# Jedism?



## Corporal Hicks (Jan 31, 2005)

Good Afternoon ladies and Gents,
I was going to ask your opinion of Jedism and its revelance to the modern world. Do you think it has phlisophical value? Or do you think its concept is just taken from a film series and simply should be disregarded.
In my opinion you could rank (Stress the COULD) rank it with the religions of the world because after debating God for so long I think that to myself anyway the whole concept behind Jedism is actually quite......good. Just because it came from somebody's head doesnt make it any less revelant. And the fact that it
has not come from a longer time source doesnt make it have less revelance.
Regards


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 31, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> Good Afternoon ladies and Gents,
> I was going to ask your opinion of Jedism and its revelance to the modern world. Do you think it has phlisophical value? Or do you think its concept is just taken from a film series and simply should be disregarded.
> In my opinion you could rank (Stress the COULD) rank it with the religions of the world because after debating God for so long I think that to myself anyway the whole concept behind Jedism is actually quite......good. Just because it came from somebody's head doesnt make it any less revelant. And the fact that it
> has not come from a longer time source doesnt make it have less revelance.
> Regards


"Jedism" is a hodge podge of eastern/western philosophical/mystical ideologies that Lucas put together along with his, self admitted, creation of character and hero archtypes in Luke and Han (Luke especially).

It is simply a story. Well crafted and with wide appeal, but any depth that you see in it as a philosophical parable is contrived by the author/creator tripping certain triggers in your brain and you making those connections that he has led you to with entertaining breadcrumbs of the story mechanism.

He was a fan of the mythical 'hero tale' and was inspired by a sociological author (I can't remember the name right now) that wrote a book (that I had in my hand over this past weekend - so this feels really stupid when I can't remember) that showed the commonallities of hero types over time and cultures.

Along these same lines, I have even heard of College Philosophy professors using the MATRIX trilogy as a teaching tool in class. 

Stories are very functional tools for inspiration and illustration. I think the story as teaching tool has been reduced to a 'trick' in the modern world. Star Wars, Matrix, Jerry Macguire, Forrest Gump, .....and so on all are 'great' because they say something that we all can relate to and learn from.

IT sounds silly, but if you go to a book store and look at some of the children's books based on the Jedi characters from SW, you will find Credos, codes of conduct and such outlined for the kids.  The morals and rules that are presented are general enough that you could say that it is based on either BUSHIDO or CHIVALRY or some other warrior code/philosophy that we have adapted for what we want to do with it.

I would say use the movies/Jedism as an inspiration to read up on philosophies that you think relate.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 31, 2005)

There are a couple of "organizations" floating around that claim to teach "jedi"  philospy... one was called the Jedi Acadamy, I tried googling it, but now that there is a Jedi Acadamy videogame thats the only thing that I was finding.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 31, 2005)

It's recognized as a religion in some parts.

me, I'll stick with blasters.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 31, 2005)

Amazing1.com has actual working laser rifles if you have a couple grand laying around you dont know what to do with...



> A prelude to a weapon of the future - the technology is here! *Now Available -* hand held, battery operated, 500 joules of pulse energy produce an intense  burst of light capable of burning holes in most materials.
> *This is a dangerous Class IV laser
> 
> ** LAGUNSYS * - Lab Assembled  with Rod & Flashlamp.......................................*$1749.95 *


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 31, 2005)

My thoughts:

1) "Jedism" is a shallow, superficial excuse for a religion. There is nothing in it you won't find better expressed in the likes of Neoplatonism, Mahayana Buddhism, or Vedanta Hunduism.

2) Any "religion" without a meditative/contemplative practice of some kind aimed at transforming its adherents is a joke. Likewise, any adherent that does not actively practice in his/her religion's meditative/contemplative practices is doing little more than superficial lip-service (no matter how much he/she may emotionally "believe" in the religion's tenets).

3) "Jedism", in addition to being a chuckling excuse to translate Eastern philosophy into a pop-culture format, also hooks onto another trend in modern Western philosophy --- claiming that science "proves" the mystical worldview, or that the mystical worldview can be explained in physical, mechanical terms (i.e., the Brahman is not a nondual Transcendence that is beyond all dualities of right/wrong, self/other, existence/nonexistence --- instead it is a bio-physical "Force" I can record with a doo-dad-o-meter that is most assuredly not "transcendent" or "nondual"). Silly, really.

4) The author that loki brought up is Joseph Campbell. He was a mythologist, not a sociologist, and wrote (among other things) _Hero with a Thousand Faces_.

5) For what its worth, I agree with loki. Use "Jedism" and the "bushido" from _The Last Samurai_ as inspirations to look up the real thing. In and of themselves, however, they are pretty shallow.

Laterz.


----------



## Bester (Jan 31, 2005)

It makes as much sence as most other concepts.  If we are to believe that invisible all-powerful beings exist and have created places for us to go after we die, then, why can't we believe in this too?  I say, let people believe what they want, and let Gozer sort them out.


----------



## loki09789 (Jan 31, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> My thoughts:
> 
> 
> 4) The author that loki brought up is Joseph Campbell. He was a mythologist, not a sociologist, and wrote (among other things) _Hero with a Thousand Faces_.
> ...


Thanks Herrie,  I had that bloody book in my hand this weekend too.  Felt like an idiot when I couldn't remember the title/author.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 31, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Thanks Herrie,  I had that bloody book in my hand this weekend too.  Felt like an idiot when I couldn't remember the title/author.



No probs.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 31, 2005)

Lucas...Campbell..Myth...Jedism et al.

http://www.kimmelskorner.com/star_wars.htm
http://stjohns-chs.org/english/romod/odsw.html


----------



## Adept (Jan 31, 2005)

Personally, I think its kinda cool. You get the coolness of having a religion (code of conduct, support, etc) without the need for an unprovable god.

 Personally, I think its all a load of hooey. I mean, AFAIK, the basis of Jedism is to be completely utilitarian. No feelings at all. Love leads to fear, fear leads to hate, hate leads to suffering, and all that crap. Avoid excesses of emotion. I think human emotion is something we (or at least I) should embrace, not avoid.

 But Jedism is (I would like to imagine) the way forward for religion. Cut the gods out of it, and worship ourselves, as we should.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 31, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> Cut the gods out of it, and worship ourselves, as we should.


Hmm.

Go read "The Satanic Bible"

In essence, that is exactly what it says.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 31, 2005)

Then why do we admire "selfless" behavior. Heroism, courage, duty to serve and protect others???


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Then why do we admire "selfless" behavior. Heroism, courage, duty to serve and protect others???



Its Self-recognition, as opposed to self-recognition.

Also, on a side note, any religion that makes its point on getting you to believe the new philosophy, paradigm, or worldview --- but doesn't provide contemplative practices aimed at _transforming_ its adherents, is like reading a book about Hawaii in lieu of going there yourself.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 31, 2005)

Axly, it's, "it's," not "its," and to call it "Self-recognition," rather than "self-recognition," is to unnecessarily fetishize the idea of a Self which may actually be no more than a convenient fiction.

More to the thread, maybe we could just learn to get over the whole, "worship," claptrap, and focus our attention on other things than the God in the Sky or the God in the Machine.

Personally, I oppose the whole Jedi bit--I find it biologically reductionist, and more than a little racist.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 31, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Axly, it's, "it's," not "its,"



Uhhh... whoops??



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> and to call it "Self-recognition," rather than "self-recognition," is to unnecessarily fetishize the idea of a Self which may actually be no more than a convenient fiction.



Oh, pshaw.

