|
|
|
| Arawn_Fenn wrote: |
| DarthMRN wrote: |
| Though, of course, it is twarthed by Father saying Son had grown stronger lately, presumably in response to the Sith threat. |
But even if this were assumed to be true it would not mean that the contrapositive would automatically be true. In fact, it would seem to reinforce the idea that the balance of the Force depends on the neutralizing of the Sith threat in the normal galaxy. |
Sure thing. One of the reasons I like your explanation. But what you said was that the alternate "Ani ruling with an iron fist might bring balance mystically" was factually incorrect, as opposed to just a less likely option. And still it has one inescapable advantage over yours, which I will get to below.
| Quote: |
| An idea which seems to be undermined by the fact that the Father's presence in Mortis had not balanced the Force in the TPM era by any such "ripple effect", nor had it prevented the Banites from creating the imbalance in the first place. Why would Anakin's "rule" be any different? |
Wasn't that the very point of bringing Ani to Mortis in Overlords? Father was growing weak, and given their apparent lifespan, he could have weakened ever since the Banites began mucking the Force up easy. So he called the young and strong Ani in to test his usefulness as a successor. And Ani passed with flying colours, bending the Kids to his will -at least inside the yin-yang circle.
Which suggests that either Father's weakening was a result of the Banites' meddling in the real galaxy, OR that the Banites' meddling was made possible at all (historically unprecedented AFAIK) because Father had grown weak. We can't really know which determines which. But we can know from Overlords that Father, unless lying, initially assumed the latter: That his own strength and life was slowly ending, and he needed a successor. And since that seems to coincide with his advanced age, and the effects of age the audience is familiar with, I gotta say that seems more likely than the Banites somehow coming across something none of their predecessors ever did, and under far less advantageous circumstances than, say the original Sith Empire.
So from that point of view, Ani could do what he was destined to do through purely mystical means. Keep the Kids in check, and somehow destiny is altered in the real galaxy, rendering the Sith impotent. And then comes the mystical validation on top: Ani, under specific circumstances being able to dominate the Kids, which he otherwise can't. Which Obi and Ahsoka can't. Which is precisely what Father says he can, and which is the purpose of the Chosen One. Giving strong mystical indication that the Chosen One is meant to bring Balance to the Force this way.
Finally, that version of the Chosen One has an advantage that version Ghosts does not have: It treats the Overlords like actual embodiments of the Force, rather than just wierd, Force-strong aliens. IMO that was a big thematic part of the Mortis trilogy, the indication that these three were gods of the Force somehow, complete with powers that waxed and waned similarly to the energy field in the normal galaxy.
However, this is proven wrong by the other episodes. The death of these gods don't make the various aspects of the normal galaxy energy field die. Seemingly, it changes nothing. All the thematic implications were wrong, along with Father's apparent reason for even bringing Ani to Mortis. And that is where the problem lies. In order for these episodes to change nothing about Balance to the Force, we have to assume that for all of their properties, all thematic allusions, the Overlords were just Force-strong aliens, and their leader was delusional, thinking that the Chosen One was supposed to stay on Mortis, when in reality he was needed to kill Palp in RotJ.
Additionally, there is the mystical precedent set by Ani being able to dominate the Kids during the test. There is no good explanation for what that thing was, if these were just regular old Force-strong aliens with a wacky connection to the Force. And that is why I contend that these episodes changes something. They point strongly towards the Overlords mattering, somehow, when the old RotJ version of Balance means they don't matter in the slightest, beyond the mundane secular threat they might pose if released on the normal galaxy.
| Quote: |
| If Anakin takes no direct action against Palpatine in the normal galaxy, what is to stop Palpatine from becoming gradually stronger to the point where no "ripple effect" workaround could even do any good? |
That is the point. The implication of version Overlords IMO is that by becoming Father, Ani could through mystical means neuter Palp in the normal galaxy.
| Quote: |
| DarthMRN wrote: |
| Father's version Ghosts is hampered by the problem that the life and death, the existence in the first place, of the Overlords is meaningless, both to the Force and to its balance. |
Once again, that is only your assumption, so even if we were to take the above at face value it would only constitute a problem if it were somehow proven to be correct. However, like so much else in your interpretation of Mortis, it seems to result from a potential mischaracterization of the arc. If the Son is a potential threat, why is the death of the Son meaningless? |
Then we are back to the negative being the default. If there was a consequence to the Overlords dying, we haven't seen it. The Force was still unbalanced before these episodes. It remained that way after. In spite of all allusions that these creatures were directly linked to the state of the Force in the normal galaxy, the energy field did not die when they did. Seemingly, there was no change at all, not even a weakening. Nada, nothing, as befits a TV show made only of filler. Similarly, there was nothing known about the Clone Wars era that demanded this explanation, no plot holes that needed to be filled Force-wise. The Mortis episodes came completely out of the blue, introduced Force gods, then killed them off before returning to status quo as if nothing had happened.
