Hopefully you're prepared to read between a lot of lines. Here's a unedited snippet:
Rimrunner View profile In article <19970311051201.AAA08...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Any mouse <anymo...@aol.com> wrote: >The whole thing about the force is a parallel to religion. They refer to >this numerous times throughout the movies. To swing this back to >religion, you would never have to learn about God if you believed in the >devil. The real only universal truth is that everything has its >antithesis. You don't have to worship the "power of the devil" to worship >God, but if there was no devil, you wouldn't have any incentive to believe >in God. Heya...some good points here. Can I add something, though? The idea of a supreme power and its adversary really only came into being with the advent of Judaism, and later (?) Islam and Christianity. Prior to the dominance of Christianity in Europe, good and evil were seen as arising from the same source, made manifest in a pantheon of deities who oversaw various aspects of existence. A version of this is still present in present-day neo-pagan belief, and you could argue that the Light side and the Dark side of the Force are a parallel. The Force is presented as omnipresent, generated by all things. Light and Dark are seen as two aspects of it; one generally viewed as good, the other as evil. The idea of a devil, who functioned as an antithetical adversary to a supreme being, is actually a fairly new concept. This is the only part of your post that I would really argue against: without a concept of a god, you *can't* have a concept of a devil, and vice versa. For more on this subject, I'd recommend the writings of Margaret Murray and, more recently, "The Origin of Satan" by Elaine Pagels. >If the force users of the dark side of the force are not Jedis, then what >are they? Not everyone was a dark lord. This was an elite group of Dark >Jedis of which Vader was their leader, but since the jedi were all but >extinct, he had no followers that had use of the force That's an interesting question, actually. Zahn came up with the term "Dark Jedi," but (just as an example), I don't know of any medieval text (most of which were written by members of the clergy) that referred to heretics as "Dark Christians." Taken in that light, the idea seems pretty ludicrous, doesn't it? OTOH, you could argue that the Force has a different parallel where something like this would work. See above. *shrug* Depends on your interpretation; the Force is presented in broad enough terms that you could associate it with just about any religious structure from our own world and have it fit. My guess is that when the Jedi *were* part of the galactic political structure, their training was designed to carefully circumvent acts that would be seen as "dark," or evil. This has parallels in religious instruction all over the world. If you completed your training, you were a Jedi Knight. If you hadn't, it meant that you either couldn't learn any more (in which case you probably weren't powerful enough to be dangerous), or you'd turned to the dark side, in which case you were probably dead. Operating on that assumption, the Emperor could have maneuvered himself into a political position where he had executive power over the Jedi. Suppose, then, that the Jedi were resented by the ordinary military, which is definitely an important element in the consolidation of the Empire's power? Suppose that the Senate itself had members who resented the Jedi? The Emperor's rise is generally considered to have taken place during a time of political unrest; I doubt it could have happened if everything was peachy keen. Was the Emperor ever a Jedi? If so, it should make the prequels very interesting. The Emperor is generally blamed for Vader's fall -- but who's responsible for his? (Aside from himself, I mean -- what was the outside influence, if there was one? His own ambition? Hmmm.) Rimrunner looking forward to the prequels! (like, duh.) -- Murder of Crows official web site: http://www.nwlink.com/~noah/ Pick a newsgroup and save it: http://www.boutell.com/boutell/usenet.html ***Be smart. READ BEFORE YOU POST!*** Star Wars FAQ: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/4147/ -- "Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death." - Mame -- I do not like commercial e-mail. If you send me commercial e-mail, you can safely assume that I won't be doing business with you. --
More options Mar 11 1997, 1:00 am
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
From: rim...@halcyon.com (Rimrunner)
Date: 1997/03/11
Subject: Re: Incongruities in ESB and the Force
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
In article <19970311051201.AAA08...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Any mouse <anymo...@aol.com> wrote:
>The whole thing about the force is a parallel to religion. They refer to
>this numerous times throughout the movies. To swing this back to
>religion, you would never have to learn about God if you believed in the
>devil. The real only universal truth is that everything has its
>antithesis. You don't have to worship the "power of the devil" to worship
>God, but if there was no devil, you wouldn't have any incentive to believe
>in God.
