Incongruities in ESB and the Force
Jeremy Kwiecien
Hey all, just watched ESB:SE (midterms prevented me from seeing it
earlier) while these aren't anything to do with the SE, seeing ESB
on the big screen got me thinking:
1. Yoda states that a Jedi is calm and at peace, no emotion etc., yet
Darth Vader, who is an Anti-Jedi is the classic cold calculating villain
givning him more in common with Yoda's training than Luke.
2. If Darth Vader is a thoroughly dark being, why is his meditation
chamber white?
--
Jer
"There are, I have discovered, two kinds of people in this
world, those who long to be understood and those who long
to be misunderstood. It is the irony of life that neither
is gratified." -- Carl Van Vechten.
Chris Pierson
In article <3321AE...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
Jeremy Kwiecien <jakw...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>Hey all, just watched ESB:SE (midterms prevented me from seeing it
>earlier) while these aren't anything to do with the SE, seeing ESB
>on the big screen got me thinking:
>
>1. Yoda states that a Jedi is calm and at peace, no emotion etc., yet
>Darth Vader, who is an Anti-Jedi is the classic cold calculating villain
>givning him more in common with Yoda's training than Luke.
Vader is a _what_ Jedi?
I've heard "Dark Jedi" bandied about, including in some of the Bantam/WEG
stuff, but never "Anti-Jedi."
Now, if Vader is a "Dark Jedi", that implies he's still a Jedi. And, at
any rate, he has training as an unhyphenated Jedi (anyone caught using the
term "Light Jedi" will be forced to watch the Holiday Special until they
repent). So it follows that he'd exhibit the same calm behavior (albeit
with a bit more throat-crushing) that Yoda espouses.
Besides, if he did the opposite of what Yoda taught, he'd be like Gary
Oldman in The Professional, which just doesn't fit with the SW milieu.
>2. If Darth Vader is a thoroughly dark being, why is his meditation
>chamber white?
Um ... because if the inside were black, we wouldn't be able to see him in
it. :)
--
****************************************************************************
Chris Pierson ** Chris's Oscar preferences: Fargo, Geoffrey Rush, Emily
Game Designer ** Watson, W.H. Macy, Marianne Jean-Baptiste, Joel Coen
****************************************************************************
Gray Leader
cpie...@tiac.net (Chris Pierson) wrote:
>>2. If Darth Vader is a thoroughly dark being, why is his meditation
>>chamber white?
Because George Lucas is a racist.
<grin>
Gray Leader, standing by.
jed...@aol.com
>cpie...@tiac.net (Chris Pierson) wrote:
>
>>>2. If Darth Vader is a thoroughly dark being, why is his meditation
>>>chamber white?
It's white on the inside, but black on the outside....like Vader.
JEDI AL |*
Former RASSM Cool Person *|
Forever RASSM'r *|*
/ \
\ 0 /
/\ /\
/ | | \
/_ / \_ \
Live until you die...
Rimrunner
In article <3321AE...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
Jeremy Kwiecien <jakw...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>1. Yoda states that a Jedi is calm and at peace, no emotion etc., yet
>Darth Vader, who is an Anti-Jedi is the classic cold calculating villain
>givning him more in common with Yoda's training than Luke.
>
When Vader was Anakin Skywalker, he received Jedi training from Kenobi. As
we know -- as Kenobi himself admits in RotJ -- Kenobi isn't as good a
teacher as Yoda is. Still, Vader would have learned the mental quality of
meditative calm and emotional detachment.
I'm betting that you're thinking of the duel in ESB, right? And you've got
a point -- Vader is very calm, very calculating, very manipulative for
most of the scene. It's only near the end of the duel that his anger gets
the better of him and he starts physically pummeling Luke, finally maiming
him (well, it would be considered maiming if not for the wonder of
cybernetics).
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?
>2. If Darth Vader is a thoroughly dark being, why is his meditation
>chamber white?
>
Maybe it makes it easier for him to meditate. Meditation requires calm
surroundings and something to focus on -- a candle or image if you're just
starting out, or something visualized once you get good at it.
Besides, it makes a nice contrast with his badass black outfit, dontcha
think?
Rimrunner
ooh, i'm deep
--
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.
--
Jeffrey F Beene
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc: 8-Mar-97 Incongruities
in ESB and th.. by Jeremy Kwiecien@undergra
> earlier) while these aren't anything to do with the SE, seeing ESB
> on the big screen got me thinking:
>
> Darth Vader, who is an Anti-Jedi is the classic cold calculating villain
> givning him more in common with Yoda's training than Luke.
VAder isn't all logical thinking and no emotion. He's angry, impulsive
(killing every officer who can't walk and chew gum), and traiterous.
>
> 2. If Darth Vader is a thoroughly dark being, why is his meditation
> chamber white?
who said bad = dark and good = light? Read Asimov's short story
Nightfall. Besides, white can be overpoweringly stark. and how can you
film a black suited guy in a small black room and not look like crap).
Jeff
Wayne Poe
On 8 Mar 1997 jed...@aol.com wrote:
>>2.If Darth Vader is a thoroughly dark being, why is his meditation
>>chamber white?
>
> It's white on the inside, but black on the outside....like Vader.
Vader an oreo?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
WAYNE POE "I'd like to bite that in the
Writer, Filmmaker, ass, develop lockjaw and be
Makeup fx artist, dragged to death."
Cartoonist
lo...@h4h.com --Lone Wolf McQuade
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Jason S Kaneshiro
Chris Pierson (cpie...@tiac.net) wrote:
: In article <3321AE...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
: Jeremy Kwiecien <jakw...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
: >Hey all, just watched ESB:SE (midterms prevented me from seeing it
: >earlier) while these aren't anything to do with the SE, seeing ESB
: >on the big screen got me thinking:
: >
: >1. Yoda states that a Jedi is calm and at peace, no emotion etc., yet
: >Darth Vader, who is an Anti-Jedi is the classic cold calculating villain
: >givning him more in common with Yoda's training than Luke.
: Vader is a _what_ Jedi?
: I've heard "Dark Jedi" bandied about, including in some of the Bantam/WEG
: stuff, but never "Anti-Jedi."
: Now, if Vader is a "Dark Jedi", that implies he's still a Jedi. And, at
: any rate, he has training as an unhyphenated Jedi (anyone caught using the
: term "Light Jedi" will be forced to watch the Holiday Special until they
: repent). So it follows that he'd exhibit the same calm behavior (albeit
: with a bit more throat-crushing) that Yoda espouses.
: Besides, if he did the opposite of what Yoda taught, he'd be like Gary
: Oldman in The Professional, which just doesn't fit with the SW milieu.
: >2. If Darth Vader is a thoroughly dark being, why is his meditation
: >chamber white?
: Um ... because if the inside were black, we wouldn't be able to see him in
: it. :)
: --
: ****************************************************************************
: Chris Pierson ** Chris's Oscar preferences: Fargo, Geoffrey Rush, Emily
: Game Designer ** Watson, W.H. Macy, Marianne Jean-Baptiste, Joel Coen
: ****************************************************************************
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. Dark Jedi or otherwise. Whenever someone brings
up Vader and talks about his Jedi status, it is reffered to in the past
tense. So Jedi is more of a title than anything else. Vader was not a
Jedi. He was called a Dark Lord of the Sith. No where in the movies is
it clear as to what that is.
As to force use? Yoda says that a Jedi uses the force for
knowledge and defense. Never for attack. So how can Vader use the force?
He uses the dark side of the force.
Yoda - But beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression. The dark
side of the force are they. Easily do they flow, quick to join you
in a fight. For once you start down the dark path, forever will it
dominate your destiny, consume you it will. As it did Obi-Wan's
apprentice.
Luke - Vader...
And why is his meditation chamber white? Because the people who
designed the movie and the sets wanted it that way. There's a lot of
symbolism you can drw from it, but I won't get into it. I'll let someone
else go to it.
'In my latest study, 4 out of 5 people prefer Star Wars over electroshock
therapy. The other 1 out of 5 are dead. So get with the program. Watch
Star Wars and stay alive. You can trust me. 'Cause I'm a doctor.'
-Jason
-Not a cool person (or a real doctor).
AARON JAMES EDWARD PEORI
Rimrunner (rim...@halcyon.com) wrote:
: In article <3321AE...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
: Jeremy Kwiecien <jakw...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
: >
: >Darth Vader, who is an Anti-Jedi is the classic cold calculating villain
: >givning him more in common with Yoda's training than Luke.
: >
: When Vader was Anakin Skywalker, he received Jedi training from Kenobi. As
: we know -- as Kenobi himself admits in RotJ -- Kenobi isn't as good a
: teacher as Yoda is. Still, Vader would have learned the mental quality of
: meditative calm and emotional detachment.
: I'm betting that you're thinking of the duel in ESB, right? And you've got
: a point -- Vader is very calm, very calculating, very manipulative for
: most of the scene. It's only near the end of the duel that his anger gets
: the better of him and he starts physically pummeling Luke, finally maiming
: him (well, it would be considered maiming if not for the wonder of
: cybernetics).
: 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?
I -like- this theory. I have made it no secret that I do not think
emotion by itself is inherently good or evil, but how we use them that
matters. In this theory Rimrunner shows that the Emporer and Vader are
not curropted by their hatred/anger, but are instead weakened by it and
more easily tempted. Power corrupts<sp?> and all that.
My congratualations Rimrunner.
-----------------
Epsilon
Death Lord of the Sith
"When the Dark claims another, our power grows stronger. Only in the
ecstasy of Death, can the true Force be seen. Mourn not for those who
have passed, their sacrifice has made us stronger."
-Ancient Sith Funeral Prayer
"Evil is a concept created by society to protect the weak from the strong."
-Senchi Saotome
"All things must be in balance, all forces must cancel each other out. Be
it Creation & Destruction, Good & Evil, Chaos & Order, Life & Death. Only
when the balance is disturbed does trouble come..."
-Epsilon (from the Heros for Hire saga)
"When you look upon this day, remember only that it is I who chooses to
let you live."
-Arcane (and Epsilon in the Sith War II)
Daniel Miller
In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970308...@h4h.com>,>>>2.If Darth Vader is a thoroughly dark being, why is his meditation
>>>chamber white?
>>
>
>Vader an oreo?
I think he's more of a Ho-Ho. (After all, with an Oreo you can see the
white from certain angles...)
--
Dan'l sha...@expert.cc.purdue.edu JTFC#11 <*>
"Are you ready, my eager young space cadet?"
"All set, your heroship, sir!"
Bas-Jan Walewijk
Rimrunner <rim...@halcyon.com> wrote in article <5fsoqo$qkk$1...@halcyon.com>...
>
> 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?
Sounds good to me. It makes a lot more sense than the traditional explanation.
I never could fathom why "fear" was part of the Dark Side in that view: I mean,
what's so evil or unnatural about fearing something? I'd say it was very
natural - and even good for your health - to show some fear. On the other hand,
if "anger, fear, aggression" are the *tools* of the Dark Side, it fits together
perfectly.
> Rimrunner
> ooh, i'm deep
As always.
(*bows*)
Bas-Jan
--
"Context is strawberries."
--
"Yesterday, some poor fellow was arrested in the rue Le Peletier -
on leaving the exhibition, he had begun biting the passers-by."
- review of the second Impressionist exhibition
--
Another genuine Official RASSM Cool Person. Beware imitations.
Kris
In article <3321AE...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
Jeremy Kwiecien <jakw...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> says:
>
>Hey all, just watched ESB:SE (midterms prevented me from seeing it
>earlier) while these aren't anything to do with the SE, seeing ESB
>on the big screen got me thinking:
>
>1. Yoda states that a Jedi is calm and at peace, no emotion etc., yet
>Darth Vader, who is an Anti-Jedi is the classic cold calculating villain
>givning him more in common with Yoda's training than Luke.
He's a Dark-Jedi. They go by the same "rules" as the normal Jedi with
the only difference being, that they use their power for a greedy and
evil cause.
>2. If Darth Vader is a thoroughly dark being, why is his meditation
>chamber white?
Are you trolling?
Just because someone is a darkside user of the Force, it doesn't
necessarily mean they're obsesed with the colour "black". The imperial
stormtroopers wore _white_ armour and even the emperor didn't seem to
be bothered by all the light, when he arrived at the Death Star docking
bay in ROTJ (which was pretty well lit up).
It has nothing to do with colour.
>
>--
>Jer
>
>"There are, I have discovered, two kinds of people in this
> world, those who long to be understood and those who long
> to be misunderstood. It is the irony of life that neither
> is gratified." -- Carl Van Vechten.
