What does it mean to be a great Jedi?

[Cerez]

Eesh... you guys are really making me write... >.<'

 

I marvel at the fact that you can say this:

 

And then immediately in the next sentence say something like this:

 

... without recognizing that the two contradict each other.

 

This exact issue lies at the heart of what others and myself have raised against you previously, which you have yet to address. If 'there is no right and wrong', as you (falsly) claim with no arguments to back it up whatsoever, then the gray jedi cannot justify their actions to restore balance or to not permit the jedi to interfere in the politics of other places.

I don't appreciate the aggressive jab, but okay... let's look to the source material, then:

 

Carth Onasi: "So, Jolee, you decided to leave your little hermitage in the forest and come help us stop the Sith. I guess you realized this war was worth coming out of retirement for, huh?"

 

Jolee Bindo (sarcastically): "Yeah, that's right, sonny. The Sith are the greatest evil to hit the galaxy since, well, the Mandalorians. And they're the worst thing since Exar Kun. Blah, blah, blah, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera."

 

Carth Onasi: "Okay, old man, you lost me there. Are you trying to make a point?"

 

Jolee Bindo: "Look, everybody always figures the time they live in is the most epic, most important age to end all ages. But tyrants and heroes rise and fall, and historians sort out the pieces."

 

Darth Revan: "Are you saying what we're doing isn't important?"

 

Jolee Bindo: "Malak is a tyrant who should be stopped. If he conquers the galaxy, we're in for a couple of rough centuries. Eventually it'll come around again, but I'd rather not wait that long. So we do what we have to do and we try to stop the Sith. But don't start thinking this war, your war, is more important than any other war just because you're in it."

I'm sure you can read between the lines, but his final response talks to this, answering your question pretty much directly. The is no "right" and "wrong", there just "is". The actions of people and their views are ultimately insignificant to the balance of the Force (in the Gray Jedi perspective).

 

Is there a universal right and wrong in the many faces of the natural world? Do you need to know that something is "right" in order to feel if it is part of the natural balance? Can you be an individual, living and acting independently, and still be part of a larger whole? Does being right or wrong ultimately mean anything on the great scale?

 

Or in Jolee's own words: "Sometimes swirling Force is just swirling Force. It gets all us old Jedis excited at our age so we go 'Oooo, destiny!'"

 

If there is no right and wrong, then we cannot justify non-interference because you cannot say the jedi would be wrong in interfering while at the same time claiming there is no right and wrong.

Ask yourself by what right does the Jedi Order claim to know the truth about the balance of the Force. Or the Sith Order for that matter. Their beliefs, and their wisdom give them the power. Wisdom and knowledge acquired through the ages.

 

Using the same principle, a Gray Jedi can know the balance just the same. It always comes from a personal perspective. It is interpreted by the person. But there is some universal truth in it that most Jedi and Sith recognise.

 

When Jolee Bindo joined to tag along, and influenced Revan's growth, what right did he have to presume to know what is the right way for the Chosen One, and to interact?

 

If there is no right and wrong, then we have no reason whatsoever to respect other traditions. In fact, then it cannot possibly be wrong to disrespect other traditions.

This is where you are narrowing your own perspective. Does only the "right" side deserve the right to exist? Can (what one perceives to be) the "wrong" not thrive and exist? How can one expect that others will respect their tradition and adopt their ways when they have disrespected others'? Does this not make one a tyrant?

 

What you are effectively saying here is that just because one perceives (with their current knowledge and insight) that another's tradition is "wrong", they have the right to impose their own will upon the other people?

 

Free speech is one thing; this is something completely different...

 

This is not arrogantly imposing your views, it's protecting innocent people like yourself, people you recognize to have the will to live and be free from pain.

This is something I hope would go pretty much without saying, and if we can agree on this (saving the lives of innocent people and also soldiers is good), then we can continue - in which case you must specify more clearly where you disagree with what I've said.

Naturally, I recognise that saving human lives is important, but what you are saying here is that as an outsider one has the right to intervene in people's lives and impose control over their lives, which I do not agree with in the least. This shows a lack of respect for the people and their ways, and has nothing to do with their casualties -- the two are mutually exclusive. If a people choose to die for a cause, they have the right to do with their own(!) lives what they will. No outsider has the right to intervene in their lives and choices.

 

How would you feel if your culture and traditions were invaded by a foreign power who perceives them to be wrong?

 

Why are the people unhappy? What specifically are we talking about? What kind of thing are the Jedi blindly suppressing that a whole city cannot seek to change through democratic processes (feel free to include examples from real life)?

In this instance, let's take that the current government (not democratic) was enforcing laws that did not allow for expression of emotions or attachments, for example. Where people were monitored night and day, and any show of passion or emotion would potentially label one as a criminal against the system with a potential for violence.

 

This would be a Jedi ideals influenced totalitaristic form of government. The Jedi may not be directly involved in the happenings, but by their Code nothing would be wrong, and nothing could be changed -- and their sole presence and authority would strengthen this regime.

 

A situation like that would call of Sith ideals to be introduced to the populace, and a little uprising to stir things up a bit, and bring life back into the lives of these people.

[Mizore]

Again, this applies to traditions as well: If there is no right and wrong, then we have no reason whatsoever to respect other traditions. In fact, then it cannot possibly be wrong to disrespect other traditions.

 

I agree. It is an argument against cultural relativism: a relativist can affirm that there is no right and wrong as a mean to avoid one culture imposing itself on another (relativism vs. ethnocentrism), but if there is no right and wrong, then we can not justify why a culture should not be imposed on another.

[Cerez]

Hahaha! Found another one that's very much relevant to this discussion:

 

"The problem with self-righteous folk is they think they're more right than everyone else." ~ Jolee Bindo

[Ping]

I'm sure you can read between the lines, but his final response talks to this, answering your question pretty much directly. The is no "right" and "wrong", there just "is". The actions of people and their views are ultimately insignificant to the balance of the Force (in the Gray Jedi perspective).