Heya...some good points here. Can I add something, though?
The idea of a supreme power and its adversary really only came into being
with the advent of Judaism, and later (?) Islam and Christianity. Prior to
the dominance of Christianity in Europe, good and evil were seen as
arising from the same source, made manifest in a pantheon of deities who
oversaw various aspects of existence.
A version of this is still present in present-day neo-pagan belief, and
you could argue that the Light side and the Dark side of the Force are a
parallel. The Force is presented as omnipresent, generated by all things.
Light and Dark are seen as two aspects of it; one generally viewed as
good, the other as evil.
The idea of a devil, who functioned as an antithetical adversary to a
supreme being, is actually a fairly new concept. This is the only part of
your post that I would really argue against: without a concept of a god,
you *can't* have a concept of a devil, and vice versa.
For more on this subject, I'd recommend the writings of Margaret Murray
and, more recently, "The Origin of Satan" by Elaine Pagels.
>If the force users of the dark side of the force are not Jedis, then what
>are they? Not everyone was a dark lord. This was an elite group of Dark
>Jedis of which Vader was their leader, but since the jedi were all but
>extinct, he had no followers that had use of the force
That's an interesting question, actually. Zahn came up with the term "Dark
Jedi," but (just as an example), I don't know of any medieval text (most
of which were written by members of the clergy) that referred to heretics
as "Dark Christians." Taken in that light, the idea seems pretty
ludicrous, doesn't it?
OTOH, you could argue that the Force has a different parallel where
something like this would work. See above. *shrug* Depends on your
interpretation; the Force is presented in broad enough terms that you
could associate it with just about any religious structure from our own
world and have it fit.
My guess is that when the Jedi *were* part of the galactic political
structure, their training was designed to carefully circumvent acts that
would be seen as "dark," or evil. This has parallels in religious
instruction all over the world. If you completed your training, you were a
Jedi Knight. If you hadn't, it meant that you either couldn't learn
any more (in which case you probably weren't powerful enough to be
dangerous), or you'd turned to the dark side, in which case you were
probably dead.
Operating on that assumption, the Emperor could have maneuvered himself
into a political position where he had executive power over the Jedi.
Suppose, then, that the Jedi were resented by the ordinary military, which
is definitely an important element in the consolidation of the Empire's
power? Suppose that the Senate itself had members who resented the Jedi?
The Emperor's rise is generally considered to have taken place during a
time of political unrest; I doubt it could have happened if everything was
peachy keen.
Was the Emperor ever a Jedi? If so, it should make the prequels very
interesting. The Emperor is generally blamed for Vader's fall -- but who's
responsible for his? (Aside from himself, I mean -- what was the outside
influence, if there was one? His own ambition? Hmmm.)
Rimrunner
looking forward to the prequels! (like, duh.)
--
Murder of Crows official web site: http://www.nwlink.com/~noah/
Pick a newsgroup and save it: http://www.boutell.com/boutell/usenet.html
***Be smart. READ BEFORE YOU POST!***
Star Wars FAQ: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/4147/
--
"Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death." - Mame
--
I do not like commercial e-mail. If you send me commercial e-mail, you can
safely assume that I won't be doing business with you.
--
Forward
Cancel
Send Discard
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation: For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon.