>
-Kris
==
"They're gonna bring you down, they'll make you fall
You better get away fast, or you're gonna stall" - Bloodshed
==
Epona
Kris wrote:
> <snip>
> >2. If Darth Vader is a thoroughly dark being, why is his meditation
> >chamber white?
>
> Are you trolling?
>
> Just because someone is a darkside user of the Force, it doesn't
> necessarily mean they're obsesed with the colour "black". The imperial
> stormtroopers wore _white_ armour and even the emperor didn't seem to
> be bothered by all the light, when he arrived at the Death Star docking
> bay in ROTJ (which was pretty well lit up).
>
outfit in ROTJ would in suggest that he had turned to the Dark Side. I
don't remember what the thread was, but I think someone mentioned that
the color scheme for ANH was bad=black or white (or grey?) and that
good=earth tones, but that doesn't follow for Leia's outfit. I'm not
sure color (worn or surrounding themselves) is a good indicator of
anyone's staus throughout the trilogy. It does change for many of the
characters.
Jeremy Kwiecien
> >Hey all, just watched ESB:SE (midterms prevented me from seeing it
> >earlier) while these aren't anything to do with the SE, seeing ESB
> >on the big screen got me thinking:
> >
> >1. Yoda states that a Jedi is calm and at peace, no emotion etc., yet
> >Darth Vader, who is an Anti-Jedi is the classic cold calculating villain
> >givning him more in common with Yoda's training than Luke.
>
Sounds better than "Dark Jedi" besides, Vader's role in life befor the
Trilogy WAS to destroy Jedi. Just like Antibacterial soap kills
bacteria (more likely just a marketing ploy...), Anti-Jedis kill
Jedi(s?)
(Have we ever come to a concensus for plural of Jedi).
By this token if Mandalores killed Jedi, and Boba Fett was indeed a
Mandalore, he too could be an Anti-Jedi.
>
> I've heard "Dark Jedi" bandied about, including in some of the Bantam/WEG
> stuff, but never "Anti-Jedi."
You obvioulsy understand the reference, but point taken.
>
> Now, if Vader is a "Dark Jedi", that implies he's still a Jedi. And, at
> any rate, he has training as an unhyphenated Jedi (anyone caught using the
> term "Light Jedi" will be forced to watch the Holiday Special until they
Would never think of using it.
> repent). So it follows that he'd exhibit the same calm behavior (albeit
> with a bit more throat-crushing) that Yoda espouses.
Vader IS calm, he just can't stand incompetence.
>
> Besides, if he did the opposite of what Yoda taught, he'd be like Gary
> Oldman in The Professional, which just doesn't fit with the SW milieu.
>
> >2. If Darth Vader is a thoroughly dark being, why is his meditation
> >chamber white?
>
> Um ... because if the inside were black, we wouldn't be able to see him in
> it. :)
Good enough.
> --
> ****************************************************************************
> Chris Pierson ** Chris's Oscar preferences: Fargo, Geoffrey Rush, Emily
> Game Designer ** Watson, W.H. Macy, Marianne Jean-Baptiste, Joel Coen
> ****************************************************************************
--
Jeremy Kwiecien
Jeffrey F Beene wrote:
>
> Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc: 8-Mar-97 Incongruities
> in ESB and th.. by Jeremy Kwiecien@undergra
> > earlier) while these aren't anything to do with the SE, seeing ESB
> > on the big screen got me thinking:
> >
> > 1. Yoda states that a Jedi is calm and at peace, no emotion etc., yet
> > Darth Vader, who is an Anti-Jedi is the classic cold calculating villain
> > givning him more in common with Yoda's training than Luke.
>
> (killing every officer who can't walk and chew gum), and traiterous.
He jsut has high standards. No point in keeping incompetent officers.
It's much more logical than giving them numerous oppurtunities to
screw up :)
>
> >
> > 2. If Darth Vader is a thoroughly dark being, why is his meditation
> > chamber white?
>
> who said bad = dark and good = light? Read Asimov's short story
Not so much that, as it's the ONLY white thing about Vader.
(I know I've opened a can of worms/symbollism, but that's what I
wanted to do, get some good Star Wars discussions going)
> Nightfall. Besides, white can be overpoweringly stark. and how can you
> film a black suited guy in a small black room and not look like crap).
I dunno, the shot of Vader against the starfield at the end of ESB was
one of the best shots in Trilogy.
>
> Jeff
Jeremy Kwiecien
Jason S Kaneshiro wrote:
>
> Chris Pierson (cpie...@tiac.net) wrote:
> : In article <3321AE...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
> : Jeremy Kwiecien <jakw...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> : >earlier) while these aren't anything to do with the SE, seeing ESB
> : >on the big screen got me thinking:
> : >
> : >1. Yoda states that a Jedi is calm and at peace, no emotion etc., yet
> : >Darth Vader, who is an Anti-Jedi is the classic cold calculating villain
> : >givning him more in common with Yoda's training than Luke.
>
>
> : I've heard "Dark Jedi" bandied about, including in some of the Bantam/WEG
> : stuff, but never "Anti-Jedi."
>
> : Now, if Vader is a "Dark Jedi", that implies he's still a Jedi. And, at
> : any rate, he has training as an unhyphenated Jedi (anyone caught using the
> : term "Light Jedi" will be forced to watch the Holiday Special until they
> : with a bit more throat-crushing) that Yoda espouses.
>
> : Oldman in The Professional, which just doesn't fit with the SW milieu.
>
> : >chamber white?
>
> : Um ... because if the inside were black, we wouldn't be able to see him in
> : it. :)
> : --
> : ****************************************************************************
> : Chris Pierson ** Chris's Oscar preferences: Fargo, Geoffrey Rush, Emily
> : Game Designer ** Watson, W.H. Macy, Marianne Jean-Baptiste, Joel Coen
> : ****************************************************************************
>
> became. Vader was a perversion of what a Jedi Knight was. No where is he
> reffered to as a Jedi. Dark Jedi or otherwise. Whenever someone brings
> up Vader and talks about his Jedi status, it is reffered to in the past
> tense. So Jedi is more of a title than anything else. Vader was not a
> Jedi. He was called a Dark Lord of the Sith. No where in the movies is
> it clear as to what that is.
Vader: "He is here"
Takin: "Ben Kenobi? Surely he is dead by now. You are the last of
that religion my friend."
(Not the exact words, but you get my point)
Of course Tarkin could be missunderstanding the entire concept of Jedi,
force and Dark Lords. Either way, that is a direct reference linking
Vader to Kenobi/Yoda/Luke's ideals.
> As to force use? Yoda says that a Jedi uses the force for
> knowledge and defense. Never for attack. So how can Vader use the force?
> He uses the dark side of the force.
>
> Yoda - But beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression. The dark
> side of the force are they. Easily do they flow, quick to join you
> in a fight. For once you start down the dark path, forever will it
> dominate your destiny, consume you it will. As it did Obi-Wan's
> apprentice.
>
> Luke - Vader...
>
> And why is his meditation chamber white? Because the people who
> designed the movie and the sets wanted it that way. There's a lot of
> symbolism you can drw from it, but I won't get into it. I'll let someone
> else go to it.
>
> 'In my latest study, 4 out of 5 people prefer Star Wars over electroshock
> therapy. The other 1 out of 5 are dead. So get with the program. Watch
> Star Wars and stay alive. You can trust me. 'Cause I'm a doctor.'
>
> -Jason
> -Not a cool person (or a real doctor).
--
jed...@aol.com
In article <5fsm8f$f...@news.Hawaii.Edu>, jska...@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!
Jeremy Kwiecien
> >
> >Hey all, just watched ESB:SE (midterms prevented me from seeing it
> >earlier) while these aren't anything to do with the SE, seeing ESB
> >on the big screen got me thinking:
> >
> >1. Yoda states that a Jedi is calm and at peace, no emotion etc., yet
> >Darth Vader, who is an Anti-Jedi is the classic cold calculating villain
> >givning him more in common with Yoda's training than Luke.
>
> the only difference being, that they use their power for a greedy and
> evil cause.
>
Honestly, Anti-Jedi just sounds cooler, and I don't think it would be
hard to stretch/create the definition so it fits Vader.
Besides that I never really saw Vader do anything outright evil.
(Darth Vader kills something like 6 people in the whole trilogy,
Luke, Leia and Han are cutting people down all the time)
> >2. If Darth Vader is a thoroughly dark being, why is his meditation
> >chamber white?
>
> Are you trolling?
Sort of :), but I think this is a valid point: What did the white
symbolise?
Was it that Vader was good=white inside?
Was it simply for shooting contrast?
>
> Just because someone is a darkside user of the Force, it doesn't
> necessarily mean they're obsesed with the colour "black". The imperial
> stormtroopers wore _white_ armour and even the emperor didn't seem to
> be bothered by all the light, when he arrived at the Death Star docking
> bay in ROTJ (which was pretty well lit up).
The white-stormtroopers harkens back to THX-1138 which was much more
ambiguos than Star Wars.
>
> It has nothing to do with colour.
>
> >
> >--
> >Jer
> -Kris
>
> ==
> "They're gonna bring you down, they'll make you fall
> You better get away fast, or you're gonna stall" - Bloodshed
> ==
--
Jeff Gabbard
jed...@aol.com wrote:
>Do your homework!
Don't forget in SW when Vader is talking to Tarkin and Tarkin says
something like, "Kenobi alive? No my friend you are all that remains
of their religion." That is a ROUGH paraphrase, but pretty close to
the mark.
Jeff G.
Jason S Kaneshiro
jed...@aol.com wrote:
: In article <5fsm8f$f...@news.Hawaii.Edu>, jska...@Hawaii.Edu (Jason S Kaneshiro) writes:
: >
: >Well, Vader wasn't a Jedi. A Jedi is what Ben Kenobi and Luke Skywalker
: >became. Vader was a perversion of what a Jedi Knight was. No where is he
: >reffered to as a Jedi.
: Yoda- "Ah, father! Powerful Jedi was he, hmmm, powerful Jedi.
: Obi-Wan-"I was once a Jedi Knight the same as your father."
: Do your homework!
: JEDI AL |*
: Former RASSM Cool Person *|
: Forever RASSM'r
Yoda is talking about Anakin Skywalker and not Darth Vader.
Anakin Skywalker was a Jedi Knight but Darth Vader was not. This becomes
difficult to understand when thinking about what Obi-Wan said in ANH. In
it he refers to Anakin and Darth as two different people. He also calls
Darth a Jedi. I'd like to see someone explain that one away. Especially
in the light of what Yoda says in ESB.
A Jedi uses the force for knowledge and defense. Never for
attack. I also see a Jedi Knight as being someone who is strong in the
force and then goes on to train under a Jedi Master. After going through
testing and training that person gains the TITLE of Jedi Knight. A person
can go through all the training an still not be a Jedi. When Luke
confronts Vader on Bespin, Luke is not a Jedi. When he confronts Vader
again on the second Death Star he is still not a Jedi. Only after he
defeats Vader did he become a Jedi. He states that quite clearly to the
Emperor. There wasn't much of a change in Luke. He did not gain any
powers or whatever for defeating Vader. He just earned the title of Jedi
Knight.
I must have left something out here. Anyone disagree with
anything here?
'Don't make me use the Reely Big Box (of death).'
-Jason
-Not a cool person (or a Jedi Knight).
jed...@aol.com
In article <5g0a1l$f...@news.Hawaii.Edu>, jska...@Hawaii.Edu (Jason S Kaneshiro) writes:
>Yoda is talking about Anakin Skywalker and not Darth Vader.
>Anakin Skywalker was a Jedi Knight but Darth Vader was not. This becomes
>difficult to understand when thinking about what Obi-Wan said in ANH. In
>it he refers to Anakin and Darth as two different people. He also calls
>Darth a Jedi. I'd like to see someone explain that one away. Especially
>in the light of what Yoda says in ESB.
Sure, I understand that they were referring to "Anakin" and not "Darth". Bottom line is this. Anakin was a Jedi Knight, when he became Vader he renounced the knight title and became a Dark Lord of the Sith. He couldn't have been considered a Jedi after that, only as an ex-Knight with all the skills of a Jedi but without the title.
As for Ben referring to a "young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil..." Well, Ben is a jackass. He was playing Luke like a friggin' puppet, and he's damn lucky Luke didn't end up just like his dad. Ben had no right or reason to think for a minute he should have been Jedi-training another Skywalker. In his infinite wisdom, he should have found a way to let Yoda train him from the start. Oops, I'm venting...
