metadigital

Existentialism was an example, not related to the "infinite universes", or "multiverse" philosophy. And I didn't say SW was a multiverse -- I said you can't rule it out because it has never even been discussed (and probably never will :D ). I know you subscribe to the traditional Force definition, as first espoused in the OT: a simple, one-dimensional force (small "f"). You don't have to keep re-iterating that. I got it. The first time. But, if we are to believe what Kreia / Atris in KotOR2, for arguments sake, then we must try to elucidate the NEW description of The Force and the universe/multiverse it requires to exist. As long as this new description doesn't contradict established SW laws, then it is acceptable. And as no specifics were discussed in the OT, we can safely create any construct without fear of contradiction! :D

Other: Me. I can knock together a couple of JPegs sandwiched between a few (hundred) pages of dialogue that you read through pressing "Next". And I'll do it for the lowest bid, AND I'll do it in less than twelve months.

AFAIK Scientology is popular amongst the celebrities due to the socialogical rigor imposed on the laity: no franternising! -- nothing to do with the theological components. It doesn't surprise me that Midichlorians (such a lame idea) are similar to Thetans. Isn't the whole doctrine of Scientology based on the theory that the population of the Earth are decendants of a penal colony from the outlawed members of some distant civilization, or some such nonsense?

I'll start with whats on topic. To your knowledge, is KOTOR 2 considered canonical (sp?) by Lucas? I honestly don't know. It seems that The Force changed drastically with the new trilogy. I don't think the OT made any mention of "the will of The Force, did it? I guess I'm a little confused as to what Lucas actually thinks the force is. Are you familiar with Scientology and their beliefs? If so, do you see a similarity between their understanding of Thetans and your opinion of how a "will of The Force" would operate? Just curious. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is KotOR2 canonical? I would have to assume it has to be. I believe the autheticity becomes less certain as you include material authored further from the source (a bit like the Bible ... sorry, couldn't resist). Yep, AFAIK in the OT The Force was just a cosmic force (small "f"). A lot changed in the new trilogy -- Ninja and occidental (single-handed/dual-wielding) combat styles -- and the identification of the genetic component of Force Sensitives(midichlorines -- a very bad idea IMO, what's to stop a Kamino from genetically engineering a "super-chosen-one"?). And yes, I would tend to agree it does appear that Lucas has -- erm -- "improved" his definition of The Force. I am only modestly familiar with the Scientology "religion". I have read a few L. Ron Hubbard novels (and a devotee once tried to psycho-analyse and conscript me into the cult). I can tell you that Hubbard hated Psychologists and co-opted a lot of their techniques to profile people and give them what they wanted as a religious experience. I also know that the "Holy Scriptures" are copyright and not for general discussion in the public domain, because of the court case made famous on the internet a few years ago between the Church and a disgruntled member. (What have they got to hide?) So, no, I don't know about Thetans. Do you?

Man you are incredibly childish. 1. I use internet hyperlinks to illustrate points because it is a little difficult to hyperlink the King James Bible. I, too, have read the Bible and completed many years of theological and philosophical studies (including at university level). I didn't think I'd have to display my credentials to have a philosophical debate about the ontological underpinnings of Star Wars, and nor would I expect others to do so, but I have to wonder what study you have completed, based on your suppositions and apparent grasp of logic, English and debating skills. 2. Attempting to gang up on me, saying "Yeah, What he said," doesn't intimidate me. Get a brain and join the debate, or stop embarrassing yourself and keep quiet. 3. To aid your reading comprehension, let me remind you that FaramirK just agreed with me that one of the earliest Gospel records was nearly a century after the stated events. And, of course this is all tangential to my original point, which was that very few of the audience could actually read first hand what the scriptures said, because it was in a foreign language and based on a idealised re-creation of the actual events. Not that many medieval europeans were conversant in ancient Greek, even if they had access to the Dead Sea Scrolls that were discovered in the early 20th Century. And as for the Gospels being written in Latin, the Roman Catholic Bible was latin until 1968. Oh, btw, you're forgeting the Qumran Library, which was written in Ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic between 300-68BCE, which is a little more relevant to our Old Testament discussion. 4. Now, the two creation myths in Genesis. The first is given in Genesis 1: 1-2:4 while the second is given in Genesis 2: 4-24. These two stories are actually different (mutually exclusive accounts). According to the first creation story the whole universe was made in six days, while on the seventh day, God rested. The table below gives the order of creation as described in those verses: Day Relevant Verses Things CreatedOne Genesis 1:1-5 Light Two Genesis 1:6-8

