanned years in advance?