Why a "Gray" Force, if true, will ruin Star Wars and the Sequels

i've always looked at the Force as being an energy field created by all living things that surrounds us and penetrates us and binds the galaxy together. in my head, there is no such thing as the light side or the dark side of the Force: the Force just is. what makes something "dark side" is the way in which the Force is used: when someone uses the Force for personal gain, or for conquest, or for domination, then they are being seduced by the dark side; if they protect, are compassionate, and allow for the Force to work as it will like a river flowing, then they are aiding the light side.

all this talk of "gray" Force is silly to me because the Force hasn't changed: it just is, as it always has been.

i feel like not a lot of people like this particular thought process because a lot of people are big on the idea of there being a light side and a dark side and all that crap. frankly, the Force probably doesn't have a lot to do with you abusing its power, so like Satre would said, existence before essence: if you use the dark side then you define yourself as evil, and the same is true for light side. it's not like the dark side of the Force is out there lurking around trying to turn people to evil. unless, of course, that's the whole unknown region thing, in which case i'll be pretty damn disappointed. i know that the unknown region has been strong with the dark side and so i am curious as to how they'll play that out, but if it's some boogie man luring people to evil then yeah, Star Wars would have really taken a nose dive.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 19, 2017, Original Post Date: Apr 19, 2017 ---

to add on, i feel like when someone is using the Force against the natural flow, like a dark sider would, then that causes imbalance, or blockages in the river of the Force, if you follow me. bringing "balance" would be eliminating those that counter the will of the Force.

 

If you argue that they've introduced the character to better explain what balance is, then you are talking about "why".
Watching the serie my take is Bendu is not the balance, but what he says he is (one in the middle, one who does not take side, not one that uses both sides or that reached a superior knowledge or a consciousness beyond the idea of duality) and that he's not the answer, but the problem.
Balance is something else. It's so much bigger. In this sense, I agree, it has to be yet explored.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 20, 2017, Original Post Date: Apr 19, 2017 ---

I think we are, indeed.

Let's begin with this:

Let's say that what people are calling grey force, to me, don't exixts... as a force
Grey in canon is a different thing.
My post was about that - mainly.

But of course balance exixts ad I agree it will be explored in a deeper way.
I agree the Mortis Arc tell us something, about the Chosen One and the Balance.

But I also think we can agree that the Father - or Anakin as the Chosen One - is not an usual force sensitive being.
He's one of a kind.
They are... special.
It takes the Chosen One to bring balance. Not everyone. It is a special task or the prophecy and the prequels are meaningless. Same for the Mortis Arc.

I also agree, the task is not complete.
It's made clear not only by the movies.
We're learning that another dark force from the UR was playing a part since the PT time line.
Coincidence?
I don't think so. I've said elsewhere, I think we're going to see the second half/set of the match.
The final one (again, another reference to TCW finale "victory not in the clone wars, but in the all time")

And I think the ST and the new canon, will explore further the Balance, what the prophecy was really about, etc...
beocuse that's the only way to serve two purposes.
1- To give some satisfying answers to those things left open
2- To connect in a single tale everything that was told in the last 40 years.

How?
Let's say, if Balance is something special, so much so that the Chosen One is/was needed, it has to be a little bit more complicated than to use both light and dark.
It has to be bigger. Much bigger.
If so, I don't think they're going to ruin the franchise.
If I'm wrong, If I've read everything in a wrong way... hum... let say It won't be anymore what distinguished SW from everything else till now.

 

what about people that tap into the Force without being trained? what if they're just doing their thing, flying a ship or hunting a whatever, and they inexplicably manage to pull off some crazy stunt? is that gray, light, dark? does it matter?

 

i dig it.

it's weird to me how many different views there are of the Force among fans.

 

Tell that to LST!

Fair enough. I would add using the Force for knowledge and defence right up there with compassion and selflessness in important Jedi precepts. The problem remains that these concepts can be twisted, misinterpreted, and are broad enough to present all sorts of tricky nuances.

I get your point and agree that a Jedi life must be a continual struggle against the dangers inherent in power - something they continually train for. Dekka129 mentioned control and attachment to prophecy as possible flaws in some Jedi ideology and I agree. Part of the problem with power is the temptation to use power-over



and in the "grey" areas when controlling others for defence is in danger of crossing the line...

There's as much grey in destroying Hiroshima as there is in the FO destroying the Hosnian system! Evidence from U.S. archives shows such a view is no longer tenable.

The U.S.'s own Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946 states unequivocally that Japan would have surrendered even if the atom bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (United States Strategic Bombing Survey (Pacific War), 1 July 1946, bottom of p.26)

“Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. … I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face”. The secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions.” - Dwight Eisenhower, The White House Years: Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 (New York, 1963), pp.312-3

Spoiler: more facts

The National Archives in Washington chart Japanese peace overtures from as early as 1943. (Los Angeles Times, January 9, 1995, p.5 ) In a cable sent on May 5th 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the U.S. reveals that the Japanese were desperate to settle for peace, in capitulation, even if the terms were hard. ("Unconditional surrender" terms are always nonsense - all surrenders have conditions and in the end the Emperor stayed anyway.)