I am accommodating your petty and pedicular attitude. If you bothered to follow the link, you would see that "Judeo-Christian" has been used by theologians to describe the Abrahamic faiths, in addition to the term "Abrahamic Faiths", but -- ironically -- various hard-line right wing conservative Christians have tried to sabotage all talk of commonalities between the faiths as pandering to Islamic fundamentalism. (Which, I believe is exactly opposite what you said.) The seven day cycle includes the rest day. Shorthand. So I didn't have to go into this level of detail. Call it a Six Day Creation and One Rest Day if you want. Or are you arguing that there were Six Days of Cretion and then an indeterminate period of days? No, I thought not. So it's a seven day cycle: the week. An analogy for the people to follow in the daily lives. I don't generally talk about the Six Day week, but maybe you do. /sarcasm Then again, you were arguing that Exodus was actually based on a historical event. (I'll put to the side that you were nit picking a subject that wasn't central to the thread because you had nothing to say about it.) Well, the approximate time the story was written, if you cross reference with Egyption political history, is about 1500BCE. As I stated briefly, a migration of tens of thousands of people across the desert would have left evidence that would still be visible today. (There is evidence from before this time in the same geographical area, from smaller groups people. Things like the remains of campfires.) There is no evidence to support the actual, physical migration. And as I have explained, the metaphor of Exodus was to give the people a contrast of why monotheism was better than the polytheism practised up until that point. Can you follow the analogy, or would you like me to explain it again for you? I was actually thinking English wasn't your first language, and that I should have cut you a bit more slack. I see, in fact, that you are just immature -- "I know you are, but what am I?" -- great comeback. What, exactly, are my misconceptions? I was referring to your seemingly endless re-iteration of the same question, even though I had explained it many times over. Remeber the whole Kreia thinking The Force had a Will. Remeber I eventually had to paste the quote that had been pasted three times, with a special highlight so that you could see what the thread was about. That misconception. Yes, the mid-eighties. When I was in University. Don't be foolish. I said I stopped arguing, not that I stopped thinking. I didn't go cold-turkey, I merely gave up trying to argue hypothesis-based-on-fact science with people who argued belief-based religion. I have been reading and talking and living since then, and part of my general discourse is philosphical. And, no, I won't ridicule you with cheap mockery -- what I write may be cruel, but its true. If this thread is an example of your reading comprehension, then I would imagine you have many more years of study before you pass for literate in English.

No, in fact if you read the Bible, you will see that there are in fact two (conflicting) versions of the creation myth. These stories are oral traditions meant to convey the collective wisdom of the Jewish people, covering such things as why women are subordinate to men, and why all creation is for man's discretionary use. To try to combine this with currently accepted Hubble theory of the Big Bang is ... brave .. but ultimately pointless. Just accept them as doing two different jobs: you don't use a map to to remember a friends birthday. Conservatives take it literally because of trust. If they read and accept what has been accepted since, say the King James Bible (17th Century), then they don't have to worry about someone they don't know interpreting it for them. Many other people are happy to have another person's interpretation, some to their detriment (you are probably too young to remember the Jonestown tragedy.) Of course this logic is more than a little flawed, if only because the Gospels were written between 100-300 CE, and then edited in the Nicene Council (around 4th Century CE). They were written in Latin, and it wsn't until the episcopal churches that the Bible was translated into the common English tongue, so that everyone could hear the transcript for themselves. And finally, yes it is ironic that Science and Religion are apposed, currently; they did indeed stem from the same root: the quest to understand our world. Science deals with the How?, and religion deals with the Why?, and whenever Science cannot answer a How? question, religious leaders pipe up and say "Ah! You cannot explain the mind of God." <_<

... Keep playing.

