SPECULATION Lukes New JEDI Code

Interesting in how Rey mirrors the ability to resist the Dark Side by not ending Kylo after having overcome him with the Force moments before.

In the novelization, it has been said Rey hears a voice (Snoke's as per the audiobook edition?) prompting her to do it, but she resists:

Luke pulled himself back just in time, "returning" from that edge (just as Anakin "returned") to his Jedi sensibilities to overcome evil and deny it any further victory.

Rey's parallel is perhaps not accidental.

JediMasterRobert

 

Really? It might not make it inevitable but surely it does weaken him in that respect?

I'm not sure what the killer does after the fact matters much. I think 99% of people would just kill him wouldn't they? The point I am trying to make is that harm to our attachments leads us to a dark place. It can easily make good people do evil things.

But can you be a selfless father as well as a selfless Jedi? I'm just not sure these can be anything but mutually exclusive. Again to be attached to someone is to be possessive. You already do fear losing them. You put them before your duty. Now that isn't evil but it is based upon selfish desires. And it is thus dangerous. I just can't see how you can be attached to another person yet do your duty as a Jedi. I think you could potentially have parents and siblings and possibly be capable of letting them go (that is not obsess over losing them)- but not a wife and kids, it's a different dynamic that leads to attachment which leads to greed. There isn't a day that goes by that fear about my kids creeps into my head. And fear leads to anger, anger to...well, you know the rest!

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 10, 2016, Original Post Date: Feb 10, 2016 ---

Anyway, I think I've said all I can on this subject, will leave now before I end up like a broken record (if I haven't already!). But just a quick summary:

For me to have an attachment is already to have made something one with you in a possessive sense. It means you are already obsessed to the point you fear losing this thing. You are already distracted from your duty. You are already acting selfishly opposed to selflessly. You think about the self rather than the other or the whole. I believe all Lucas' quotes I posted here back this up and it was his intention to make this point throughout the saga. So that's my point of view. The Jedi Code is fine. The rules were too rigid and should've been flexible in the exceptional case of Anakin (who it was a bad choice to take from his mother). There is a possibility to allow potential Jedi to be brought up by their families whilst training - as long as they are able to let go of their attachments - not give up their relationship with their parents, just their attachments to them. But wife and kids are out of the question for me. Instantly attached. Instantly obsessed. Instantly distracted. Instantly not acting as a Jedi must.

 

I certainly respect your feelings on the subject, but I guess this is where we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think of my relationships with my wife and children as possessive. They are certainly mine in the sense of relation, but they are not possessions that I feel I must control.

Do I want to protect them? Absolutely. I can see your point that if Luke has a child perhaps that makes him susceptible, or weaker, from a certain point of view. But I also see that relationship as a source of strength. And I would also like to think that I am willing to protect anyone who is in immediate need, not just those with whom I have a familial relationship. This to me is what the Jedi ideal should be. It is something that our service members, police, firefighters, military, do every day: In some instances, they put the good of the people in front of their own families. I'm not trying to suggest that the Jedi should be the police force they were in the PT, but there is some parallel there...

The real question that it all boils down to is this: Do I want to protect my family at the expense of others? Absolutely not. For me, that is crossing the moral boundary, one in which Anakin failed but Luke did not. That is also why Anakin failed as a Jedi. In my view, a Jedi who has his or her own family can protect that family without it being at the expense of others. Is it more difficult? Sure. But nothing that is worthwhile is easy. It is in the most difficult situations that our true moral character is revealed.

EDIT: What I am interested in going forward in this debate, is where does Kylo Ren fit into all of this? Anakin was seduced to the dark side doing what he thought he had to in order to protect Padme. When presented with a similar conundrum, Luke resisted that temptation. We understand their motivations were both born out of something good, at least on on some level. What was Kylo Ren's motivation? Adam Driver has hinted at his character "not feeling loved enough" and suggesting that Kylo Ren believes he is on the side of right. But it will be extremely interesting to hear that backstory to truly understand his motivation and what has caused his fall.

 

I really appreciate the in-depth discussion this thread is generating, and I look forward to reading more posts.

I usually return to Original Trilogy for clarity regarding the Force and to begin wondering how a post-Jedi Order Force user such as Luke Skywalker might proceed after the fall of the Jedi in the Prequel Trilogy.