Send Discard
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Michael Mierzwa View profile Rimrunner (rim...@halcyon.com) wrote: [snip some of Rim's finest] : It occurs to me that both the Emperor and Vader don't use anger, fear, : or aggression by *being* angry, afraid, or aggressive -- it's even implied : that the Emperor rose to power through political maneuvering, not military : conquest. Instead, they *inspire* these emotions in their enemies, and : thereby disarm them -- rob them of reason and clearheadedness. This is : exactly what Vader does to Luke in ESB, and the Emperor does the same : thing in RotJ. : : Essentially, they summon conflict in their opponents, and weaken them by : doing so. And Luke does the same thing, but by different means -- consider : his conversations with Vader in RotJ. Where Vader works on an opponent's : fear and anger, Luke works on an opponent's compassion. In Vader's case, : there is some capacity for compassion left, and he is redeemed. The : Emperor has none -- and so he is destroyed. : : Whaddaya think? Well Rim, you have once again earned my "understands the nature of the Force award"! It seems time and time again, I can count on you to describe these things much clear than I could. Maybe you should consider moving to a swamp, carrying around a gimer stick, eating soup w/ tree bark sprinkles, and teaching Jedi. ;) Although you also have a strange liking of either Vader's or Luke's black outfit ... maybe instead you should carry a lightsaber around and just hack down everybody else. Michael Mierzwa Are ya deep??? I won't answer that question.
More options Mar 11 1997, 1:00 am
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
From: ez062...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Michael Mierzwa)
Date: 1997/03/11
Subject: Re: Incongruities in ESB and the Force
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Rimrunner (rim...@halcyon.com) wrote:
[snip some of Rim's finest]
: It occurs to me that both the Emperor and Vader don't use anger, fear,
: or aggression by *being* angry, afraid, or aggressive -- it's even implied
: that the Emperor rose to power through political maneuvering, not military
: conquest. Instead, they *inspire* these emotions in their enemies, and
: thereby disarm them -- rob them of reason and clearheadedness. This is
: exactly what Vader does to Luke in ESB, and the Emperor does the same
: thing in RotJ.
:
: Essentially, they summon conflict in their opponents, and weaken them by
: doing so. And Luke does the same thing, but by different means -- consider
: his conversations with Vader in RotJ. Where Vader works on an opponent's
: fear and anger, Luke works on an opponent's compassion. In Vader's case,
: there is some capacity for compassion left, and he is redeemed. The
: Emperor has none -- and so he is destroyed.
:
: Whaddaya think?
Well Rim, you have once again earned my "understands the nature of the
Force award"! It seems time and time again, I can count on you to
describe these things much clear than I could.
Maybe you should consider moving to a swamp, carrying around a gimer
stick, eating soup w/ tree bark sprinkles, and teaching Jedi. ;)
Although you also have a strange liking of either Vader's or Luke's black
outfit ... maybe instead you should carry a lightsaber around and just
hack down everybody else.
Michael Mierzwa
Are ya deep??? I won't answer that question.
Forward
Cancel
Send Discard
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation: For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon.
Send Discard
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Patrick H. View profile On 9 Mar 1997 jed...@aol.com wrote: > In article <5fsm8f$...@news.Hawaii.Edu>, jskan...@Hawaii.Edu (Jason S Kaneshiro) writes: > >Well, Vader wasn't a Jedi. A Jedi is what Ben Kenobi and Luke Skywalker > >became. Vader was a perversion of what a Jedi Knight was. No where is he > >reffered to as a Jedi. > Yoda- "Ah, father! Powerful Jedi was he, hmmm, powerful Jedi. > Obi-Wan-"I was once a Jedi Knight the same as your father." > Do your homework! > JEDI AL |* > Former RASSM Cool Person *| > Forever RASSM'r *|* Vader *was* a Jedi. That is why Yoda used the past tense. Once he turned to the dark side, he was no longer a Jedi. Luke is referring to his "father," who is Anakin. Anakin probably reached Jedi status through Ben's training. Patrick H. prham...@uiuc.edu Life Sciences
More options Mar 11 1997, 1:00 am
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
From: "Patrick H." <prham...@students.uiuc.edu>
Date: 1997/03/11
Subject: Re: Incongruities in ESB and the Force
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 9 Mar 1997 jed...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <5fsm8f$...@news.Hawaii.Edu>, jskan...@Hawaii.Edu (Jason S Kaneshiro) writes:
> >Well, Vader wasn't a Jedi. A Jedi is what Ben Kenobi and Luke Skywalker
> >became. Vader was a perversion of what a Jedi Knight was. No where is he
> >reffered to as a Jedi.