I do not see how you can read that out of the quote. He makes it explicitly clear that "Malak is a tyrant who should be stopped." If someone should be stopped, then it is right for us to stop them. Jolee makes a very clear statement about what is right and wrong and what should be done in the face of an evil person. He doesn't say at all that Malak becoming a tyrant is insignificant: He makes it very obvious that "we're in for a couple of rough centuries" (i.e. it is bad for it to happen) if that happens and that he'd "rather not wait that long". He answers Carth's question with a resounding "yes, it is important."

 

This is where you are narrowing your own perspective. Does only the "right" side deserve the right to exist? Can (what one perceives to be) the "wrong" not thrive and exist? How can one expect that others will respect their tradition and adopt their ways when they have disrespected others'? Does this not make one a tyrant?

 

What you are effectively saying here is that just because one perceives (with their current knowledge and insight) that another's tradition is "wrong", they have the right to impose their own will upon the other people?

By claiming that side x has a right to exist, you make a right/wrong distinction. But if you claim that there is no such thing as right and wrong, then you cannot claim that side x has a right to exist. So therefore I cannot claim any tradition is worthy of respect if respecting others is not something that is right, and respecting others is not something that is right because there is nothing that is right and wrong.

 

Ask yourself by what right does the Jedi Order claim to know the truth about the balance of the Force. Or the Sith Order for that matter. Their beliefs, and their wisdom give them the power. Wisdom and knowledge acquired through the ages.

 

Using the same principle, a Gray Jedi can know the balance just the same. It always comes from a personal perspective. It is interpreted by the person. But there is some universal truth in it that most Jedi and Sith recognise.

I do not understand what you mean. Either there is "universal truth" (whatever that means) or there is not, and if there is not, then whatever the gray jedi do or say is equally as unjustified as whatever the jedi or sith do or say. If there is such "universal truth", then one side is wrong and the other is right. But you want to say that the actions of one side (jedi) are not justified, because nothing can ever be justified, without wanting to give up the claim that any action of anyone else (gray jedi) are justified.

 

Either doing x is something we should do, should not do or it does not matter. If you say that x is something that neither should nor should not be done because nothing should or should not be done, then whether x is done doesn't matter. But then you cannot claim that doing y (respecting tradition) is something we should do.

[Boothand]

(..) let's look to the source material, then:

 [snip]

 

I'm sure you can read between the lines, but his final response talks to this, answering your question pretty much directly. The is no "right" and "wrong", there just "is".

 

That's not what I read into that quote at all. How does it suggest that there is no right and wrong? He basically says that the right thing to do now is stopping the tyrant Malak, though questioning the greater picture importance of the war, as things will balance out eventually. But as I'll repeat below, life is more than the greater picture of the world.

 

 

The actions of people and their views are ultimately insignificant to the balance of the Force (in the Gray Jedi perspective).

 

So, the actions of gray Jedi (people) and their views are insignificant to the balance of the force too? If the force has a natural balance, wouldn't it be, for a gray Jedi, the most unnatural thing to try to actively change that balance? If the world (or some place) is at some point 'overly good' (in lack of a better description), wouldn't it according to the quote you pasted be insignificant in the greater picture, as it wouldn't stay that way forever, and thus be insignificant to try to change that? If there's a natural balance, it would come about on its own, you wouldn't need gray Jedi to justify violence by saying it serves to balance out the force.

 

Not saying I agree about the dynamics of things balancing out one way or the other, but I found those points problematic with what you said above.

 

 

 

Is there a universal right and wrong in the many faces of the natural world? Do you need to know that something is "right" in order to feel if it is part of the natural balance? Can you be an individual, living and acting independently, and still be part of a larger whole? Does being right or wrong ultimately mean anything on the great scale?

 

1. There is arguably no universal right or wrong (can skip a metaphysical discussion here), but this acknowledgement means nothing to us, because we all have compassion, we understand others through our understanding of ourself. We're able to make the conclusion that what hurts ourselves hurts someone else too, and that causing others pain is unnecessary unless you're in a desperate situation. This is where we as humans can start to recognize 'good' and 'bad', or more objectively 'preferable' and 'unpreferable' (can skip a discussion on altruism too, unless you're very eager to talk about good/bad in that sense). I'll skip forward a bit and conclude that saving lives, sparing a majority from pain is ethically 'right'.

 

2. At this point I become more unsure what you really mean about 'natural balance'.

 

3 & 4. So if I understand correctly, you argue that good/bad actions are insignificant in the great scale and thus lose their meaning (and thus their importance) in the great scale as well. Can you not think of things throughout history that made a great picture change through individuals' efforts (based on what is right/wrong), whether they started on their own or combined their efforts? Not sure where you're going with this, but even if your actions never could impact the great picture (which I don't grant), the great picture isn't the only thing that matters. Someone's life may be just a frame in the infinite timeline, but to discredit their actions, morals, opinions or feelings as something without meaning for the sake of the greater (infinite) timeline is an argument for what? I could turn it around and say 'does the greater timeline mean anything in the scale of a human life?'

Being right or wrong means something to us as humans, and the meaning we get out of it while we live is as important as the meaning it has from any other perspective (such as the perspective from the great scale). As you pointed out, it's about perspective, and that goes in a lot of directions - but due to our common abilities and understanding, most (!) of us can recognize the same basic principles about 'good' and 'bad'.

 

 

 

Naturally, I recognise that saving human lives is important, but what you are saying here is that as an outsider one has the right to intervene in people's lives and impose control over their lives, which I do not agree with in the least. This shows a lack of respect for the people and their ways, and has nothing to do with their casualties -- the two are mutually exclusive. If a people choose to die for a cause, they have the right to do with their own(!) lives what they will. No outsider has the right to intervene in their lives and choices.

