Deus ex Machina: the Will of The Force ...

[FaramirK]

... I have no idea what the turtles represent.  I imagine a follower of Derrida would be willing to do a deconstruction on them for you.  ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A dream dictionary lists the meaning of turtle as:

- Protection

- Patience

- Needing to build stable foundations before launching a project

- Needing to ground yourself

- Having the ability to adapt to circumstances

- Somebody who withdraws easily, and tends to be defensive or sensitive

 

All of which seem to be thematic of Sylvester Stallone's character in the Rocky movie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, turtles are ok, but what about the Walrus? Is that in there somewhere? Always thought it would be fun to have one...

[metadigital]

Well, turtles are ok, but what about the Walrus?  Is that in there somewhere?  Always thought it would be fun to have one...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I couldn't find a walrus, or a seal / sealion, so how about a shark:

- Feeling threatened

- Feeling vulnerable

- Adopting a victim stance

- Preying on others

- A devious character, one that uses others, a shark

 

Unless you had some other interpretation, like a Beatles song, perhaps?

[The Great Phantom]

Nah, that's just stupid. Most of it is metaphorical, or has been expanded out of proportion.

 

Oh, I know what'll work!

 

metadigital's a little idiot!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who are you calling little?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[FaramirK]

Unless you had some other interpretation, like a Beatles song, perhaps?

 

They can't even spell Beetle...how can I trust them with something as mighty as a walrus...

[FaramirK]

So, MD, do you really think the Force is evil, if it does have a will? Its sort of like the Matrix, I think. If freedom is most important to you, fight the machine, even though it is the only thing keeping man from self-annihalation. Perhaps the Force is similar?

[metadigital]

So, MD, do you really think the Force is evil, if it does have a will?  Its sort of like the Matrix, I think.  If freedom is most important to you, fight the machine, even though it is the only thing keeping man from self-annihalation.  Perhaps the Force is similar?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... or the Lawnmower Man ... or the new being created at the end of Deus Ex, when JC Denton joins with Helios ("If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." Voltaire).

 

It is a toughie. Assuming the greater good of ephemerals (peoples of the Universe) and the greater good of The Force (i.e. godhead) are not mutually exclusive (a fair assumption), then it propably depends on individual priorities. What I mean is, if one wants ultimate freedom to determine one's destiny, then any interference, no matter how good (parentalism) is bad and should be struggled against (not sure how that fight could ever be won, though ... :D )

 

It becomes a moral comparitive choice (better or best versus less good or bad), rather than a clear-cut good-versus-evil one.

 

I simply proposed that the Force could be a "selfish" entity, merely using the universe for its own ends because this would (using Occham's Razor) explain the Force and resolve pre-destination. Otherwise we have to explain why there is pre-destination and free choice. If free choice were merely an illusion to allow the Force to facilitate its own ends (ironically the Force then has free will and self-determination), then we can easily explain why we think we do.

 

What would I prefer? Hmmm. I would probably side with the Humanists (see especially Renaissance Humanism): I suppose my sentimental favourite theory would be Force a small "f" force, where the inhabitants determine their own destiny. This means that it must be possible for good and evil to be expunged from the universe. The corollory would be that, should that ever happen:

1. that would be very unlikely; and

2. it does not preclude the rebirth of either;

because, to seed, all Evil needs is envy, and all Good needs is hope.

 

No comfort there for monotheists, I'm afraid. Except that (in a purely humanistic equation) religion does provide a very useful behavioural template for the growth of goodness.

[metadigital]

When I look upon a flag waving in the wind .. I know that it is not the flag, but my mind that is swaying.. (and that's Zen not Matrix)

 

It's all a matter of perspective .. and I won't agree with you on this particular matter since I believe (and I stress that word) you can't trust, in the scientific sense, on senses.. But I do respect your beliefs, I just wanted you to acknowledge that they were just that .. beliefs..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While I was out running today I thought of a commonality between Eastern Mysticism and Classical Skepticism (and indeed scientific method):

The practitioner is always trying to strip away the distractions of the illusory world we think of as real life, trying to get back to who we are through meditation, back and back and back until we are one with the universe. (Or at lesat that's how I understand it.)

 

So to, when considering the events of life, a skeptic or a scientist must strip away the detail, deconstruc the minutiae and re-construct a trend or some sort of shorthand (equation) to summarise what is really going on. (Leaving aside for the moment that Eastern Mysticism is not interested in deconstruction and Western Philosophy is.)

 

In order to do this, I must go back and strip away the distractions of life and endeavour to find -- perhaps not a single union with the universe, as in the East -- but a vector (direction and force of the flow of events).

