All posts by WriterBuddha

^^I would say you can use it in a way that, for many people around you, would seem heroic, but it's actually coming from a very dark place. And in the same time, you can use the Force in a way that seems "dark," i.e. Force-choking someone, but it comes from the desire to protect, not to harm. Force-choke is usually stated to be "using the dark side," but if you think about it, it's just grabbing someone with the Force. If you want that person do die a slow and agonizing death- dark side. If you want to subdue that person quickly, without wanting them to suffer more than its absolutely necessary - light side. Luke choking the guards in Jabba's palace was meant to make viewers uncomfortable, by showing Luke doing something that Vader does, but he is not using the dark side in that scene. He is sending a message: don't mess with me. That would also be light side.

Based on the canons you choose to follow. In Lucas canon, what matters is the intent behind the actions BUT Force-lightning is generated out of raw malice, the desire to hurt, to destroy, not to protect people. The Sith, like Sidious and Dooku are generating Force-lightning; the Jedi, like Yoda are able to catch it, throw it back at them or dissolve it. This is because this is a power that's thematically don't work well with heroes, it's too violent. So, think about it like "he was so angry steam was coming out of his ears." Here, it's not steam, but lightning, and it's not the ears, but the fingers, and they can use it to attack people. (In a universe where Force-lightning is just electrostatic discharge that can be generated out of compassion, a Jedi would be able to use it and it would be light side.) The same goes for Force choke: it's an act of rage, of aggression, of hate. However, if a Jedi would use Force-choke to prevent someone to command their soldiers to massacre civilians, that wouldn't be dark side.

In addition to that, please note that "intent" is complex. For example, if Luke chooses to blow up the Death Star out of hatred towards Darth Vader and the Imperials, and he is doing it to avenge Uncle Lars and Aunt Beru, that's dark side, even if it destroys the Empire's super weapon and saves billions and billions of lives. Although Luke's outward behavior is heroic, inwardly, he is no different from the Imperials: he is someone who thinks, it's OK to hurt and kill people if they hurt you first, or hurt the people who you like.

Thank you for the mention, @Shreekomandar !

@Justsomeperson231 I regret I wasn't able to continue our discussion about the nature of the Force months ago (maybe you don't even remember, LOL) – I find myself having less and less energy to meaningfully contribute to Wookieepedia, and this results in me simply disappearing, even though I'm intrigued by certain discussions. Last time, you seemed to base your takes on Legends works, but this time, you seem to suggest, you're talking about the movies themselves.

In this case, I want to say this:

The golden rule of the kind of analysis you said you want to conduct is that we work with what we’ve got, not what we wish we had.

For example, in Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the Evil Queen reads aloud from her book: the antidote to Sleeping Death is “Love’s first kiss.” Snow White bites into the poisoned apple and falls into a deathlike sleep, but as spring blossoms, the Prince comes, kisses her, and as we hear the chorus sing, “And away to his castle you’ll go, to be happy forever, we know,” she awakens. They embrace, everyone’s happy, and she is taken to the Prince’s castle, bathed in golden sunlight. It should go without saying that the story tells us that the Prince and Snow White are in love. That’s the narrative logic we are given, that’s the story’s internal truth.

Now, if you spend any time online, you’ll eventually encounter people who insist that this wasn’t true love’s kiss, because the Prince and Snow White had seen each other only for a few seconds and he was merely singing to her as she stood on her balcony. They may (or may not) assert that since the Queen is evil, she cannot be trusted, so “obviously” the kiss didn’t have to be love’s first kiss. This kind of reasoning quickly snowballs into wilder claims – for instance, that the dwarfs must be evil too, since they let Snow White go off with a stranger.

It shouldn’t be controversial to say that this is not how you read a book or watch a movie. You have to locate your reading of the story within the story, and your ideas, values, beliefs, opinions, or feelings about what is depicted are not part of that story.

Sometimes, there seems to be a misunderstanding about why people like me eventually start to throw around quotes from the author in an attempt to settle debates like this. It’s not because I believe the writer of the story is some kind of absolute authority whose statements must be taken as truth without any critical thinking. Rather, it’s because that’s my last-ditch effort to make people realize that they’re not interpreting the story – they’re rewriting it.