JEDI AL |*
Former RASSM Cool Person *|
Rimrunner
In article <01bc2ca0$16709e00$85e4...@seneca.demon.nl>,
Bas-Jan Walewijk <bas...@seneca.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>Sounds good to me. It makes a lot more sense than the traditional explanation.
>I never could fathom why "fear" was part of the Dark Side in that view: I mean,
>what's so evil or unnatural about fearing something? I'd say it was very
>natural - and even good for your health - to show some fear. On the other hand,
>if "anger, fear, aggression" are the *tools* of the Dark Side, it fits together
>perfectly.
>
survival instinct.
Notice that I said "instinct." There's a point made in many religious
systems around the world that we are not supposed to let our instincts and
emotions control us; this is a major aspect of Buddhist practice, and has
been pointed out many times, a distilled version of Zen influenced Lucas'
concept of the Force in the first place.
Let's think about this for a second. In ESB, at one point, Vader says,
"You have controlled your fear. Now, release your anger. Only your hatred
can destroy me."
A point that ISN'T made in the films is that anger can be constructive, if
the energy derived from it is directed to a constructive end. Instead,
anger is equated with hatred. If Luke had killed Vader out of anger (which
is equivalent to hatred in this example), he would have killed him for a
personal, selfish reason that had nothing to do with the galaxy and
everything to do with himself. Same thing if Luke had killed Vader because
he feared him.
Now, suppose Vader couldn't be redeemed at all. Luke would *have* to kill
him, but it couldn't be because he hated him, or because he feared him. It
would have to be an act of compassion and justice, with no emotional
attachment at all. MUCH more difficult.
While I'm on a roll with this, let me say that if Star Wars was more
sophisticated than it is, we might have seen a governing principle that
allowing ANY emotion to rule your actions is bad. This is even implied in
ESB, when Luke runs off to save his friends. He does it out of love for
them, but Yoda and Ben both counsel him to stay away. It's not only for
Luke's own safety -- as we learn, he really ISN'T ready -- or to protect
him from the truth, but also because he's not making a rational decision.
Yoda says: "Decide you must, how to serve them best. If you leave now,
help them you could, but...you would destroy all for which they have
fought and suffered." DECIDE. Yoda's telling Luke to step back from the
situation and make a choice, not go running off on whatever path seems
best at the moment.
So you could even argue that those who have fallen to the Dark Side use
emotion as a manipulative tool toward a destructive end. Anger, fear, and
aggression could be characterized as bad because it's easier to lose
control over these emotions than over others. The Emperor clearly has a
fine understanding of how emotion works on people -- "His compassion for
you will be his undoing."
Rimrunner
manipulative bastard, isn't he?
Any mouse
>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. Dark Jedi or otherwise. Whenever someone brings
>up Vader and talks about his Jedi status, it is reffered to in the past
>tense. So Jedi is more of a title than anything else. Vader was not a
>Jedi. He was called a Dark Lord of the Sith. No where in the movies is
>it clear as to what that is.
> As to force use? Yoda says that a Jedi uses the force for
>knowledge and defense. Never for attack. So how can Vader use the
force?
>He uses the dark side of the force.
If Darth Vader is no longer a Jedi because he uses the "dark side" of the
force, then you could draw the logical conclusion that you don't ever need
to be trained to be a Jedi in the first place and that you could start out
as a Dark Lord of the Sith.
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.
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. (now I have the
Metallica song "King Nothing" running through my head.) Also as a Star
Wars example, Jorus C'Boath said that he was a jedi master and he was
pretty evil. He even had the lightning bolts coming out of his fingers
like the Emperor did.
Speaking of the Emperor, if C'Boath had similar powers to the Emperor and
the Emperor was Vader's master, then it would be a very unlikely parallel
to the relationship between Luke Skywalker and HIS master - Yoda. There
is no incongruity here, just a lack of explanation.
*****************************************************************
I'd take seven lives for one and then my only father's son
as sure as I did love him, I am not afraid
*****************************************************************
Kris
In article <33234A...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
Jeremy Kwiecien <jakw...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> says:
>
>Kris wrote:
>>
>> In article <3321AE...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
>> Jeremy Kwiecien <jakw...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> says:
>> >
>> >1. Yoda states that a Jedi is calm and at peace, no emotion etc., yet
>> >Darth Vader, who is an Anti-Jedi is the classic cold calculating villain
>> >givning him more in common with Yoda's training than Luke.
>>
>> He's a Dark-Jedi. They go by the same "rules" as the normal Jedi with
>> the only difference being, that they use their power for a greedy and
>> evil cause.
>>
>
>Honestly, Anti-Jedi just sounds cooler, and I don't think it would be
>hard to stretch/create the definition so it fits Vader.
He can't be anti-something that he is himself. He is a darksider but
still retains his Jedi roots. He knows how powerful the Force is,
uses his feelings, he's never outraged when killing people and he
even carries a lightsaber -- "the weapon of a Jedi knight".
>Besides that I never really saw Vader do anything outright evil.
>(Darth Vader kills something like 6 people in the whole trilogy,
>Luke, Leia and Han are cutting people down all the time)
Well, that's something to consider. :)
>> >2. If Darth Vader is a thoroughly dark being, why is his meditation
>> >chamber white?
>>
>> Are you trolling?
>
>Sort of :), but I think this is a valid point: What did the white
>symbolise?
>
>Was it that Vader was good=white inside?
>Was it simply for shooting contrast?
I think it was just a coincidence... though you may have a point. It
could symbolise that deep inside, Vader was essentially still a good guy.
But on the surface of his mind, something blinded him and kept his mind
dark, so taht he _thought_ he was doing the right thing. Perhaps in the
past, while he was still Skywalker, he tasted the seductive power of
the dark side (by realising the simple ease of just killing anyone who
really went on his nerves or something) which made him an easy victim
for palpatine, to somehow _brainwash_ into thinking the empire and the
dark side was the *right* way to go.
It seems the cloud-city duel, luke falling down the shaft and the
later "conversations" with Luke, gradually moved Vader's mind towards
the light side. And the sight of Luke being tortured by Palpatine,
was what finally woke him up, so to speak.
>> Just because someone is a darkside user of the Force, it doesn't
>> necessarily mean they're obsesed with the colour "black". The imperial
>> stormtroopers wore _white_ armour and even the emperor didn't seem to
>> be bothered by all the light, when he arrived at the Death Star docking
>> bay in ROTJ (which was pretty well lit up).
>
>The white-stormtroopers harkens back to THX-1138 which was much more
>ambiguos than Star Wars.
My point was that, if dark side users of the Force truly hated
the colour "white" (which in the West is generally considered to
be the colour of goodness and purity) the stormtroopers would wear
black armour and Palpatine would be forced to wear very dark
sunglasses, in lit-up areas and so on.
Kris
In article <5g0a1l$f...@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
jska...@Hawaii.Edu (Jason S Kaneshiro) says:
>
>jed...@aol.com wrote:
>: In article <5fsm8f$f...@news.Hawaii.Edu>, jska...@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
>
> Yoda is talking about Anakin Skywalker and not Darth Vader.
>Anakin Skywalker was a Jedi Knight but Darth Vader was not. This becomes
>difficult to understand when thinking about what Obi-Wan said in ANH. In
>it he refers to Anakin and Darth as two different people. He also calls
>Darth a Jedi. I'd like to see someone explain that one away. Especially
>in the light of what Yoda says in ESB.
At the time when Yoda said that, Luke still believed that his father
was dead. That's what he was told by his uncle, aunt and later Obi-Wan
told him about Vader murdering him and all (ie. anakin is dead from
that certain point of view). Yoda was simply playing along. Remember,
they didn't want Luke to know that Vader was Anakin.
> A Jedi uses the force for knowledge and defense. Never for
>attack.
Was Vader that much different? Aside from wearing black armour, killing
people who he considered to be traitors, killing useless imperial
Admirals and working for the Empire, he was basically like any Jedi.
Vader was a DARK-Jedi!
(snip)
>
>'Don't make me use the Reely Big Box (of death).'
>
> -Jason
> -Not a cool person (or a Jedi Knight).
Rimrunner
In article <19970311051...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Any mouse <anym...@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.
>
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.)
Michael Mierzwa
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.
Patrick H.
On 9 Mar 1997 jed...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <5fsm8f$f...@news.Hawaii.Edu>, jska...@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.
prha...@uiuc.edu
Life Sciences
jed...@aol.com
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970311...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>, "Patrick H." <prha...@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 *|*
Patrick H.
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? ;)
Patrick H.
prha...@uiuc.edu
Life Sciences
Patrick H.
On Thu, 13 Mar 1997, Rich Handley wrote:
> The immortal "Patrick H." <prha...@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 (Card...@unix.asb.com)
Rimrunner
In article <5g4jfe$a78$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
Michael Mierzwa <ez06...@dale.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
>Well Rim, you have once again earned my "understands the nature of the
>Force award"! It seems time and time again, I can count on you to
>describe these things much clear than I could.
Well, then...
*bows*
>Maybe you should consider moving to a swamp, carrying around a gimer
>stick, eating soup w/ tree bark sprinkles, and teaching Jedi. ;)
Gee, Michael, you make that sound so...appetizing.
Although I must admit, it would probably beat customer service. At least
if anyone asked me any stupid questions, I could whack him with my stick,
or tell him to sweep the floor until he achieved enlightenment, or
something.
>Although you also have a strange liking of either Vader's or Luke's black
>outfit ... maybe instead you should carry a lightsaber around and just
>hack down everybody else.
Ah, yes, they would call me the Sithlord of Seattle and I'd be featured on
an episode of "Millenium." :D
And the Seattle Times would print yet another front page story on how
goths are just SO misunderstood. (What're they complaining about? That's
half the fun!)
>Are ya deep??? I won't answer that question.
Probably a wise move.
Rimrunner
*are* there any swamps in washington state? aside from seattle in winter?
Bonnie S Walling
In article <01bc2f55$f26badc0$85e4...@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")
Chris
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.
MH-AB
In article <3321AE...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
Jeremy Kwiecien <jakw...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>Hey all, just watched ESB:SE (midterms prevented me from seeing it
>earlier) while these aren't anything to do with the SE, seeing ESB
>on the big screen got me thinking:
>
>Darth Vader, who is an Anti-Jedi is the classic cold calculating villain
>givning him more in common with Yoda's training than Luke.
Note Vader uses many Jedi techniques, but in the climactic scene with
Luke in TESB, he seems to grow in power when he is angry. The more Luke
resists his assault, the more Vader attacks. At first it is just a game,
where Vader says things like: "All too easy." When Luke proves more than
a morsel for our favourite Dark Lord, Vader attacks with more vigor and
starts using telekenisis to fight Luke. Then when Luke finally gets a
swing through, Vader just pummels the heck outta junior, slices pretty
effortlessly through the scenery and finally lops Luke's hand off. He let
the anger empower him. He let the frustration and hatred feed his attack.
In short, he let the Dark Side of the Force flow through him. It is not
a question of using either the Dark Side or the Light Side. For a Jedi,
it is a question of using the Force and avoiding the Dark Side. For a
Dark Jedi, it is a question of using whatever is more convenient at the
time - either side or both sides. The Dark Side is insiduous and alluring.
It promises great power, but at what cost...?
>2. If Darth Vader is a thoroughly dark being, why is his meditation
>chamber white?
Because he has fashion sense, damnit. When you go to see Vader in the
meditation room, there ain't no mistaking where he is. Bathed in that
bright light, and surrounded by the white walls, it is clear just how
dark HE is. It's simple showmanship, my friend.
"Hi, I'm Darth Vader - you will either be impressed by me or dead. Take
your pick."
Rancorr (no, not that rancor) Blackmane.
Rich Handley
BEN: "A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine before
he turned to evil...."
Sincerely,
Rich Handley (Card...@unix.asb.com)
Co-Author of "Star Wars: Crimson Bounty"
with Charlene Newcomb
(The Star Wars Adventure Journal, August '97)
Visit "The Exhaustive Guide to Star Wars Comics"
at http://www.asb.com/usr/cardsafe/intro.htm
Bas-Jan Walewijk
Rimrunner <rim...@halcyon.com> wrote in article <5g2p3v$48p$1...@halcyon.com>...
> In article <01bc2ca0$16709e00$85e4...@seneca.demon.nl>,
> Bas-Jan Walewijk <bas...@seneca.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> >Sounds good to me. It makes a lot more sense than the traditional
explanation.