 

So in effect there is a lot of commonality with the two thought methodologies, just with Oriental thought one is subsumed in the result and with the Occident one is left watching the universe go by and checking its heading and speed.

 

Am I making this clear?

[Rosbjerg]

When I look upon a flag waving in the wind .. I know that it is not the flag, but my mind that is swaying.. (and that's Zen not Matrix)

 

It's all a matter of perspective .. and I won't agree with you on this particular matter since I believe (and I stress that word) you can't trust, in the scientific sense, on senses.. But I do respect your beliefs, I just wanted you to acknowledge that they were just that .. beliefs..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While I was out running today I thought of a commonality between Eastern Mysticism and Classical Skepticism (and indeed scientific method):

The practitioner is always trying to strip away the distractions of the illusory world we think of as real life, trying to get back to who we are through meditation, back and back and back until we are one with the universe. (Or at lesat that's how I understand it.)

 

So to, when considering the events of life, a skeptic or a scientist must strip away the detail, deconstruc the minutiae and re-construct a trend or some sort of shorthand (equation) to summarise what is really going on. (Leaving aside for the moment that Eastern Mysticism is not interested in deconstruction and Western Philosophy is.)

 

In order to do this, I must go back and strip away the distractions of life and endeavour to find -- perhaps not a single union with the universe, as in the East -- but a vector (direction and force of the flow of events).

 

So in effect there is a lot of commonality with the two thought methodologies, just with Oriental thought one is subsumed in the result and with the Occident one is left watching the universe go by and checking its heading and speed.

 

Am I making this clear?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying..

 

but although I may seem like I know Buddhism, that's really not the case .. So I can't say what the goal of their philosophy is .. I've just read a little about it and adapted it to my own world view ..

but my understanding of it is that you do not strive to be one with the universe, but one with yourself .. the problem is that you can never "see" yourself, and if you look inwards you will only see a mirror reflecting the immediate self .. so you have to transcend the you of now, to reach the inner self .. but mainly it seems to be about enlightment, to simply understand yourself and thus your surroundings .. but you are like a river which is forever changing even though in whole you seem to be the same .. so it's, suffice to say, a little difficult .. ^_^

[metadigital]

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying..

 

but although I may seem like I know Buddhism, that's really not the case .. So I can't say what the goal of their philosophy is .. I've just read a little about it and adapted it to my own world view ..

but my understanding of it is that you do not strive to be one with the universe, but one with yourself .. the problem is that you can never "see" yourself, and if you look inwards you will only see a mirror reflecting the immediate self .. so you have to transcend the you of now, to reach the inner self .. but mainly it seems to be about enlightment, to simply understand yourself and thus your surroundings .. but you are like a river which is forever changing even though in whole you seem to be the same .. so it's, suffice to say, a little difficult .. ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep, I was struggling for nouns ( ).

[Aside: Buddhists believe that the world is an illusion, don't they? (Or is that just Hinduism?)]

 

To clarify:

I noticed a similarity with the way I meditate and the way I examine a situation (skeptically/scientifically/deconstruction-and-re-assemble).

 

Just thought it was a link between East and West philosophical methodologies.

[Rosbjerg]

Yep, I ws struggling for nouns ( ).

[Aside: Buddhists believe that the world is an illusion, don't they? (Or is that just Hinduism?)]

 

To clarify:

I noticed a similarity with the way I meditate and the way I examine a situation (skeptically/scientifically/deconstruction-and-re-assemble).

 

Just thought it was a link between East and West philosophical methodologies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm sure if you wrote it in Danish I wouldn't have a problem .. :">

But I think it's always necessary to strip away the illusions of reality in order to get to yourself or what you are searching for .. or at least examen the illusion as they are often a representation of something deeper ..

 

the Wiki page Buddhism

I'm almost sure you've probably read this already .. but some of the links in the bottom may be useful..

 

and a good, exstensive, site which will explain the matter much better than I will ever be able to .. The Zen Site

[metadigital]

:angry:

*metadigital casts RESURECTION level 7*

 

I just wanted to add an observation that I made whilst watching Episode III. (Look away now if you want to avoid spoilers.)

 

In the film, a certain character has a prophetic vision.

 

Now there has been much discussion on the Force, the visions it may deliver, and whether the Force is granting the ability to change the future (by granting prescience of the events and allowing for appropriate action to prevent them) or just the Cassandra-type curse of clairvoyance without power.

 

Well, this vision, along with all the others over the entire sextilogy, including those of Luke in the original trilogy,

never result in the voyeur being able to change the future events.