 

How would you feel if your culture and traditions were invaded by a foreign power who perceives them to be wrong?

 

Okay, so I took some steps back so we could do the basics first, but I think you're misunderstanding me.

 

My logic:

1. I can save more than 1000 lives of non-participating people by stopping a war. This is good, I should stop it. I sneak in at night and switch out all their guns with bananas.

2. They find new guns the day after, also the banana industry grows inbalanced and marks the start of the Big Bloody Banana Revolution of the century. Country/City #1 loses the conflict, and it cost them 3000 soldiers, 1000 pregnant women and men, 1000 wild animals, 4 scientists and one small time criminal bantha herder as well as their cultural treasures peed on by the Country/City #2. This is bad, I should do something else.

3 A. I talk to General Gerderberg, I give him a speech inspired by Rocky, get him on a conference call with General Hatemanship, and they agree to take it easy after persuasive arguments. This is good.

3 B. I talk to General Gerderberg. He has already seen Rocky, and he can't appreciate conference calls, he needs to look his opponent in the eye as he rejects my peace attempts with a horde of pitchfork wielding toddlers riding on slaves. I ignite my righteous lightsaber and spare their lives brutally with a relaxing, mysterious provision of mother's milk. I call in my backup and we arrogantly take over. 3 of our men mistake their cultural treasures for public toilets, but we make peace with City/Country #2. The people hate us and spend the next 5 years planning and going through with a revolution to put a new leader of their own choosing on board. This is... arguably better than the devastating war.

 

Now, don't get me wrong:

I don't 'approve' of needlessly intervening. I'm saying that you have the 'right' as a fellow human being to be a part of the world, and if you can prevent great injustices, save lives, I believe there is a way to go about that, without arrogantly 'imposing' yourself on another culture with your own views. A country or culture separate from others can't just make up its own horrible rules in an enclosed bubble and automatically be safe from outside judgement and intervenance. You can live in a separate culture, but you can't separate from humanity.

 

 

In this instance, let's take that the current government (not democratic) was enforcing laws that did not allow for expression of emotions or attachments, for example. Where people were monitored night and day, and any show of passion or emotion would potentially label one as a criminal against the system with a potential for violence.

 

This would be a Jedi ideals influenced totalitaristic form of government. The Jedi may not be directly involved in the happenings, but by their Code nothing would be wrong, and nothing could be changed -- and their sole presence and authority would strengthen this regime.

 

A situation like that would call of Sith ideals to be introduced to the populace, and a little uprising to stir things up a bit, and bring life back into the lives of these people.

 

I agree that the above case would be abusive and wrong (hey, suddenly we're talking about taking actions against things that are perceived as wrong! Just a note for the first part of this post). The case you're presenting is basically Jedi Hitler, where the Jedi code suddenly gets seen as a recipe that every individual (not just Jedi) had to follow and fit, and the people get convinced and brainwashed into welcoming it (otherwise eliminated/hurt as you suggested). I simply don't agree that the Jedi code is intended for this purpose, like some of us have suggested earlier, nor that the Jedi are or would become that extreme even if they were to follow it to every extent.

If they were, I believe rebellion would solve it over time, not galactic wars (you might not even suggest that, in this case, I'm not sure).

 

But to get to the main point of how I see flaw in your logic: You want to remove the suppressing Jedi, but at this point, you have already recognized them to be 'bad' (your description of the extreme Jedi ways) and therefore they should be replaced by something that would, in your perspective, be considered more beneficial, or good (even if that meant involving 'bad guys' to achieve greater justice).

 

 

Bottom line: You, as a gray Jedi, through the above provided example, are working towards balancing out things you think are 'bad' with things you think are 'good'. Balance, for you, is also more of the good, but you're afraid of an extreme interpretation of values held by those we consider 'good', and that the values would lead to something bad.

 

 

Now, the most important part (to me): Let's pretend we're not talking about Jedi Hitler, but about the real world. There is a lasting peace in a lot of countries in today's world. Do you agree that there is meaningful progress in these countries, and that new violent conflicts are not necessary? This is, I think, the distinction we need to make in order not to misunderstand each other.

 

 

Bottom side note: Happy Christmas! And yes, I started writing this reply before Ping submitted his

[Ping]

@@Boothand and I make basically the same points and the bottom line really is that @@Cerez either has to give up claiming that there is no right/wrong or she has to give up claiming that respecting traditions/non-interference is the right thing to do. You can't have both because that would involve a contradiction.

 

As for what @@Boothand wrote, I will defend the gray jedi against the following:

 

 

So, the actions of gray Jedi (people) and their views are insignificant to the balance of the force too? If the force has a natural balance, wouldn't it be, for a gray Jedi, the most unnatural thing to try to actively change that balance? If the world (or some place) is at some point 'overly good' (in lack of a better description), wouldn't it according to the quote you pasted be insignificant in the greater picture, as it wouldn't stay that way forever, and thus be insignificant to try to change that? If there's a natural balance, it would come about on its own, you wouldn't need gray Jedi to justify violence by saying it serves to balance out the force.

It is obvious to me (contra @@Cerez) that the balance is something the gray jedi think is good/right and should be promoted, achieved and maintained, while imbalance is bad/evil and should be avoided, shunned and mended. It is therefore right to do something to restore or maintain the balance and wrong to do the opposite. Having said that, if there is imbalance at any point in time, the world might be such that balance will be eventually restored, but (!) gray jedi can speed up the process. You don't really need gray jedi to do anything, but if they do act, then balance will be restored sooner than later, which is better in the overall scheme of things.