Well, it is entirely possible that he might not be comfortable as a male, and in fact have always felt he was a woman trapped in a man's body. (It is not very probable considering his actions, however.) For those of your statistically minded, approximately 1 in 1000 people are born feeling similarly. Of course, she would have to change her name to Darth Moeder, but that sounds like Murder, which would fly ... Vader/Moeder: Obi-wan never told you what happened to your father. Luke: He told me enough! He told me you killed him! Vader/Moeder: No, Luke ... I was your father! Luke: That's not true! That's impossible! Vader/Moeder: I had the surgery a few years ago, thanks to my Sugar Daddy, Palpatine. Luke: NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Again, just because that is your philosophical standpoint doesn't mean all others are invalid. (Just because something is suppositious doesn't mean its supposititious! " ) As I have pointed out earlier, for example, there are philosophies such that: 1. There are an infinite number of universes where each and every alternative to each and every single decision in the great grand-daddy universal timeline are played out. Every decision tree has its own universe. And Yes, that's a lot of universes. Yes, we're stuck in this universe and we can't prove the existence of other universes (directly, yet). That's why there are infinite universes in this philosophical conception*. 2. An Existentialist, for example, believes she is the only real being in the universe. Everything else -- every person she meets, every sensation she feels, every argument she has -- everything else is an illusion. (It's always entertaining to see two Existentialists at a party trying to work out who is the figment of whose imagination. ) So, you see, even if I don't believe either of these philosophies, I must not discount them out of hand -- because it is impossible to do so without proof. And philosophy is the discussion of those things that have no proof. Okay? Right. *For example, suppose you invent a time machine. For the sake of demonstration, you go back in time and kill your grandfather before he has children. Then you would never exist and subsequently invent your time machine and go back and kill your grandfather ... But, if when you travel back in time you travel to an "adjacent" universe, which is identical in every way to the universe you have come from, except that you have appeared in the past, then you can safely kill your grandfather in this new universe and still exist in this universe to create the time machine and go back to kill him again. The time line is unbroken. Paradox averted. Q.E.D.

Not quite. Hence my musings the bold new story based on Kreia being the Prophet for the new Anti-Force-Sensitives: those who support Free Will, and are sworn enemies of The Force (The Great Tyrant) and consequently all Force Sensitives (Jedi and Sith). :D

Islam is not, and does not claim to be Judeo-Christian. It claims it is the only accurate account of "what really happened", and claims superiority over the two older, well established faiths. It is a curious claim indeed. While the NT builds upon the OT, the Qu'ran contradicts both. Neither Exodus or any other part of the bible suggests that The Exodus was a metaphor, rather recording it as a historical fact. Either the Exodus actually happened, or the Bible is a flawed document. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Muslims are included in the Abrahamic faiths, so I am happy to use this instead of the term Judeo-Christian. Re: Exodus. Oh dear, I wondered if I'd get a response to this -- I nearly didn't post it. Oh well, here we go: Your literal interpretation of scripture is your business, but I certainly don't need to regard the Old Testament / Torah as an historical document to extract the fascinating information it contains. (I suppose you'll argue that God created the world in seven days, too. Or that every Christian must believe that is so. This is commonly called a literal or conservative view; there are also progressive Christians -- and Jews, for that matter. Don't embarrass us all by foisting your ignorance on us and calling it logical argument.) " Anyway, I don't really want to start a new debate on the claims of the Abrahamic religions in general, and Christianity in particular. Suffice it to say, based on your posts thus far, I don't think you know enough about it to debate me. So, if you must, take it offline: send me a PM if you want to discuss these theologies. (It's only fair to warn you that I gave up arguing with religious zealots on the internet almost two decades ago as they were too easy to defeat.) As for what Kreia says, have you not bothered to read this thread? If you look back less than eight posts and you will see a direct quote that we are discussing. Here, for your benefit, I'll repeat it: "It is said that the Force has a will, it has a destiny for us all. I wield it, but it uses us all, and that is abhorrent to me. Because I hate the Force. I hate that it seems to have a will, that it would control us to achieve some measure of balance, when countless lives are lost.But in you... I see the potential to see the Force die, to turn away from its will. And that is what pleases me.You are beautiful to me, exile. A dead spot in the Force, an emptiness in which its will might be denied. I use it as I would use a poison, and in the hopes of understanding it, I will learn the way to kill it.But perhaps these are the excuses of an old woman who has grown to rely on a thing she despises." There, see? The predicate of the first sentence? So, taking this as my cue, I have been musing on the theological shift engendered by this statement. I was under the impression that everyone here was, too. It is generally accepted netiquette to read through the thread before posting, which it seems that you haven't done. I welcome constructive philospohical discussion.