As for Son, as I outlined above, whatever he matters, he matters only as a secular threat, being no different than a fleet of Vong, a Sith Order, or a Hutt carel. His existence or lack thereof does as far as we have seen, not affect the Force, the way version Overlords suggests it should. His power-level, probably, but not his actual existence, as stupid as that is.
And just to be clear before you misunderstand: I still agree that your explanation for how version Ghosts is the better option. What I am saying is that there are many oddities, the mystical validation where Ani dominated the Kids chief among them, that your version does not explain. And that the lingering questions most certainly changes things from how they were before Mortis aired.
| Quote: |
| Meanwhile, this continues to ignore that the putative "first version"/"second version" dichotomy is essentially little more than illusion if the Son is recognized to be a potential threat to the galaxy in much the same way that Palpatine ultimately is. |
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. But whatever it is, Son escaping and wreacking havoc on the normal galaxy like an evil Superman has nothing to do with the problems I have with the Mortis episodes. Another secular threat? Big whoop. The Overlords' impact on the Force, and their insight on the Chosen One as implied divinities, is what is relevant. In that respect they raise a few questions that the old version of Balance does not explain. Maybe going so far as to undermine it.
| Quote: |
| Because you choose to ignore Lucas, that means Lucas isn't canonical evidence? |
I guess that is what I am saying, yes. If I deny your paradigm, and you still want to convince me, then you need to provide evidence that my paradigm accepts, rather than reiterating evidence from your paradigm. In the alternative, you will have to convince me your paradigm is better and how I should adopt it. Since you have failed at doing that so far, what choice to you have, if you want to convince me? Then you will have to just brush me off.
| Quote: |
| Anakin did what the Chosen One was prophesied to do, and was confirmed as the Chosen One by Lucas. But for some reason this wasn't enough. The contrast is with your handling of the Father. Anakin being able to control Son and Daughter in Overlords hardly constitutes "empirical proof" that Overlords promotes a view in contradiction with Ghosts of Mortis. Being able to do a thing is not the same as being required to do it. |
You are confusing things here. I have said several times that I agree with your version of things. But unlike you, I still acknowledge the unanswered questions that remain afterwards. I have not proven that version Overlords of Balance to the Force is right, nor can I, nor would I want to. I have, however, pointed out facets that support that version strongly, and which the alternative does not satisfactorily explain.
Just because one hypothesis is more likely than the other, it still fails if it doesn't take all evidence into account. And that is what yours don't. I prefer it so far because it is better than the alternative, but is still has a ways to go. You seem to be preaching that because it is better, we should ignore the facts it fails to account for. No deal.
| Quote: |
| As far as inventions like "mystical credence" are concerned, this is not what the term proof usually means; it's just more of the same tortured interpretation ( which, as an indication of its inherent value, happens to reject the very idea of character development as some kind of contradiction ). |
If you want to be technical, the isolated mystical event where Ani dominates the Kids is not proof of anything. But it is data. And that data needs to be accounted for by a hypothesis explaining what Balance to the Force truly means. The one you present, superior though it may be in light of the totality of data we have, still does not explain that. Just like it does not explain the strong implications that the Overlords are directly linked to the power of the Force, yet their deaths cause no noticable effect.
And I guess that is also why the Mortis episodes must be said to have changed things compared to RotJ and Lucas-comments: You will need a new and improved version of that hypothesis to explain it all. AKA, a change to the old hypothesis.
| Quote: |
| DarthMRN wrote: |
| As well, it doesn't show that the EU can supercede the movies. I already showed a Leland quote proving that, so it is a foregone conclusion. |
No, Leland's quote utterly failed to prove what it was alleged to prove, because it did not focus on the EU actually superseding the movies, instead choosing for some reason to discuss EU superseding other EU. Why would Leland answer a question with the answer to a question different from the one which was asked? |
I have posted the quote in question. You get to read and reread it until you get it.
This is a discussion of whether things have changed on the Balance/Chosen One front in light of Mortis. Our respective understandings of Canon is besides the point, since we agree on Palp being the source of the imbalance, even if our sources were different. The only thing I need from you is a satisfactory explanation for the data that supports Father's version Overlords, reinterpreting them to fit with version Ghosts instead. If you fail at that, as you so far have, apparently suggesting they either don't exist, or should be willfully ignored, then you cannot deny that something has changed, and that the old version of Balance is no longer sufficient to explain it all.
| Quote: |
| To understand the answer to that is to understand that "EU can supersede the movies" is an essentially fictitious concept. It is contradicted on its face by the long-standing SW canon hierarchy which you have traditionally ignored and which is supported by quotes from others which both predate and postdate the creation of the supposedly all-powerful Holocron. |
Actually, I would love to hear postdate statements that contradict the Leland quote I made. As well as what sort of long-standig SW canon hierarchy supposedly precludes the failsafe I am talking about.