I’m sorry to say, but what you did here was the textbook example of this.

None of your claims about the Jedi Order are anchored in the internal logic and evidence of the story – rather, they’re grounded in your moral, cultural and emotional projections. They might make for an interesting and deep discussion about culture, ethics or storytelling conventions – but they do not align with – nor able to alter! - the story’s own internal truth. Your speculative ideas, removed from the source material’s internal logic, are spiraling into increasingly far-fetched and increasingly bad-faith claims.

Please try to double-check whether you remain true to your claim: talking purely about what we see the Jedi do, their on-screen actions, claims and “purported” beliefs.

Well, this is tricky, because here, we have to remember that there are 3 distinct Star Wars stories we're talking about. In Lucas canon, Obi-Wan says the droids don't think and the medical droid tells Fives that they don't have human feelings, and Lucas himself tells us that droid's have programming but not feelings and souls. And droids are essentially treated as Alexas, although Anakin treats R2 as a robot dog. In the old Lucasfilm canon, it seems to be implied (although I need to verify the sources on this) that they're self-aware. In new Lucasfilm canon, you have droid rights activists and droids with feeling and thoughts.

Not according to George Lucas. They can only pretend to have emotions and mind. Remember, in Episode II Obi-Wan tells us, droids cannot think.

Thank you for your time and kind attention, I greatly appreciate it!

@OOM 224, maybe you can reassure me –my worries stem from me not seeing how conflicting information can be dealt with effectively on the long run, but maybe I am not as well-informed on this topic than I like to think myself to be, and I'm making a mountain out of a molehill!

Based on what I know, Pablo Hidalgo said in 2021 that we can resolve conflicts with a history textbook version of events, where “persons X and Y where on planet B when A occurred” is the canon, and the “fictional expression of it” may vary. And last summer, Dave Filoni stated, “I tend to look at [canon] a little bit like Arthurian tales to be honest, and how depending on what version you’re reading and translation, they can be widely different (…) If we tell a story in animation, or if it’s in a comic, and then we bring it to the screen in a different way, we might make changes to it out of the medium, out of the bias of the person making it (…)”

So far, so good, and it even allows fans to choose which version of the events they wish to consider canon.

But how Wookieepedia would adapt to this very much de facto Lucasfilm policy, if it tries to record all canon tales as one unbroken, seamless continuity? How do we record the different versions of the same events and characters - how do we address the “biases” of the persons depicting them? Will we choose one and ignore the other? Will we try to boil it down to the history textbook version, which would mean, fans can decide which version they like, but we won’t record either of it in detail? And if we do this then, how long it will be until we have to boil everything down to the history textbook version?

In addition to that, my takeaway from what Hidalgo said is that comic books are (once again!) basically the new “quasi-canon” that can be overridden by a “higher” canon. This was pretty much proven to be the case with Kanan comics and the Ahsoka novel. And as I see, the Kanan Jarrus article on Wookieepedia actually treats Bad Batch as authoritative in case of contradiction. But how long we can keep up with this, especially because with the "K-2SO" situation, this is the new normal? And how long we have until Lucasfilm declares that these will be rebranded as “Star Wars literary canon” as opposed to “Star Wars cinematic canon”? Maybe I'm overreacting, and I should say, tomorrow's wind will blow tomorrow, but I still feel that we need to be mindful of these possibilities...

^^Well, it was made explicitly clear, both by Lucas and Lucasfilm that there are two continuities, not one, yet Wookieepedia kept recording the two as one, with little to no implication of any separateness. There were cracks since 2010, showing that this won't work, and in 2014, it had to be changed, because it was unworkable. I would call this a collapse, because it was a flawed policy that decidedly ignored the reality of canon, and it was unable to deal with a change as simple as "quasi-canon" materials being relabeled as "legends."

I think Wookieepedia will soon find itself in need of recalibration. The unified-contunity policy fell apart when the gap between Lucas canon and Lucasfilm canon became more and more evident, which led to its inevitable collapse in 2014. And now the "Canon" "Legends" policy can't deal with Lucasfilm basically admitting that "Canon" is unstable. It would be best to act in advance before it collapses again.