Perhaps you are more familiar with Maria Von Trapp from the Sound of Music?

Yep, you're forgeting something: I'm incorporating the new information given to us by Kreia in KotOR2, inasmuch as she believes that The Force has a Will of its own. As I have stated earlier, This makes The Force a totally different ontological entity than what we have been led to believe until now. It is a fundamental shift in how we understand this magical phenomena. So, either: The Force has no will, and is just a co-efficient of the alignment of the particular FS (and some other integral part of them -- seemingly the midichlorians, so that Darth Vader had a stronger co-efficient of The Force than, say Jabba The Hutt, even though they may have been of a similar alignment -- but just ignore this bit for the sake of simplicity). This is the traditionally accepted ("canonical") interpretation of The Force. Equivalent in theology to, say, Shintoism. (Remember, Lucas has said he based the Jedi on the Samurai, who were mainly Shinto and Confucian. If you add Ninja influences -- perhaps like the Sith in the prequels -- then we can include Buddhism, because this is what most Ninja subscribed to.) Or, if the Force has a Will of its own -- in that it actively shapes events in the universe according to its own desired design -- then this is equivalent to a godhead (similar to the Judeo-Christian god). What made Judaism, and consequently Christianity and Islam (whose followers are all "Sons of Abraham", and hence collectively known as Judeo-Christian) new and unique in the pantheon of ancient gods and goddesses is that they all believe in One God*, who is Everywhere and Everywhen. (Again, for simplicity, ignore the Christian Trinity, or confine your thoughts to God the Father.) Previously gods were restricted to geographical or meteorological phenomena (Poseidon is God of the Sea and Earthquakes; Zeus is God of the Sky, Isis Goddess of Beauty and Life (responsible for flooding of the Nile plains), etc). So, when I refer to a Judeo-Christian godhead, I am not necessarily saying LucasArts were saying The Force is Alla, Jesus Christ or Yahveh, merely that they are equating it with a single, omni-present (assumedly omnipowerful and omniscient) God. For simplicity I probably should just have used the term Monotheism. In fact, as I have mentioned elsewhere, it would be easier to argue that The Force was in fact Dark in nature, rather than Light. It would remove the constraint that causes the Epicurean Paradox, namely that God is Good. That is to say: if, for argument's sake, we said The Force was a malevolent God, it would explain why Evil exists in this world (and, conversely, why Good exists, being merely to create more opportunity to spread misery and evil farther and over longer periods). Which definitely would not be the same as saying The Force is God! :D *Incidentally, this is what the story of Exodus chronicles. The people of Israel escaping from the incarceration of Egypt and their gods, follow the pillar that is the One God. God is not bound to a single geographical point or bounded by any worldly consraints. This exodus is a metaphor, as there is no evidence for an actual mass migration of people through the desert (the remnants of which would still be visible today, as the area has been a desert for the intervening millennia).

I think you are confused. It is quite feasible to have a force (small "f") like gravity, that always seeks balance. Gravity seeks to attract bodies together according to their mass and the inverse of the square of their distance apart, and the further apart the longer the the acceleration acts upon the bodies, so the more violent the force that acts on the bodies. So, too, The Force (capital "F") could act similarly, violently pulling the extreme Dark and Light FSs back to the middle, and balance. It is also quite plausible (although it doesn't adhere to Occham's Razor " ) to have a godhead, a super-being orchestrating galactic events for purposes only known to the Alpha & Omega of creation. By giving The Force a Will, LucasArts in KotOR2 is basically re-defining a physical system we are familiar with from the movies as a theological one. The Force is not Newtonian (or even Shinto/Confuscian/Budhist), it's Judeo-Christian. But I'm not an expert on oriental religions (even though I have studied Confuscianism), so if anyone knows about Shintoism and Budhism such that it might shed some more light on this, I would be pleased to hear from them. Because the teachings of Budha might reveal a higher purpose to the universe, one that predicates illusory free will (because as I understand it, a Budhist believes that the world we live in is an illusion, just a "testing ground" for the real afterlife).