Spoiler: more facts

Far from being frightened of Japanese belligerence, On June 6 Stimson told Truman he was fearful the Japanese would surrender and the Air Force would have Japan so “bombed out” that the new weapon “would not have a fair background to show its strength”. (Udall, p.76) In his later memoirs, Stimson admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb”. (Stimson, p.629 ) In his diary he frankly explained a different reason for the assault. The bombs were dropped, in Stimson's words, “to persuade Russia to play ball.” (5/16/45 memorandum)

I completely agree. Fans have been warned there may be more ambiguity in TLJ - good! Life's complex and they say "tyranny is the removal of nuance". Growing up watching cowboys vs indians films taught me big lesson in the dangers of oversimplification and not to ever rely on Hollywood to accurately portray who the "good guys" are!

"Keepers of peace and justice through the use of force" is a title worthy of the Jedi, the Sith, and the First Order.

I think this is where simplifying what is complex, evoking false dichotomies, and speaking to vague and generalising concepts of "peace", "order", and "love" to rationalise one's actions is an easy and seductive path. Checking where our own assumptions and tactics may be considered "evil" may be harder but much more likely to result in "good".

 

he has his moments ~ hahaha

probably the single most valuable lesson my mother taught me as a child (watching those same westerns).

everyone has a point of view.

i think one of TFA's weakest points is not rationalizing the destruction of the Hosnian system in at least a slightly more nuanced way.
this could have been done so easily by making Hux's speech a real heart-stirrer instead of an unhinged lunatic screed.
we've had a number of stories about what Gleeson was actually doing because he's a troll who likes to play with his interviewers.
@RockyRoadHux could probably suss out the truth and the lies, but the point is, i think Abrams went straight for bombast when he might have given us a little something more to think about. Hux makes some interesting accusations in that speech, but we dismiss them outright because he's acting insane and it doesn't seem sufficient to justify obliterating billions of lives.

anyway, i'm rambling.
i think my point is that the EU novels have painted a more interesting picture of the political landscape and maybe Johnson will explore that now that we've so thoroughly judged everyone.

 

Anakin never even came close to attempting the middle ground.

He went from chafing at the Jedi Order's efforts to control his natural impulse toward a loving relationship with the woman he loved, to grasping desperately at the empty hope of controlling the death that he'd convinced himself was stalking Padme. Never once did he embrace the Force as it existed outside of the framework of either Jedi or Sith. Never once did he seek a path that did not hinge upon controlling the natural order of things, either via the benign dogma of the Jedi or the malignant greed of the Sith.

The middle ground is something else entirely. It's a river without dams, without levies, without locks, without manmade diversions. It's the Force, doing what it does rather than what sentient beings try to channel it into doing.

 

I agree completely. Maybe making Hux seem so unhinged in his speech was just an on-the-nose way to show his zeal and commitment to the FO ideology, reference other infamous rhetoricians, and to cue the younger audiences that the guy is a little unstable!

I liked his reference to the Rebublic "acquiescing to disorder" as his motivation parallels justifications for a galactic Jedi police! The old pre-emptive defence quagmire also seems to be a staple dilemma that all warring factions need to face at certain points.

I too hope that the ST gives some deeper rationale to the FO than the usual take power/control, obey orders tropes - we don't need to agree with these characters but the audience at least needs to understand why it is they make their decisions.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 20, 2017, Original Post Date: Apr 20, 2017 ---

Interesting points. I don't see a sentient being ever really becoming amoral, at least on the level of The Force etc. as we sentients can't help making judgments based on criteria - even ol' "in-the-middle" Bendu. Narratively speaking I guess we need our hero's to have some flaws. Without them we may struggle to relate to them and a good antagonist needs to find some weaknesses to exploit!

 

I don't see this kind of relationship to the Force as being anything that could possibly rob one of their humanity. It's more a matter of seeing and relating to the Force for what it is, rather than as we ask or command that it be.

Would a Force user who does not seek to deny his or her nature as an emotional being via a Jedi code that forbids things such as romantic love somehow be less human for it? Because this is the sort of thing I'm talking about here - more of a "zen" approach to the Force rather than a dogmatic or power-hungry one.

 

I personally think the Grey Jedi will be an interesting concept to see in the new movies

 

If you read my post, you'll notice that I argued the exact opposite. As I said, they didn't necessarily introduce the character to explain anything, but rather to expand the lore. And that is why the "why" in this case dosen't matter that much.

 

WELL. SAID. I agree completely. I can't help wondering whether this whole gray business is more indicative of a general, relativist moral climate in the world today than anything else.

That, and it does make for potentially intriguing story-telling, opening up new possibilities that we've not seen in the story before.

 

i can't speak for anyone but myself , but this idea of a middle or grey is not about eliminating or negating the dichotomy, or being morally relativist in any sense.
it's more about knowledge and understanding.
many good people do not understand (nor want to) the nature of evil.
many people who do evil things do not have a knowledge of good.

the middle could be a perspective: a way at looking at the essential nature of things more holistically, and of not judging actions (or more importantly people) superficially.