One can't honestly look at the Buddhist doctrines of Anatta (Theravada) and Shunyata (Mahayana) and pretend there is some impassable wall of separation with Brahman-Atman (Vedanta) or even Godhead (Neoplatonism). They are all just different ways of saying the same Thing (or No-Thing, if'n you prefer).

Of course, at root, they're all just words --- and, as such, really missing the mark. They can't help it, its their nature. To call what we're talking about "No Self" as opposed to "Self" is just as inaccurate, as we're still using the nasty, nasty, nasty terminology and context of samsara and duality.

Its kinda what the mystics of the world's religions always go on about It being "beyond words", "ineffable", "wholly transcendent", "nondual", and so on.

Hell, they even use terms like True Self and Buddha Mind in Zen. C'mon.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> More to the thread, maybe we could just learn to get over the whole, "worship," claptrap, and focus our attention on other things than the God in the Sky or the God in the Machine.



Aww.... that'll never happen. 

It may not be called "worship", but people'll just take their "god" and replace it with some other True Paradigm they emotionally believe in. Its the very nature of samsara and duality --- the self needs some kind of substitute to devote a sense of immortality and eternity to.

After all, its a lot easier to change the beliefs of the self --- than to realize the self is the problem all along. The "no worship" thing'll never happen for the next thousand years or so. Maybe.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Personally, I oppose the whole Jedi bit--I find it biologically reductionist, and more than a little racist.



Yup. Very _Tao of Physics_. Not so sure I get the racist bit, though.

Laterz.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 31, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Of course, at root, they're all just words --- and, as such, really missing the mark. They can't help it, its their nature. To call what we're talking about "No Self" as opposed to "Self" is just as inaccurate, as we're still using the nasty, nasty, nasty terminology and context of samsara and duality.


Two monks were watching a flag flapping in the wind. One said to the other, "The flag is moving." 
The other replied, "The wind is moving." 
Huineng overheard this. He said, "Not the flag, not the wind; mind is moving." 


Shuzan held out his short staff and said, "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?" 

:asian:


----------



## Adept (Jan 31, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Personally, I oppose the whole Jedi bit--I find it biologically reductionist, and more than a little racist.


 Racist?

 How so?


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 1, 2005)

Its not Racist at all...

 There were Yoda Jedi,  Human Jedi, Ithorian Jedi, Twilek Jedi, Rodian Jedi, Black Jedi, White Jedi, Green Jedi, Blue Jedi...

 I dont see the racism in that... 

 What, did they exclude the Bothans or somthing?

 :idunno:


----------



## Seig (Feb 1, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Its not Racist at all...
> 
> There were Yoda Jedi, Human Jedi, Ithorian Jedi, Twilek Jedi, Rodian Jedi, Black Jedi, White Jedi, Green Jedi, Blue Jedi...
> 
> ...


Nope, their are Bothan Jedi as well as Bothan X-Wing pilots in Rogue squadron. Now, the Empire. the Empire was admitttedly xenophobic, the ultimate form of racism if you ask me.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 1, 2005)

Years ago a good friend and I hike to the top of a mountain. We admired the view and we admired the herd of bull elk some miles away. Then instead of taking the path that we hiked up, we chose a different route down. In effect lost the safe way and had to take the dangerous route downward. Turning back to the way we came would've put us half way down the mountain by dark. We hiked up with just the barest of necessities. Thus knowing that if we were caught on the mountain in the dark we would surely lose our way and be at a greater risk throughout the night than if we were to see our path down the dangerous route with the light of day to aid our vision.
When we reached the bottom of the mountain we were about two miles from our camp-site, but were able to reach it now in safety. 
We stopped and rested along the edge of a dried river, long since dead from the effects of the dought that Utah suffered for years. We sat in a shady spot along the banks and chatted. 
My friend asked me about my spiritual values and understanding of our place in the world. The hike down had apparently awakened in him a deeper understanding of himself that he was not able to comprehend. 
I tried to think of a way to illustrate in a manner that perhaps he could understand what had happened, using jedisim philosophy. 

We recall that Obi-wan Kenobi explained to Luke about the force: "The force is what gives a jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us and binds the galaxy together." Yoda, went deeper. " Size matters not.  Look at me.  Judge me by my size, do you?  
Hm?  Mmmm.
Luke shakes his head.
YODA:	And well you should not.  For my ally in the Force.  And a powerful 
ally it is.  Life creates it, makes it grow.  Its energy surrounds us and binds us.  Luminous beings are we...	(Yoda pinches  Luke's shoulder)
... not this crude matter. (a sweeping gesture)	You must feel the Force around you. (gesturing) Here, between you... me... the 	tree... the rock... everywhere!  Yes, even between this land and that ship!"
When I first heard this I took it and applied it to it's relationship of my beliefs in the human soul. Just exactly what is the soul? Basically that flow of energy which keeps us alive, guides us and helps us to understand, oru conciousness. Yoda (and Ben) explained that  the Force is an energy field. Life creates it, makes it grow. All living things. My understanding of nature and the earth around us is that everything is alive. Grass, trees, water and the earth. The entire planet is one living entiety. Thus though inanimate things live, grow, reproduce and die. All in harmony together though sometimes we humans are just too (spiritually) blind to see it. 
I told my friend of another time I was high upon a mountain top. Camping out. Aspen and other trees and a gorgeous flower studded meadow with a small crystal clear lake for the view. During the night with just the (carefully made) campfire as my light and warmth I leaned back against a particularly large oak looking through a break in the branches and leaves and up at the stars above me. I allowed my mind to drift, to go where-ever it may, to feel whatever it was that my heart felt. It was during that long relaxed meditation that I became aware of other life around me. Felt the energy of the tree against my back, the grass that I sat upon and the rock my feet were propped up against. I became aware that everything around me was indeed alive and contained it's own energy. 
Past studies in physics and basic atomics I knew that all matter was somehow contained so that it could have form, and shape. That the cells that make up my body and the cells that made up the trees, grass, rocks and earth and everything else was nothing more than a bunch of atoms bound together to give it form. Just what was that "force" that held all these atoms together so that they wouldn't otherwise go flying off in a trillion different directions? 
I explained that concept using the jedisim philosophy that our spirits, are what held our bodies together, the "crude matter". A jedi, learning the secrets of harnessing and controlling that energy field around his body would be able to acomplish the feats that Jedi's are renowned for. Telekenisis (Luke calling his lightsaber to his hand in the Wampa cave, and Vader throwing objects at Luke during their duel), telepathy (Yoda seeing what was in Luke's mind as his friends suffered), auto-hypnosis (Ben Kenobi with his "...you don't need to see his identification... these aren't the droids you're looking for, etc.) and extra-sensory perception (Yoda saying: "...difficult to see, always in motion is the future...") and many other examples. 
Back on earth (again) we have people capable of bending spoons, reading cards from hundreds of miles away, Hindu fakkirs able to pierce their bodies with foreign objects and remove them without a mark, walking on coals/broken glass/nails without damage to the feet and so forth. IMO these people have mastered some aspects of the "force". 
The full philosophy/dogma of the Jedi religion (and remember that even Grand Moff Tarkin referred it to as such :" ... the jedi are extinct, their power gone out of the universe, you my friend, are all that's left of their religion." Vader didn't even take umbrage at the reference, so thus it must be so. 

Wonderful fantasy/science-fiction to be sure. But many of the things in Science Fiction has proven themselves to be possible. 