> Yoda- "Ah, father! Powerful Jedi was he, hmmm, powerful Jedi.
> Obi-Wan-"I was once a Jedi Knight the same as your father."
> Do your homework!
> JEDI AL |*
> Former RASSM Cool Person *|
> Forever RASSM'r *|*
Vader *was* a Jedi. That is why Yoda used the past tense. Once he
turned to the dark side, he was no longer a Jedi. Luke is referring to
his "father," who is Anakin. Anakin probably reached Jedi status
through Ben's training.
Patrick H.
prham...@uiuc.edu
Life Sciences
Forward
Cancel
Send Discard
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation: For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon.
Send Discard
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
jedial View profile In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970311223020.11496A-100...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>, "Patrick H." <prham...@students.uiuc.edu> writes: >Vader *was* a Jedi. That is why Yoda used the past tense. Once he >turned to the dark side, he was no longer a Jedi. Luke is referring to >his "father," who is Anakin. Anakin probably reached Jedi status >through Ben's training. I know. JEDI AL |* Former RASSM Cool Person *| Forever RASSM'r *|* / \ \ 0 / /\ /\ / | | \ /_ / \_ \ Live until you die...
More options Mar 12 1997, 1:00 am
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
From: jed...@aol.com
Date: 1997/03/12
Subject: Re: Incongruities in ESB and the Force
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970311223020.11496A-100...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>, "Patrick H." <prham...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:
>Vader *was* a Jedi. That is why Yoda used the past tense. Once he
>turned to the dark side, he was no longer a Jedi. Luke is referring to
>his "father," who is Anakin. Anakin probably reached Jedi status
>through Ben's training.
I know.
JEDI AL |*
Former RASSM Cool Person *|
Forever RASSM'r *|*
/ \
\ 0 /
/\ /\
/ | | \
/_ / \_ \
Live until you die...
Forward
Cancel
Send Discard
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation: For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon.
Send Discard
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Patrick H. View profile You seemed to convey in your post that many times throughout the movie, Vader was referred to as a Jedi. I was just trying to clarify that what was said about Anakin doesn't necessarily apply to Vader. Nowhere is Vader ever called a Jedi. I guess this all hinges on whether or not the word "Jedi" can apply to both good and bad Force users. I wasn't trying to reveal a revelation that Anakin was Vader's former self. Reiterating the obvious seemed to be the best way to make my point. Didn't mean to downplay your knowledge of Star Wars. BTW, did you know the Ewoks originally were Wookiees? ;) On 12 Mar 1997 jed...@aol.com wrote: > In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970311223020.11496A-100...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>, "Patrick H." <prham...@students.uiuc.edu> writes: > >Vader *was* a Jedi. That is why Yoda used the past tense. Once he > >turned to the dark side, he was no longer a Jedi. Luke is referring to > >his "father," who is Anakin. Anakin probably reached Jedi status > >through Ben's training. > I know. > JEDI AL |* > Former RASSM Cool Person *| > Forever RASSM'r *|* > / \ > \ 0 / > /\ /\ > / | | \ > /_ / \_ \ > Live until you die... Patrick H. prham...@uiuc.edu Life Sciences - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
More options Mar 12 1997, 1:00 am
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
From: "Patrick H." <prham...@students.uiuc.edu>
Date: 1997/03/12
Subject: Re: Incongruities in ESB and the Force
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
You seemed to convey in your post that many times throughout the movie,
Vader was referred to as a Jedi. I was just trying to clarify that
what was said about Anakin doesn't necessarily apply to Vader. Nowhere
is Vader ever called a Jedi. I guess this all hinges on whether
or not the word "Jedi" can apply to both good and bad Force users. I
wasn't trying to reveal a revelation that Anakin was Vader's former
self. Reiterating the obvious seemed to be the best way to make my
point. Didn't mean to downplay your knowledge of Star Wars. BTW, did
you know the Ewoks originally were Wookiees? ;)
On 12 Mar 1997 jed...@aol.com wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970311223020.11496A-100...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>, "Patrick H." <prham...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:
> >Vader *was* a Jedi. That is why Yoda used the past tense. Once he
> >turned to the dark side, he was no longer a Jedi. Luke is referring to
> >his "father," who is Anakin. Anakin probably reached Jedi status
> >through Ben's training.