You will certainly have a surfeit of lightsabers soon enough. Until then you have to use blades and blasters.

It isn't particularly clear how old Atris is in the game. Perhaps she isn't as young as you seem to be assuming; she could quite easily be the equivalent of fifty years old (because age is a meaningless term if you are trying to use Earth references to a Galaxy a long, long way away far, far in the distant past). How old does Julie Andrews look, for crying out loud? What isn't clear is why her appearance isn't in keeping with the thematic Dark Side palour; no foetid, decaying skin for her: perhaps she has a very effective beauty routine. Boy, I bet L'Oreal would pay a lot for that ... :D

I'd wait for the team to finish the omitted content mod. "

The game has been deliberately designed to encourage you to play it through several times with the different NPCs. Part of the fun of role play is trying out a course of action to see where it leads -- sometimes to surprisingly interesting scenarios. Don't worry too much about the NPCs alignment (Dark or Light) and its agreement with your avatar: the only impact on the game will be whether you choose to act in such a way as to influence them. For example, a light side PC will have to play with a certain Dark Side warrior on a certain forest moon, regardless of the fact that they would more likely not. If it helps, think of the Dark Side as selfishness, rather than sadism, so that Dark Side NPCs are quite happy to collude with the Light Side when -- and for as long as -- it suits their own interests.

The "flame" line was a nod to The Great Phantom who mentioned that it's almost strange that no horde of fanatics has yet attempted to conquer this thread as so often happens. I thought what I posted would make for splendid target-practive indeed for such people, is all. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yep, quite pleased there aren't the usual digressions into playground banter about who did what to whom. I was just trying to disarm the ticking bomb, is all. Why, sure. What I was trying to get at is: I guess the Force is to blame for Shmi's pregnancy. As in, it was the will of the Force. That kind of direction. Ahh, okay, point taken and I concur that it certainly shows an active, willful Force. ["Certainly" not two distinct wills. The Force is one. *New flame target.*] You're right, of course. I think Luke didn't mean anything much beyond "do what would be in keeping with the Force" an-- ugh. Well. Aren't the Ten Commandments, like, the will of God? ^_^' Anyway, this is terrible to really discuss and more like "guessing." Guess: The Force, like God, would be most delighted if everything would be just fine. In balance and all that. Terribly generalized, but eh. I think that's a pretty safe guess, even. But maybe not. Moreover, the Force, like God and what-have-you, can also at times apart from guiding things if listened/allowed to, go so far as to actually directly influence or do something. "Certainly" a very capricious, confused, and even schizophrenic will. "It is said that the Force has a will, it has a destiny for us all. I wield it, but it uses us all, and that is abhorrent to me. Because I hate the Force. I hate that it seems to have a will, that it would control us to achieve some measure of balance, when countless lives are lost.But in you... I see the potential to see the Force die, to turn away from its will. And that is what pleases me.You are beautiful to me, exile. A dead spot in the Force, an emptiness in which its will might be denied. I use it as I would use a poison, and in the hopes of understanding it, I will learn the way to kill it.But perhaps these are the excuses of an old woman who has grown to rely on a thing she despises." ^Reading that, I think she does not say "I found out the Force has a will" or something like that. She says "It is said that the Force has a will" as if it is something commonly heard or accapted or often said and she with all her experiences believes it as well. What sets her apart from these others and what your question goes at I guess is that she equals Will of the Force = No Choice. =( That, I don't believe. Which doesn't have to mean anything, of course. After Nietzsche: There is no such thing as free will. There is also no such thing as unfree will. There is only strong will, and weak will. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, it seems to me that Kreia is rebelling against The Force because it compells the universe and all her inhabitants to assist in its strategy (which presumably is a journey of self-discovery and self-actualisation, if such a concept can be applied to a super-being, or indeed we may personify a god with such mundane psychological needs " ). Interesting quote from Nietzche. If I understand it aright, he is proposing a chaotic non-deterministic universe. One of his contemporaries, however, did not subscribe to this philosophy. Jung believed in synchronicity, which states that events are connected not just by cause-and-effect (as Neitzche seems to be saying), but by meaning -- i.e. "meaningful coincidences". Y'know, how when you haven't thought of a distant friend or family member for years and suddenly they call you ... Kreia might yet be revered as the first to see the yoke about the universe; the one who woke up to the true fate of the universe and struck the first blow of emancipation. It makes for a terrific, bold new plot: the Anti-Jedi who do battle against The Great Tyrant (a.k.a The Force). It would mean new powers, new combat and the total annihilation of all Force Sensitives ... (until the Force recovers in about 4000 years' time ...)