Perhaps, I have not read that book. Based on Lucas canon, the future is always in motion, but premonitions are showing the Jedi future events that will surely arise out of the causes and conditions finalized by the time of receiving the vision. For example, Luke saw Han and Leia in pain in Cloud City, and he was unable to do anything to prevent that, and no one was able to foresee what will happen to them next, because there was too many directions the future could go. Or, when Ahsoka saw someone shooting Padmé and she saw her lying on the floor, wounded, that was no longer up to change, but the severity of that injury was reduced significantly because she decided to go there. But what they see is always set in stone. Anakin, Yoda and Obi-Wan would tell Luke that all he can do is to prepare himself for that future, and trying to minimize the harm. I.e., if he sees a Kylo Ren figure hurting people, he can't stop that from happening, but he can make efforts to prevent those people to be killed by Ren. If Luke decides that he is unable to accept this, and tries to stop it from happening, and this results in causing people to get hurt and being killed as well, that would lead him to self-exile as well.

Indeed, suppressing fear of loss will do no good, but I am not talking about suppressing fear of loss, I am talking about breaking free of it. Fear of loss comes from holding on, if you let go, holding, but not holding on, you're free of fear.

The problem with Anakin was that Jedi Knights are trained from a very young age, before they develop the impulse to grab and grasp, so they can avoid basing their happiness on having things in their lives that must come and go and can never stay. This is exactly why Yoda and the other Masters said, he is too old to be trained, and this is why Yoda was reluctant to train Luke, too. Luke was able to be mindful and recognize fear of loss pushing him towards evil behavior, Anakin was not.

So, if Luke Skywalker gives up on bringing back the Jedi Order, that would have to happen for different reasons, because the idea that Yoda's teachings or teaching style was wrong is simply the wrong direction to go. Based on what we can deduce from George Lucas' plans for the sequel trilogy, predating both the Rian Johnson and the J.J. Abrams version, Luke was supposed to be at a very dark place and living in self-imposed exile after he was betrayed by one of his students, and he was reluctant to train the young girl who came to him to become a Jedi Knight.

My best guess, based on what Lucas said and on concept arts, is that one of his students, very likely a red twi'lek girl, decided that she can use their power to take what she wants, and wrecked havoc on the budding Republic. In this version, the student didn't become a Sith, because those are no more, but become an anarchist, a pirate, running wild and causing trouble for everyone. Luke likely decided that whenever you train a kid it's like flipping a coin, and it's not worth the risk.

"Mourn them do not. Miss them do not" is not a commandment or prohibition, it's a consolation, just like the saying, "don't grieve - whatever you lose will come to you in another form" or as the popular poem goes, "do not stand at my grave and weep." It means, you have no reason to be sad about, because your loved ones are not in a bad place or something like that, and you have no reason to miss them, because you didn't lose them at all. As Yoda says, "rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force." Yoda tells Anakin to transform his way of viewing, reacting and interpreting the world around and within him.

Actually, you can't accept that things are impermanent and having the unreasonable and unrealistic desire for them to be permanent, and it's not exactly "okay as long as you get over it." It's like saying that it's okay to put your hand in fire as long as you pull it out. You still get burnt.

There's nothing wrong with enjoying and appreciating things, but you have to be able to let them go and not to agonize over the fact that they cannot go on forever.

Anakin wanted to possess Padmé in the sense of he was unwilling to accept that the nature of the universe is that things and people are not yours to have, but they’re only in your life temporarily. They come and go. As much as we want to have a mother, a spouse, children, etc., we can never truly have – or own, or possess – anything, because everything changes and nothing goes on forever. And this grasping, grabbing and clinging we have on coming and passing things in our lives, creates the fear of loss. “Greed means” as Lucas tells us, “That you’re either afraid you’re not going to get what you want, or you’re afraid that, when you get it, somebody’s going to take it away from you. It’s all fear driven.”