> I know.
> JEDI AL |*
> Former RASSM Cool Person *|
> Forever RASSM'r *|*
> / \
> \ 0 /
> /\ /\
> / | | \
> /_ / \_ \
> Live until you die...
Patrick H.
prham...@uiuc.edu
Life Sciences
Forward
Cancel
Send Discard
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation: For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon.
Send Discard
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Patrick H. View profile On Thu, 13 Mar 1997, Rich Handley wrote: > The immortal "Patrick H." <prham...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote: > >Nowhere is Vader ever called a Jedi. > BEN: "A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine before > he turned to evil...." BEN: "A young Jedi named Anakin Skywalker, who was your father, was a pupil of mine before he turned to evil. Now he calls himself Darth Vader and he wants to either destroy you or turn you to the dark side. Well that about sums up your family history. That is what Ben would have said had he been telling the truth, but then the rest of the trilogy would have been a little dull. > Sincerely, > Rich Handley (CardS...@unix.asb.com) Patrick H. prham...@uiuc.edu Life Sciences
More options Mar 12 1997, 1:00 am
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
From: "Patrick H." <prham...@students.uiuc.edu>
Date: 1997/03/12
Subject: Re: Incongruities in ESB and the Force
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Thu, 13 Mar 1997, Rich Handley wrote:
> The immortal "Patrick H." <prham...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >Nowhere is Vader ever called a Jedi.
> BEN: "A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine before
> he turned to evil...."
BEN: "A young Jedi named Anakin Skywalker, who was your father, was a
pupil of mine before he turned to evil. Now he calls himself Darth Vader
and he wants to either destroy you or turn you to the dark side. Well
that about sums up your family history.
That is what Ben would have said had he been telling the truth, but then
the rest of the trilogy would have been a little dull.
> Sincerely,
> Rich Handley (CardS...@unix.asb.com)
Patrick H.
prham...@uiuc.edu
Life Sciences
Forward
Cancel
Send Discard
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation: For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon.
Send Discard
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Rimrunner View profile In article <5g4jfe$a7...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, Michael Mierzwa <ez062...@dale.ucdavis.edu> wrote: >Well Rim, you have once again earned my "understands the nature of the >Force award"! It seems time and time again, I can count on you to >describe these things much clear than I could. Well, then... *bows* >Maybe you should consider moving to a swamp, carrying around a gimer >stick, eating soup w/ tree bark sprinkles, and teaching Jedi. ;) Gee, Michael, you make that sound so...appetizing. Although I must admit, it would probably beat customer service. At least if anyone asked me any stupid questions, I could whack him with my stick, or tell him to sweep the floor until he achieved enlightenment, or something. >Although you also have a strange liking of either Vader's or Luke's black >outfit ... maybe instead you should carry a lightsaber around and just >hack down everybody else. Ah, yes, they would call me the Sithlord of Seattle and I'd be featured on an episode of "Millenium." :D And the Seattle Times would print yet another front page story on how goths are just SO misunderstood. (What're they complaining about? That's half the fun!) >Are ya deep??? I won't answer that question. Probably a wise move. Rimrunner *are* there any swamps in washington state? aside from seattle in winter? -- Murder of Crows official web site: http://www.nwlink.com/~noah/ Pick a newsgroup and save it: http://www.boutell.com/boutell/usenet.html ***Be smart. READ BEFORE YOU POST!*** Star Wars FAQ: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/4147/ -- "Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death." - Mame -- I do not like commercial e-mail. If you send me commercial e-mail, you can safely assume that I won't be doing business with you. --
More options Mar 12 1997, 1:00 am
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
From: rim...@halcyon.com (Rimrunner)
Date: 1997/03/12
Subject: Re: Incongruities in ESB and the Force
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
In article <5g4jfe$a7...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
Michael Mierzwa <ez062...@dale.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>Well Rim, you have once again earned my "understands the nature of the
>Force award"! It seems time and time again, I can count on you to
>describe these things much clear than I could.