It's the concept of nanobytes or symboites or whatever the hell Gui-jonn Ginn called them in the first episode that really got me pissed at Lucas for taking the spiritual element out of the story. Removing the concept that it was more than just a symbionic relationship with trillions of tiny organisms deep in our bodies, living in our cells that create the "Force" .... :angry :  oooooh man do I get livid with that bastardized twisting and reconceptionalizing of the "Force".   To me Lucas removed the spirituality out of the story. I doubt that I'll ever forgive him for that...among other things. 

Anyway that's just my idea of Jedism.  :idunno: But that's just me.  


 :asian:


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Feb 1, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> But Jedism is (I would like to imagine) the way forward for religion. Cut the gods out of it, and worship ourselves, as we should.


Thats what I like about it, thats way I agree with it to an extent.

www.jedism.org

Regards


----------



## Adept (Feb 1, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> It's the concept of nanobytes or symboites or whatever the hell Gui-jonn Ginn called them in the first episode that really got me pissed at Lucas for taking the spiritual element out of the story. Removing the concept that it was more than just a symbionic relationship with trillions of tiny organisms deep in our bodies, living in our cells that create the "Force" .... :angry : oooooh man do I get livid with that bastardized twisting and reconceptionalizing of the "Force". To me Lucas removed the spirituality out of the story. I doubt that I'll ever forgive him for that...among other things.


 Dammit, I'd spent years in therapy trying to erase all memory of the first two chapters. Now you've gone and undone it all...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 1, 2005)

1. If you're gonna pick on another writer about capitals, try to punctuate correctly.

2. Since the Self (now we're talking about a single, unique thing, even if it is an illusion or an ideal construct, so proper nouns are capitalized) is, from many viewpoints, either a) a side effect of the operations of the psyche in its interactions with the world, or b) an illusion, or c) a social construct, all the jazz about the Atman or whatever all reducing to the same Thing repeats the same faith in the illusion. Jung was fundamentally an idealist, philosophically speaking: I ain't.

c) So what are we preferring--biological reductionism, or, "spiritual," essentialism? Not much to choose from...

d) In the first "Star Wars," movies, being a Jedi is something you inherit. And what you see on the screen is that only white people inherit it. And the political context of the film says that the good guys believe in hereditary monarchies. And the last scence from the very first movie directly borrows from Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will." And white=good, black=bad, and when Vader becomes good he a) turns white, b) drops James Earl Jones' voice. And then there're, later, the quaint Italian junkman and the sinister Jap (and that is precisely how they talk) Trade federation. See where I'm going with this?


----------



## Tgace (Feb 1, 2005)

Do you ever just have fun, smile or enjoy anything???


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 1, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> In the first "Star Wars," movies, being a Jedi is something you inherit. And what you see on the screen is that only white people inherit it. And the political context of the film says that the good guys believe in hereditary monarchies. And the last scence from the very first movie directly borrows from Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will." And white=good, black=bad, and when Vader becomes good he a) turns white, b) drops James Earl Jones' voice. And then there're, later, the quaint Italian junkman and the sinister Jap (and that is precisely how they talk) Trade federation. See where I'm going with this?


Yeah, and I think that you're reading something in the presentation of Vader that isn't there.  I agree with you about the heritibility of being a Jedi implying elitism, but as far as being racist, the reason you only see white Jedis is because the only Jedi's appearing are those within Luke's family.  I mean, this was after the Jedi had been wiped out, so there aren't that many in the first place (there was Vader, Luke, Leia (partially), Obi-Wan, and Yoda.)  So out of five remaining Jedi (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), three of them are family members.  The reason you only see white Jedi in the first movies is because the only ones left, minus Yoda and Obi-Wan, share genetics.  Look at the cinematic abomination that was Episode II: when the Jedi were still around as a flourishing group (i.e. hadnt been wiped out yet), there were many who weren't white men.    

As for Vader, the black armor and the deep, reverberating (I think that's the word) voice were supposed to show how hollow and mechanistic he'd become.  "He's more machine now, then man--twisted and evil," says Obi-Wan.


----------



## OUMoose (Feb 1, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> d) In the first "Star Wars," movies, being a Jedi is something you inherit. And what you see on the screen is that only white people inherit it.


OK, Time to pick apart your Star Wars quotes.  Becoming a Jedi involves training and meditation.  Anyone could be "Force-sensitive" however.  


			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And the political context of the film says that the good guys believe in hereditary monarchies.


  Actually they believed in the basis of the Republic and a democratic society, which is what the emperor dissolved to form the empire.


			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And the last scence from the very first movie directly borrows from Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will." And white=good, black=bad, and when Vader becomes good he a) turns white, b) drops James Earl Jones' voice.


 I believe you're reffering to the last scene in the 3rd (actually 6th) movie "return of the Jedi".  It wasn't a racist thing at all, IMO.  He saved his son, redeeming himself, but also destroying his life support equipment in the process.  By "becoming white", i'm guessing you're talking about the scene at the end where Anakin (played appropriately by Sebastian Shaw) showed up as a blue ghost with Yoda and Obi-wan.  Notice he wasn't exactly dressed in KKK garb or anything.  He was dressed EXACTLY the same as the other two, which was traditional dress robes for the Jedi.  


			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And then there're, later, the quaint Italian junkman and the sinister Jap (and that is precisely how they talk) Trade federation. See where I'm going with this?


I see exactly where you're going.  You're spouting the views of a person who insists on reading into EVERYTHING instead of enjoying a story.  EVERYTHING has to be a parable to you it seems.  

I believe Sigmund Freud said it best, when discussing dream analysis...  "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar..."


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 1, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Years ago a good friend and I hike to the top of a mountain. We admired the view and we admired the herd of bull elk some miles away. Then instead of taking the path that we hiked up, we chose a different route down. In effect lost the safe way and had to take the dangerous route downward. Turning back to the way we came would've put us half way down the mountain by dark. We hiked up with just the barest of necessities. Thus knowing that if we were caught on the mountain in the dark we would surely lose our way and be at a greater risk throughout the night than if we were to see our path down the dangerous route with the light of day to aid our vision.
> When we reached the bottom of the mountain we were about two miles from our camp-site, but were able to reach it now in safety.
> We stopped and rested along the edge of a dried river, long since dead from the effects of the dought that Utah suffered for years. We sat in a shady spot along the banks and chatted.
> My friend asked me about my spiritual values and understanding of our place in the world. The hike down had apparently awakened in him a deeper understanding of himself that he was not able to comprehend.
> ...



Okay, there are a few concise points I'd like to make...

1) The description of the Force as an "energy field" is, no matter how you interpret it, a form of biophysical reductionism. I am inclined to agree with Robert on this point. You are, in essence, making some type of materially-reducible phenomena --- in this case energy, waves, quarks, or whatever --- paradigmatic to all existence. In this case, "crude" matter is just replaced with "crude" energy (i.e., waves instead of particles). Big whoop.

2) Your use of physics to "prove" this paradigm, of course, is support that Point 1 is true. This is fundamentally the same logic used in works like _Tha Tao of Physics_. It was off-base then, and its off-base now.

3) Jedism is a very, very, very dumbed-down interpretation of Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta Hinduism. I consider it to be little more than watered-down New Age garbage. If you are interested in the real thing, try reading up on the likes of Nagarjuna, Shankara, Ramanuja, or Sri Ramana Maharishi. If you're more into a Western perspective, there's Plotinus. If you need a Judeo-Christian perspective, there's Dionysius Areopagite, Meister Johannes Eckhart, the _Theologica Germanica_, Jacob Boehme, Thomas Merton, and Paul Tillich.

4) Extrasensory perception, psychokinesis, and the like are not equivalent to "spirituality". In Hinduism and Buddhism, they make it very clear that such abilities can be side-effects of higher spiritual development, but often serve as barriers and distractions for further growth.

