The Jedi and the love issue

[metadigital]

1. There is NO love! You feel it but it is not real. It is nature's way of saying "i want my DNA copied into a separate human being". Now everyone will say "no, man this is the reproduction instict. Love is something better and "bigger" than reproduction. Love is to care without expecting anything and blah blah blah....". Well this is our intelligence and "civilization" talking. Basically we still have reproduction but (since we like to think that we are civilized) our intelligence takes it, places it in a nice gift box and hands it back to us. The whole package is "love" but inside the box there is still the ancient feeling of reproduction. So basically life needs reproduction at all costs. This feeling changes like a chameleon and can takes the form of "noble" love, wild passion etc

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow, heavy dude, that's bleak! Hobbes was an optimist compared to you.

 

I have a friend who is almost totally convinced that intelligence is a Darwinian dead-end: a cul de sac in the road to survival. It is not sustainable, considering the amount of life it takes to grow fully-fledged people, considering the amount of wastage (i.e. those people who never reach full potential) and considering the relative merits (costs versus benefits) of the alternatives (like the aforementioned mass spawning strategy of insects, etc).

 

I have another friend who gave me the best definition of God I have ever heard: when multiple agents work in concert and the result is more than the sum of the parts, then the extra bit (total - sum of parts) is God. I could easily appropriate this definition for Love (as God equals Love anyway, right? " ).

 

I would favour the second theory, without necessarily insisting on a God. (It could be The Force, for example, or some sort of group subconscious, as referred to by Freud, Jung, et alia.)

 

2. So life is half reproduction. What is the other half? The other half is survival. This extends from eating food and finding shelter up to self defence. All people (more or less) have a "sixth" sense that warns them when something is wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or as famously quoted by Billy Connolly, the first impulses scientists believe flash through a brain upon meeting another creature is:

"Can I eat it?"

"Can it eat me?"

"Can I shag it?".

[Hildegard]

There are several reasons for Anakin's fall but Padme's well-being is definitely the main motive. You don't have seen Ep3 yet, don't you?

 

p.s. Who is this George H. Sirois and what importance does his personal opinion have to disprove edu11's statement?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I've seen ep3 and I don't think Padme was the main reason for his fall....

The first time Anakin came before the jedi council Yoda said that he senses much fear in him (especially because that was the first time he was apart from his mother, but there was much more to it....) and that he was too old - because the jedi like their new padawans to be young and open minded.

This is perfectly understandable since a child gets older, then doubt, fear, and frustration arise and since the begging of his jedi training he had very strong emotions inside of him that he couldn't control then and until the end......despite his training the jedi council and his master Obi-Wan did not succeed into making Anakin a proper jedi....in the film when Anakin was already on the dark side, Obi-Wan said to him: I have failed you....I have failed you indeed....because the jedi tried to made a person out of him that he wasn't and never would have been, particularly because he was too old and even at that time began to build his character that was far apart from a proper jedi and he was already at that time predestined to fail as a jedi. The main problem Anakin had

[Archmonarch]

To some degree, I concur with edu11, particularly in the idea that love arose out of a reproductive urge. However, I believe that evolution of the mind and social constructs have given love a "life" of its own, so to speak. In other words, while love is created through biochemical interactions, the state itself moves beyond that.

 

Now to get back on topic, the Jedi, as many religious organizations have in the past, (yes, the Jedi belong to a religion, whether you admit it or not), prefer to blind themselves to reality in the hope that abstinence from life will keep them pure. Instead, it only opens them to corruption when they confront the truth of emotion. We have seen this in our world and it surely occurs in the Star Wars universe. Thus, it is my opinion that love and other emotions are desirable if only in that, experience gives us wisdom and understanding (Personally I believe they have greater value, but perceptions differ). And the search for understanding, wisdom, and peace is the philosophy espouted by the Jedi on every possible occasion.

 

 

 

 

P.S. This is from someone who has never been in love, so take it with a grain of salt.