Well, then...
*bows*
>Maybe you should consider moving to a swamp, carrying around a gimer
>stick, eating soup w/ tree bark sprinkles, and teaching Jedi. ;)
Gee, Michael, you make that sound so...appetizing.
Although I must admit, it would probably beat customer service. At least
if anyone asked me any stupid questions, I could whack him with my stick,
or tell him to sweep the floor until he achieved enlightenment, or
something.
>Although you also have a strange liking of either Vader's or Luke's black
>outfit ... maybe instead you should carry a lightsaber around and just
>hack down everybody else.
Ah, yes, they would call me the Sithlord of Seattle and I'd be featured on
an episode of "Millenium." :D
And the Seattle Times would print yet another front page story on how
goths are just SO misunderstood. (What're they complaining about? That's
half the fun!)
>Are ya deep??? I won't answer that question.
Probably a wise move.
Rimrunner
*are* there any swamps in washington state? aside from seattle in winter?
--
Murder of Crows official web site: http://www.nwlink.com/~noah/
Pick a newsgroup and save it: http://www.boutell.com/boutell/usenet.html
***Be smart. READ BEFORE YOU POST!***
Star Wars FAQ: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/4147/
--
"Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death." - Mame
--
I do not like commercial e-mail. If you send me commercial e-mail, you can
safely assume that I won't be doing business with you.
--
Forward
Cancel
Send Discard
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation: For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon.
Send Discard
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Bonnie S Walling View profile In article <01bc2f55$f26badc0$85e49...@seneca.demon.nl>, "Bas-Jan Walewijk" <bas-...@seneca.demon.nl> wrote: > > A version of this is still present in present-day neo-pagan belief, and > > you could argue that the Light side and the Dark side of the Force are a > > parallel. The Force is presented as omnipresent, generated by all things. > > Light and Dark are seen as two aspects of it; one generally viewed as > > good, the other as evil. > A small question (because I don't know *anything* about neo-pagan beliefs) - do > Good and Evil always have to be "in balance" or "parallel"? I'd always argued > that the Dark and Light sides of the Force are not necessarily equal in > strength. Neo-Pagans do not believe the world to be made up of a balance of "good" and "evil," we believe it to be made up of "light" and "dark," or "creative" and "destructive" forces. Both are necessary for the universe to remain in balance. Creative forces keep destructive forces from wiping everything out, and destructive forces keep creative forces from growing out of control and choking everything. Judeo-Christian thought tends to believe that everything having to do with growth and increase is good, and everything having to do with destruction, restriction, and decrease is bad. But to paraphrase one of my favorite Neo-Pagan authors, Ellen Cannon Reed: Growth is not good when what is growing is a cancer, and destruction is not bad if it is wiping out that cancer. Under Neo-Pagan philosophy, what most of the world calls "evil" is the result of imbalance between the dark and the light. So-called "dark Jedis" would fall under this description because they are devoted to destruction only. They use their powers to obtain power and dominion over others without any thought for the long-term consequences, both to themselves and to others. -- "Stock footage is hell!"--Crow T. Robot, MST3K ("Amazing Colossal Man")
More options Mar 12 1997, 1:00 am
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
From: sunb...@exit109.com (Bonnie S Walling)
Date: 1997/03/12
Subject: Re: Incongruities in ESB and the Force
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
In article <01bc2f55$f26badc0$85e49...@seneca.demon.nl>, "Bas-Jan
Walewijk" <bas-...@seneca.demon.nl> wrote:
> > A version of this is still present in present-day neo-pagan belief, and
> > you could argue that the Light side and the Dark side of the Force are a
> > parallel. The Force is presented as omnipresent, generated by all things.