5) Our "souls" are not equivalent to pure Consciousness, Mind, Nous, Pneuma, or what they call the Witness or Seer in Buddhism. The soul is fundamentally no different than body, emotions, or ego in that it is a conditional, relative phenomena that is _observed_ by That which cannot be observed. 

6) Something like "the Force" is discussed in Hindu religion. It is _prana_ --- the vital "life force" or "elan vital" within all living creatures. It is hardly "spiritual" in nature, and is situated above matter but below the rational mind in personal development. This would be like equating _ch'i_ and _shen_ as the same thing in Chinese practice, too.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 1, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. If you're gonna pick on another writer about capitals, try to punctuate correctly.
> 
> 2. Since the Self (now we're talking about a single, unique thing, even if it is an illusion or an ideal construct, so proper nouns are capitalized) is, from many viewpoints, either a) a side effect of the operations of the psyche in its interactions with the world, or b) an illusion, or c) a social construct, all the jazz about the Atman or whatever all reducing to the same Thing repeats the same faith in the illusion. Jung was fundamentally an idealist, philosophically speaking: I ain't.
> 
> ...



1. It was a pun. Try not to take things too seriously, Robert.

2. No matter what rationalizations, justifications, or projections you would like to give, Robert, if you see some fundamental difference between, say --- Plotinus' Godhead, Dionysius-Areopagite's (and Sufism's) Dazzling Darkness, Valentinus' the Deep (or the Abyss), Jacob Boehme's No-Thing, Johannes Eckhart's the Ground of God and Soul, Paul Tillich's the Ground of All Being, Shankara's Atman-Brahman, Siddartha's Anatta, Nagarjuna's Shunyata, and Zen's Buddha Mind (or True Self or The Face You Had Before You Were Born) --- I'd be interested to hear the particulars. 

All of the individuals I cited, without exception, refer to their particular, socially-constructed Reality as being ineffable, wholly transcendent of phenomena, indescribable, "beyond words", unlike any "thing" or "form", wholly beyond rationality and conscious thought, and fundamentally "nondual" (or kenotic, as some Christians called it). A lot of cross-cultural universalism for a 'social construction', neh?

Oh, and by the way, the concept of a "No Self" is as equally as much an illusion as a concept of a "Self". It is the nature of dualism. Unless, of course, you are trying to make words paradigmatic here --- in which case, you really haven't even begun to understand the basics of Buddhism.

c) You'd have to define what you mean by "essentialism" for clarification. Technically speaking, most forms of Buddhism would classify as "essentialist", as would all other religions. Talk about privileged position.

d) Hrmm.... I'm gonna have to agree with the others here, Robert. I think you just go out of your way to look for things that really aren't there. Or, rather, if they are there you seem to have a tendency to blow them out of proportion. Lighten up, dude.

Laterz.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 1, 2005)

Damn that white Jedi, Samuel Jackson.  Damn him for being not only white but the LEADER of the whole damn Jedi order.

 I think you need to rewatch those films.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 1, 2005)

Damn those damn critics! They keep seeing what's actually there!!

I was referring to the fascist "awards ceremony," at the end of the very first "Star Wars."

You are explicitly told, from the first to the last of these movies, that the ability to sense and to use the Force is inherited. It's biological, and no amount of training will teach what isn't there in the blood. Luke has it, because of his dad; Leia has it, because she's his sister. Furthermore, this inheritance is fundamentally a part of the central character's biographies again and again and again--for example, we are explicitly shown that Luke and Leia descend from royalty. 

"Princess Leia," guys. Hello-o. She inherited her position; she's a Senator or whatever as part of that inheritance.

One awaits the dismissive explanations of a) the Japanese Trade Delegation; b) the Italian flying junkman; c) that annoying pseudo-Rastaman character; why d) Samuel L. Jackson's character is more than a token, a, "but I'm not racist!"

As for the lists of religious and pseudo-religious figures, sorry, not impressed. I certainly don't claim to be a religious scholar--what I DO claim is to have read enough Jung, Campbell, Neumann, etc., to legitimately reject Jungian doctrine.

And oh, just incidentall--might not be a good idea to wax too Jungian in an argument about racism. What with Jung's service to Hitler and all. 

Could be worse. I was listening to a biography of the architect Philip Johnson yesterday--he died--and apparently he was not only an avid fascist, he actually went into Poland with the German armies in 1939. Riding in a Rolls. That probably explains far too much about his buildings.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 1, 2005)

Possibly due to the whole Knights, Princesses, Evil Warlords, Symbolism (black is the "evil" color in many cultures) and hero themes the story is based on more than some type of contrived "wrong" buried in the story??

Thats a far more nice and friendly conversation to have though.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 1, 2005)

Or, maybe this movie, like a lot of science fiction, has a deep-seated feudal streak in it--one thinks of Poul Anderson, Jerry Pournelle, David Weber, and many others--and it turns out to be very difficult to express the inherent royalist and "racist," (in the sense that they ground privilege upon fantasies about blood, inheritance and God's Will) in ways that are also democratic and egalitarian?

See Philip K. Dick, "The Man In the High Castle;" Norman Spinrad, "The Iron Dream."


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 1, 2005)

Rob, have you seen the movies?

_You are explicitly told, from the first to the last of these movies, that the ability to sense and to use the Force is inherited. It's biological, and no amount of training will teach what isn't there in the blood_

 Biological, yes, inherited, no

_Luke has it, because of his dad_

 That is the only familial connection in the force mentioned at it is never accredited to inheritance.

_Leia has it, because she's his sister_

 Leia is never really credited with having any Force abilities, you can sorta infer it from Yodas comments about 'there is another' but Kenobi would not have said "He's our last hope" if he was counting on inheritance, because he already knew about Leia

 And we saw how powerful Anakin's mother was in the Force

_for example, we are explicitly shown that Luke and Leia descend from royalty. _

 Luke and Leia are the children of Anakin who grew up as a slave. Not sure how Leia got into "Princess" but it sure as heck wasn't from inheritance  (Note:  In some of the backstory behind eps I and II it's mentioned that on Naboo that royalty is elected, which is why/how Amadala went from Queen to Senator)

_"Princess Leia," guys. Hello-o. She inherited her position_

 From Darth Vader?

_ why d) Samuel L. Jackson's character is more than a token, a, "but I'm not racist!"_

 Given who was on the council, I thought he was the token human. After all, the dude in charge was 2 feet tall, 700 years old, and green

_when Vader becomes good he a) turns white, b) drops James Earl Jones' voice. _

 Note that a) Luke was white so it would sorta follow that Vader would be as well. b) Vader was played in the suit by white English actor David Prowse but Lucas switched to a different actor because he wanted someone else. If he just wanted a 'black->white' switch, he could've stuck with Prowse, since Prowse was the white guy in the suit.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 1, 2005)

I'm really not that big enough of a Star Wars fan to care about the racist accusations, but...



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> As for the lists of religious and pseudo-religious figures, sorry, not impressed.



Not surprising, really.

It may behoove you to actually learn a thing or two about the religious doctrines you claim to sometimes support, as well as to learn a thing or two about the religious doctrines you claim to reject and criticize. Even a simple one, say, the purported differences between the Buddhist shunyata and the Hindu nirguna brahman would be interesting --- or, the Buddhist dharmakaya and the Hindu causal body, if that is more accessible.

Again, the notion that there is a substantive difference between a big "Self" and a "No Self" is more an illusory product of believing one's rational thought system somehow tacks down Buddhist philosophy as a whole. A more cogently Buddhist response would be something like that:

"Self is an illusion, no-self is an illusion. Self is reality, no-self is reality. These statements both conflict and accord with one another. At the same time, these statements neither conflict nor accord with one another.