[Boothand]

As for what @@Boothand wrote, I will defend the gray jedi against the following:

 

 

It is obvious to me (contra @@Cerez) that the balance is something the gray jedi think is good/right and should be promoted, achieved and maintained, while imbalance is bad/evil and should be avoided, shunned and mended. It is therefore right to do something to restore or maintain the balance and wrong to do the opposite. Having said that, if there is imbalance at any point in time, the world might be such that balance will be eventually restored, but (!) gray jedi can speed up the process. You don't really need gray jedi to do anything, but if they do act, then balance will be restored sooner than later, which is better in the overall scheme of things.

 

I can understand that purpose, for the gray Jedi, and it sounds reasonable on its own. But the way they define balance, judging by the way it was described by Cerez, feels unlogical to me. So, I guess we would need to clearly define what 'balance' means.

 

Is it an equal (for simplicity's sake) amount of 'good' and 'bad' (as in peace vs war/conflict), or is it the ideal of finding the golden middleway between extreme light and extreme dark, and making sure any place isn't consumed by either (which would result in ridding the world of bad - tyranny, oppression etc)? Or something else?

 

The former feels very artificial to me.

[Ping]

Yeah, as I mentioned previously, the only way for me to make sense of gray jedi is to think of them as light jedi without being affiliated with the jedi order, i.e. without having to follow precepts, be without passions or only using light side powers or whatever restrictions the order may have put on the jedi out there. They simply work on their own and (might possibly) differ in the means that they use to bring about a balance in the force (i.e. dark side powers, passions or whatnot), but the end goal is the same for them as for the jedi order, namely to establish and maintain balance in the force. This in turn I would then understand as fighting against evil, injustice and the dark side at large, based on the concept of the force as being a single, unitary thing. So gray jedi share the same end as the jedi order, but merely differ in their means.

[Mizore]

"The problem with self-righteous folk is they think they're more right than everyone else." ~ Jolee Bindo

 

The Jedi - mainly after Luke - are open to someone to correct them. Rather it is their mortal enemies who normally believe that they are always right.

[Cerez]

Regarding the Gray Jedi being close to the Jedi Order:

 

The Jedi Code:

 

There is no emotion, there is peace.

There is no passion, there is serenity.

 

"Amongst other dictates, the Jedi Code forbade Jedi Knights and Jedi Masters from taking on more than one Padawan at a given time; and forbade Jedi from forming attachments, such as marriage, and other specific, individual bonds, such as romantic love and family."

The Sith Code:

 

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.

Through passion, I gain strength.

Jolee Bindo: The Jedi, with their damnable sense of over-caution, would tell you love is something to avoid. Thankfully, anyone who's even partially alive knows that's not true.

 

Darth Revan: That's what I've always thought.

 

Jolee Bindo: Love doesn't lead to the dark side. Passion can lead to rage and fear, and can be controlled... but passion is not the same thing as love.

 

Jolee Bindo: Controlling your passions while being in love... that's what they should teach you to beware. But love, itself, will save you... not condemn you.

 

[...]

 

Jolee Bindo: How you deal with the bad part of love is what determines your character, what determines the dark side's hold over you.

 

Darth Revan: Maybe the Jedi just think you shouldn't take that risk.

 

Jolee Bindo: Bah. A life without risk is boring. Is that how you want to live? You want love, you've got to fight for it.

About "right" and "wrong":

 

The same as Jolee demonstrates throughout his talks with Darth Revan, I've claimed that for a Gray Jedi Knight there is a "right" and "wrong" only for the individual, from their perspective. The universe doesn't deal in absolutes, and two Gray Jedi Knights may disagree completely on what they perceive to be right and wrong.

 

Jolee Bindo: "Look, everybody always figures the time they live in is the most epic, most important age to end all ages. But tyrants and heroes rise and fall, and historians sort out the pieces."

 

Darth Revan: "Are you saying what we're doing isn't important?"

 

Jolee Bindo: "Malak is a tyrant who should be stopped. If he conquers the galaxy, we're in for a couple of rough centuries. Eventually it'll come around again, but I'd rather not wait that long. So we do what we have to do and we try to stop the Sith. But don't start thinking this war, your war, is more important than any other war just because you're in it."

For instance, one Gray Jedi may perceive that allowing war to rage between two factions is good, and the right thing to do, while the other may perceive that war has never helped, and choose to act to bring peace between the two factions.

 

Whatever their choice in right or wrong, they are acting on their own behalf, as individuals. What makes a Jedi of the Order a Jedi is that they are Jedi above being an individual with their own, individual feelings and motives.

 

Gray Jedi recognise that nothing in the universe is flawless, or unchanging, and that nothing in the universe is truly "right" or "wrong" -- not "good" or "evil" -- but everything just "is". Balance is between Light and Dark, "right" and "wrong", good and evil. Their own choices are just that -- their own choices. In contrast, the Jedi Order and the Sith believe that their actions serve a higher purpose of "good", or "right", and that fighting against the opposite will bring peace.

 

Note that no matter what path you take in KOTOR, whether Darth Revan turns to the Dark or the Light, Jolee tags along and does not try to stop him, merely advises him based on his own experiences. Furthermore, his alignment is not influenced by the party's (Revan's) path taken. Why do you think Jolee chose to accompany Darth Revan? In his own words:

 

Jolee Bindo: I'm not here to judge you or tell you which path to take. I'm here ready to offer you my help... should you ask for it.

 

Jolee Bindo: I do that because I think it's important. More important than remaining in my home and pretending the galaxy doesn't exist. That's why I'm here.

 

[...]

 

Jolee Bindo: Interest? Well, I certainly don't have a vested interest... call it more idle curiosity. Your destiny is... rather unclear.

 

[...]

 

Jolee Bindo: Well I for one am quite content to let you make your own mistakes. Just because I want to see where this ends up doesn't mean I need to tell you how to get there.

Does that sound like a righteous Jedi to you? One who tags along to see the outcome that impacts the fate of the galaxy, whether that end pushes things towards the Light or the Dark Side? Whether it causes casualties and suffering for millions? Does that sound like something that the Jedi Order would approve of?