Yeah, it's strange that family ties are frowned upon, yet the bonds of friendship are okay (like for Luke in ESB between Han, Leia -- he didn't know she was family then -- when he risked his Light Side training and therefore the fate of the Galaxy for two people, a walking carpet and some scrap metal). Maybe Jedi should not be sociable: more monastic and less chatty. But then what are they defending? If the Jedi order is the semiotic equivalent to the Samurai, then it should be derived from Shintoism/Confuscianism, so: one of its central tenets would be the pre-eminence of the family in general and filial piety in particular. So they are abrogating their own filial piety to defend everyone elses? Sounds like a recipe for disaster, like Roman Catholic priests not being able to marry. Methinks Luke had the right idea, let the Jedi live a life that is an example to others.

I'm not going to give you a speech on this subject, but women usually find being thrown off-balance at least intriging. And getting their attention is half of the job. What I do know is that playing the nice guy will get you nowhere. Nowere near the bedroom, that is. Also, don't mistake being c0cky and funny with being a f*ckhead. Women LOVE self-confidence. What role does Jar Jar Binks exactly play in all of that? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bush.... ...and I'm from America! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, to be serious, Jar Jar was an amalgam: principally a character that the younger audience could identify with (like the foold for Shakespeare -- don't think Lucas isn't above comparing himself favourably with WS: check out the rhyming couplets to end the scenes in the prequels ). He represents the well-meanign-but-ultimately-gullible general public. Those people that half listen to politics, but aren't interested enough to think long and hard about it, and who make well-meaning choices that can end up disasterously ("The road to Hell is paved with good intentions", and all that). It's part of the cautionary tale, the moral of the story. My main peeve with Jar Jar is Lucas made him sound like a "negro" from the patronising early Hollywood films, or a charicature on the Black and White Minstrels. I keep waiting fro him to drop down on one knee and sing "Mammeee / How I love ya / how I love ya ...". Talk about insulting...

Very cogent hypothesis, but doesn't address the central dilemma: is The Force acting on the characters? I.e., to use your Luke example, is The Force guiding Luke? Experiences are necessarily subjective: given that, it is impossible to grant a vision without putting some bias on it; so -- again to use Luke in ESB -- is The Force preparing Luke for the confrontation with Vader, aquainting him with the risks (Leia and Han; the Rebellion) and leading him to the choice he ultimately -- predictably -- makes? In other words, maybe Luke is being told exactly what he needs to be, in order to correctly motivate him to choose to confront Vader (risking the Rebellion to save his friends) ... Embodying the Light, protecting the innocent few (which is counter-intuitive to the normal hedonistic economics of "The Good of the many outweighs the Good of the few, or the one" (apologies to Paramount and Star Trek) ). Luke is just an instrument of the Light -- and therefore The Force. I guess this is most disturbing because it is an inherrent paradox -- a semantic contradiction. The Light we regard as a derivative of Free Will, yet it is entirely possible that an individual's will is subsumed into the higher purpose. Which changes the whole scenario ... All of a sudden, the Light Side doesn't support free will and consensus of the participants, based on the merit of a particular future, but is just a variation on its ontological totalitarian twin -- the Dark side -- as it manipulates its followers in the same manner. Perhaps the final battle is not with lightsabers, but between combatants on an entirely different battlefield; maybe Kreia was a Christ-like prophet that the future inhabitants of the KotOR universe will look back on in an entirely different way ... ... The forces for True Free Will versus the tyranny of The Force ...