 

This means that, either:

1. the are unwilling to effect the changes necessary
   
2. they are unable to effect the changes necessary
   

I would like to think that the former is ruled out due to lack of any hint of power for the voyeur; regardless of the vision, it always has materialised exactly as it was viewed. So that means that the Force is not permitting the future to be changed, merely glimpsed.

 

 

Which is more evidence of its malevolent nature: it's waving its open hand at the Force-Sensitive whilst touching its nose with the thumb, and blowing a raspberry.

 

Nasty Force.

 

Kreia is the One True Prophet, and the First Great Matryr in the fight for Free Will!

[Laozi]

I miss Rosbjerg

[thepixiesrock]

Whatever happened to him anyways?

[Laozi]

He went to work and live in a drug rehab thingy where he says they don't have an internet connection

[thepixiesrock]

Well thats good that he is doing some good for the community...

[indarkestday]

This is more significant than I believe anyone has mentioned yet.

 

If The Force has a Will of its own, then it is a God (equivalent to the Judea-Christian one).

 

Up until this point in time, Star Wars has implied that The Force is neither good nor bad, simply the sum of all life. If, indeed, The Force has a Will, then either:

 

it is a Good God and Good will triumph (Light Side), or

it is ultimately an Evil God and the universe ends in pain and suffering.

 

It also means that an individual's free will is subsumed in the Will of the Force (so that they are all pawns of The Force).

 

Interestingly, this is one of the central dilemmas of Christian thought, as first illucidated by Saint Augistine: Free Chioce means that there must be some people who will choose evil and will therefore not be saved; if some people are doomed, then either God is not all knowing (didn't see it coming) or not all powerful (couldn't prevent it).

 

So, does The Force have a Will? Or is it just an energy form that binds us all together (and can be manipulated by carbon-based life forms with iron-based fluid called blood that transports nutrients and oxygen fuel around their bodies, together with midichlorians that enable them a degree of control over this Force)?

 

Free Will or Fate? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I guess an easy way to understand the Force is to compare it to playing K2 itself. The characters in the game are those that feel the force but don't know it's will. They do whatever we as gamers choose to make them do, but at the same time it's they who made the choice (for example the dialog options). Since we can choose what alignment our characters are, we gamers could represent the influence of the dark/light side.

 

We make the choices in the game, but the game itself provides how the story will end. We don't know what the character's fates are no more than they do. Only the game/devs do. They could represent the Unifying Force. This part of the force has the character's fates already written. We still have our own will (as discussed by Handmaiden and Kreia) but no matter what choices we make, our fate was meant to be that way anyway.

 

The way I see it,

Kreia wants to break free of the Force's control, yet the Unifying force allowed her to realize she was being manipulated.

She was meant to figure that out. Since the force is in everything, it's comprised of the characters' wills, which make up the overall will of the Force.

 

And as to whether the force's will is good or evil, I think in the Star Wars universe, like ours, whatever made us prefers good to reign to ensure that the universe isn't destroyed.

 

I hope I didn't just confuse everybody to no end.

[metadigital]

Well, I guess an easy way to understand the Force is to compare it to playing K2 itself.  The characters in the game are those that feel the force but don't know it's will.  They do whatever we as gamers choose to make them do, but at the same time it's they who made the choice (for example the dialog options).  Since we can choose what alignment our characters are, we gamers could represent the influence of the dark/light side. [1]

 

We make the choices in the game, but the game itself provides how the story will end.  We don't know what the character's fates are no more than they do.  Only the game/devs do. [2] They could represent the Unifying Force.  This part of the force has the character's fates already written.  We still have our own will (as discussed by Handmaiden and Kreia) but no matter what choices we make, our fate was meant to be that way anyway.

 

The way I see it,

Kreia wants to break free of the Force's control, yet the Unifying force allowed her to realize she was being manipulated.

She was meant to figure that out.  Since the force is in everything, it's comprised of the characters' wills, which make up the overall will of the Force.[3]

 

And as to whether the force's will is good or evil, I think in the Star Wars universe, like ours, whatever made us prefers good to reign to ensure that the universe isn't destroyed.

 

I hope I didn't just confuse everybody to no end.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. So, in effect, the player of the game represents the Force?

2. But here you say the devs (who wrote the plot) are the Force. So we, the players, are just playing the microcosmic characters, living vicariously through them in their small worldview and experience. And we still have no control over our (virtual) fate, because the devs have written the plot

[jaguars4ever]

He went to work and live in a drug rehab thingy where he says they don't have an internet connection

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you sure he's not the one being treated for rehab?

[E_Motion]

I have a question; probably for Metadigital, but all input is welcomed. What is meant by "Does the Force have a will?"