 

I'm just going to say this..because i keep reading how Gray does not equate to being in the middle... We have the Dark (Black) and we have the Light (White)...now...when we take a bit of black and mix in a bit of white...what do we get people? Gray....yay! (My niece is learning to mix colors in Kindergarten and she understood this concept when i said it to her...so i wanted to make sure it was as simple as possible before posting).. Anyway, lol, i'm just being funny..not trying to offend. But... If black is far right, and white is far left...and a bit of both leave their sides..they have to meet where? IN the MIDDLE...and when that bit of black and white meet, we end up with...Say it with me now. G-R-A-Y, yes, yes, Very good.

Sarcasm aside, i think everyone saying that the middle doesn't equate to gray is just wishful thinking or the denial of accepting where it's going. I'm not necssarily saying i'm on board with that, but Bendu (being a wise, old force like god) could not sound too wise if he said "Yo Kanan, i'm in the middle..ya know, i'm Gray!"... that wouldn't be too mystical. Saying, "I'm the one in the middle" is more or less saying, i'm not dark (black), i'm not light (white) i'm in the middle (Gray).. so that is why most people equate the middle to being gray..because that is what we in the world call Gray areas. When you're not too far one way or the other, you're in the middle...the gray area. So i mean..geeze..it's very common sense. I'm with you guys in understanding you don't want this gray area, but really..it's all but saying gray without actually saying the word Gray...but saying it in every other way possible. I know we as Star Wars fans don't accept things unless they come right out and say it.. we like to take everything and make our own interpretations, but sometimes when they're saying something...they're SAYING SOMETHING. lol

Again, just trying to layer some humor in here, not really trying to be a jerk in the way i say it. Now, lets laugh for two minutes...we're all Star Wars fans...

And....

Now..

Continue heated debates.

Edit** i just have to say, i was reading some of the comments about how the world is afraid of the Good/Bad or picking a side more or less. I absolutely agree with that sentiment. It seems people are afraid to pick a side, they would rather play it safe in the middle and perhaps that plays a part in why the ST is moving in that direction.

 

This already started a number of years back when Lucas sat down with Filoni and company and worked on the Mortis arc. Lucas also stated some time ago that he had considered a sequel trilogy in which the lines between good and evil weren't as clear cut as they had been in the earlier films.

Then the second a ST was announced, it was a cinch that we'd see yet another version of the Jedi/Sith conflict from the first six films. This meant that we're to believe that neither Luke nor Anakin ended up defeating the dark side at the end of ROTJ - that the struggle between the two would just rage on endlessly unless some new element was introduced.

And I think we all knowthat no storyteller worth their salt is just going to tell a good vs. evil story where there's never any resolution.

Now we get this tidbit in the trailer where Luke expresses his belief that the Jedi need to end.

That's a whole lot of dots there to pretend that they don't make some sort of picture.

I don't think that this has anything to do with moral relativism or people being afraid to take a side. I think it's simply about everyone involved realizing that in order to continue the Star Wars saga, the same old Jedi/Sith conflict wasn't going to cut it yet again. Some new dynamic is going to have to enter into the picture, and it's going to have to be something that makes sense in the context of what came before, while also being something that moves the overall story forward in an interesting way. Lucas seems to have understood this, and I think the rest of the LFL braintrust understands this as well.

I just think that folks are making a mistake in assuming that it has to be a Force-user approach that is equal parts Jedi and Sith. The Force itself is neither Jedi nor Sith, after all. And as we've seen already, in the ST the Force itself has volition and to some degree can act directly upon the physical world (consider the way that Rey was led to Luke's old saber by the sound of her young self crying, and then how the store room door opened without her touching anything.)

That means that the Force would almost certainly react to the damage that dark side users were doing to it through their destruction of the world around them. And it wouldn't necessarily do so via the Jedi code, especially when that code had previously proven dangerously ineffectual against the Sith threat.

So no, I don't think we're talking about anything as simplistic as a "grey Force" that merely blends light side powers and dark side powers like we might see in a video game. I think we're talking about a view of the universe and the conflict within it from the perspective of the Force itself, rather than from that of the Jedi or the Sith.

To me, that would be a whole hell of a lot more interesting and compelling than a test-tube combination of equal parts Jedi and Sith could ever be.

 

You're basically just viewing this through the lens of simply combining an equal number of maxed-out Force powers and calling it a day.

That's fine if you're playing a video game, but actual storytelling needn't be anywhere near that overly simplistic. In fact, if it's going to be worth much, it shouldn't be anywhere near that overly simplistic. From what we've been able to glean so far, whatever they have in mind for the ST will not follow that simplistic duality.

And of course, the fact of the matter is that the entire premise of the ST is that neither Luke nor Anakin ended up balancing anything at the end of ROTJ. If they had, the galaxy wouldn't be back to square one with the galaxy being threatened by a new Empire led by dark side Force users less than half a century later.

If you've got a problem with that, then take it up with George Lucas for dreaming up ST stories when he sold his company and not simply leaving everything as it was at the end of ROTJ.