As I wonder, with regards to attachments, whether a new Jedi code should be open to such things, I consider this definition given to us by Obi-Wan Kenobi in Episode IV: A New Hope:

I wonder if such a definition would require not so much revision as expansion in light of Luke Skywalker's possible discoveries of the Force while away.

Perhaps the Force is simply not energy emerging from "living things" but, more specifically, the positive or negative energy those things create.

To put it another way, I do not merely consider the Force as an "emergent phenomenon" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence).

Love, on the surface, seems to radiate nothing but positivity: light. But there are many forms of love, various aspects and categories of loving philosophers have debated over many years up to today:

• http://www.iep.utm.edu/love/
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/love/

Agape is one such form of love, something which "seeks a perfect kind of love that is at once a fondness, a transcending of the particular, and a passion without the necessity of reciprocity." (source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/love/#SH1c)

Perhaps the new Jedi could allow for something of that limitless and pure nature, as far as it imbues (if not heals) the Force with positivity.

The opposite of love, being hatred, points the way of the Sith.

In the middle of love and hatred is indifference, apathy, insularity, one without oneness.

As we keep this in mind, in view of the Force, considering it as something encircling and permeating all while keeping the galaxy bound, it seems love can be perceived and expressed positively on the level of agape, or more generally unconditional love, without necessarily causing immediate concerns for the Jedi.

Perhaps Luke could promote this view in a very general unconditional way rooted in altruism: "love one another."

And he might not pronounce it on the basis of "it sounds cool" or "we haven't tried this before" but rather upon the more foundational realization that everything is connected: attachments are everywhere, in everything. All ultimately effects all.

Perhaps he could also draw inspiration from what we would call the Golden Rule (http://www.iep.utm.edu/goldrule/) and stress the importance of recognizing, respecting, and engendering a greater sense of the interconnectedness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interconnectedness) already there and therefore needing to be acknowledged positively and harmoniously.

Luke promoting this unity, equality, and harmony is something echoic of King Arthur's Round Table in Camelot, and the Knights, of course, which share some qualities with either the Jedi Knights of the Republic, the Sith, or The Knights of Ren.

As my mind drifts into Arthurian lore, I am not sure if anyone mentioned yet the Knights' Code of Chivalry...

• http://www.lordsandladies.org/knights-code-of-chivalry.htm
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry

...which seems to read pretty Sith-like in parts.

Perhaps Luke's code would find its most success in a simple, universal, and unconditional declaration of compassion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion).

JediMasterRobert

 

Yes! This kind of interconnected-ness (for the lack of a better word) and unconditional love is precisely my vision of what Luke's New Jedi Code would be... not surprisingly, it matches up with my own sense of morality, life, and death.

As a somewhat related aside, if you have ever seen the movie Phenomenon, George Malley (played by John Travolta) describes such interconnected-ness and how we are not unlike the largest organism on Earth, a grove of aspen trees, thought to be separate individuals, but actually all part of the same root system. Later, when George is asked by a boy, Al, if he is afraid of dying, he says

"You know, if we were to put this apple down, and leave it, it would be spoiled and gone in a few days. But, if we were to take a bite of it like this, [bites apple] it would become part of us, and we could take it with us, forever... Al, everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything."

I loved that movie. To me, these scenes are very reminicient of Obi-Wan's description of the Force as "an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together." For the Jedi, whether with a family or not, there should be no fear of death, either for themselves or their loved ones, because we are all interconnected and we take a "bite" of everyone and everything and they become a part of us, and us a part of them.

This is also true for us, as viewers, as difficult as that ideal may actually be to live up to.

 

Beautifully said!

I have not seen that movie, but the idea and imagery resonate well in this context.

Interestingly enough, there is a point where the fiction of Star Wars, appreciated and influential as it has been globally, have become a part of our "reality."

And this is true with every poem, book, movie we experience along with all the people and places we encounter.

It is all connected in some way. Some of those connections are very strong, while others are tenuous at best.

Influence and connectivity occurs, nevertheless, even when the "influencer" is seemingly "insignificant" (e.g. "just a scavenger"), as evidenced by the Butterfly Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect).