 

Finally, the official description from Wookiepedia for a Gray Jedi:

The term Gray Jedi, or Gray, had two meanings. First, it was used by Jedi and Sith to describe Force-users who walked the line between the light and dark sides of the Force without surrendering to the dark side, and second, it described Jedi who distanced themselves from the Jedi High Council and operated outside the strictures of the Jedi Code. However, those who were considered to be true Gray Jedi met both qualifications and did not belong to any particular Force tradition.

[Boothand]

Does that sound like a righteous Jedi to you? One who tags along to see the outcome that impacts the fate of the galaxy, whether that end pushes things towards the Light or the Dark Side? Whether it causes casualties and suffering for millions? Does that sound like something that the Jedi Order would approve of?

 

I don't think the question is so much 'what is a gray Jedi?', so much as it is 'why would you be a gray Jedi?'.

 

If it is as Ping describes and the second Wookieepedia definition describes, it's someone working to restore peace/justice/harmony outside the ways of the Jedi code. This is reasonable, to me at least.

 

But what I get from you is very mixed:

1. Nothing is good or bad, right or wrong, all a matter of perspective, no universal truth - you are justified to do any action on your own accord, no code to guide you.

2. Every gray Jedi cares about the state of the world and should or will take actions to make it right.

3. None of your efforts matter in the great scale, it will balance out.

4. If Jedi are in control, society will eventually grow stale - an example you gave of this was Jedi suppressing people, forcing the code upon regular people, making people unhappy.

5. If things are overly good (or peaceful), society will grow stale (even if Jedi are not in control), so you should do something to disrupt the peace (and from this, we can conclude that making progress is good or desirable).

6. Gray Jedi are necessary in order to free societies or cultures from oppression (rebellion would not play a more important part, at least you haven't addressed it any of the times I brought it up).

7. Making impact on another culture than your own is disrespectful and bad, you have no right.

 

Before you bring new pastes from expanded universe and things to help define what a gray Jedi is (if that feels important), we must clean up these arguments, because I can't see the overall connection between this at least.

 

Some reminders about my stance here, since you haven't responded to a lot of it, so we don't go in loops:

 

-The Jedi code isn't perfect, but it's not likely to be projected unto 'the people'.

-Jedi Hitler is bad, nobody supports this. Yes, go ahead with Darth Maul and force them out of action (then make democracy).

-Don't make conflicts if there is happiness. Peace does not equal lack of progress.

[Mizore]

Gray Jedi recognise that nothing in the universe is flawless, or unchanging, and that nothing in the universe is truly "right" or "wrong" -- not "good" or "evil" -- but everything just "is". Balance is between Light and Dark, "right" and "wrong", good and evil. 

 

 

But there is a contradiction: there is no absolute good, but the balance of the Force is the absolute good. 

 

I still believe that the balance of the Force interpreted as equality between Light and Dark, "right" and "wrong", good and evil is as absurd as to consider that a poisoned pizza is good because it is a balance between pizza and poison, when it is so bad as poison. Reference to The Simpsons 

[Cerez]

But there is a contradiction: there is no absolute good, but the balance of the Force is the absolute good.

The balance in the Force is not the "absolute good" from the Gray Jedi perspective, it simply exists, and it defines the state of our lives. It is the Jedi Order and the Sith Order who believe that restoring balance to the Force from their own perspectives is doing an absolute good.

 

The role of the Gray Jedi Knight is to keep to the balance between the Light and the Dark Side, ultimately succumbing to neither. We exist to help keep this dynamic balance in the Force flowing because we understand that life is at its most fruitful, and at its best when there is Light and there is Darkness -- for all creatures of the universe. We don't recognise an ultimate good on either side of the Jedi-Sith, Light and Dark Side war.

 

I still believe that the balance of the Force interpreted as equality between Light and Dark, "right" and "wrong", good and evil is as absurd as to consider that a poisoned pizza is good because it is a balance between pizza and poison, when it is so bad as poison. Reference to The Simpsons 

This is an open discussion, and I have no reason to challenge your beliefs. As I've said earlier, I believe this perspective makes you a proper Jedi of the Order -- the belief that good will triumph over evil, and that evil exists.

 

I don't think the question is so much 'what is a gray Jedi?', so much as it is 'why would you be a gray Jedi?'.

The topic's question is "What does it mean to be a great Jedi?", not why would one be a Gray Jedi.

 

Please note that this is not a topic about me, personally, altough I do believe I've explained in detail my personal point of view, and attraction to the Gray Jedi way.

 

There is no point in trying to discredit me, @@Boothand, @@Ping, as what I've said I've based on direct evidence and my personal interpretation from official dialogues in the Star Wars sources we have about Gray Jedi. You are free to have your own point of views on this topic, but please don't claim that my own are invalid. It would be nice if you could back up your views with source evidence as well (so I'm not the only one)...

 

I would like it if we drifted the topic's theme away from a focus on Gray Jedi, and back to the general perspective people have on what it means to be a Jedi.

 

I will answer your questions as they pertain to my personal understanding of the Gray Jedi way:

 

1. This is right. Every individual is responsible for their own action, and the effects of their own actions (which are neither "good" nor "bad" in the ultimate sense, but a mixture of both).

2. Every Jedi feels the flow of the Force, and every Gray Jedi is aware of the balance between the Dark and the Light Side. What they do with that knowledge is at their own discretion.

3. None of your efforts will make the scale topple over. The state of the scale affects your life as it pertains to now, and your future. Whether a Gray Jedi chooses to help change the current state, or is content to hide away and exclude themselves from the current state of the galaxy, nature will not crumble, and things will balance themselves out eventually. The only thing that is truly affected by our actions are our own lives. Good will never triumph over evil, and evil will never triumph over good, truly. They are essential to humanity, and unseparably connected to one another.