This is Buddha Nature."

Or, perhaps:

"You think too much, pinhead. Shut up, stop thinking, and meditate."



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I certainly don't claim to be a religious scholar--what I DO claim is to have read enough Jung, Campbell, Neumann, etc., to legitimately reject Jungian doctrine.



What is all this about Carl Jung?? What does any of this have to do with Carl Jung?? I certainly don't align myself with the Jungian school, or even with tangential neo-Jungians like Neumann.

Truth be told, Jungian theories are rife with about as much error, misinterpretation, and lack of empirical corroboration as Freudian theories. And, like Freud, really only Jung's basic ideas have received much support from the psychological community (most of the specifics have been rejected).

If you plan on tacking any psychoanalyst/neo-Freudian on my belief system, you'd have better luck with Erik Erikson. At least he had a cogent theory of development (vague notions about mythical archetypes, quasi-Hinduism, and quadra-personality types don't cut it).

That being said, I have to say one of the most useful (and interesting) aspects of Jungian thought I have found are his discussions of Shadow.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And oh, just incidentall--might not be a good idea to wax too Jungian in an argument about racism. What with Jung's service to Hitler and all.



I don't suppose you have any citations for this claim??  :idunno: 

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 1, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Or, maybe this movie, like a lot of science fiction, has a deep-seated feudal streak in it--one thinks of Poul Anderson, Jerry Pournelle, David Weber, and many others--and it turns out to be very difficult to express the inherent royalist and "racist," (in the sense that they ground privilege upon fantasies about blood, inheritance and God's Will) in ways that are also democratic and egalitarian?



Well, I can personally find sympathy with the notion that much of science-fiction (and the related genre of fantasy) is steeped in feudalistic mythology and romanticism. That much is rather self-evident.

Perhaps it would have been wiser to word it in this fashion from the onset?? Y'know, less of "Star and Wars is racist" and more "Star Wars is based on feudal mythologies which have racist and xenophobic undertones"??

O'course, I'm sure hardcore Star Wars fans will deny even this, but you get the point.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 1, 2005)

First off, sheesh. Things haven't "behooved," anybody since Huntz Hall tired to impress the Dead End Kids; I'm not impressed with a buncha names; I'm not impressed with the elementary comment that it is neither the One nor the Other--especially when such a claim of deconstructing both self and its supposed antithesis collapses, at the end, into a resurrection of the Other as the Jungian "shadow." I'm also not impressed by dogmatic assertions from somebody who claims to Have Figured All This Psyche Stuff Out--or maybe I'm just jealous.

It's pretty easy to find out about Jung's career. He was a fathead in many ways--not least of which were his assertions about the racial characters of archetypes, and his profound sexism. But then, I'd though you were the boyo who was trying to chide me for not look up enough about the atman or whatever? That said, I don't know what the hell I was thinking bringing him up either. Perhaps if you'll stop flinging names at random and trying to be patronizing--note; I'm much, much better at both--the conversation'll go better. 

As for the claim that the plot, characters, story details, set design, backstories, ways of speaking, etc., don't matter to "Star Wars," well, what can I say? But riddle me this: if it doesn't matter, why is it there? Why the Flying Italian Junk Seller and Crook? Why the Japanese-accented sneaky trade delegation? Why's Jar-Jar Binks obviously smoking the ganja? Why the explicit royalist themes, the explicit "breeding tells," message? 

Sure, no women manifest the Force. That's perfectly consistent with two anti-democratic ideas: patriarchy, in which women contain what men exhibit; monarchism, in which women function as biological conservators of heroic traits, but exhibit them themselves primarily in girlish ways. There can be exceptions (Queen Elizabeth I; Joan of Arc)--but such exceptions always prove the rule, or are otherwise somehow domesticated (for example, Leia is more-than-counterbalanced by Luke's auntie). And note that when push comes to shove, throughout "Star Wars," in all its episodes, women acting heroically will always be kept far in the background. In the universe, there are no Ripleys; there are no Buffys or Sarah Connors.

There's no reason not to enjoy this stuff--and there's also no reason to pretend it doesn't mean what it means. Or to ask the question again: if it don't matter, why's it so very explicitly there?


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 1, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I'm not impressed with a buncha names



Perhaps if you'd actually read some of them??   

Or, at the very least, familiarize yourself with the general ideas of their respective philosophies and thought systems... 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I'm not impressed with the elementary comment that it is neither the One nor the Other--especially when such a claim of deconstructing both self and its supposed antithesis collapses, at the end, into a resurrection of the Other as the Jungian "shadow."



Oy vey.

Dude, what I'm blabbing about is really very, very, very, basic and very, very, very common Buddhism. And Vedanta Hinduism, for that matter. Neoplatonism, too. Contemplative Christianity and Sufist Islam, also.

The whole _point_ is that using dualistic "logic" and "reason" to try and pin this stuff down is a waste of time. It won't work. No amount of linguistic deconstructing is going to change this: reason can't explain that which transcends reason.

"Fetishizing" (to use your wording) a logically-constucted, dualistic "No Self" in lieu of a logically-constructed, dualistic "Big Self" misses the point. The point is they're both wrong -- and they're both right. The point is using dualism to explain the Nondual is, well, kinda tough.

Furthermore, the point is that a qualitative difference between shunyata and nirguna brahman (or between formless godhead) is more a convenience of one's own logical ego trying to make its worldview King of the Hill. 

I'm still waiting to hear on the subtantial differences between all these religious concepts, by the way. Or, how a formless, ineffable, indescribable, prior-to-but-not-other-than-the-universe "No Self" is different from a formless, ineffable, indescribable, prior-to-but-not-other-than-the-universe "Divine Self" (or "Godhead" or "Ground of Being").

One would think an English professor wouldn't get so caught up on simple words, and realize them for what they are.  



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I'm also not impressed by dogmatic assertions from somebody who claims to Have Figured All This Psyche Stuff Out--or maybe I'm just jealous.



Mmmm.... I love the smell of _ad hominems_ in the evening.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It's pretty easy to find out about Jung's career. He was a fathead in many ways--not least of which were his assertions about the racial characters of archetypes, and his profound sexism.



Last time I checked, "pretty easy to find" is not a valid citation. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> But then, I'd though you were the boyo who was trying to chide me for not look up enough about the atman or whatever?



Oh, a second salvo of _ad hominems_?? I musta been a good boy this winter...

Ta ta.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 1, 2005)

Methinks that sometimes the professorial approach of "challenging belief structures" can become so ingrained that thats the only approach available, even when the opponent knows what hes talking about. You all obviously know more (academically at least) on these subjects than I...And thats not meant as a snipe. I frequently find that the most embarrassing mistakes I have made have been when I was shown to be wrong after believing I "knew for a fact" that I was right. I can accept that much of the "opinion" posted here (mine absolutely included) may be factually wrong. Problem with politics and political opinion (and things not recorded or scientifically verifiable) is thats seldom easy to prove.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 1, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Methinks that sometimes the professorial approach of "challenging belief structures" can become so ingrained that thats the only approach available, even when the opponent knows what hes talking about. You all obviously know more (academically at least) on these subjects than I...And thats not meant as a snipe. I frequently find that the most embarrassing mistakes I have made have been when I was shown to be wrong after believing I "knew for a fact" that I was right. I can accept that much of the "opinion" posted here (mine absolutely included) may be factually wrong. Problem with politics and political opinion (and things not recorded or scientifically verifiable) is thats seldom easy to prove.