> >I never could fathom why "fear" was part of the Dark Side in that view: I
mean,
> >what's so evil or unnatural about fearing something? I'd say it was very
> >natural - and even good for your health - to show some fear. On the other
hand,
> >if "anger, fear, aggression" are the *tools* of the Dark Side, it fits
together
> >perfectly.
> >
> Taking this argument one step further, you could say that fear is a
> survival instinct.
>
> Notice that I said "instinct." There's a point made in many religious
> systems around the world that we are not supposed to let our instincts and
> emotions control us; this is a major aspect of Buddhist practice, and has
> been pointed out many times, a distilled version of Zen influenced Lucas'
> concept of the Force in the first place.
It depends on what you mean by "instinct". Meaning our baser, more primitive
reactions, I'd agree that both Zen and the Force in SW would certainly
disapprove of letting them control your actions. However, the Force often
appears as a highly developed form of "instinct", meaning "intuition". (I'm not
too clear about the Zen teachings on this, though I believe spontaneity of
perception is seen in a positive light.)
> Let's think about this for a second. In ESB, at one point, Vader says,
> "You have controlled your fear. Now, release your anger. Only your hatred
> can destroy me."
>
> A point that ISN'T made in the films is that anger can be constructive, if
> the energy derived from it is directed to a constructive end. Instead,
> anger is equated with hatred.
Hmm... isn't hatred merely focused anger? I find it hard to imagine being angry
about something without more or less "hating" it. Note that I'm saying "it" -
neither anger nor hatred needs to be directed at a living, breathing person. I
don't see too great an inconsistency if we simply maintain that the "Jedi way"
is to never let emotion guide your actions. No exceptions made for constructive
emotions...?
> If Luke had killed Vader out of anger (which
> is equivalent to hatred in this example), he would have killed him for a
> personal, selfish reason that had nothing to do with the galaxy and
> everything to do with himself. Same thing if Luke had killed Vader because
> he feared him.
Or if Luke had managed to kill the Emperor just because he was humiliating him,
or making him feel helpless.
> Now, suppose Vader couldn't be redeemed at all. Luke would *have* to kill
> him, but it couldn't be because he hated him, or because he feared him. It
> would have to be an act of compassion and justice, with no emotional
> attachment at all. MUCH more difficult.
I believe something like that was in the original story treatment for ROTJ:
Vader allows Luke to kill him, thereby redeeming himself. It would have been
box-office poison, but maybe it could have turned out as a very interesting
scene.
> While I'm on a roll with this, let me say that if Star Wars was more
> sophisticated than it is, we might have seen a governing principle that
> allowing ANY emotion to rule your actions is bad.
And as a matter of ethics, it is - at least when your actions affect people
besides yourself. Emotion, IMHO, is a very poor justification for causing
someone harm. But the Force could never have been portrayed in this way on
screen, because of the laws of Hollywood - which state that emotion is GOOD,
and that EMOTION SAVES THE DAY. It is emotion that causes the villain to repent
or causes the girl to choose the right guy at the end of the day.
> This is even implied in
> ESB, when Luke runs off to save his friends. He does it out of love for
> them, but Yoda and Ben both counsel him to stay away. It's not only for
> Luke's own safety -- as we learn, he really ISN'T ready -- or to protect
> him from the truth, but also because he's not making a rational decision.
Very true. The (unspoken) rational decision being that he cannot endanger the
future of the Galaxy for his personal friendships. What would any of us do in
this situation? An afwul dilemma, and one which unfortunately isn't explored
enoughl in the film. (Because - once again - by Hollywood logic Luke CANNOT
forsake his friends - just as Yoda could never state the matter as a question
of sheer numbers without seeming too cold and calculating. Of course, neither
can Luke let the Galaxy go to ruin, so it's up to the writers to find a way to
let Luke have his cake and eat it too. We are *meant* to feel that Luke is
doing the right thing, morally, even if this may not be very wise from a Jedi's
point of view.)
(more good stuff snipped)
> So you could even argue that those who have fallen to the Dark Side use
> emotion as a manipulative tool toward a destructive end. Anger, fear, and
> aggression could be characterized as bad because it's easier to lose
> control over these emotions than over others. The Emperor clearly has a
> fine understanding of how emotion works on people -- "His compassion for
> you will be his undoing."
First, let me explain that I've always looked upon the Dark Side as having more
to do with what goes against the general "way of the universe / nature" than
with what is "Evil" with a capital "E". (I just have this problem imagining any
sane person doing something evil purely for the sake of being evil, and that is
exactly what choosing for the Dark Side would otherwise imply.)
So... now let's see if we can make this fit together: having emotions is
"natural", albeit "primitive"; a "light" Jedi is attuned to the natural way of
things and uses his rational mind to come to decisions on how to use the Force
(which, I'm assuming, does *not* have a mind of its own); people are tempted to
the Dark Side because they let their emotions interfere with their decisions
and come to believe that their goals (revenge, power, ...) warrant the use of
the Force in a "perverse" manner. This way, the Dark Side seems stronger to
those who use it, because it has no ethical boundaries. Of course, it isn't
*really* stronger, because the Dark Side isn't so much a particular
polarization of a physical energy field as it is an *aspect* of the Force, or
the way in which the Force appears to someone who abuses it. The manipulation
of things - words, emotions, living creatures - is inherent to the use of Dark
Side.
(Sorry if I'm rambling, Rim, but I haven't slept much so far this week.)
Bas-Jan
--
"Context is strawberries."
--
"Yesterday, some poor fellow was arrested in the rue Le Peletier -
on leaving the exhibition, he had begun biting the passers-by."
- review of the second Impressionist exhibition
--
Another genuine Official RASSM Cool Person. Beware imitations.
Bas-Jan Walewijk
Rimrunner <rim...@halcyon.com> wrote in article <5g4dj4$rlr$1...@halcyon.com>...
> In article <19970311051...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> Any mouse <anym...@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.
My own favorite pet philosophy (after hours): classical stoicism, more
influential than a lot of people think. It does away with good and evil
altogether and postulates universal "reason". Evil becomes, in effect, a form
of stupidity, or misguidedness. I like the way this relates to the people in
real life whom we consider to be "evil". More often than not, it's a matter of
not knowing, not caring, or having very deep convictions that causes certain
evils to happen.
> 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.
> 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.
Well, yes. It's just a matter of names and definitions. If your god is defined
as absolute good, then your devil must be the exact opposite of him, in every
thinkable way. But such a being would never attract worshippers - unless they
believed something about it to be "good", thereby making that being a "god" as
well - at least to its followers.
In SW terms: the Darksiders tend to stress the advantages of joining the Dark
Side. They believe the benefits to outweigh the costs. Evidently, they have
(had) their reasons for being seduced in the first place.
(snip about Dark Lords)
> 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?
I'd say that the word "heretic" basically *means* "Dark Christian". Of course,
that leaves out analogies for non-believers or potential "satanists". But since
in the SW universe the Force provedly exists, there are no true "non-believers"
(only those that don't care, or are unimpressed) and being a "heretic" is
practically the same as being a "satanist".
Oh, and please forgive me if I've tried to make the same point more than once
between this post and the other one on this thread - like I said there, it's
late. ;-)
jed...@aol.com
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970312...@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu>, "Patrick H." <prha...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:
>You seemed to convey in your post that many times throughout the movie,
>Vader was referred to as a Jedi.
Nope.
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.
Tarkin tells Vader, "The Jedi are extinct. You my friend are all that's left of their religion." What about the dope that Vader chokes in front of Tarkin? Motti or (Tagge) who refers to Vader's sad devotion to an ancient religion?
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.
My view is that a Jedi is a card carrying member of the Jedi Knights. Vader turned his card in when he became a Dark Lord.
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? ;)
Yes, I knew about the Ewok/Wookiee thing. Cool.
Patrick H.
On 13 Mar 1997 jed...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970312...@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu>, "Patrick H."
<prha...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:
>
> 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.
>
> Tarkin tells Vader, "The Jedi are extinct. You my friend are all that's left of their religion." What about the dope that Vader chokes in front of Tarkin? Motti or (Tagge) who refers to Vader's sad devotion to an ancient religion?
> 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.
>
> My view is that a Jedi is a card carrying member of the Jedi Knights. Vader turned his card in when he became a Dark Lord.
My point exactly. Anakin forfeited his "Jedi" title when he chose to
become evil.
>
> 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? ;)
>
> Yes, I knew about the Ewok/Wookiee thing. Cool.
>
The Ewok/Wookiee thing was a joke. At least it was supposed to be.
> JEDI AL |*
> Former RASSM Cool Person *|
> Forever RASSM'r *|*
> / \
> \ 0 /
> /\ /\
> / | | \
> /_ / \_ \
>
> Live until you die...
>
>
Patrick H.
prha...@uiuc.edu
Life Sciences
Patrick H.
The problem with this thread is that it is hard to define if a force
user who is evil can be called a Jedi. I subscribe to the idea that a
Jedi uses the force for "knowledge and defense" and only applies to
"good" force users. I think that Jedi and Jedi Knight mean the same
thing. But an equivalent to the Jedi is a Dark Lord of the Sith. So you
are either a Jedi Knight or a Dark Lord of the Sith. Then there is a
Jedi master. I think this also applies only to good Force users. So Ben
is still a Jedi (Jedi Knight) but it is more correct to call him a Jedi
Master. The same for Yoda. The emperor, however, is the equivalent to a
Jedi Master. But I'm not sure what you call an evil master of the
Force. That is my take on the issue, but my guess is as good as yours to
the exact terminology. As far as Vader being the last of the "religion,"
I think that the religion is the Force. So an evil Force user like Vader is
still part of the religion, but is part of the "evil" sect of that religion.
Rimrunner
In article <01bc2f50$efb46f40$85e4...@seneca.demon.nl>,
Bas-Jan Walewijk <bas...@seneca.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>
>Rimrunner <rim...@halcyon.com> wrote in article <5g2p3v$48p$1...@halcyon.com>...
>>
>> systems around the world that we are not supposed to let our instincts and
>> emotions control us; this is a major aspect of Buddhist practice, and has
>> been pointed out many times, a distilled version of Zen influenced Lucas'
>> concept of the Force in the first place.
>
>It depends on what you mean by "instinct". Meaning our baser, more primitive
>reactions, I'd agree that both Zen and the Force in SW would certainly
>disapprove of letting them control your actions. However, the Force often
>appears as a highly developed form of "instinct", meaning "intuition". (I'm not
>too clear about the Zen teachings on this, though I believe spontaneity of
>perception is seen in a positive light.)
Excellent point. There's a fine line between trusting your intuition (good
-- at least, I think so, it's saved me a few times) and letting it control
your every action.
As I understand it, Buddhist meditational practice has, as its goal,
achieving a state of mind where an individual can achieve enlightenment,
or nirvana. This state of mind cannot be described as conscious *or*
intuitive -- it could be neither, or possibly both. It *is* described as a
passive state, which accords pretty well with what Yoda tells Luke about
knowing the good side from the bad: "You will know! When you are calm...at
peace...passive."
In other words, trust your intuition, but don't let it be clouded by the
emotions that the dark side will generate -- fear, anger, etc. And perhaps
Luke did that pretty well after all; he sensed that Vader could be
redeemed, something that neither Obi-Wan nor Yoda ever discerned.
>> A point that ISN'T made in the films is that anger can be constructive, if
>> the energy derived from it is directed to a constructive end. Instead,
>> anger is equated with hatred.
>
>Hmm... isn't hatred merely focused anger? I find it hard to imagine being angry
>about something without more or less "hating" it. Note that I'm saying "it" -
>neither anger nor hatred needs to be directed at a living, breathing person. I
>don't see too great an inconsistency if we simply maintain that the "Jedi way"
>is to never let emotion guide your actions. No exceptions made for constructive
>emotions...?
Good point. On the other hand -- and I welcome discussion on this point,
because it's one I'm still working out -- the Jedi themselves don't seem
to have been particularly passive. It's hard to be the protector of the
galaxy if you spend all your time in the SW equivalent of the lotus
position. *8)
I guess what it is is if you experience injustice, it's a very different
thing from impartially rendering judgement on something that you observe
as a third party. It's a lot easier to get angry about the first.
On the other hand (again), I would be absolutely furious if (for instance)
someone attacked me on the street, and it is true that anger can fuel
physical strength. Does it mean that anger controls whatever action you
take using that strength? Tricky question. Especially if anger and hatred
are equated. I got a bit miffed at Speculator last week, but I don't hate
him -- he seems like a pretty good guy.