Imagine, if we were to "mind map" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_map) all of these concepts in and beyond Star Wars, we would see many connections and overlappings.

In my mostly-finished response to The Force IS REAL thread, I cite a variety of potentially relevant-to-the-Force-discussion real-world concepts along with presently known scientific phenomena.

That can be one example of how far-reaching these considerations can go (even if some, like myself in much earlier years) might be of another mind, believing entertainment and cultural phenomena such as Star Wars and The Matrix can be over-thought.

These days I appreciate the films and all creative products in a variety of ways: their aesthetic values, their moral content, their philosophical contexts, their archetypes in and beyond mythology, the eras in which they originated, their allusions, their relevance to contemporary life, and more.

So, with all this in mind, zooming back to the level of Luke, perhaps he has come to experience an epiphany revealing the true interconnectedness of all things.

One could meditate a lifetime or two simply on that one topic.

Beyond that, though, as often is the case with knowledge, are the ethical questions, the responsibilities of the individual and society, and all the questions following the realization of that grandly cross-referenced causality -- the very "cause and effect" as the Merovingian enunciated in The Matrix Reloaded:

This we know even in terms of pure physics: the Newtonian nature of reality -- as in Newton's Laws of Motion:

(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion)

This all finds such wonderfully infinite, symmetrical, simplistic, yet metaphorical expression in the symbol of Yin and Yang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang).

Luke, promoting this universal interconnectivity, could go a long way to show how it is truly in everyone's interest to find or strive for harmony in the Way and will of the Force.

Like notes finding their way across the ledger lines in music so as to avoid cacophony and to give rise to something more harmonious and naturally pleasing.

JediMasterRobert

 

Just to chime back on attachment here: this whole point on inter-connectivity, which is right on the money (Gaia Theory), is exactly why attachment is wrong for a Jedi. Attachment is in itself a possessiveness. It can be confused with unconditional love but it is on the other side of the spectrum to that, it is not expansive but contractive. It is not about the other it is about the self. Attachment is exclusivity and is always elevated above all else. This means that the Jedi cannot become one with everything else. He or she cannot interconnect with all life because they have essentially put the self above the collective. To be attached is to be possessive is to be selfish.

When a Jedi becomes selfless he or she establishes a oneness with the Force and all the life that creates it. As Lucas says, a Jedi should love everyone. But having an attachment to one person (or a few) means that one's love has become narrow and limited.

As George explains:

No human can let go…It's very hard. Ultimately, we do let go because it's inevitable; you do die and you do lose your loved ones. But while you're alive, you can't be obsessed with holding on…Because holding on is in the same category and the precursor to greed. And that's what a Sith is. A Sith is somebody that is absolutely obsessed with gaining more and more power - but for what? Nothing, except that it becomes an obsession to get more.

So to be a Jedi, connected to everyone through the Force and adhering to its will you must let go of the self and be utterly selfless. In having a wife and kids you become exclusive with your love and that love for them is higher than anything else - including your divine duty. This is then an attachment. An attachment that has made you selfish. Not in a horrible, evil way. But selfish nevertheless. And this selfishness, or greed, is what leads powerful beings such as the Jedi who wield the Force, to the Dark Side.

 

Excellent points, master_shaitan.

Another way I might look at the question of attachment is the way gravity works in our universe.

Two orbiting bodies in space -- let's say binary stars -- can independently enjoy a shared existence around a cosmically-defined centerpoint.

And there can be worlds around those suns and moons around those worlds, each moving and composed independently yet harmonious in a larger system of a galaxy, which can be part of a "supercluster" of galaxies.

There's news today of The Great Attractor in our region of the universe:

• http://www.universetoday.com/127328...-galaxies-found-lurking-behind-the-milky-way/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor

Each of those galaxies, with their respective suns, worlds, moons, asteroids, comets, etc., are all whirling "independently" in a shared system of physics within the larger context of the universe, complementing and influencing each other across vast distances.

Yet we, in our local context here on Earth, do not ourselves feel the pull of those galaxies or The Great Attractor.

This is one way I think the interconnectedness of our universe can be exemplified objectively (and scientifically even) without it having potentially negative implications for the Jedi and all the other inhabitants in their cosmos -- which presumably works according to the same laws of physics as ours, since the Star Wars saga simply takes place in another galaxy, not another universe.