> > Light and Dark are seen as two aspects of it; one generally viewed as
> > good, the other as evil.
> A small question (because I don't know *anything* about neo-pagan
beliefs) - do
> Good and Evil always have to be "in balance" or "parallel"? I'd always argued
> that the Dark and Light sides of the Force are not necessarily equal in
> strength.
Neo-Pagans do not believe the world to be made up of a balance of "good"
and "evil," we believe it to be made up of "light" and "dark," or
"creative" and "destructive" forces. Both are necessary for the universe
to remain in balance. Creative forces keep destructive forces from wiping
everything out, and destructive forces keep creative forces from growing
out of control and choking everything. Judeo-Christian thought tends to
believe that everything having to do with growth and increase is good, and
everything having to do with destruction, restriction, and decrease is
bad. But to paraphrase one of my favorite Neo-Pagan authors, Ellen Cannon
Reed: Growth is not good when what is growing is a cancer, and destruction
is not bad if it is wiping out that cancer.
Under Neo-Pagan philosophy, what most of the world calls "evil" is the
result of imbalance between the dark and the light. So-called "dark Jedis"
would fall under this description because they are devoted to destruction
only. They use their powers to obtain power and dominion over others
without any thought for the long-term consequences, both to themselves and
to others.
--
"Stock footage is hell!"--Crow T. Robot, MST3K ("Amazing Colossal Man")
Forward
Cancel
Send Discard
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation: For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon.
Send Discard
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Chris View profile Patrick H. wrote: > Vader *was* a Jedi. That is why Yoda used the past tense. Once he > turned to the dark side, he was no longer a Jedi. Luke is referring to > his "father," who is Anakin. Anakin probably reached Jedi status > through Ben's training. No, I think what Ben and Yoda mean to say when they say "was" is that they don't use their Jedi skills anymore. Ben's still a Jedi, just that it's not really his "job" anymore. Think about it. I go to school to become an engineer. I get employed as an engineer, then take up teaching later. Technically, I'm not an engineer anymore, but I could do the job if I wanted to. Vader *is* a Jedi. Ben *is* a Jedi (or was before he died; he still may be). Remember, Tarkin saying "You, my friend, is all that's left of their religion." Since everyone thought Ben was dead, Vader was considered to be the last Jedi. Chris cljo...@engr.latech.edu
More options Mar 12 1997, 1:00 am
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
From: Chris <cljo...@engr.latech.edu>
Date: 1997/03/12
Subject: Re: Incongruities in ESB and the Force
Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Patrick H. wrote:
> Vader *was* a Jedi. That is why Yoda used the past tense. Once he
> turned to the dark side, he was no longer a Jedi. Luke is referring to
> his "father," who is Anakin. Anakin probably reached Jedi status
> through Ben's training.
No, I think what Ben and Yoda mean to say when they say "was" is that
they don't use their Jedi skills anymore. Ben's still a Jedi, just that
it's not really his "job" anymore. Think about it. I go to school to
become an engineer. I get employed as an engineer, then take up
teaching later. Technically, I'm not an engineer anymore, but I could
do the job if I wanted to.
Vader *is* a Jedi. Ben *is* a Jedi (or was before he died; he still may
be). Remember, Tarkin saying "You, my friend, is all that's left of
their religion." Since everyone thought Ben was dead, Vader was
considered to be the last Jedi.
Chris
cljo...@engr.latech.edu