>> If Luke had killed Vader out of anger (which
>> is equivalent to hatred in this example), he would have killed him for a
>> personal, selfish reason that had nothing to do with the galaxy and
>> everything to do with himself. Same thing if Luke had killed Vader because
>> he feared him.
>
>Or if Luke had managed to kill the Emperor just because he was humiliating him,
>or making him feel helpless.
Yep.
>> Now, suppose Vader couldn't be redeemed at all. Luke would *have* to kill
>> him, but it couldn't be because he hated him, or because he feared him. It
>> would have to be an act of compassion and justice, with no emotional
>> attachment at all. MUCH more difficult.
>
>I believe something like that was in the original story treatment for ROTJ:
>Vader allows Luke to kill him, thereby redeeming himself. It would have been
>box-office poison, but maybe it could have turned out as a very interesting
>scene.
And not without precedent. The whole father-son thing is one that we find
throughout mythology -- the father has to die so that the son can take his
rightful place. You can see this working in a couple of ways in Star Wars:
-- Vader has to die so that the galaxy can be free, with Luke
as one of the galaxy's protectors;
-- Vader has to die to that Luke can take his place as the
Emperor's right hand;
-- the Emperor has to die so that Vader can succeed him, as
the Emperor is something of a father-figure to Vader, albeit
a twisted one;
-- Ben Kenobi has to die so that Luke can achieve his destiny.
What we get, instead of straight-ahead justice, is self-sacrifice and
redemption. Pretty cool. (Someone else can comment on the dying god
archetype here; I've rambled on long enough on this point.)
>And as a matter of ethics, it is - at least when your actions affect people
>besides yourself. Emotion, IMHO, is a very poor justification for causing
>someone harm. But the Force could never have been portrayed in this way on
>screen, because of the laws of Hollywood - which state that emotion is GOOD,
>and that EMOTION SAVES THE DAY. It is emotion that causes the villain to repent
>or causes the girl to choose the right guy at the end of the day.
And we all go home with warm fuzzies in our tummies. :) Point taken.
>> This is even implied in
>> ESB, when Luke runs off to save his friends. He does it out of love for
>> them, but Yoda and Ben both counsel him to stay away. It's not only for
>> Luke's own safety -- as we learn, he really ISN'T ready -- or to protect
>> him from the truth, but also because he's not making a rational decision.
>
>Very true. The (unspoken) rational decision being that he cannot endanger the
>future of the Galaxy for his personal friendships. What would any of us do in
>this situation? An afwul dilemma, and one which unfortunately isn't explored
>enoughl in the film. (Because - once again - by Hollywood logic Luke CANNOT
>forsake his friends - just as Yoda could never state the matter as a question
>of sheer numbers without seeming too cold and calculating. Of course, neither
>can Luke let the Galaxy go to ruin, so it's up to the writers to find a way to
>let Luke have his cake and eat it too. We are *meant* to feel that Luke is
>doing the right thing, morally, even if this may not be very wise from a Jedi's
>point of view.)
Agreed. Let me just add that in hero-tales, the hero *usually* ends up
doing something completely contrary to what everyone advises him to do. So
we can't accuse Hollywood of going against tradition (although there's an
awful lot we *can* accuse them of, such as making effects-heavy, lousy
movies that try to be Star Wars without understanding what really makes
Star Wars special).
>> So you could even argue that those who have fallen to the Dark Side use
>> emotion as a manipulative tool toward a destructive end. Anger, fear, and
>> aggression could be characterized as bad because it's easier to lose
>> control over these emotions than over others. The Emperor clearly has a
>> fine understanding of how emotion works on people -- "His compassion for
>> you will be his undoing."
>
>First, let me explain that I've always looked upon the Dark Side as having more
>to do with what goes against the general "way of the universe / nature" than
>with what is "Evil" with a capital "E". (I just have this problem imagining any
>sane person doing something evil purely for the sake of being evil, and that is
>exactly what choosing for the Dark Side would otherwise imply.)
I agree...although the films themselves almost seem to indicate otherwise.
But, as I noted above, Star Wars shows everything with very definite,
sharp-edged contrasts. (And I suppose the Emperor doesn't necessarily have
to be sane...perhaps it was even the Dark Side that drove him mad, and now
he *can't* come back.)
Every book on storytelling I've ever read tells would-be writers *not* to
make the mistake of creating a villain who's bad just for the sake of
being bad. You've got to be able to empathize with him in order to make
the conflict convincing.
RotJ, whatever its weaknesses, allowed us to really empathize with Vader
(ESB did this as well, but also had Vader going around killing Imperial
officers and freezing people in carbonite).
>So... now let's see if we can make this fit together: having emotions is
>"natural", albeit "primitive"; a "light" Jedi is attuned to the natural way of
>things and uses his rational mind to come to decisions on how to use the Force
>(which, I'm assuming, does *not* have a mind of its own); people are tempted to
>the Dark Side because they let their emotions interfere with their decisions
>and come to believe that their goals (revenge, power, ...) warrant the use of
>the Force in a "perverse" manner. This way, the Dark Side seems stronger to
>those who use it, because it has no ethical boundaries. Of course, it isn't
>*really* stronger, because the Dark Side isn't so much a particular
>polarization of a physical energy field as it is an *aspect* of the Force, or
>the way in which the Force appears to someone who abuses it. The manipulation
>of things - words, emotions, living creatures - is inherent to the use of Dark
>Side.
Very well said. Thanks, Bas-Jan.
Rimrunner
*holds up sign that says APPLAUSE*
Rimrunner
In article <01bc2f55$f26badc0$85e4...@seneca.demon.nl>,
Bas-Jan Walewijk <bas...@seneca.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>Rimrunner <rim...@halcyon.com> wrote in article <5g4dj4$rlr$1...@halcyon.com>...
>>
>> 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.
>
>My own favorite pet philosophy (after hours): classical stoicism, more
>influential than a lot of people think. It does away with good and evil
>altogether and postulates universal "reason". Evil becomes, in effect, a form
>of stupidity, or misguidedness. I like the way this relates to the people in
>real life whom we consider to be "evil". More often than not, it's a matter of
>not knowing, not caring, or having very deep convictions that causes certain
>evils to happen.
Hmmm...I admit to never having taken a philosophy course (which is why I
always lose arguments with a friend who has a DEGREE in the subject), but
stoicism originated in ancient Greece, no?
Would make sense...the ancient Greeks were pre-Christian, and in fact you
can find this very point being debated between Christian and pagan
thinkers in the early days of Christianity in Europe.
>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.
I see that someone's already responded to this -- I largely agree, but
I'll probably follow up that post as well. Mostly because I've never met
any two people who subscribed, either wholly or in part, to neo-pagan
beliefs and agreed with each other 100% about what that means.
>Well, yes. It's just a matter of names and definitions. If your god is defined
>as absolute good, then your devil must be the exact opposite of him, in every
>thinkable way. But such a being would never attract worshippers - unless they
>believed something about it to be "good", thereby making that being a "god" as
>well - at least to its followers.
True -- and the reason that there are a multitude of faiths in the world,
instead of just one, is because even when you can get people to agree that
absolutes exist, they won't necessarily agree on what those are.
You could also take the point of view that if there is a supreme being
that created everything, that supreme being could also have seen to it
that there *was* an adversary -- because otherwise people would have no
reason to value that being, and no reason to value all that being
represents.
>In SW terms: the Darksiders tend to stress the advantages of joining the Dark
>Side. They believe the benefits to outweigh the costs. Evidently, they have
>(had) their reasons for being seduced in the first place.
Good point -- and they may even think that they have the right of it, i.e.
that what they're doing is actually good.
Although the films don't really support this. By the time Luke and Vader
meet in RotJ, Vader expresses some regret for his own fall ("It is too
late for me, son"), and the Emperor clearly relishes being a bad guy.
But in SW good and evil are painted in black and white, often quite
literally so. The real world ain't that simple.
>I'd say that the word "heretic" basically *means* "Dark Christian". Of course,
>that leaves out analogies for non-believers or potential "satanists". But since
>in the SW universe the Force provedly exists, there are no true "non-believers"
>(only those that don't care, or are unimpressed) and being a "heretic" is
>practically the same as being a "satanist".
I've forgotten what the definition of "heretic" is -- I *thought* it meant
someone that turned away from their own faith, but I'm not positive.
*suppresses urge to wander way off-topic and turn this into a theological
discussion*
Whew! I think I'll spare everyone *that*.
Rimrunner
narrow escapades
Jeremy Kwiecien
MH-AB wrote:
>
> In article <3321AE...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
> Jeremy Kwiecien <jakw...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> >Hey all, just watched ESB:SE (midterms prevented me from seeing it
> >earlier) while these aren't anything to do with the SE, seeing ESB
> >on the big screen got me thinking:
> >
> >1. Yoda states that a Jedi is calm and at peace, no emotion etc., yet
> >Darth Vader, who is an Anti-Jedi is the classic cold calculating villain
> >givning him more in common with Yoda's training than Luke.
>
> Note Vader uses many Jedi techniques, but in the climactic scene with
> Luke in TESB, he seems to grow in power when he is angry. The more Luke
> resists his assault, the more Vader attacks. At first it is just a game,
> where Vader says things like: "All too easy." When Luke proves more than
> a morsel for our favourite Dark Lord, Vader attacks with more vigor and
> starts using telekenisis to fight Luke. Then when Luke finally gets a
> swing through, Vader just pummels the heck outta junior, slices pretty
> effortlessly through the scenery and finally lops Luke's hand off. He let
> the anger empower him. He let the frustration and hatred feed his attack.
> In short, he let the Dark Side of the Force flow through him. It is not
> a question of using either the Dark Side or the Light Side. For a Jedi,
> it is a question of using the Force and avoiding the Dark Side. For a
> Dark Jedi, it is a question of using whatever is more convenient at the
> time - either side or both sides. The Dark Side is insiduous and alluring.
> It promises great power, but at what cost...?
Nah. Darth WAS toying with Luke in ESB, until he realised that Luke
may very well kill him.
Darth was also toying with Luke in RotJ, trying to convert him, defend
himself and destroy the Emperor.
>
> >2. If Darth Vader is a thoroughly dark being, why is his meditation
> >chamber white?
>
> Because he has fashion sense, damnit. When you go to see Vader in the
> meditation room, there ain't no mistaking where he is. Bathed in that
> bright light, and surrounded by the white walls, it is clear just how
> dark HE is. It's simple showmanship, my friend.
>
> "Hi, I'm Darth Vader - you will either be impressed by me or dead. Take
> your pick."
Best explnation yet!
>
> Rancorr (no, not that rancor) Blackmane.
--
Rimrunner
In article <sunbird-1203...@news.exit109.com>,
Bonnie S Walling <sun...@exit109.com> wrote:
>In article <01bc2f55$f26badc0$85e4...@seneca.demon.nl>, "Bas-Jan
>Walewijk" <bas...@seneca.demon.nl> wrote:
>>
>> A small question (because I don't know *anything* about neo-pagan
>beliefs) - do
>> Good and Evil always have to be "in balance" or "parallel"? I'd always argued
>> that the Dark and Light sides of the Force are not necessarily equal in
>> strength.
[excellent follow-up snipped]
Well said, Bonnie. Thanks.
I would just add that the concept of the Force as presented in Star Wars
isn't a wholesale translation of neopagan belief, at least not as I've
interpreted it. I'm referring here to the "Luminous beings are we, not
this crude matter," which sounds more like a reference to the Buddhist
concept of illusion (oddly enough, the Lord of Illusion presented in
Buddhist text is named Mara...hmmm...:).
Neopaganism seems to subscribe more to the idea of immanence -- the "crude
matter" would be a manifestation of the Force. Although you could argue
that Yoda says that too.
Rimrunner
do i sound like a pretentious professional student yet?
Rimrunner
In article <5ga5dh$hdq$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
Michael Mierzwa <ez06...@dale.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>Rimrunner (rim...@halcyon.com) wrote:
>: Michael Mierzwa <ez06...@dale.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>:
>: >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.
>
*chuckle*
>I can think of many many times I would have been as lucky to have a
>customer service rep that only beat me with a stick after a few innocent
>questions.
Yeesh. I dunno, I'm paid to be polite, so...I'm polite.
Then I go to practice and hit things for 2-3 hours. :)
>Sweeping is out of fashion. Try "wax-on, wax-off".
I don't have a collection of antique cars, though. Think I could make them
clean my drums instead? (I found a polish that works beautifully on
lacquer...)