[metadigital]

To some degree, I concur with edu11, particularly in the idea that love arose out of a reproductive urge. However, I believe that evolution of the mind and social constructs have given love a "life" of its own, so to speak. In other words, while love is created through biochemical interactions, the state itself moves beyond that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure what you mean by "the state itself moves beyond that". Where does it move to? What are you adding to the biological urge?

Now to get back on topic, the Jedi, as many religious organizations have in the past, (yes, the Jedi belong to a religion, whether you admit it or not), prefer to blind themselves to reality in the hope that abstinence from life will keep them pure. Instead, it only opens them to corruption when they confront the truth of emotion. We have seen this in our world and it surely occurs in the Star Wars universe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed, even if we discount the recent publicity of p

[Archmonarch]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the state itself moves beyond that". Where does it move to? What are you adding to the biological urge?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, movement not in a physical sense, but the psychological imperatives and actions that follow the state of love.

 

Well, from a strictly humanist view, love is the necessary pre-condition required to build a society that strives to provide fairness to all its members (hopefully what we are all trying to do collectively, as humans -- as opposed to life on a French shipwreck raft after weeks without sight of land: very Hobbesian :cool: ). So, to appropriate from Voltaire, if it didn't exist it would be necessary to create it in order to build a better society.

 

And a fair society is easily a match for one based on his doctrine of modern natural right; look at the US military as an example. I trust you agree the US armed forces are of the highest quality; certainly as far as concepts of psychological warfare are concerned (to which I draw your attention to, now). Since well before it was legal, let alone acceptable, non-white soldiers have been treated fairly and not hindered in their military careers: it is a genuine meritocracy, and it has evolved out of all the fighting formats of history. Each soldier needs to back up and be backed up by his team of soldiers to fight most effectively.

 

Unfortunately, this equality was not evident in all cases. But for the most part, I agree. Then again, I'm not a big fan of the military in general (pun intended).

P.S. This is from someone who has never been in love, so take it with a grain of salt.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, then you have some interesting times ahead, my friend.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Time will tell.

[Hildegard]

metadigital, I see you're very keen on philosophy and especially on philosophers from the " empiricism and rationalism" era, but with respect I beg you to try and stick to the subject.....because if this continues will have an all out philosophical war between the protagonist of lets say: Francis Bacon...Rene Descartes...John Locke...George Berkeley...David Hume.....and if Fionavar sees this, then this thread is so going down...

[metadigital]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the state itself moves beyond that". Where does it move to? What are you adding to the biological urge?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, movement not in a physical sense, but the psychological imperatives and actions that follow the state of love.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm, yep, I got that bit; I was more looking for some clarification on what, exactly, you felt love "and other emotions" added to the obvious biological imperative. Specifically, what value the feelings themselves, or the associated derivative experiences, give to the satients that have them?

metadigital, I see you're very keen on philosophy and especially on philosophers from the " empiricism and rationalism" era, but with respect I beg you to try and stick to the subject.....because if this continues will have an all out philosophical war between the protagonist of lets say: Francis Bacon...Rene Descartes...John Locke...George Berkeley...David Hume.....and if Fionavar sees this, then this thread is so going down...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not quite sure how I'm derailing a topic about Jedi love with philosophical analyses of love and the nature of the Force ... ... How did you propose to conduct the discussion: role playing rock, paper & scissors?

[Archmonarch]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the state itself moves beyond that". Where does it move to? What are you adding to the biological urge?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, movement not in a physical sense, but the psychological imperatives and actions that follow the state of love.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm, yep, I got that bit; I was more looking for some clarification on what, exactly, you felt love "and other emotions" added to the obvious biological imperative. Specifically, what value the feelings themselves, or the associated derivative experiences, give to the satients that have them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I had to think about that for a few minutes. Hmm, in that case, it is my opinion that emotion adds an undertone to life, and while ultimately a survival trait, enables the growth of culture based on interaction without detriment to either party. On the other hand, the negative emotions also contribute to the rampant inequality of current society.