4. If the proper Jedi way defines the state of the galaxy, I believe people will suffer just as much as if the Sith way were defining the state, yes. We haven't seen too many examples of this in Star Wars so far -- the focus has been on evil (from the Jedi Order's perspective) coming out triumphant, and stopping it from doing so. However, you can see glimpses of the traditional Jedi ways crumbling when faced with taking a side and getting involved in the happenings of the Clone Wars. The Jedi Council's unwillingness to accept that where there is Light there is Darkness in their actions, and in a person is what makes ultimately the Order weaken and crumble from the inside with the fall of the Chosen One, and their fight against the Dark Side cause suffering to countless Separatist civilians.

5. I was not talking in absolutes -- I'm nor Jedi, nor Sith! A period of peace is valuable often, but conflict (not necessarily the most extreme form of it, war) is just as valuable.

6. I have never said that Gray Jedi are necessary for anything. No individual living creature is necessary to the Force, but we are all a part of it. I was merely explaining what a Gray Jedi may choose to do to try and influence the state of the galaxy, at their discretion, because you've asked me, specifically.

7. Making an impact on another culture as an outsider, without knowing or respecting that culture is wrong, yes. I do believe this. Do not do unto others what you would not have done to you. And if you do so, do not expect that it will not come back to bite you in the ass.

 

-The Jedi code isn't perfect, but it's not likely to be projected unto 'the people'.

You don't know this. Just because it hasn't happened in a drastic way so far doesn't mean it never will... If the Sith Order and the Dark Side users were vanquished, it might very well happen. We recognise that a galaxy dominated by the Sith would be out of balance, but why do most of us not see the same for the Jedi? Is their Code any less extreme in its definition? Are their people any less flawed? These are questions I would put to you as a Gray Jedi.

 

Also, not every Jedi of the Order would agree with your perspective here. Some believe that it is not the Code that is the problem, but the flawed people who interpret it.

 

-Don't make conflicts if there is happiness. Peace does not equal lack of progress.

I believe it can. It can very much slow down human progress, and make us forget the values of conflict. Peace is not desirable in a world where everything is stale, and there is very little progress. Where people grow bored of not being challenged. You grow weakest when you are at constant peace. It is through conflict that you gain abilities that better your chance for survival, and give you values that define your sense of self.

[Ping]

There is no point in trying to discredit me, @Boothand, @Ping, as what I've said I've based on direct evidence and my personal interpretation from official dialogues in the Star Wars sources we have about Gray Jedi. You are free to have your own point of views on this topic, but please don't claim that my own are invalid. It would be nice if you could back up your views with source evidence as well (so I'm not the only one)...

Why do you think your personal interpretation cannot be possibly 'invalid'? What you have said so far about the gray jedi is just plain incoherent and goes far beyond the textual evidence (be it dialogues or even the wookiepedia definition of a gray jedi) that you should not be surprised that people call you out on it.

 

For example, the (1)-(7) that @@Boothand so very well summarized should make it obvious that one cannot hold all 7 claims without being incoherent. 1 contradicts 2, 5 and 7; 3 contradicts 5 and 6; and 7 pretty much contradicts them all. And even with your @@Cerez emendations to (1)-(7), then (1: nothing is ever good or bad) still contradicts (5: peace is good for a while, war good for a while) and (7: disrespecting cultures is bad). If there is nothing that is ever good or bad, then disrespecting cultures cannot ever be bad.

 

Consider for example this claim:

 

 

The role of the Gray Jedi Knight is to keep to the balance between the Light and the Dark Side, ultimately succumbing to neither. We exist to help keep this dynamic balance in the Force flowing because we understand that life is at its most fruitful, and at its best when there is Light and there is Darkness -- for all creatures of this universe. We don't recognise an ultimate good on either side of the Jedi-Sith, Light and Dark Side war.

You do recognize an ultimate good, namely to keep the balance, because as you say, "life is at its most fruitful and at its best" that way. That is both a good that contradicts the claim that nothing is ever good or bad, right or wrong, -and- it is an ultimate good in exactly the same sense that the light/dark side envisions it, just that instead of having the light dominate or the dark dominate, you choose to have balance dominate.

[Cerez]

If there is nothing that is ever good or bad, then disrespecting cultures cannot ever be bad.

Just because there is no universal good and bad does not mean that people do not perceive things individually good or bad. This is how what I said makes sense. If you wrong others, do not expect that they will not retaliate in return. There is a natural order to things that lies beyond good and bad.

 

Why do you think your personal interpretation cannot be possibly 'invalid'?

Let me turn this around: What gives you the right to call my beliefs invalid? I'm entitled to them, just as anyone. If you, personally, can't see the connection between the textual references I've provided and my understanding of them, that doesn't mean my beliefs and perspective are invalid. It may mean that you need to acquire further knowledge and variety in perspective to understand them, or simply that your own views and experiences are so different that you cannot relate to my perspective.

 

 

For example, the (1)-(7) that @@Boothand so very well summarized should make it obvious that one cannot hold all 7 claims without being incoherent. 1 contradicts 2, 5 and 7; 3 contradicts 5 and 6; and 7 pretty much contradicts them all. And even with your @@Cerez emendations to (1)-(7), then (1: nothing is ever good or bad) still contradicts (5: peace is good for a while, war good for a while) and (7: disrespecting cultures is bad).

I think the reason you see my arguments as contradictory is because you perceive everything in the world to have value from the perspective of right and wrong. As I've explained to you earlier, I don't believe this is the case. Just because there is no universal right and wrong does not mean that creatures of this world cannot exist in mutual dynamics and harmony, and that there are no rules to life.