>: Ah, yes, they would call me the Sithlord of Seattle and I'd be featured on
>: an episode of "Millenium." :D
>
>If so here is a little free advice, Frank Black (anybody else think they
>named this character after the musician?) is chasing you down, hide for
>about 60 mins minus about 15 minutes of commerical time. Much sure to
>avoid that police guy who once was in a Star Trek DS9 ... he actually
>shoots the "badies", and then repeat the pattern of your crime an the 45
>minutes later ... you'll be fine.
>
>Oh, and try turning on the lights for the room in which you hide. I think
>Frank Black is attracted to the dark. ;)
Yeah, apparently the Seattle PD isn't too swift. Then again, they're too
busy chasing vagrants off of buses and out from under libraries
(seriously!) to track down serial killers, apparently...
Geez, they based that show here, Sherman Alexie wrote a novel about a
serial killer in Seattle...maybe I shouldn't have moved here after all.
Then again, the murder rate is *still* lower than in, say, D.C.
Rimrunner
and the mayor was never busted for smoking crack, either!
MH-AB
In article <5g0a1l$f...@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
jska...@Hawaii.Edu (Jason S Kaneshiro) wrote:
>jed...@aol.com wrote:
>: In article <5fsm8f$f...@news.Hawaii.Edu>, jska...@Hawaii.Edu (Jason S Kaneshiro) writes:
>: >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."
> Yoda is talking about Anakin Skywalker and not Darth Vader.
>Anakin Skywalker was a Jedi Knight but Darth Vader was not. This becomes
>difficult to understand when thinking about what Obi-Wan said in ANH. In
>it he refers to Anakin and Darth as two different people. He also calls
>Darth a Jedi. I'd like to see someone explain that one away. Especially
>in the light of what Yoda says in ESB.
IMHO, the wiley, old codger lied. Say what you like, but ignoring all
else and seeing only the story, Ben simply fibbed. Apparently not a
breach of Jedi conduct.
> A Jedi uses the force for knowledge and defense. Never for
>attack. I also see a Jedi Knight as being someone who is strong in the
>force and then goes on to train under a Jedi Master. After going through
>testing and training that person gains the TITLE of Jedi Knight. A person
>can go through all the training an still not be a Jedi. When Luke
>confronts Vader on Bespin, Luke is not a Jedi. When he confronts Vader
>again on the second Death Star he is still not a Jedi.
Agree with you on Luke's status, so far...
>Only after he
>defeats Vader did he become a Jedi. He states that quite clearly to the
>Emperor. There wasn't much of a change in Luke. He did not gain any
>powers or whatever for defeating Vader. He just earned the title of Jedi
>Knight.
> I must have left something out here. Anyone disagree with
>anything here?
>
> -Jason
Me.
The Force can be sensed and used in many levels of mastery. It is a power
that has many facets, although most fall into two catagories: The "Light"
Side of the Force, and the Dark Side of the Force.
As with all powers, it is more up to the person using it, than it is the
power itself, that ends in an act of benificence or malevolence. Jedi are
those who are taught, and have mastered, the "Jedi Way" of Force use. It
seems that only a Jedi Master can teach a Force-user to become a Jedi, but
that is debatable (if using the movies as the only criteria). The term
Jedi Knight is wholly ambiguous in the trilogy. Though it most readily
implies a greater level of mastery than a "normal" Jedi, that relation is
never confirmed by any dialogue I can remember.
To paraphrase Benn: "For a thousand generations, the Jedi Knights were
the guardians of peace and justice throughout the galaxy."
Does this mean that the Jedi Knights were a higher level of Force mastery,
or, as I suspect, that they were an order of Jedi dedicated to the
active preservation of peace and justice? Whatever the case, it seems
that Luke's goal of training was to become a Jedi, not a Jedi Knight.
And what it takes to become a Jedi Master is anybody's guess! Maybe a
great deal of wisdom and Force experience. Maybe some special
qualifications, or maybe a -5 handicap and Masters in Basketweaving?
Yoda was once a Jedi who became a Jedi Master.
Ben was certainly a Jedi who became a Jedi Knight, and tried to become a
Jedi Master.
Anakin was Ben's first pupil who was training to become a Jedi, and
very likely a Jedi Knight, when he was seduced by the Dark Side. Sometime
after this event, he became known as a Dark Jedi (admittedly not in the
movies, but apparently accepted as canon) and The Dark Lord of the Sith
(also not in the movies but Lucas has decreed this epithet canon).
Luke was trained, and became a Jedi.
The Emperor was icky.
When Luke ceased his attack on Vader and, in effect, told the Emperor to
sod off, he did not become a Jedi Knight by his own degree. What he did
was choose the path of the Jedi, the "Light Side" of the Force, and
forsake the path of the "Dark Jedi", the Dark Side of the Force. He became
a Jedi because he passed the final test, I believe. That test required
that Luke, upon the brink of become a Jedi, on the brink of slaying his
greatest enemy to date, on the brink of becoming something powerful, was
tempted heavily by the awesome power of the Dark Side in all its
fearsome glory. He was offered the chance to rule the galaxy at the side
of the most ruthless, and powerful man to walk the galaxy in that age.
And while near the climax of of all this, swept along in state borne of
rage, fury and anger, he turned from away from the Dark Side. And that is
Luke most brave triumph in the whole trilogy. That is his victory. And
the final exam in Jedi Life 101.
A Jedi becomes a Jedi with the help of a Jedi Master. In the end, it is
only the Jedi trainee himself who makes that final decision. In a way, it
is a self-imposed test. It is one the Master knows that the pupil must
face, but can only tell the pupil when he is ready, and with some final
words of wisdom, send him on his way. It's the old "horse to water"
routine. Perhaps Ben, at one time, sent his own pupil off on the final
test, and that pupil failed. I suppose that will be, at last, made clear
in the Prequels.
Bags! I'm long-winded tonight! Sorry all.
Rancorr (no, not that rancor) Blackmane,
Jedi Way Theorist (like the rest of us).
------------
http:\\www.netcom.ca\~tandem\rancorr.html
Patrick H.
On 14 Mar 1997, Atsushi Kanamori wrote:
> In article <3326D8...@engr.latech.edu>,
> Chris <clj...@engr.latech.edu> wrote:
> >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.
>
> Yes.
>
> Recall that in ROTJ, Yoda informs Luke that he's acquired all the skills
> that he'll need as a Jedi, but that he's not a Jedi (in Yoda's opinion)
> and that Yoda will not consider him a Jedi until Luke has "faced
> Vader again", a sudden and arbitrary graduation requirement that
> appears more to be a form of emotional extortion ("Carry out our
> political agenda or else we won't let you join the club") rather than
> a genuine need to test Luke's abilities (his final meeting with
> Vader and the Emperor did indeed test his abilities to resist
> the temptations of the Dark Side more than ever, but how could Yoda
> know this in advance?)
>
> Given this, I would hesitate to treat just anybody's (especially Yoda
> and Obi-Wan's) use of the word Jedi as an objective measure of one's
> skill, so much as as a status symbol bestowed (or not) from one person
> to another.
>
> Vader's skills in combat and Force-manipulation show him to be
> reasonably adept at the skills that the Jedi find useful. I'm
> certain that to him, that's far more importance than whether
> or not other people (especially those who try to use his own
> son to assassinate him) refer to him by that title.
Good points. After lurking for a while on this ng, I have seen this idea
many times that Yoda and Ben were using Luke to do their dirty work. I
never really thought about it like that, and now I can see that this is
partly true. This especially comes out when Ben appears in Jedi, and
insists that Luke kill Vader. He doesn't even consider the fact that it
is possible for Luke to turn Vader to the good side. He also doesn't really
empathize with Luke when he says, "But I can't kill my own father."
Instead he acts put out, "Well, then the emperor has already won."
As for the meaning of the title "Jedi," I also agree that it is a
relative concept. The only real way you can be called a Jedi is by your
teacher. But who's to say the teacher is sure of himself? Luke may have
already been ready, but because of Yoda and Ben's motives for him to kill
Vader, they wouldn't bestow him the "title" of Jedi until he carried out
their wish. Kind of unfair for Luke.
Furthermore, how does the teacher *really* know when the student
reaches Jedi status. It is not as simple as taking a 60 question
multiple choice test.
Yoda: "Good news Luke, you passed."
Luke: (thinking to himself) "Ha! What a goof. I guessed on half of them."
Michael Mierzwa
Rimrunner (rim...@halcyon.com) wrote:
: Michael Mierzwa <ez06...@dale.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
:
: >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.
And the difference would be????
I can think of many many times I would have been as lucky to have a
customer service rep that only beat me with a stick after a few innocent
questions.
Sweeping is out of fashion. Try "wax-on, wax-off".
: Ah, yes, they would call me the Sithlord of Seattle and I'd be featured on
: an episode of "Millenium." :D
If so here is a little free advice, Frank Black (anybody else think they
named this character after the musician?) is chasing you down, hide for
about 60 mins minus about 15 minutes of commerical time. Much sure to
avoid that police guy who once was in a Star Trek DS9 ... he actually
shoots the "badies", and then repeat the pattern of your crime an the 45
minutes later ... you'll be fine.
Oh, and try turning on the lights for the room in which you hide. I think
Frank Black is attracted to the dark. ;)
: >Are ya deep??? I won't answer that question.
:
: Probably a wise move.
I'm still standing.
Michael Mierzwa
Ghanima Atreides
On Sun, 9 Mar 1997 23:41:16 GMT, Jeremy Kwiecien
<jakw...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
<snip snip snippety snip>
:Sort of :), but I think this is a valid point: What did the white
:symbolise?
:
:Was it that Vader was good=white inside?
:Was it simply for shooting contrast?
:
:>
:> Just because someone is a darkside user of the Force, it doesn't
:> necessarily mean they're obsesed with the colour "black". The imperial
:> stormtroopers wore _white_ armour and even the emperor didn't seem to
:> be bothered by all the light, when he arrived at the Death Star docking
:> bay in ROTJ (which was pretty well lit up).
:
:The white-stormtroopers harkens back to THX-1138 which was much more
:ambiguos than Star Wars.
:
:>
:> It has nothing to do with colour.
<snip snip snippety snip>
I wouldn't rightly say that it has NOTHING to do with color. There are
a lot of symbolic things in SW that may or may not be readily
apparent. Notice, for instance, the power of the masks. Virtually all
the "bad" guys wear masks or have their faces covered in some way.
Vader, Boba Fett, Stormtroopers, Imperial Guards, the Emperor, even
the Jawas, all had obscured faces. On the other hand the "good" guys'
faces are mostly entirely visible throughout the trilogy, especially
in scenes with high emotional content. I don't know for sure if this
was a conscious thought in Lucas's mine when writing the story or
costuming the characters, but it's a very big psychological thing.
We're meant to distrust the bad guys or feel detached or distant from
them, because we can't see their faces. Who knows what they really
look like in there afterall?
-Laura, suddenly riddled with the Virus Of Death *cough*
Atsushi Kanamori
Yes.
.
.
jed...@aol.com
I don't think this has ever been addressed! Okay, I know they were "guardians of justice in the galaxy" (ANH novelization) but HOW? Did they patrol the streets of Mos Eisley like cops? Were they judges? Teachers? In what capacity would a Jedi Knight best have served the galaxy? I eagerly await your responses!
Eplicon
> I don't think this has ever been addressed! Okay, I know they were
"guardians
> of justice in the galaxy" (ANH novelization) but HOW? Did they patrol
the
> streets of Mos Eisley like cops? Were they judges? Teachers? In what
> capacity would a Jedi Knight best have served the galaxy? I eagerly
await
> your responses!
I think in addition to having some civic duty in keeping the universe at
bay, they were like role models. People that you would want to become
(maybe it was a key reason Anakin eagerly took on Jedi apprenticeship),
etc. But since being a Jedi was a selective process, they were a
disciplined group, knowing when and where to use the Force wisely. I
would guess Jedi Knights also served in some capacity to the type of
ruling body (e.g., Old Republic) that existed. Maybe like a cross
between policemen and the Marines?
tma...@wsunix.wsu.edu
"Patrick H." <prha...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
<snip>
>As for the meaning of the title "Jedi," I also agree that it is a
>relative concept. The only real way you can be called a Jedi is by your
>teacher. But who's to say the teacher is sure of himself? Luke may have
>already been ready, but because of Yoda and Ben's motives for him to kill
>Vader, they wouldn't bestow him the "title" of Jedi until he carried out
>their wish. Kind of unfair for Luke.