 

 

I'll come back with more explanations later.

[metadigital]

[Hildegard]

I'm not quite sure how I'm derailing a topic about Jedi love with philosophical analyses of love and the nature of the Force ... ... How did you propose to conduct the discussion: role playing rock, paper & scissors? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm just urging you and everybody else to stick to the subject - Jedi and love.....not a philosophical argument on the issue does love even exists or not...... I apologize if I may seem bossy, but I just don't want this thread closed, that's all.....no hard feelings

[metadigital]

I'm not quite sure how I'm derailing a topic about Jedi love with philosophical analyses of love and the nature of the Force ... ... How did you propose to conduct the discussion: role playing rock, paper & scissors? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm just urging you and everybody else to stick to the subject - Jedi and love.....not a philosophical argument on the issue does love even exists or not...... I apologize if I may seem bossy, but I just don't want this thread closed, that's all.....no hard feelings

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okey dokey.

Well, back to the Force Sensitives: is it an issue for Sith to have loving relationships (as much as this is an oxymoron)?

 

I think this poses an equally baffling conundrum, namely do Sith have mates? I.e. loving relationships; Passion over peace? Or is it more akin to the mating rituals of crocodiles or Preying Mantises? Where the biological imperative is served selfishly, without regard to personal sensibilities: males behave like Ghengis Khan and females like Cleopatra.

[Hildegard]

Well, back to the Force Sensitives: is it an issue for Sith to have loving relationships (as much as this is an oxymoron)?

 

I think this poses an equally baffling conundrum, namely do Sith have mates? I.e. loving relationships; Passion over peace? Or is it more akin to the mating rituals of crocodiles or Preying Mantises? Where the biological imperative is served selfishly, without regard to personal sensibilities: males behave like Ghengis Khan and females like Cleopatra.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

When it comes to Sith and them having mates, considering the sith code........I always thougt they would just urge their sexual needs and desires....love and relationship doesn't fit in their pattern of behaviour, because it would only slow them down in their ever lasting hunger for power and glory....

[SteveThaiBinh]

When it comes to Sith and them having mates, considering the sith code........I always thougt they would just urge their sexual needs and desires....love and relationship doesn't fit in their pattern of behaviour, because it would only slow them down in their ever lasting hunger for power and glory....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not just love, but forming stable family units for raising children, would be unlikely if we accept the Sith philosophy (and I doubt all Sith do). The Sith are a house of cards, if they ever won and had no more galaxy to conquer, they would just collapse into chaos.

[Cloris]

When it comes to Sith and them having mates, considering the sith code........I always thougt they would just urge their sexual needs and desires....love and relationship doesn't fit in their pattern of behaviour, because it would only slow them down in their ever lasting hunger for power and glory....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't remember where (help would be appreciated), but don't the Sith consider love to be a weakness? Odd that they and the Jedi would agree on such a thing.

 

Love is a feeling above and beyond biological drive, in my opinion. Sure, it can spawn jealosy, anger, betrayal -- but it can also produce self-sacrifice, understanding, and wisdom. The Jedi engage in acts of love all the time, so it seems to be the epitome of hypocricy to exclude romantic love from their lives.

 

Cloris

[Vashanti]

I'm reminded of the Architect scene from the Matrix movies, in which he describes the previous Neos as having a more generalized love towards all humanity, rather than a specifically directed obsessive love towards an individual.

 

I would guess that generalized love of life and a desire to protect it reside in the Jedi Code, but the dangers of potential twisting to the darkside by one-on-one hot love action are why they forbid such relationships.

 

Now, that being said, my Jedi has to dip Bastilla and press our slimy mucous covered lips together.

 

[Echoes]

well, looks like I've been dragged out of my long lurkdom.

 

I actually thought quite a bit about this during my KotOR playthroughs, and recently discussed the topic with my gf now that she's beat both KotOR and TSL.