 

You do recognize an ultimate good, namely to keep the balance, because as you say, "life is at its most fruitful and at its best" that way. That is both a good that contradicts the claim that nothing is ever good or bad, right or wrong, -and- it is an ultimate good in exactly the same sense that the light/dark side envisions it, just that instead of having the light dominate or the dark dominate, you choose to have balance dominate.

I see this is as a valid point. If the Gray Jedi believe in a "good", it would be the dynamic balance between the Light and the Dark Side. However, in this case the "bad" does not have the same weight as for the Jedi or the Sith. As a galaxy dominated by either extreme (i.e. out of balance) would not be something that causes too much grief to a Gray Jedi Knight, as they are impartial in the conflict, and they understand that the balance will return on its own in time.

[Ping]

Just because there is no universal good and bad does not mean that people do not perceive things individually good or bad. This is how what I said makes sense. If you wrong others, do not expect that they will not retaliate in return. There is a natural order to things that lies beyond good and bad.

But whether or not other people perceive things as good or bad makes no difference for whether or not I should respect cultures or not. If I wrong others in such a way that they cannot retaliate (i.e. that there are no bad consequences for me), then nothing in the world can tell me whether or not I should do it if there is no good or bad at all. By saying that others think x is good or bad you make a descriptive claim, but you cannot then use that claim to say what I should or should not do (cannot draw an ought from an is).

 

Let me turn this around: What gives you the right to call my beliefs invalid? I'm entitled to them, just as anyone. If you, personally, can't see the connection between the textual references I've provided and my understanding of them, that doesn't mean my beliefs and perspective are invalid. It may mean that you need to acquire further knowledge and variety in perspective to understand them, or simply that your own views and experiences are so different that you cannot relate to my perspective.

It is that, from what you have written so far, your views are self-contradictory and thereby incoherent. It seems uncharitable to call SW lore self-contradictory and incoherent, so therefore your views are not doing SW lore justice. Do I misunderstand your views? Well, after 3 pages and roughly 15 posts, I think you had enough time to make your point clear and resolve all the contradictions, and yet you have not. This is why I claim that what you think does not do SW lore justice.

 

I think the reason you see my arguments as contradictory is because you perceive everything in the world to have value from the perspective of right and wrong. As I've explained to you earlier, I don't believe this is the case. Just because there is no universal right and wrong does not mean that creatures of this world cannot exist in mutual dynamics and harmony, and that there are no rules to life.

If there are rules in life, then it is either impossible or wrong/bad to go against them (otherwise they would not be rules). And in fact, if there are rules to life, then they are also universal because otherwise they would not be rules to life.

 

I see this is as a valid point. If the Gray Jedi believe in a "good", it would be the dynamic balance between the Light and the Dark Side. However, in this case the "bad" does not have the same weight as for the Jedi or the Sith. As a galaxy dominated by either extreme (i.e. out of balance) would not be something that causes too much grief to a Gray Jedi Knight, as they are impartial in the conflict, and they understand that the balance will return on its own in time.

If you agree to what I wrote, then you cannot claim that there is no good or bad. Even the sole claim that "good" is only good if some person or other thinks it is still contradicts the claim that there is no good or bad. But you make the even stronger claim that a galaxy in balance is best for life and so for everyone everywhere.

 

Your contradiction comes about from trying to base your political tolerance on a very crude ethical relativism while also subscribing to gray jedi balance-is-best cosmology. They are mutually exclusive and you have to pick one. I would recommend the latter over the former.

[Boothand]

The role of the Gray Jedi Knight is to keep to the balance between the Light and the Dark Side, ultimately succumbing to neither. We exist to help keep this dynamic balance in the Force flowing because we understand that life is at its most fruitful, and at its best when there is Light and there is Darkness -- for all creatures of the universe. We don't recognise an ultimate good on either side of the Jedi-Sith, Light and Dark Side war.

 

You recognize the extreme light and dark ideals as something bad. You believe it's good when the two are in conflict. Not a middleway between them, but an overall universal conflict. You don't recognize a good on either side. But if you don't then recognize a bad one, you wouldn't need to stray away from either.

You try to be impartial by saying you don't belong to either, but in fact you recognize them both to be bad (on their own). Either you are impartial (no opinion on which scale the balance tips), or you believe there is something good and bad. Might not be a universal good or bad, but something good or bad in common for all who consider themselves protectors of the balance of the force.

 

 

 

The topic's question is "What does it mean to be a great Jedi?", not why would one be a Gray Jedi.

 

Please note that this is not a topic about me, personally, altough I do believe I've explained in detail my personal point of view, and attraction to the Gray Jedi way

 

By answering why you would do the things a gray Jedi is supposed to do, you do answer what your opinion is on being a great Jedi (since you chose gray Jedi as your preferred path).

 

The reason I'm going on with this is because there is a parallel between the real world and the Star Wars world, and I'm concerned about some of the things you say, and how your beliefs would reflect upon Earth.

 

 

There is no point in trying to discredit me, @Boothand, @Ping, as what I've said I've based on direct evidence and my personal interpretation from official dialogues in the Star Wars sources we have about Gray Jedi. You are free to have your own point of views on this topic, but please don't claim that my own are invalid. It would be nice if you could back up your views with source evidence as well (so I'm not the only one)...

 

Interesting that you see it that way. What's the direct evidence proving that the abundant amount of (non-violent) conflicts in society are not enough to keep up progress?

The Star Wars dialogues help describe what a gray Jedi is, but not why there is a need to create conflicts out of nothing.

 

Please point out a country, culture, society that is currently growing stale.

 

 

1. This is right. Every individual is responsible for their own action, and the effects of their own actions (which are neither "good" nor "bad" in the ultimate sense, but a mixture of both).

2. Every Jedi feels the flow of the Force, and every Gray Jedi is aware of the balance between the Dark and the Light Side. What they do with that knowledge is at their own discretion.