*shrugs* Now, don't get me wrong...

I admit that it is feasibly _possible_ that the formless, ineffable, indescribable, omnipresent, transcendent Void or Buddha Mind posited by the various schools of Buddhism could be real --- and the formless, ineffable, indescribable, omnipresent, transcendent Godhead or Ground posited by the Neoplatonists, Christian mystics, Vedantists, Sufis, and Kabbalists could be an utter fantasy that they collectively dreamt up one day.

But, somehow, I just don't think that scenario is very _probable_. Furthermore, I think that scenario absolutely reaks of an attempt to make one religion or tradition paradigmatic, exclusive, and "privileged".

I don't buy it. When there's this much cross-cultural smoke, you should probably expect a universalist fire across the way.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 1, 2005)

Actually I was referring to some posters tendencies to automatically challange any and every belief or opinion posted rather than any specific content...if there were some random agreement every once and a while those posters would at least seem "human". The repeated challanges lead one to believe its more of a game to challange beliefs than any vested interest.


----------



## Adept (Feb 2, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Damn those damn critics! They keep seeing what's actually there!!


 

 Wait, let me guess, you believe the Lord of the Rings was racist propoganda as well...


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Feb 2, 2005)

Sorry you guys you kinda lost me somewhere along the line. Some of you stated that Jedism was just a watered down religion of some others (with long names and difficult to pronounce) could you tell me where I could read up on these beliefs and concepts and what books and religions they are. Which ones would be the best? Are you just generally stating that Jedism is taken from other religions and simplyied down? Thank you.

As for the racism in the star wars films I think that its just nitpicking. Surely any film you can pick out something that is racist in some way or another. Its just a film in its own right, its not meant to offend anybody I'm sure. No film is perfect, surely a perfect film would have a balance between the amount of white and black people in it. Black as a colour not as a skin is meant to represent darkness hence the Dark side, not that black coloured skin is evil. To pick every little thing out is just trying to be politically correct and believe me we have had enough of it over here already!

Regards


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 2, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Actually I was referring to some posters tendencies to automatically challange any and every belief or opinion posted rather than any specific content...if there were some random agreement every once and a while those posters would at least seem "human". The repeated challanges lead one to believe its more of a game to challange beliefs than any vested interest.



Yeah, I know. I was just covering all my bases. 

I do get where you're coming from, though. "Blind" skepticism can be just as much a barrier as "blind" faith...


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 2, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> Some of you stated that Jedism was just a watered down religion of some others



That's because it is.



			
				Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> could you tell me where I could read up on these beliefs and concepts and what books and religions they are.



Running a search engine on any number of the names and traditions I cited would give a number of sources, some of which are well known. For example, it doesn't take a master researcher to figure out that Plotinus wrote the _Enneads_ or that Vedanta philosophy has its fundamental source in the _Upanishads_. 



			
				Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> Which ones would be the best?



Whichever one works best for you. Same as martial arts. 



			
				Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> Are you just generally stating that Jedism is taken from other religions and simplyied down?



More or less, yes.

"Jedism" is typical of New Age belief structures on the whole. They take a few intellectual strands found in Eastern religions and the mystical currents of Western religions (such as Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, Christian contemplative practice, Sufism, and Kabbalah), "filter" them and "interpret" them in a way that they think is "relevant" to modern Western people, and give you a severely watered-down and rehashed take on the original thing.

And the giveaway behind it all is the narcissism. In all the religious traditions I mentioned, the goal is to conquer the measly little rational ego-self, to transcend it, and identify with a deeper Suchness (as it were). This is done through years of hard work, discipline, and contemplative/meditative practice. Y'know, again, kinda like martial arts.

The goal in most New Age and quasi-"postmodern" belief structures is to belief intellectually in the new paradigm --- and the world will be transformed!! No real work or discipline involved, all's you gotta do is change your intellectual beliefs and the world becomes flowers, lollipops, and candycanes. None of that "taming the ego" bull, all's I gotta do is get my precious ego to worship the Force instead of Jehovah, Donald Trump, or Dubya Bush.

All this usually gets tacked on as "self-realization", "self-actualization", or "self-improvement". And, the goal behind it all is to make one's ego feel safe, secure, and invincibly immortal.



			
				Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> As for the racism in the star wars films I think that its just nitpicking. Surely any film you can pick out something that is racist in some way or another. Its just a film in its own right, its not meant to offend anybody I'm sure. No film is perfect, surely a perfect film would have a balance between the amount of white and black people in it. Black as a colour not as a skin is meant to represent darkness hence the Dark side, not that black coloured skin is evil. To pick every little thing out is just trying to be politically correct and believe me we have had enough of it over here already!



If I may...

I believe what Robert was _trying_ to say was that the feudalistic mythology and ideology that sci-fi works like _Star Wars_ are built upon is, by nature, rooted in pre-modern political beliefs and worldviews (such as inherited monarchies, caste systems, subservience of women to men, racism, and so on). This isn't quite the same thing as saying _Star Wars_ is intentionally racist or projecting an overtly racist message.

Of course, I could be completely misreading his arguments here. Whadda I know??


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 2, 2005)

1. Pretty much, yup, that's exactly it. it's another of these "no document of civilization is not also a document of barbarism," arguments.

2. The "racism," in "Star Wars," has nothing to do with the number of black people and white people, or even necessarily color at all. That's the sort of distortion of the theory you'd find on, say, Michael Savage. What it has to do with is the films' repeated, persistent, stubborn insistence upon coding EVERYTHING in terms of biological determinism, inheritance of special powers and ordinary attributes, and power passed on through elite families.

3. I can't even sort through the sentence structures--and last time I checked, we don't get to decide which approaches to questions everybody else takes. You've flipped through a buncha stuff on world religions. Mazeltov.  Me too--just enough to know that when we claim they're "all the same," we're being reductionistic.

4. I did not make these movies, write their stories, invent science fiction. I am not responsible for the monotony of cultural practices. Call Lucas and kvetch.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 2, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. The "racism," in "Star Wars," has nothing to do with the number of black people and white people, or even necessarily color at all. That's the sort of distortion of the theory you'd find on, say, Michael Savage. What it has to do with is the films' repeated, persistent, stubborn insistence upon coding EVERYTHING in terms of biological determinism, inheritance of special powers and ordinary attributes, and power passed on through elite families.


 Youre losing me here... you are focusing on one group of heroes out of the whole series of films... the Jedi.  What about the 16 year old girl with no "powers" or "heredity" who becomes elected queen?  What about the Low Life  Pirate Smuggler who is central to most of the victories that the "elitist" Jedi Luke Skywalker has?  What about the Gambler who is responsible for saving the rebelion's fleet  and destroying the Empires superweapon?

 Sure... the Star Wars fims had thier "Elite Ruling Class" so did "Gladiator" "Exaclibur" "Mists of Avalon" "Battlestar Galactica" "The Messenger" "From Hell" etc etc etc... 

 I dont think its an issue of "racism" as much as "Whos Story are you telling"...  If you are telling a story about princes and  kings, well...


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 2, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Pretty much, yup, that's exactly it. it's another of these "no document of civilization is not also a document of barbarism," arguments.



Ok. Just checkin'....

And, while I can partially see where you're coming from, I do think you're overexaggerating the significance here. Yes, _Star Wars_ has, as its background, a quasi-feudal mythology (after all, it was during feudal times that the "hero" myths first emerged signficantly). This does not mean, however, that any kind of feudalistic message or intentionality is being projected.