I always thought that the title meant the return of the Jedi knights.
Patrick H.
I was refering not to the actual title of the movie, but the "title" of
Jedi. Like *Mr.* Lucas. *Jedi* Skywalker. But I think you're right
about the title...of the movie. :)
Jeremy Kwiecien
jed...@aol.com wrote:
>
> I don't think this has ever been addressed! Okay, I know they were "guardians of justice in the galaxy" (ANH novelization) but HOW? Did they patrol the streets of Mos Eisley like cops? Were they judges? Teachers? In what capacity would a Jedi Knight best have served the galaxy? I eagerly await your responses!
>
> Former RASSM Cool Person *|
> Forever RASSM'r *|*
> / \
> \ 0 /
> /\ /\
> / | | \
> /_ / \_ \
>
> Live until you die...
I always thought of Jedi Knights to be just like their medieval
namesakes: nobles who fought for their king (president).
But Jedi were a little more enlightened than any of King Arthur's circle
so they were indeed more like warrior monks in temperment, ie they were
fighters who taught, healed and advised the president.
Keyser Soze
On 14 Mar 1997, Atsushi Kanamori wrote:
>
> Recall that in ROTJ, Yoda informs Luke that he's acquired all the skills
> that he'll need as a Jedi, but that he's not a Jedi (in Yoda's opinion)
> and that Yoda will not consider him a Jedi until Luke has "faced
> Vader again", a sudden and arbitrary graduation requirement that
> appears more to be a form of emotional extortion ("Carry out our
> political agenda or else we won't let you join the club") rather than
> a genuine need to test Luke's abilities (his final meeting with
> Vader and the Emperor did indeed test his abilities to resist
> the temptations of the Dark Side more than ever, but how could Yoda
> know this in advance?)
no, I don't think this is it. Remember, Yoda knew he was dying. With him
being the last real teacher and Luke being the only jedi-type trained, if
Luke failed, the jedi WOULD be extinct. Remember, Leia didn't know she
was related to Luke. Luke knew what he needed to know. He WAS a jedi
confronting Vader, but it wouldn't mean anything unless he conquered his
fear, and became one of sound mind.
Steve Osmanski
I suspect that they acted like "knights errant," they went to where
they thought trouble was, and deal with it as needed.
Note that trouble doesn't mean fighting. If the Force led a Jedi to a
place where they needed help growing crops, or fighting a plague, then
the Jedi did what s/he could to deal with that.
I've always believed that there were several different "orders of
knighthood" under the umbrella of "Jedi." Some were warriors, some
teachers, some healers, some perhaps even administrators. Each Jedi
did whatever they could to help as they understood the Force and it's
abilities to help.
M.A. Kribble
On Thu, 13 Mar 1997, Bas-Jan Walewijk wrote:
> Rimrunner wrote:
> > Bas-Jan Walewijk wrote:
<snippety-snip>
Suffice to say, they both wrote some mighty intelligent,
well-thought out and enlightening stuff about the Force.
I motion that Bas-Jan and Rimrunner be dubbed "Official RASSM Jedi
Masters."
Anyone agree? Can we get a consensus? (Do I even have enough authority
to do this?)
Great posts you two! Keep it up! I don't think either of you would have
messed up Anakin's training...
BTW, neither of you would happen to be 24" tall and green, would you?
Just wondering...
-----
Meg
(-o-)
Non-cool ORS&GC
JamesG
Dammit, I'm contributing to at least one serious SW thread this week so
here goes ;)
Jeremy Kwiecien wrote:
> Jeffrey F Beene wrote:
> He jsut has high standards. No point in keeping incompetent officers.
> It's much more logical than giving them numerous oppurtunities to
> screw up :)
And you can read all about it in Darth Vader's guide to Management,
available from all good book stores :)
<snip re: meditation chamber white?>
> Not so much that, as it's the ONLY white thing about Vader.
> (I know I've opened a can of worms/symbollism, but that's what I
> wanted to do, get some good Star Wars discussions going)
The way I see it, the chamber is Vader's link to the light, where he
goes to meditate and heal, it's white to encourage these things.
As Anakin Vader went through Jedi training and even when he turned to
the dark side that remained a part of him. There is little difference at
times between Obi-wan and Yoda's manipulations, and Vader's except that
they do it for good, not evil. In the eyes of the Force motives seem to
matter more than actions.
JamesG,
not where you stand but which way you face
--
Official rassm Organiser.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2843
(-o-) <*>
Bas-Jan Walewijk
M.A. Kribble <kri...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.970312...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> On Thu, 13 Mar 1997, Bas-Jan Walewijk wrote:
> > Rimrunner wrote:
> > > Bas-Jan Walewijk wrote:
>
> <snippety-snip>
>
> Suffice to say, they both wrote some mighty intelligent,
> well-thought out and enlightening stuff about the Force.
Why, thank you, Meg! And here's me thinking I'm just being obscure. :-)
> I motion that Bas-Jan and Rimrunner be dubbed "Official RASSM Jedi
> Masters."
>
> Anyone agree? Can we get a consensus? (Do I even have enough authority
> to do this?)
Yes, motion you can! Learn you nothing of what we say? "Always a motion is
the Force."
> Great posts you two! Keep it up! I don't think either of you would
have
> messed up Anakin's training...
>
> BTW, neither of you would happen to be 24" tall and green, would you?
> Just wondering...
If I remember correctly, Rim once mentioned she was rather short. She
didn't mention exactly *how* short, though. Hmm... ;-)
Bas-Jan
--
"Context is strawberries."
--
"Yesterday, some poor fellow was arrested in the rue Le Peletier -
on leaving the exhibition, he had begun biting the passers-by."
- review of the second Impressionist exhibition
--
Another genuine Official RASSM Cool Person and Official RASSM Jedi Master
candidate. Beware imitations.
jed...@aol.com
>
>The way I see it, the chamber is Vader's link to the light, where he
>goes to meditate and heal, it's white to encourage these things.
>
>
Vader was using the Dark Side to heal, but as soon as he started to feel good about how he was healing, the Dark Side would subside, and the healing would end.
Bas-Jan Walewijk
M.A. Kribble <kri...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.970312...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> On Thu, 13 Mar 1997, Bas-Jan Walewijk wrote:
> > Rimrunner wrote:
> > > Bas-Jan Walewijk wrote:
>
> <snippety-snip>
>
> Suffice to say, they both wrote some mighty intelligent,
> well-thought out and enlightening stuff about the Force.
>
> I motion that Bas-Jan and Rimrunner be dubbed "Official RASSM Jedi
> Masters."
And before I forget: perhaps you could nominate Michael Mierzwa as well?
He posts very insightful stuff on a regular basis.
Bas-Jan
--
"Context is strawberries."
--
"Yesterday, some poor fellow was arrested in the rue Le Peletier -
on leaving the exhibition, he had begun biting the passers-by."
- review of the second Impressionist exhibition
--
Another genuine Official RASSM Cool Person. Beware imitations.
Brian Henderson
Chris <clj...@engr.latech.edu> wrote:
>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.
Besides, being a Jedi isn't something you are, it's something you are
a member of, more like an organization. In a more religious sense,
which the Jedi Knights probably were, it would be like belonging to
the Knights Templar. You can have the skills, training and abilities
of one of the Jedi Knights without belonging to that group.
-Brian
Brian Henderson
Card...@unix.asb.com (Rich Handley) wrote:
>BEN: "A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine before
>he turned to evil...."
We already know that isn't quite true, as he didn't become Darth until
he was no longer a pupil of Obi Wan's. This is, of course, before
Obi-Wan told Luke who Darth really was, so it's understandable.
-Brian
Rimrunner
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970312...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu>,
M.A. Kribble <kri...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Mar 1997, Bas-Jan Walewijk wrote:
>> Rimrunner wrote:
>> > Bas-Jan Walewijk wrote:
>
><snippety-snip>
>
>Suffice to say, they both wrote some mighty intelligent,
>well-thought out and enlightening stuff about the Force.
Well, thank you Meg! *bows*
>I motion that Bas-Jan and Rimrunner be dubbed "Official RASSM Jedi
>Masters."
*insert imitation of some big-name actress getting an Academy nomination
HERE*
Seriously though, I'm touched.
>Great posts you two! Keep it up! I don't think either of you would have
>messed up Anakin's training...
Now if only I were that patient and clear-headed in real life...
>BTW, neither of you would happen to be 24" tall and green, would you?
>Just wondering...
Naah, I'm short, but I'm not THAT short.
I'm not green, either. Not even today.
Rimrunner
although this st. patrick's day = green thing is american anyway
M.A. Kribble
On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Bas-Jan Walewijk wrote:
> M.A. Kribble wrote:
> >
> > <snippety-snip>
> >
> > Suffice to say, they both wrote some mighty intelligent,
> > well-thought out and enlightening stuff about the Force.
> >
> > Masters."
>
> He posts very insightful stuff on a regular basis.
No problem! I think he responded to this thread elsewhere, it just
wasn't on this particular group--even if it wasn't this particular
thread, you're right. Michael Mierzwa is also nominated to be an
Official RASSM Jedi Master.
And since no one has cared to voice any opposition, I'm going to proclaim
them all officially official. :)
Bas-Jan, Michael, Rimrunner: wear the title proudly! May the Force grant
you the wisdom of Yoda and compassion of Luke--It is already with you! :)
(Now don't let me catch any of you playing with blue lightning!)
-----
Meg
(-o-)
Non-cool Official RASSM spelling & grammar checker
& certifier of Official RASSM Jedi Masters!
jed...@aol.com
In article <Pine.SUN.3.95q.970314105641.6997A-100000@verdi>, Keyser Soze <rwe...@nmsu.edu> writes:
>no, I don't think this is it. Remember, Yoda knew he was dying. With him
>being the last real teacher and Luke being the only jedi-type trained, if
>Luke failed, the jedi WOULD be extinct. Remember, Leia didn't know she
>was related to Luke. Luke knew what he needed to know. He WAS a jedi
>confronting Vader, but it wouldn't mean anything unless he conquered his
>fear, and became one of sound mind.
Becoming a Jedi is not the end of the journey, but rather,
the beginning. A Jedi needs to grow in the Force, to become
more in tune with it...and himself.
Luke had all the training necessary to continue to learn and grow in the
ways of the Force. Facing Vader wasn't even his -final- test. A Jedi
faces daily battles that test his mettle.
Rimrunner
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970317...@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu>,
M.A. Kribble <kri...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>Bas-Jan, Michael, Rimrunner: wear the title proudly! May the Force grant
>you the wisdom of Yoda and compassion of Luke--It is already with you! :)
*tearfully* Thank you, thank you! I'd especially like to thank the
Academy, my agent, my parole officer...umm, never mind. ;)
Rimrunner
.sig modified!
--
Murder of Crows official web site: http://www.nwlink.com/~noah/
Pick a newsgroup and save it: http://www.boutell.com/boutell/usenet.html
***Official RASSM Jedi Master***
xmelanix
i always thought that the title meant the return of the jedi knights too
xmelanix
e-mail: mma...@gmu.edu
"i've heard your promises for the future...
and i don't buy it anymore"-Shelter
"Unity as one stand together
Unity evolution's gonna come"-OpIvy
Bas-Jan Walewijk
M.A. Kribble <kri...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.970317...@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu>...
>
> Bas-Jan, Michael, Rimrunner: wear the title proudly! May the Force
grant
> you the wisdom of Yoda and compassion of Luke--It is already with you!
:)
Oh joy! Oh wondrous day!
In honor of this occasion, I have amended my signature.
> (Now don't let me catch any of you playing with blue lightning!)
(*frightening "you will be... you will be" lopsided grin*)
Now that I am Jedi Master, I shall hold stern lectures and write endless
tractates on a battle between Galaxy Class starships versus...
oh wait...
Bas-Jan
--
"Context is strawberries."
--
"Do you know how many dollars a hundred bucks is these days?"
--
A genuine Official RASSM Cool Person and Jedi Master.
Beware imitations.
Gerthein Boersma
The one, the only "M.A. Kribble" <kri...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Bas-Jan, Michael, Rimrunner: wear the title proudly! May the Force grant
>you the wisdom of Yoda and compassion of Luke--It is already with you! :)
>(Now don't let me catch any of you playing with blue lightning!)
Hey! That's not proper! You can't do that! No-one seconded the motion
yet!!! If we can all nominate everyone for these prestegious titles,
there'd be anarchy!!
(just trolling! Wear the title with pride, folks!)