That is, if you have anything new to offer on the topic. For in spite of our many arguments, I have yet so see quotes from any relevant source (that means not Lucas) that demonstrates this.
| Quote: |
| DarthMRN wrote: |
| Or in simpler terms, I repeat: Why should the commentaries be included to begin with? |
I repeat: because Leland justified exclusion of things by various more or less desperate excuses, absolutely none of which apply to the commentaries. |
You know what, I am just going to cut to the chase here, since ultimately it doesn't matter. The reason the commentaries should be included to begin with is because they are a potential source of SW knowledge. That is the horse that comes before the cart. With that established, Leland's rules of exclusion factor in, and you are right, they don't preclude the commentaries.
Now, here is the thing, and you should have gotten it the last few times I told you: Apparently those rules are not the only rules! How can I know? Because things said on those commentaries are contradicted by the EU. Which means that Leland did not see fit to include some, potentially all, facts from the commentaries in the Holocron, which would normally have meant they were inviolable by the EU. Which makes perfect sense in light of him saying his info comes primarily from notes sent by the film teams, and only rarely includes stuff GL has said to the public. Basically, my argument is that even if the quoted rules of exclusion don't apply, we have to assume they are not the only reasons to exclude GL there is. Leland is not a programmed machine, and we are not privy to every principle he works after. We cannot assume things are impossible just because he hasn't said them, not when there is evidence that they are both possible and likely.
So it again boils down to your preference for trying to prove the positive through a lack of negative alone. The commentaries are not valid simply because there isn't an explicit intent to exclude them. And when they are contradicted, there is good cause to assume they are excluded after all.
| Quote: |
| I don't know if I should call this sad or hilarious. Equal parts of each, maybe? No, The Secret History of Star Wars does not show Lucas' definition of bringing balance changing after ROTS. |
That is not what I said either. I used evidence therein to validate my position, that GL changing his mind was a well-established concept, granting precedence for assuming he might do it again, for example in regards to Mortis versus RotJ. Given the topic, I guess I can excuse you for the misunderstanding. Had I not, I would have suspected it of being a rethorical attempt at putting words in my mouth, and pretending arguments I made for one thing was in fact arguments for something else.
| Quote: |
| ( As an aside, the book has been fact-checked and found wanting on a few of the subjects it actually does cover, but that's a separate discussion.) |
I suspected as much. Michael speculates a whole lot, no question. Though, as I said, short of suspecting fabrication, the evidence presented speaks for itself. I am not intellectually dishonest enough to equate lack of perfect research and presentation with invalid evidence.
| Quote: |
| As I think has been made somewhat clear, we approach the EU in fundamentally different ways. You seem to use an approach which can appear similar to a Canon Completist viewpoint; I reject such an approach as unworkable in light of the EU's internal inconsistency. In other words, certain EU is not notably different from the GL view, or to put it another way, because of internal inconsistency and the differing viewpoints of different authors it is unclear just what "that of the EU" should even mean. |
First, it must be xmas. Long have I waited for an acknowledgement of this, and some behavior based on that knowledge.
Second, even if your position is right, what is the significance? The EU being internally inconsistent doesn't exactly invalidate its attempt at conforming to the Lucasverse. Not unless you think that inconsistencies prove a wholesale lack of continuity, and that the EU does whatever it wants regardless of what either the Lucasverse or other EU does. So long as the EU even tries to conform to Lucas, not to mention if it is beholden to his work, there is always the risk that his work will destroy large portions of the established EU continuity beyond the reach of any retcon.
There is no reason a lacking internal EU consistency precludes the need for a failsafe. So I don't see the significance.
| Quote: |
| DarthMRN wrote: |
| You must not be familiar with the rules for the burden of proof. I am not required to prove a negative. You are required to prove a positive. The negative is the default. |
Tell me how it works, o enlightened one! Who has the burden of proof: the one alleging the Father's Overlords opinion to be correct, or the one alleging that it is not? |
That would be the one alleging version Overlords is correct, of course. Fortunately, no one has alleged such a hypothetical. The one coming closest is the one claiming it is definitely incorrect, without also accounting for the data supporting it.
_________________
I discuss to learn, not to win. Then again, learning enough tends to translate to victory in the end anyway.
Last edited by DarthMRN on Tue Nov 06, 2012 2:54 am; edited 9 times in total
|
|