JediMasterRobert

 

The philosophy being stated here is really interesting. But mine is somewhat simpler. I HATE the notion of "the hero must be completely alone, and must have a crappy personal life, or they're not truly a hero." I find it lame, cliché, lazy, and it sends entirely the wrong message. The idea of a character who grew up alone, who desperately wants love, companionship, and family, needing to choose to then be alone, in order to be a proper Jedi, would be an incredibly unsatisfying way to go, and regressive to boot. Not interested in seeing that AT ALL!!

She struggles, she fights, she bleeds, etc for the "greater good," then I see no reason why she cannot have both, that's there's some reward for all effort. THAT is a good message to send to the audience, not "you're not a hero, if you dare to love someone or have a family." Bullcrap, I say.

 

I would enjoy hearing Luke Skywalker found love and happiness earlier in his life and that Rey was his daughter.

And I would like Rey to be choose her own way and reserve the right to love anyone she would.

In my mind, it needn't be an either-or situation:

• love and a Jedi you shall not be
• be a Jedi and love you shall not

It seems only the Sith should think in those of ridiculous extremes, right? But the Jedi were susceptible to such thinking patterns as well.

I do think Anakin's statement to Padme in Attack of the Clones was pointing in the right direction:

I once joked if it were possible even Yoda and Yaddle (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Yaddle) were romantic, and who knows?

In so many ways Star Wars is about loving the right and wrong ways or things.

I love this saga.

fans to Star Wars: I love you.
Star Wars: I know.



JediMasterRobert

 

I think Luke sought out the first Jedi Temple to take the Jedi order back to it's roots. IMO Luke should reorganize the order in favor of a more liberal doctrine that allows love & relationships versus an emotionless life.

Additionally the repressed lifestyle of a Jedi can often lead disgruntled recruits to turn to the Dark Side and go postal on the Jedi Order. It appears many of the Sith / Dark Side users ( Count Dooku, Kylo Ren or Darth Vader ) tried to follow the narrow path but rebelled against it's teachings in favor of the Dark Side.

Lastly Luke embraced the Dark Side to some degree in ROTJ. He used his anger and passion to beat Vader. This didn't make him evil or a Dark Side user....it made him a human being who cared about his father.

 

Out of thousands of Jedi only 21 or so left the Order in its history. Dooku became a Sith. Anakin became a Sith (because he started his training late) and Ben Solo was well on his way apparently before he met Luke. I think this shows that, in spite of having no choice from birth about being a Jedi, the vast majority found it a fulfilling life and weren't unhappy about the rules.

The only error of judgement as I see it was not adapting for Anakin. If he was an ordinary Force user, even a powerful one, they wouldn't have taken him on. They only did because he was seen as the chosen one. It was then a bad decision to remain so rigid with the rules as Anakin suffered too much from losing his mother. It would have made much more sense in my view to bring his mum as well and slowly allow him to lose his attachment to her. Taking him away at his age just meant that he was never able to let go of his attachment to her and this was the root of the evil that destroyed him.

 

Generally speaking, in martial arts, rigidity is not a good thing.

The supposed strength of stones does give way to water.

The Jedi, over time, appear to have become so rigid as to crack and crumble under their own weight.

The Jedi should be more like water.

There is a wonderfully written book that relates entirely to this:

Be Like Water: Practical Wisdom from the Martial Arts by Joseph Cardillo
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/168594.Be_Like_Water

Bruce Lee discussed the softness yet power of water several times. Here is one quote:

One source of that quote is an article worth reading:

Be Like Water: The Philosophy and Origin of Bruce Lee’s Famous Metaphor for Resilience
https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/05/29/like-water-bruce-lee-artist-of-life/

Interestingly enough, Luke Skywalker, at the end of The Force Awakens, is found on the water planet Ahch-To (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Ahch-To).

The prevalence of water surrounding his location on the island cannot be a mistake.

This is especially meaningful in the context of his return to the first Jedi Temple.

Perhaps Luke realizes the Jedi once again need to be like water.