After all, its just a bunch of movies.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. The "racism," in "Star Wars," has nothing to do with the number of black people and white people, or even necessarily color at all. That's the sort of distortion of the theory you'd find on, say, Michael Savage. What it has to do with is the films' repeated, persistent, stubborn insistence upon coding EVERYTHING in terms of biological determinism, inheritance of special powers and ordinary attributes, and power passed on through elite families.



Racism, in my opinion, is the wrong word to use here. What you are talking about sounds more akin to a general elitism or subtle caste system (where you "inherit" your lot in life), as opposed to anything particular to ethnic groups. And, even then, it is nothing overt enough to worry oneself over.

Again, they're just movies.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. I can't even sort through the sentence structures--and last time I checked, we don't get to decide which approaches to questions everybody else takes. You've flipped through a buncha stuff on world religions. Mazeltov.  Me too--just enough to know that when we claim they're "all the same," we're being reductionistic.



Reductionism?? Heh, that's an interesting take on things...

Just for the record, I never claimed these religions are "all the same". My perspective on the universality of certain religious truths and experiences is more akin to the perspective of Huston Smith than, say, Catholic 'divine prefigurement' (which fundamentally claims that the similarity of religions can be explained as 'preperations' or 'prefigurements' for the One True Faith) or the Baha'is (who fundamentally claim that all 'true' religions are just variations on theirs).

Rather, this is just recognizing the similarities along with the differences. Much of the differences are culturally and historically conditioned, rather than being qualitative impasses. Its fairly obvious that the mystical adherents in any of the world's major religions are touching upon the same basic concepts. Usually, it is the literalists and non-contemplative "believers" that quibble over doctrinal details (i.e., Pat Robertson argues that only Christians will go to a mythic-fantastic paradise, whereas Paul Tillich and Thomas Merton do not).

The only point I was trying to make is that the Buddhist 'shunyata', Vedanta 'nirguna brahman', Neoplatonic 'formless godhead', Sufi 'luminous night', Catholic and Eastern Orthodox 'dazzling darkness', and Tillich-Eckhartian 'ground of being' all seem to be touching upon something very, very, very common. 

Its not that big of a stretch to make, I think.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Feb 2, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> ...The only point I was trying to make is that the Buddhist 'shunyata', Vedanta 'nirguna brahman', Neoplatonic 'formless godhead', Sufi 'luminous night', Catholic and Eastern Orthodox 'dazzling darkness', and Tillich-Eckhartian 'ground of being' all seem to be touching upon something very, very, very common.
> 
> Its not that big of a stretch to make, I think.


Granted, I'm joining a little late. I've been an avid fan of comparative myth and religion for many years. Before Campbell showed up on public telly with Bill Moyers, he authored a series of books called "The Masks of God." In 4 parts (I think...been awhile), they are divided into general topics (i.e., Volume I, Primitive Mythology; other volumes included Oriental and Occidental, etc.). He touches on this quite a bit. I recall a linguistics table in one of the volumes which had some impressive comparisons. He takes a word for something like "dog", and then has a table of languages from around the world...people who supposedly have never met because of the geographical barriers of the ancient world (oceans, and the like). In this comparison, there are striking similarities in the words.

Similar, but different...my Pops is wrapping up a meta-analysis of ecstatic experiences from 150+ autobiographical sources, irrespective of traditional backgrounds (kind of like a spiritual version of a Cochrane review). Has input from folks who popped their cork after studying the works of people ranging from St. John of the Cross, to Yogananda, to self-declared followers of Zen and neti-neti practices. Phenomena described by authors is subcategorized, and cross-referenced for similarities & differences. Turns out, much the same, regardless of how they got there or when they got there (old world accounts vs modern accounts). His findings, strangely, do not support participation in organized systems of thought: individual breakthroughs came after abandoning orthodox practices. They also do not support participation in the pseudo-mythos of the New Age spirituality (number of enlightenment experiences resulting from meditating with crystal & whole grain suppositories? None.). They do seem to support a common theme of predictable experiences, and post-experience perceptual and philosophical changes.

So my burning question...do all our brains, deprived of oxygen or logic, go to the same place ideographically?

Regards,

Dave


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 2, 2005)

1. What 16-year old-girl? The one from the planet where the white people on the surface have kings and queens, and the Jar Jarians below the sirface have kings and queens? The one where half the plot of the last two movies revolves around her marrying somebody explicitly described as genetically superior in the ways of the Force, so they can give birth to Luke and Leia?

2. Folks, look up what racism is. If you claim that some people are genetically superior to the common herd, argue that politics should be structured accordingly, associate certain easily-identifiable ethnic stereotypes with characters consistently (STILL waiting for the explanation of the Trade Delegation and the Italisn junkman!), and build your whole story around passing down a biologically-determined authority--wellp, that's pretty much what that is.

3. Sure, Han Solo. Whose class status and "unfitness," is made an issue again and again and again, whose best buddy, Lando, is explicitly a Playah and pimp-eventually-to turn good. Why does it violate royalist fantasies of biology to establish that the pureblood line needs a little shot of the street dawg from time to time?

4. There's all sorts of sf that tells different stories. A lot of sf, from that dope L. Ron Hubbard and Gilman's fiction on down, revolves explicitly around fantasies of race. Sorry; I didn't write the stuff.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 2, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. What 16-year old-girl? The one from the planet where the white people on the surface have kings and queens,


The "Queens" of Naboo were elected positions, not Inherited ones. And, depsite your claim of colorlessness, there ya go calling them "White People"

Cuz Captain Typho was White?







And Captain Panaka?






Yep. All those White People from Naboo.

And the Gungans under the water? They had no Kings and Queens. They were ruled by a council. The leader of which was referred to as "Boss"

And before you jump on the "Jar Jar was a racist portrail of black people" perhaps you should consider that JarJar was PLAYED by a black commedian.

http://www.starwars.com/bio/ahmedbest.html


----------



## Tgace (Feb 2, 2005)

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.....


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 2, 2005)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> I've been an avid fan of comparative myth and religion for many years. Before Campbell showed up on public telly with Bill Moyers, he authored a series of books called "The Masks of God." In 4 parts (I think...been awhile), they are divided into general topics (i.e., Volume I, Primitive Mythology; other volumes included Oriental and Occidental, etc.). He touches on this quite a bit. I recall a linguistics table in one of the volumes which had some impressive comparisons. He takes a word for something like "dog", and then has a table of languages from around the world...people who supposedly have never met because of the geographical barriers of the ancient world (oceans, and the like). In this comparison, there are striking similarities in the words.



Don't get me wrong, I like Campbell's stuff. I was way into his writings when I was younger....

But, he (along with other Jungians) is really talking about something different than what I'm referring to here. The archetypes, as Ken Wilber has pointed out, are generally of a pre-rational, mythical nature. They aren't what you'd generally call "spiritual" structures. Instead, the archetypes are simply pre-rational structures inherited by humans due to millenia upon millenia of shared experiences (i.e, we all experience "mother" in one form or another). Both Jung and Campbell point out that the archetypes are biologically based and instinctive in nature. 

Jung and Campbell had a tendency to "elevate" the archetypes to a sort of transcendent, suprarational status -- which, I believe, is a mistake. Jungian therapy generally emphasizes trying to recontact the "lost" archetypes in scripting sort of techniques. Which, granted, can be useful --- but really has nothing to do with ego-transcendence.

The religious traditions are clear on this matter: contemplative practice of some kind is the key, not re-connecting to mythic-membership role/rule structures.