 

I don't think the Jedi are opposed to love as a whole, I think they are only opposed to the tremendous attachment that comes with love, romantic, filial, parental whatever. I think if it were possible to love without forming such attachments, the Jedi would be all for it. Though, I think in a lot of cases "pulling a Bindo" may manifest itself as a force bond if it's mutual. As for the reason why they don't condone attachments, I would think that's obvious, having attachments makes people do really stupid things to protect those attachments, and we can't have our Jedi running around doing stupid things because with their level of power they could screw up everything. They could train Jedi to have have attachments, but not let them affect their judgement, but that's a lot riskier, and if you'll excuse my cynicism, a lot less likely to work under stress.

 

Now, without pulling a dictionary, I'll say the Jedi frequently engage in acts of compassion, that's not the same as an act of love. Jedi, from what I know, are trained to be peacekeepers, and I think their acts of compassion are largely as much a fanatical devotion to their ideals as they are an emotional experience.

 

Now, another topic, since it came up, was Jedi sex. I would imagine the Jedi can have all the sex they like -- unless they become emotionally involved with their partner. And if kids result from that, I'd guess they get spirited off and safely anonymized so the parents can't form attachments and so the parents don't have the option of selecting them as a padawan by chance or by intuition. However, since Jedi are trained from birth to suppress most of what makes them human (or Zabrak or Cathar etc) they may all have their sex drives completely repressed, so they only come out during times of stress.

 

Edit: As for the Sith, I'd imagine they're also told to restrict themselves from attachment, from their perspective, it weakens one, especially if a Sith Master is attached to their apprentice, and can't do what they should when their pupil challenges them.

[Hildegard]

They could train Jedi to have have attachments, but not let them affect their judgement, but that's a lot riskier, and if you'll excuse my cynicism, a lot less likely to work under stress.  .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well I understand what are you trying to say, but I think you can't have it both ways.....sooner or later your love attachment is going to affect your judgment in a good or in a bad way, whether you're aware of it or not, no matter how hard you train to cope with it.

But as much as people say that love turns jedi to the dark side I think that part of the failing of the jedi is denial of love. It is something that can not be denied without losing a part of yourself - or your connection to those you are sworn to protect.....

[metadigital]

Another concept we've all failed to mention, so far, is that "love conquers all". okay, leaving the fermeted curd to the side, it is adequately demonstrated that love can topple the most hardened despot. (Heck, it can even calm the savage breast.) I'm not advocating that it is all-powerful or 100% successful, mind.

 

So love is the ultimate weapon. Jedi would be foolish to ignore it.

[Archmonarch]

Another concept we've all failed to mention, so far, is that "love conquers all". okay, leaving the fermeted curd to the side, it is adequately demonstrated that love can topple the most hardened despot. (Heck, it can even calm the savage breast.) I'm not advocating that it is all-powerful or 100% successful, mind.

 

So love is the ultimate weapon. Jedi would be foolish to ignore it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As would the Sith. One would think at least the opportunity for manipulation would appeal to their ethos.

[Echoes]

Another concept we've all failed to mention, so far, is that "love conquers all". okay, leaving the fermeted curd to the side, it is adequately demonstrated that love can topple the most hardened despot. (Heck, it can even calm the savage breast.) I'm not advocating that it is all-powerful or 100% successful, mind.

 

So love is the ultimate weapon. Jedi would be foolish to ignore it

 

Looking at human history (in this galaxy anyway ) I'd be hesitant to say that. Human history is filled with anything but love, unless you consider "love of power" or "love of one's own race/religion and no other" to fit under that. IIRC, the history of the star wars universe to the end of TSL is pretty bleak as well, especially considering what happened to the Rakatans. "Love conquers all" works great on a personal level, but on a large scale, generally it's the more negative emotions that prevail.