JediMasterRobert

 

Some food for thought. Having no other point of view about life will lead you not to question your own life. That is the reason they don't want to take on older recruits...they will question the validity of the order. (Like Anakin did) Pay no attention to truth outside the doors of the temple....our way is the only way. Sounds kind of like a cult...doesn't it? Seems kind of bogus IMO. If the order can't withstand scrutiny of it's said policies... then said policies within the Order are indeed an issue.

Anakin suffered from the loss of his mother but the core of the issue was his dis-enchantement with the Jedi Order. Sure he wanted to save Padme but he also had ulterior motives which she picks up on in ROTS.

 

Luke's father also had a code. He called it the 'Green Cross Code'.

(Yes, that is David Prowse - Darth Vader)

 

The core wasn't his issue with the Jedi order - it was his fear of losing his attachment, Padme. Anakin consistently argued against Palpatine throughout ROTS, telling him how the Jedi were selfless etc. Only when he hears he can save Padme does he start to justify doing all the evil things he does. Only then does he niggles with the Jedi (being asked to spy on Palps) start to become exaggerated. Yes, Anakin had some seriously backward political notions and this all fed into his issue of wanting power. But the main issue is losing Padme. That's what drives him to betray the Jedi and slaughter children.

I'd say there is obviously truth in the idea that the Jedi taken from birth are essentially indoctrinated and so in a way wouldn't seek to open the cage door even if it were unlocked. However, I don't think there can be doubt in the idea that the Jedi are virtuous people, giving their lives for the greater good AND in that is a fulfillment that goes beyond perhaps what an ordinary life might offer.

 

An interesting discussion for sure.

I think a Jedi Code should primarily be about harm reduction. In order to minimize harm a Jedi needs both knowledge and experience - wisdom follows when understanding informs actions (Luke vs Vader).

This thread has highlighted many risks worth considering when it comes to love and attachment. I'm a little wary about mixing ethical and moral analysis within false dichotomies of love vs hate and emotion vs reason. Such things are much more nuanced...



English words such as "love" can be so limiting! I think we all agree that compassion, conscience, empathy and altruism should provide a foundation for Jedi decision making - even when dueling Sith to the death.

But any sentient being should also be aware that "love" isn't just patient and kind etc. Love is tragic. Love is frustrating. Love is painful. Love can be stupefying. Love can cloud judgement. Love can be superficial. Love is often confused with a series of selfish obligations or used synonymously with duty. Love can be possessive and jealous. Love can be selfish and greedy. Love can easily lead to anger and suffering. Search your feelings lovers - you know it to be true.



History shows us how tragedy can unfold when people combine benevolent intentions (love) with force-use over others. Responsibility and opportunity demand we (and prospective Jedi) avoid repeating such mistakes.

The important thing to me is that Jedi have an accurate awareness of the how the dangers of emotion/reason and love/attachments (coupled with USE OF FORCE) play out on their actions, value systems as well as their critical and intuitive faculties.

 

Love can also be wonderful, and supportive, and a source of strength. The problem becomes, ASSUMING that it MUST be bad (which is what the old Jedi did).

And as for the whole "cult" thing, the kids DON'T get a CHOICE!! It's one thing if you choose to become a monk, or priest, or whatever when you're older and YOU make that decision. YOU choose to make certain "sacrifices" for a "higher calling" as you see it. But with the Jedi, the kids are taken rom the families when they're far too young to even know what's happening, let alone consent to it. You're discouraged from having much of a relationship with your birth family, if you even know who they are at all. And then you're raised for your entire life in that system, so of course you don't question it, you've known nothing else. And if you question things at all, you're treated as "dangerous" or "a maverick" for even contemplating that idea. That's where it gets "iffy" for a lot of people, basically indoctrination from a VERY young age, and lack of actual choice.

Come to think of it, that sounds surprisingly similar to how the FO gets it's Stormtroopers.

 

True that. (I omitted the obvious positive cultural cliches - we all know them.)

Or ASSUMING that love is ALWAYS GOOD which is what some posters implied...

Edit: And yes, let's avoid indoctrination in any code - especially young minds yet to develop adequate critical faculties and relying upon authority figures. So much "benevolent evil" depends on such methodology and habit training.

 

The Jedi encourage love. They just forbid attachment which is when you become possessive of things.