3. None of your efforts will make the scale topple over. The state of the scale affects your life as it pertains to now, and your future. Whether a Gray Jedi chooses to help change the current state, or is content to hide away and exclude themselves from the current state of the galaxy, nature will not crumble, and things will balance themselves out eventually. The only thing that is truly affected by our actions are our own lives. Good will never triumph over evil, and evil will never triumph over good, truly. They are essential to humanity, and unseparably connected to one another.

4. If the proper Jedi way defines the state of the galaxy, I believe people will suffer just as much as if the Sith way were defining the state, yes. We haven't seen too many examples of this in Star Wars so far -- the focus has been on evil (from the Jedi Order's perspective) coming out triumphant, and stopping it from doing so. However, you can see glimpses of the traditional Jedi ways crumbling when faced with taking a side and getting involved in the happenings of the Clone Wars. The Jedi Council's unwillingness to accept that where there is Light there is Darkness in their actions, and in a person is what makes ultimately the Order weaken and crumble from the inside with the fall of the Chosen One, and their fight against the Dark Side cause suffering to countless Separatist civilians.

5. I was not talking in absolutes -- I'm nor Jedi, nor Sith! A period of peace is valuable often, but conflict (not necessarily the most extreme form of it, war) is just as valuable.

6. I have never said that Gray Jedi are necessary for anything. No individual living creature is necessary to the Force, but we are all a part of it. I was merely explaining what a Gray Jedi may choose to do to try and influence the state of the galaxy, at their discretion, because you've asked me, specifically.

7. Making an impact on another culture as an outsider, without knowing or respecting that culture is wrong, yes. I do believe this. Do not do unto others what you would not have done to you. And if you do so, do not expect that it will not come back to bite you in the ass.

 

1. So, a mixture of both. So light = good, and dark = bad. What's good about the light side, and what is bad about the dark? Not interested to hear about what's 'too extreme' in the Jedi code, but interested to hear about what you think is 'good'.

3. Same as 1, what are the essential good and evil components of humanity like? Wy should someone strive to be equally good and evil, instead of strive to be good and fight their own evil? If too much good is in fact not good, then good isn't truly good. If good = a mixture of good and bad, then the good end of the scale must be something different than good, same for bad.

4. IF the Jedi become this extreme, sure! Just note that this would arguably make both Jedi and Sith evil, and good could not be associated with Jedi.

5. Again (if you haven't already answered it above), which real world place could use some conflict because it (at some point currently or in history) was too good? Did someone cause conflict in those countries out of impartial reasons to restore balance, or was it political reasons?

 

 

 

You don't know this. Just because it hasn't happened in a drastic way so far doesn't mean it never will... If the Sith Order and the Dark Side users were vanquished, it might very well happen.

 

Let's wait until it does happen, though!

 

 

We recognise that a galaxy dominated by the Sith would be out of balance, but why do most of us not see the same for the Jedi? Is their Code any less extreme in its definition? Are their people any less flawed? These are questions I would put to you as a Gray Jedi.

 

The Jedi or Sith code in themselves aren't extreme, but extreme people will do extreme things based on them. The political leadership of some place isn't the same as the values held by the people. If the Jedi or the Sith made it their business to restrict people's lives to the extent you describe, they are both evil.

 

Ideally, for me, the Jedi code would be a personal spirtual quest, not something that belongs in political leadership. But if Darth Vader wants to rule the galaxy and starts blowing up planets like Alderaan, it seems reasonable to let the Jedi go and chop his hand off, maybe help the rebellion blow up a death star or two, and I think the Jedi code can help them during such conflicts, as individuals.

 

 

Peace is not desirable in a world where everything is stale, and there is very little progress. Where people grow bored of not being challenged.

 

(Again, if not already answered) Which world is that? Are we not challenging each other right now? This is an example of progressing (and this happens everywhere). By happiness, I don't mean that there are no issues that force us to progress, or that the ruling political party in my country is the best.

[Mizore]

Let me turn this around: What gives you the right to call my beliefs invalid?

 

Because they go against the evidence of the movies -the lightside is the good thing and if there is decadence, boredom, etc., is no longer as lightside- and against common sense -even if some conflict is good, it should always be at a minimum and not equal with non-conflicting aspect-.

[Cerez]

Guys, I'm being personally assaulted here for expressing my views, like everyone else. This is not okay. If you don't like it, move on. Stop attacking me and my views, and stop aggressively ganging up on one person for having a different viewpoint.

 

@@eezstreet, it seems to me we need additional rules for the board that disallow real life political and religious discussions -- personal views where there is no real common ground, and that can allow certain members to wrongfully accuse others from their own viewpoint, and that can easily flare up into flame wars.

 

I've been trying to keep this civil, but it is extremely hard, and I doubt many others could do what I have done here, in my place.

 

Also, can we please lock this thread? I have no desire for it getting out of hand, and there seems to be no nice and useful input anymore, only personal attacks. This was not my purpose for creating this thread. I wanted to have an open discussion about what people perceive to be the Jedi way, not turn this into a discussion and criticism of my personal beliefs.

 

And @@Ping, and @@Boothand, I will say that I don't appreciate what you've done here at all. Polarising and twisting my every word in united attacks on my views, constant attempts to discredit without providing equal reference yourselves, and turning this thread from a peaceful thread on people's viewpoints to a sole criticism of my own views was an ugly, hostile, and unfair thing to do. And all this during Christmas!

 

It is obvious you seem to have something personal against me, and not just my views. Do not expect that I will converse with you in the future, and that your comments will be noted anywhere on this board.

[eezstreet]

[red]Thread locked.[/red]

 

The thread has remained civil, so I'm not sure what you're referring to with "being personally assaulted." But regardless, you're the OP of the thread, so I'll fulfill that lock. I just wish you'd use a thread lock for something more legitimate, like a request that you aren't interested in, or a project being dead, etc, instead of a defense mechanism when people aren't agreeing with you.