- Cool Gerthein
-----------------------
gert...@worldaccess.nl
-----------------------
Official RASSM Cool Person© since 1997
Ember/Talaranth/Sisihkat
MH-AB (tan...@netcom.ca) wrote:
: IMHO, the wiley, old codger lied. Say what you like, but ignoring all
: else and seeing only the story, Ben simply fibbed. Apparently not a
: breach of Jedi conduct.
Vader: "When I left you, I was but the learner." Vader probably skipped
out on his trainer the same way Luke sort of did. Only Vader didn't come
back. This would indicate that Vader never finished his training ,making
him not yet a Jedi. And Ben and fibbing..... well ... I'd say he's got a
knack with it. 8)
: Does this mean that the Jedi Knights were a higher level of Force mastery,
: or, as I suspect, that they were an order of Jedi dedicated to the
: active preservation of peace and justice? Whatever the case, it seems
: that Luke's goal of training was to become a Jedi, not a Jedi Knight.
Possibly Jedi is a somewhat general term. What it takes to become a Jedi
Master... probably a lot. But I'd say Jedi Knights fight, Jedi Masters
don't (Wars not make one great!)... Maybe to be a Jedi Master requires
training someone.
: after this event, he became known as a Dark Jedi (admittedly not in the
Ooh, like a Dark Paladin?
I always thought they were called Sith lords.
: The Emperor was icky.
What's that got to do with it? You lost me there?
--JavaJawa, selling duct tape! Six credits a roll! Learn the Force
through everyday appliances!
M.A. Kribble
On Wed, 19 Mar 1997, Bas-Jan Walewijk wrote:
> M.A. Kribble <kri...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >
> Oh joy! Oh wondrous day!
>
> In honor of this occasion, I have amended my signature.
Wow, I never did anything to make anyone change their sig before! How
exciting!!
> Now that I am Jedi Master, I shall hold stern lectures and write endless
> tractates on a battle between Galaxy Class starships versus...
Umm, er, that's not quite what I had in mind...
> oh wait...
Phew!
-------------------------------------------------
(-o-) Meg (-o-)
Official RASSM Spelling & Grammar Checker
Non-cool by definition!
-----------------------
"Luminous beings are we; not this crude matter"
-------------------------------------------------
MH-AB
In article <stephgE7...@netcom.com>,
ste...@netcom.com (Ember/Talaranth/Sisihkat) wrote:
>MH-AB (tan...@netcom.ca) wrote:
>
>: IMHO, the wiley, old codger lied. Say what you like, but ignoring all
>: else and seeing only the story, Ben simply fibbed. Apparently not a
>: breach of Jedi conduct.
>Vader: "When I left you, I was but the learner." Vader probably skipped
>out on his trainer the same way Luke sort of did. Only Vader didn't come
>back. This would indicate that Vader never finished his training ,making
>him not yet a Jedi. And Ben and fibbing..... well ... I'd say he's got a
>knack with it. 8)
You betchyer bottom credit!
>: Does this mean that the Jedi Knights were a higher level of Force mastery,
>: or, as I suspect, that they were an order of Jedi dedicated to the
>: active preservation of peace and justice? Whatever the case, it seems
>: that Luke's goal of training was to become a Jedi, not a Jedi Knight.
>Possibly Jedi is a somewhat general term. What it takes to become a Jedi
>Master... probably a lot. But I'd say Jedi Knights fight, Jedi Masters
>don't (Wars not make one great!)... Maybe to be a Jedi Master requires
>training someone.
>: after this event, he became known as a Dark Jedi (admittedly not in the
>Ooh, like a Dark Paladin?
>I always thought they were called Sith lords.
No. Sith is not in the movies, therefore fall into the domain of the
licensed material. A Sith lord is not the direct opposite of a Jedi
Knight. The way of the Sith is an 'alternate' study and practice of
the Force. The Jedi banned this study, labelling it evil and cruel, but
DV dug up some of the hidden archives and artifacts to learn its ways.
How he became known as "The Dark Lord" of the Sith, is unknown to me.
(see: Dark Horse Comics various Sith series and the Jedi Academy
Trilogy) As an aside, I wonder where the term "Dark Lord of the Sith"
originated from? Anyone know?
>: The Emperor was icky.
>What's that got to do with it? You lost me there?
Nothing. It was supposed to be meaningless and amusing. Well,
I got it half right, it seems.
Actually, I reserve all discussion on his Imperial Ickiness' background
since it was scarcely touched on in the Trilogy, and will undoubtedly
be exposed in great detail during the prequels.
>--JavaJawa, selling duct tape! Six credits a roll! Learn the Force
>through everyday appliances!
Jedi meets MacGyver? :P
Rancorr Blackmane.
Ember/Talaranth/Sisihkat
MH-AB (tan...@netcom.ca) wrote:
: You betchyer bottom credit!
Hmm , now... can I find some sucker to bet against me..... *looks around* :)
: No. Sith is not in the movies, therefore fall into the domain of the
: licensed material. A Sith lord is not the direct opposite of a Jedi
I see. Head "Knights of the Sith" mentioned (er saw) in the old
Starkiller manuscript...
: Knight. The way of the Sith is an 'alternate' study and practice of
: the Force. The Jedi banned this study, labelling it evil and cruel, but
: DV dug up some of the hidden archives and artifacts to learn its ways.
Does it iclude strangling people from across the room?
: How he became known as "The Dark Lord" of the Sith, is unknown to me.
: (see: Dark Horse Comics various Sith series and the Jedi Academy
: Trilogy) As an aside, I wonder where the term "Dark Lord of the Sith"
: originated from? Anyone know?
Well, everyone calls him Lord Vader... and he's dark... ;)
: Nothing. It was supposed to be meaningless and amusing. Well,
: I got it half right, it seems.
Heheh... I thought that at first, but then you started _talking_ about
him >:P
: Jedi meets MacGyver? :P
AUGH! :)
: Rancorr Blackmane.
--JavaJawa, WHO IS SEEING ROTJ:SE TOMORROW! (So don't ruin it for me:))
Halina
Ember/Talaranth/Sisihkat wrote:
>
> MH-AB (tan...@netcom.ca) wrote:
>
>> snip <<
> The way of the Sith is an 'alternate' study and practice of
> : the Force. The Jedi banned this study, labelling it evil and cruel, but
> : DV dug up some of the hidden archives and artifacts to learn its ways.
> Does it iclude strangling people from across the room?
Actually, I think that strangling people is a Jedi trick. Luke was
using it in the Jabba's palace. For me this was one of the creepiest
scenes in the ROTJ. Until that moment we only saw strangling trick done
by Vader, so we (or at least most of us) assumed that it was a purely
dark side trick. Now Luke walks in all shouded in black and starts
strangling the guards...aaah, the symbolism.
--
Halina signing out...
>o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o<
|-o-| <-o-> |-o-| |-o-| <-o-> |-o-| |-o-| <-o-> |-o-|
>o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o<
"It's against my programming to impersonate a deity. You'll need
Gonk for that." - C3PO in "Return of the Jedi - Special Edition"
"What's the matter Colonel Sanders? Chicken!!??" - Lord Dark Helmet
Eplicon
> Actually, I think that strangling people is a Jedi trick. Luke was
> using it in the Jabba's palace. For me this was one of the creepiest
> scenes in the ROTJ. Until that moment we only saw strangling trick done
> by Vader, so we (or at least most of us) assumed that it was a purely
> dark side trick. Now Luke walks in all shouded in black and starts
> strangling the guards...aaah, the symbolism.
I never took Luke's actions to be strangling. To me, it always looked
like he was using some hypnotic Jedi trick that caused the guards to
snooze off. Otherwise, they would have simply keeled over in a dead heap
of pork. When I saw this, I figured this was the same trick Obi-Wan had
applied on the technical crew from STAR WARS (the two men who came aboard
the Falcon with the scanning equipment). Ergo, there were no sounds like
the laser blasts that were later used against the two stormtroopers.
/-Jack
Rimrunner
In article <19970321161...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Eplicon <epl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>When I saw this, I figured this was the same trick Obi-Wan had
>applied on the technical crew from STAR WARS (the two men who came aboard
>the Falcon with the scanning equipment). Ergo, there were no sounds like
>the laser blasts that were later used against the two stormtroopers.
Actually, I always figured that Chewie had just picked 'em up and smacked
'em into the nearest bulkhead.
You *do* hear a CLUNK of something falling there.
Rimrunner
though if it *was* chewie, he was awfully quiet about it
Bas-Jan Walewijk
Rimrunner <rim...@halcyon.com> wrote in article <5gv254$evl$1...@halcyon.com>...
> In article <19970321161...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> Eplicon <epl...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >When I saw this, I figured this was the same trick Obi-Wan had
> >applied on the technical crew from STAR WARS (the two men who came aboard
> >the Falcon with the scanning equipment). Ergo, there were no sounds like
> >the laser blasts that were later used against the two stormtroopers.
>
> Actually, I always figured that Chewie had just picked 'em up and smacked
> 'em into the nearest bulkhead.
Me too. The laser blasts were used by the troopers (of course, they missed). If
it had been the other way round, don't you think the heroes would look just a
bit suspicious with those blast marks on their armor? :-)
MH-AB
>
>: You betchyer bottom credit!
>Hmm , now... can I find some sucker to bet against me..... *looks around* :)
Try Mos Eisley. A sucker flies into that hole every minute.
>: No. Sith is not in the movies, therefore fall into the domain of the
>: licensed material. A Sith lord is not the direct opposite of a Jedi
>I see. Head "Knights of the Sith" mentioned (er saw) in the old
>Starkiller manuscript...
Never saw it, me-self. Alls I'm working on is the recent material,
and though they may act in a diametrically opposed manner, I'd still
not label one the opposite of the other. There seem to be many other
Force using religions/techniques, at least in the non-canon stuff.
I always preferred the idea that the Sith religion was a cabalistic
approach to the Force that involved some nasty, positively Mayan
concepts. Gonna have to find me a "starkiller" script to read. Hmph.
>: Knight. The way of the Sith is an 'alternate' study and practice of
>: the Force. The Jedi banned this study, labelling it evil and cruel, but
>: DV dug up some of the hidden archives and artifacts to learn its ways.
>Does it iclude strangling people from across the room?
I dunno. Luke did it in RoTJ. Seems kinda ignoble to me. Then again,
Obi-Wan was a liar, a fugitive and manipulated with people's minds.
At least, "from a certain point of view".
>: How he became known as "The Dark Lord" of the Sith, is unknown to me.
>: (see: Dark Horse Comics various Sith series and the Jedi Academy
>: Trilogy) As an aside, I wonder where the term "Dark Lord of the Sith"
>: originated from? Anyone know?
>Well, everyone calls him Lord Vader... and he's dark... ;)
Then why isn't he called Dark Lord with Blinky Lights? :)
>: Nothing. It was supposed to be meaningless and amusing. Well,
>: I got it half right, it seems.
>Heheh... I thought that at first, but then you started _talking_ about
>him >:P
But he IS icky! Or, as my gf puts it: Mean, nasty, old man.
>: Jedi meets MacGyver? :P
>AUGH! :)
Sorry. I recant.
>--JavaJawa, WHO IS SEEING ROTJ:SE TOMORROW! (So don't ruin it for me:))
Enjoy! And remember to have fun.
Rancorr Blackmane.
JamesG
Gerthein Boersma wrote:
> Hey! That's not proper! You can't do that! No-one seconded the motion
> yet!!! If we can all nominate everyone for these prestegious titles,
> there'd be anarchy!!
Anarchy? As opposed to what we have now I supose...
> (just trolling! Wear the title with pride, folks!)
That's ok then, 'sides I like anarchies.
JamesG,
got to dangerous trading in anarchies
--
Sig undergoing refit
BDarkForce
I think what is more likely in this situation is that Yoda and Ben
deffinately were reffering to Darth Vader when they said he "was" a Jedi.
He, was, but is no more. When he left light side of the Force he ceased
to be Anakin, a Jedi, and became Darth Vader, a Sith. How he became a
"Dark Lord" of the Sith order we may never know, but he was a sith and a
Dark Lord no less. When Grand Moff Tarkin was reffering the the
"religion" of Vader's he was reffering to the Force as a whole. Even Han
Solo at first was shallow minded thinking that there was only one side to
the Force "I've traveled from one side of the galaxy to another, I've seen
alot of strange things, but I never seen anything to make me believe that
there's one all powerful force controlling the universe..." And with that
final statement, I'll rest my case. Thank you, court adjourned.