			
				Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Similar, but different...my Pops is wrapping up a meta-analysis of ecstatic experiences from 150+ autobiographical sources, irrespective of traditional backgrounds (kind of like a spiritual version of a Cochrane review). Has input from folks who popped their cork after studying the works of people ranging from St. John of the Cross, to Yogananda, to self-declared followers of Zen and neti-neti practices. Phenomena described by authors is subcategorized, and cross-referenced for similarities & differences. Turns out, much the same, regardless of how they got there or when they got there (old world accounts vs modern accounts). His findings, strangely, do not support participation in organized systems of thought: individual breakthroughs came after abandoning orthodox practices. They also do not support participation in the pseudo-mythos of the New Age spirituality (number of enlightenment experiences resulting from meditating with crystal & whole grain suppositories? None.). They do seem to support a common theme of predictable experiences, and post-experience perceptual and philosophical changes.



Hrmmm.... sounds interesting.

Ken Wilber has done some similar research in some of his books. Of course, he was also concerned with mapping the pre-rational and rational consciousness structures, as well. In his system, he breaks up spiritual experiences (barring interpretation and just the raw experience itself) into four general subcategories, in a hiearchical order:

1) Nature mysticism (union with the "gross" realm of physical existence).
2) Deity mysticism (union with the "subtle" realm of forms, archetypes, illuminations, and visionary experiences).
3) Formless mysticism (union with the formless ground, the void, abyss, and so on).
4) Nondual mysticism (union of the formless with all levels and types of forms --- subtle to physical).

I'd be interested to hear how your father's research differs and/or coincides with Wilber's model. 



			
				Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> So my burning question...do all our brains, deprived of oxygen or logic, go to the same place ideographically?



Dunno if I'd word it like that....

... but, sure. Of course, its important to take into account how differing cultural environments can condition and filter what is experienced and perceived in meditation.

Laterz.


----------



## Adept (Feb 2, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> STILL waiting for the explanation of the Trade Delegation and the Italisn junkman!


 Oh for gods sake. TheTrade Delegation don't even sound Japanese, and the little blue trader guy doesn't sound Italian either.

 Oh, and kings and queens are elected on Naboo.


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 3, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> Oh for gods sake. TheTrade Delegation don't even sound Japanese, and the little blue trader guy doesn't sound Italian either.
> 
> Oh, and kings and queens are elected on Naboo.


Actually, I thought they sounded slightly Chinese....but when you are creating a fictional reality you have to blend and mash together elements of reality...

Lucas took an obscure African (I believe) language to use for Lando Calrisian's co pilot in Episode Six (Return of the Jedi).....so what.

I still don't see the 'racist' thing.  If these races were being depicted in stereotypic/charicatures of existing races with all kinds of not so subtle slights ("Hebrew/Jewish charicatures with Big noses and sloped foreheads and names like Kikey for instants) then I could see it as 'racists'.

The worst I could say is that Lucas' pantheon of alien races is ego centric because the majority of these alien diversities all seem to be able to breath earth-like atmospheric conditions.  Conversely, Humanoid characters don't seem to need space suits for many of the places they go.

But, then again, that could be becuase it is FANTASY and it is easier to focus on the story instead of the background that the story takes place in.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 3, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> The worst I could say is that Lucas' pantheon of alien races is ego centric because the majority of these alien diversities all seem to be able to breath earth-like atmospheric conditions. Conversely, Humanoid characters don't seem to need space suits for many of the places they go.


 Right?  Exactly!  The same thing can be said of Star Trek???

 Hey yeah... Look at the Racism in Star Trek... The Big headed Big Nosed guys are Money Grubbers... (ferengi) The Big Black Guys are all Violent and want to kill each other (Klingons)...

 Wow... Now theres somthing to that!  <gag>


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 3, 2005)

I thought episodes 1 and 2 had a bit of an Indian theme with the names (amidala or whatever). Nice that Lucas chose THEM over an american culture to represent the "good" government....I knew he hated the U.S.!! Yea, that's what I'm getting out of this. Maybe he wants the Dali Lama for president.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 3, 2005)

When you determine social position largely in terms of inherited characteristics, and you tie those characteristics to certain "groups," and you link all this stuff to perfectly common stereotypes right here on earth, what the hell WOULD you like to call it? Didja not LISTEN to the way the characters talk? Jar Jar and his amusing, dancing, rhythym-loving boyos?

Making a few peripheral characters, "different," or doesn't help. it's tokenism--even if, according to your logic, it turns out that the ENTIRE ARMY OF THE, "REPUBLIC," has a dark skin. Clones, remember? 

As for the original "Star Trek--" despite its pseudo-liberalism, did you NOT notice that everyplave you went in the galaxy turned out to be America? Did you NOT see the episodes focused on Nazi Germany, on the white, "Yangs," vs. the yellow, "Coms?" 

Guys, watch the shows. And keep watching the skies. Sheesh, next you'll be claiming that L. Ron and Lovecraft weren't wacko on the topic of race...


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 3, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> When you determine social position largely in terms of inherited characteristics, and you tie those characteristics to certain "groups," and you link all this stuff to perfectly common stereotypes right here on earth, what the hell WOULD you like to call it? Didja not LISTEN to the way the characters talk? Jar Jar and his amusing, dancing, rhythym-loving boyos?
> 
> Making a few peripheral characters, "different," or doesn't help. it's tokenism--even if, according to your logic, it turns out that the ENTIRE ARMY OF THE, "REPUBLIC," has a dark skin. Clones, remember?
> 
> ...



So it's kinda like a sci-fi version of the book of Mormon's?  Couldn't resist...:ultracool


----------



## Tgace (Feb 3, 2005)

> ....but when you are creating a fictional reality you have to blend and mash together elements of reality...


And isnt that really what the fact of the matter here is? How do you put together a FANTASY universe without using some historical elements and all the baggage that comes with them? Try putting together a story with no elements that somebody could pick apart and lets see how interesting it is.


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 4, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> When you determine social position largely in terms of inherited characteristics, and you tie those characteristics to certain "groups," and you link all this stuff to perfectly common stereotypes right here on earth, what the hell WOULD you like to call it? Didja not LISTEN to the way the characters talk? Jar Jar and his amusing, dancing, rhythym-loving boyos?
> 
> Making a few peripheral characters, "different," or doesn't help. it's tokenism--even if, according to your logic, it turns out that the ENTIRE ARMY OF THE, "REPUBLIC," has a dark skin. Clones, remember?
> 
> ...


 
And I have watched the shows.  I basically grew up on them, became addicted to them and have watched them all in syndication a billion times over....

If, by 'racist', your implying that Lucas, Roddenberry were making negative ("you know how 'those' people' are") comments about blacks, jews, native americans....then you are dead wrong.  As you said, ST had a liberal bent to it, how can that create 'racism' when liberalism is suppose to be all embracing?  Same with Lucas' SW movies.  There is some underlying social commentary about classism, money, power, corruption and he uses certain depictions of alien races to depict the haves vs. the have nots but OF COURSE that is going to be from a limited perspective (Life experience, education, research) when your talking about a single person's vision combined with production teams.

I would say that Sci Fi writers use 'stereotypes' or as they are known in literature 'archetypes' when they create alien or humanoid characters to make commentary of all kinds.  Just because 'they' are doing it, doesn't automatically make it 'racist.'  That would be like saying 'everyone who carries a gun is evil/good/soldier....' just because they are carrying a gun.

Sci Fi is the new allagorical tale IMO.  It works, generally, from strong depictions of characters as 'types' to drive the story and create the friction that keeps us interested....but then any good story does that.

Lucas, at his worst, through his settings and characterizations, is making Dickensian commentary about money, corporations and how power greed and insensitivity will create inequitable quality of life and cultural insensitivity (look at the whole Jar Jar Binks thing).


----------