 

I'm not even going to touch that "the savage breast" comment

[Hildegard]

As would the Sith. One would think at least the opportunity for manipulation would appeal to their ethos.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

If I remember they did use emotions - love for manipulation...remember in K1 on Maanan when Jolee's friend Sunry was having a secret affair with that sith women who turned out to be a dark jedi who was obviously seeing Sunry so she could extract information from him ( or she had a fetish for old wrinkled grandpas )

[metadigital]

... Now, another topic, since it came up, was Jedi sex.  I would imagine the Jedi can have all the sex they like -- unless they become emotionally involved with their partner.  And if kids result from that, I'd guess they get spirited off and safely anonymized so the parents can't form attachments and so the parents don't have the option of selecting them as a padawan by chance or by intuition.  However, since Jedi are trained from birth to suppress most of what makes them human (or Zabrak or Cathar etc) they may all have their sex drives completely repressed, so they only come out during times of stress.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, well that would explain a lot of the Jedis problems, too. The failure to bond with parents at the earliest years is a major issue; very young people require a close bond in order to form some of the most fundamental mental processes, like empathy.

 

So perhaps the real problem is this insistence in taking children (under the age of, say, seven "galactic standard years" ≡ Earth years for humans) from their parents. Recent studies of orphans that have had similarly poor upbringing (in the Balkans, due to the war -- some of them did not even feel human contact regularly) was horrific. If ever there was a training ground for psychopaths, that would be the closest humans have got to it.

[Hildegard]

Recent studies of orphans that have had similarly poor upbringing (in the Balkans, due to the war -- some of them did not even feel human contact regularly) was horrific. If ever there was a training ground for psychopaths, that would be the closest humans have got to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Please, if you have time and patience, elaborate.....

[metadigital]

Recent studies of orphans that have had similarly poor upbringing (in the Balkans, due to the war -- some of them did not even feel human contact regularly) was horrific. If ever there was a training ground for psychopaths, that would be the closest humans have got to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Please, if you have time and patience, elaborate.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm, short answerr is:

I saw a news item on the tv where the reporter was walking around an orphanage full of small children who were behaving erratically, banging their heads on walls and screaming inconsoleably or just ignoring everything. The children were held in overcrowded accommodation, many to a bed, and the conditions were squalid. The main problem was the arrested development: children of six years old were the size of four-year-olds and had not developed communication / speech adequately.

 

I'm not sure what country it was, though, as it was about ten years ago (it may have been Romania, but that doesn't seem to ring a bell: I was pretty sure it was the Bosnian/NATO crisis, not the Romanian revolution).

 

I did find a useful piece of research in my googling: linky.

 

Aha, I found some more evidence:

Ceaucescu's legacy

International adoptions in Romania boomed in 1989 after communist dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu was ousted from government and television pictures of children living in squalid conditions in orphanages were beamed around the world. Under Ceaucescu's iron-fisted rule, an estimated 100,000 children were confined to orphanages that looked more like prisons. They were the products of his ban on contraception and abortion.

The adoption system quickly became awash in corruption. Private adoption agencies were free to charge their own fees for arranging adoptions, usually ranging between

[Hildegard]

Recent studies of orphans that have had similarly poor upbringing (in the Balkans, due to the war -- some of them did not even feel human contact regularly) was horrific. If ever there was a training ground for psychopaths, that would be the closest humans have got to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Please, if you have time and patience, elaborate.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm, short answerr is:

I saw a news item on the tv where the reporter was walking around an orphanage full of small children who were behaving erratically, banging their heads on walls and sreaming inconsolably or just ignoring everything. The children were held in overcrowded accommodation, many to a bed, and the conditions were squalid. The main problem was the arrested development: children of six years old were the size of four-year-olds and had not developed communication / speech adequately.

 

I'm not sure what country it was, though, as it was about ten years ago (it may have been Romania, but that doesn't seem to ring a bell: I was pretty sure it was the Bosnian/NATO crisis, not the Romanian revolution).

 

I did find a useful piece of research in my googling: linky.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for the explanation......what can I say those are some horrifying stuff....but that's war for you and the Balkans - which is the synonim for - **** happens...