It's the basic human approach to life, but it’s profoundly flawed. It’s an unrealistic and unreasonable desire, which cause us to suffer. What’s more, the lesson of Lucas’ Star Wars is that there’s always fear behind evil behavior, and the fear of loss is the greatest fear, leading to the greatest evil deeds. This is why Yoda says, “the fear of loss is a path to the dark side” and that “fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.” And this is exactly why he tells Anakin, “Train yourself to let go of everything you are afraid to lose.” And this is exactly why Jedi Knights must love without the fear of loss, which is compassion, the unselfish concern for the well-being of another. That kind of love is devoid of fear of loss, because your love is not polluted with seeing your loved ones means to achieve happiness for yourself. Anakin turned into Darth Vader because he was unable to do that.

I don't think Luke would misunderstand this. He learned to allow death and change to enter into his life.

That wouldn’t work, you misunderstand Yoda’s teachings. He told Anakin to not want imprermanant things to be permanent, because death is a fact of life we all have to accept, and fear of loss is stemming from the unwillingness to do so. No Jedi ever advised him to not to feel his emotions etc. Force Ghost Anakin and Yoda would never disagree on this, because that would mean Anakin has fallen again.

^But weren't those instances when Anakin was acting without the knowledge or consent of the others? In other words, for the Republic, torture wasn't normal, whereas for the Separatists, it was part of the playbook.

^Star Wars fandom is REALLY into misinterpreting flamethrower restrictions and granting personhood to machines, lol. This is wildly inaccurate, at first glance, 20 out of 23 is just sheer nonsense.

@AsbestosRetailer5000 I might misunderstand this, but Count Dooku wasn't taunting the people around the table. He met with representatives and leaders of the big corporations of the galaxy, and he was convincing them to sign the treaty that was creating that huge army, and he proposed, if they do so, they can use it to force the Republic to obey whatever demand they make. It was pretty clear that he wants to hold the Republic at gunpoint and make demands, which obviously includes giving the corporations whatever they want to make them richer.

It was an act of treason: there's just no justification for Dooku and his Separatists preparing to overrun a democratic union while negotiations about peaceful conflict resolution are still underway. And if you think about it, the Geonosians knew everything about Dooku's plans and they were, too, building an army for him, they were on board with what he was doing, including, but not limited to Dooku and the Trade Federation making a deal about assassinating a member of the Galactic Congress, in turn for the Trade Federation droid army. They're partners in crime, and their whole factory, the conference room included, is a crime scene. "They had no permit" and "they damaged our factories and equipment" "they were spying on us" and the whole trial was just a facade, nothing more.

Mina Bonteri and a few others were buying the "let's make a new republic!" stuff, they believed that the Republic cannot be saved, and that they can start it again and build a new, clean, functional democracy, but that was a lie, and these genuinely well-meaning people were sooner or later murdered by Dooku. And let's not forget that the Separatist leadership was not the Separatist parliament with people like Mina Bonteri. It was a council, made up of a bunch of CEOs who cared only about money, a Sith Lord who wanted to turn the galaxy into his empire (both Dooku and Sidious wanted that, so it doesn't matter which one you consider the leader here) and bloodthirsty warlords and generals who were in it either for the sake of bloodshed or because they hoped they can have power under the new regime.

Like @Nobody90 said. And it's not just that:

They were forbidden to become a separate state.

What makes you think that? In Episode II, there are ongoing negotiations about resolving the issue, and although the Republic preferred to preserve the galaxy-wide cooperation, we have no real reason to assume that secession wasn't possible. In fact, member worlds of the Republic were sovereign states.

True, they were building a droid army. However, do we have any proof that they were going to attack the Republic? 

Yes, as Count Dooku, the leader of the Separatist stated, "we shall have an army greater than any in the galaxy. The Jedi will be overwhelmed. The Republic will agree to any demands we make." Bail Organa was 100% correct to say, The Commerce Guilds are preparing for war. There can be no doubt of that."

Watch out, nowadays, there's a fan narrative that romanticizes the Confederacy, asserting that their cause was just, heroic and not centered on abandoning symbiotic co-existence, and minimizes the role of the Sith Lords and corporations in their insurrection. It has nothing to do with Star Wars.

^See my first reply under the post, LOL.