 

More specifically, it seems to me that any physical force or physical thing is ultimately defined by a set of rules. For example "electromagnetism" is a force that acts on structures having electrical charge. Frozen water, or ice, follows a definite set of rules; at a given pressure and temperature, water does or does not exist as a solid, i.e., ice. Traditional science also includes other forces, such as entropy, a force defining a rule that systems change in the direction of disorder.

 

How then do we distinguish these forces and things from a force that has a will? At a first level of approximation, I suppose we might say that the physical laws of normal forces are static, that is, predetermined. On further analysis however, when we add modern complexities of physics, such as "relativity", to our analysis, we find that the rules can change under certain circumstances, i.e., the rules governing mass and length will change depending on velocity. Nevertheless, the rules governing how the rules change are predetermined.

 

So, what is meant by a force with a "will"? Does having a will mean that something has the capacity to act in an arbitrary (not predetermined) fashion? If "will" means something else, do any of the traditional physical forces have a will? What criteria shall we apply to test whether something does, or does not, have a will?

[Laozi]

He went to work and live in a drug rehab thingy where he says they don't have an internet connection

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you sure he's not the one being treated for rehab?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ya, I'm pretty sure, I talked to him couple of weeks ago

[WinterSun]

  What is meant by "Does the Force have a will?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is my personal opinion,so feel free to prove me wrong :D

 

In SW-ANH,Obi-wan tells Luke that "all life is connected to the Force".Later,after the destruction of Alderaan,he says something along the lines of "I felt a distubance in the Force,as if millions of souls cried out in terror".So,it's clear that emotions are transmitted through the Force.

 

If enough people feel "good" emotions(love,happinessand so forth)the nature of the Force could swing towards the Lightside;and conversely for "dark" emotions.Either extreme is undesirable as people need both kinds to function properly.So,if the Force swings to one extreme,it works through Force sensitives to bring it back into balance,eg Anakin Skywalker destroyed the Jedi Order.Unfortunately he went too far and brought the Dark Side into dominance,and so the Force was required to work through Luke,bringing the Force into balance again,in what is probably a never ending cycle.

 

Interestingly,I was intending to say that the Force doesn't have a will,but now I'm thinking otherwise.It must be the Force working through me "

[E_Motion]

  What is meant by "Does the Force have a will?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is my personal opinion,so feel free to prove me wrong :D

 

In SW-ANH,Obi-wan tells Luke that "all life is connected to the Force".Later,after the destruction of Alderaan,he says something along the lines of "I felt a distubance in the Force,as if millions of souls cried out in terror".So,it's clear that emotions are transmitted through the Force.

 

If enough people feel "good" emotions(love,happinessand so forth)the nature of the Force could swing towards the Lightside;and conversely for "dark" emotions.Either extreme is undesirable as people need both kinds to function properly.So,if the Force swings to one extreme,it works through Force sensitives to bring it back into balance,eg Anakin Skywalker destroyed the Jedi Order.Unfortunately he went too far and brought the Dark Side into dominance,and so the Force was required to work through Luke,bringing the Force into balance again,in what is probably a never ending cycle.

 

Interestingly,I was intending to say that the Force doesn't have a will,but now I'm thinking otherwise.It must be the Force working through me "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heh. btw - if your analysis is right, it would seem that neutral would be the best place to stay.

[metadigital]

I have a question; probably for Metadigital, but all input is welcomed.  What is meant by "Does the Force have a will?"

 

More specifically, it seems to me that any physical force or physical thing is ultimately defined by a set of rules. For example "electromagnetism" is a force that acts on structures  having electrical charge. Frozen water, or ice, follows a definite set of rules; at a given pressure and temperature, water does or does not exist as a solid, i.e., ice. Traditional science also includes other forces, such as entropy, a force defining a rule that systems change in the direction of disorder.

 

How then do we distinguish these forces and things from a force that has a will? At a first level of approximation, I suppose we might say that the physical laws of normal forces are static, that is, predetermined. On further analysis however, when we add modern complexities of physics, such as "relativity", to our analysis, we find that the rules can change under certain circumstances, i.e., the rules governing mass and length will change depending on velocity. Nevertheless, the rules governing how the rules change are predetermined.

 

So, what is meant by a force with a "will"? Does having a will mean that something has the capacity to act in an arbitrary (not predetermined) fashion? If "will" means something else, do any of the traditional physical forces have a will? What criteria shall we apply to test whether something does, or does not, have a will?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes on all counts; the forces are all predetermined and therefore do not have a free will. We are discovering their rulesets, but they don't change arbitrarily. If the Force (capital "F") has a will, then perforce it must have setience to recognise and exercise that will. It must have some secret agenda that it wants to achieve. (Secret because no-one knows what it is: everyone still debates whether the Force exists or not!)

 

If the Force has a secret agenda, then the next question is, can we affect our fate?

 

If so, then we have free will.

 

If not, then we have the illusion of free will. (If you read back about ten pages we had a long discussion about the pseudo-religious aspects of the Force, for indeed if it has a will, then it is a god-being, and the quasi-ethical questions arise about free will and the existence of evil. To make a long story short, the Epicurean paradox can be circumvented most simply by assuming the Force is malevolent.)

 

So if the Force has a will, and we have the illusion of free will, then to gain emancipation from the bondage of the Force, we must kill the Force.

 

To paraphrase Voltaire:

If God existed then it would be necessary to kill Her.

:cool:

...

In SW-ANH,Obi-wan tells Luke that "all life is connected to the Force".Later,after the destruction of Alderaan,he says something along the lines of "I felt a distubance in the Force,as if millions of souls cried out in terror".So,it's clear that emotions are transmitted through the Force.

 

If enough people feel "good" emotions(love,happinessand so forth)the nature of the Force could swing towards the Lightside;and conversely for "dark" emotions.Either extreme is undesirable as people need both kinds to function properly.So,if the Force swings to one extreme,it works through Force sensitives to bring it back into balance,eg Anakin Skywalker destroyed the Jedi Order.Unfortunately he went too far and brought the Dark Side into dominance,and so the Force was required to work through Luke,bringing the Force into balance again,in what is probably a never ending cycle.

 

Interestingly,I was intending to say that the Force doesn't have a will,but now I'm thinking otherwise.It must be the Force working through me "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heh. btw - if your analysis is right, it would seem that neutral would be the best place to stay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok. You are advocating (some proportional multiple of) the linear sum of all the Force-Sensitives' wills equates to the "group consciousness" or the Force. Here's a further question to help bring it into sharper focus:

• does the "focus of balance" change, depending on the Force Sensitives?
  E.g. if, say, there are more DS, does it "evolve" or shift into the DS, or
  
• is the Force fulcrum static (also at some predefined point, whether that is DS, dead centre or LS), so that no matter how far off balance the Force gets, it will return (probably with a small "f" force proportional to the distance that the state of the capital "F" Force is currently away from the "balancing point")?
  

What do you think? Is it a running-total-average, or a fixed focal point?

[E_Motion]

Metadigital;

 

Your comments on the second part above seem to agree with WinterSun that a force which achieves balance would be considered a force with will. To some extent I raised my question (on which you commented in part one of your response) because I don't think your original question can be debated or answered unless we know which things fit the criteria.

 

A force that tends towards nuetral would fit with all other predetermined laws of nature that we know of. For example with clouds moving through the upper atmosphere, it is possible that the clouds can accumulate static charge. If the charge becomes too much different than that of a nearby object (earth), the excess charge is discharged from the clouds to earth. The process of discharge generates a stream of energy between the clouds and earth that we call lightning. In chemistry and physics, we find that the natural physical laws force things in the direction of the lowest state of energy. So if we mix oxygen ( a high energy molecule) with hydrogen (another high energy molecule), and add just the smallest amound of activation energy (in the form of a spark), we get an explosive reaction which results in water (a low energy molecule) plus heat (free energy). Another example is the conventional battery; the separated charges (that can be accessed through the positive and negative terminals) are simply not "happy" in that state in that natural physical laws want them to be in a different state. So if we allow any electrical conductive path between the terminals, we get energy flow that drives back towards a neutral state.

 

If this is what is meant by "will" then we would be dealing with a conventional natural force. Perhaps of greater interest might be to ask how one might separate out individual dark side or light side components from a pool of neutral force energy. For example if I have a large container of gas at a given temperature, I can use work to heat or cool part of the gas, which I can maintain at that second temperature only so long as I segregate it from the remainder of the gas. If I allow the two to mix or exchange energy (by putting a heat conductive wall between them) they will exchange energy until both are the same temperature again. I could go on with further examples, but I think this is enough.

 

To me it isn't enough that the rules of a physical phenominon are "hidden" because the purpose of science is to "discover" the hidden rules. But the discovery of those rules does hold great meaning and potential for all of us.

 

Are we on convergent or divergent paths?

[indarkestday]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. So, in effect, the player of the game represents the Force?

2. But here you say the devs (who wrote the plot) are the Force. So we, the players, are just playing the microcosmic characters, living vicariously through them in their small worldview and experience. And we still have no control over our (virtual) fate, because the devs have written the plot

Edited July 20, 2005 by indarkestday