What is the Force

Hello Kyrin,

Yeah, I didn't miss the point, you missed mine. But that's ok. Not important

It is nice that you did get the fact that I acknowledged the need for mans exploration into the whys and wherefores of The Force.

Your questions are good ones and I hesitate to answer them because I believe we all must find our own way. Sure, we listen and discuss with others to gain knowledge and understanding, but in the end, I will believe in The Force as it allows for me to understand it.

As for the suffering thing, I'll stand by my understanding of it. It may not be right, but I like it better than yours.

Now the question: "So what is it about the force that gives it meaning in our lives?" - "What is Jerusalem Worth? Nothing...Everything!" (from the movie Kingdom of Heaven)

"In other words, sure the force exists, but why do we care about that?" - We are Human! We need to care about things. It is in our nature to explore. Whether it is outer space or the space between our ears. We need to explore the limits of our understanding.

Phortis Nespin wrote: Hello Kyrin,

Yeah, I didn't miss the point, you missed mine. But that's ok. Not important

I have missed your point? And I still feel you have missed mine. So it seems we are playing a game of "huh uh you are"! Lol. So how do we get past this and get on the same page?

My understanding of your comments is that you know the force exists and that's all there is to discuss about it because beyond that it's a personal experience. Is that close to what you are saying?

Relativity can change everything or nothing. ( same can be said with experience) What and how we each define it is up to us. We can share definitions and beliefs but when it comes to it - it’s to each person to decide - for themselfs.

My understanding of your comments is that you know the force exists and that's all there is to discuss about it because beyond that it's a personal experience. Is that close to what you are saying?

Close. My point is that it is great to have discussions and debate about The Force. It helps us to explore our feelings and correlate our thoughts, but in the end it is your understanding of The Force that matters.

We discuss these kinds of things so that we can each get a report from other angles of the human experience / gathered understanding, for a wider awareness of what there is. The more we cultivate this insight, the more we learn about ourselves as humans and the world around us. In turn, we develop an improved ability to understand and serve society as Jedi.

Carlos,I agree with the message you frequently repeat that each of us have our own understanding. But now let's move on with sharing it for that purpose stated above.

I would like to suggest we try to communicate our thoughts with as little condescension as possible, and hopefully keep this directed in a more explorative direction than a preachy one.

Gisteron wrote:

ZealotX wrote: This may sound completely off the wall to some but I don't view life itself as something binary. What we now determine to be "alive" is relative to our own life. The closer something is to us the more we validate its state of being... alive.

Animals are obviously alive but are plants as alive as people and animals?

At the risk of repeating what may well have been said before, there are criteria that we use to tell living things from non-living ones. If something fulfills them all, then we call it a life form, and if it doesn't, we do not. Whether life-ness, unlike some other artificially imposed filter like green-ness is somehow inherent to things is an open question to much of the same extent to which it is an uninteresting one. We are, for now, stuck being around and conversing with each other. Whether the universe itself would think in any of the ways we have to were we not around is really neither answerable nor important until we have some means to interact with it without being around ourselves - provided that is not itself a contradiction.
Plants are alive by the same criteria by which animals are. If the latter is ambiguous, then so must be the former. Similarity to our own makeup is not an explicit criterion for life.

That's correct by the definitions of what we humans have established. I cannot say you are wrong based on those established definitions. The purpose of my post was to question those established definitions because it assumes that we know what life is and what life is not. Most definitions are simply agreed upon terms. Scientific definitions depend upon the scientific method to validate our understanding.

But there are things still yet beyond our understanding. We don't yet know everything there is to know and we don't have a test for everything that can be tested. Just like there is sound that we cannot hear and light we cannot see what I believe that our ability to detect the "entire spectrum" is limited.

I remember the first time I saw an image from an electron microscope. What I'm saying is that I believe "life itself" is a spectrum and not a binary thing. I had trouble believing in evolution early on but this is part of the reason it makes sense to me now. In order for life to reproduce it has to first exist. How did it get here if not by reproduction? This core question keeps many religions in business. But I think the answer is that the Force was always alive, in a sense. That sense is "animation". It's moving, flowing. The more movement seems to be caused by external stimuli the more it seems to be alive. But these interactions become more complex which creates more complex reactions. But it's still action and reaction. I'm a programmer. I can write a simple program that barely does anything. Or I can write a complex program reacting to a lot of user input (stimuli). And if we throw in a bunch of algorithms that interaction might even fool you into thinking you were talking to a human.

But the point is, the more simplistic a system is the less "alive" it seems because we're trying to judge life by what it can do.... not what it is. If that same system suddenly had a mutation that allowed it to do 1 more thing, then you might suddenly think it was alive. But it was able to gain that mutation because it was already alive or part of some larger living system.

No. There is a subset of the set of all living things that can think or feel. Being alive is not sufficient. However, until we can conclusively shown that nothing other than living things can think or feel, we cannot assert that it is necessary either. This may depend on what we mean by thinking and feeling also.

Exactly, so the presence of certain abilities may help further define newer categories of life but do not necessarily define life itself or the essence of it. It is still very much mysterious and full of wonder.

Why? The planet does not reproduce, it does not metabolize, it does not have any mechanisms by which it would maintain homoeostasis, and it is very debatable to which extent it reacts to stimuli. Inside it is mostly molten rock with a tiny volume concentrated on the surface where every life form we had the pleasure to classify ever lived. A new definition by which the planet could be qualified as alive would render pretty much everything else alive also and in that way make "alive" a meaningless term.

How do you know the earth doesn't reproduce? As a male, I do not reproduce "in that way". And usually the ability to reproduce is programmed in from birth but what if you came into existence first and then over millions of years started to develop more and more the fundamental properties of life and then you started reproducing "mini planets", not rocks in space but things that mimic'd your properties; creatures with water, air, rivers, hair (like grass), etc.?

When we get stuck on the "how" of reproduction we can miss that reproduction itself is an evolving concept. If not every organism does it the same way then why would every living organism need to? As far as reacting to stimuli, that's also debatable if one is willing to think outside the box. What if weather was simply a reaction to internal/external stimuli? What if, "similar to the concept of Pandora from Avatar" trees were basically solar cells collecting energy from the sun and instead of all these biological organisms being separate life forms, that they are a part of the planet's form of life which is unique to us and therefore nearly impossible for science to use the scientific method on because its not "repeatable" as far as what we can test (We don't have another Earth). The 4 seasons could be viewed as a reaction to the external stimuli representing our distance to the sun. You simply have to ask yourself, what constitutes a reaction.

The sun "produced" most of the materials on our periodic table. The Earth has a "heart" that is similar to the sun. My do minerals and all these things vital to life exist in the soil? And why do living organism on the surface get life-sustaining food from both above and below ground? In other words, plants pull in these things from above and below and then animals eat the plants and other animals eat them. So we're all consumers of the Earth & Sun as we occupy the space in between them.

The Earth does have homeostasis in terms of thermo regulation. And if we consider plant life to be an outgrowth (being the first to exist without the need for other life forms to produce them) then it could be that the plants are simply aiding in the homeostasis of the planet and absorbing and recycling forms of radiation (energy); or cleaning it similar to our liver function.

Yes, they are. Not because you are alive, but because they each individually match our definition of life.

Hmmm... I don't think I can agree with that. Because if you separate my skin cells from the rest of me they'll die. Their life depends on mine and vice versa, just like the Earth depends on the sun. Because I am generating energy and heat... life continues to grow outwards from that energy production and transmutation. I consume it and it becomes layers of flesh. The earth also has layers of "flesh" similar to a cell. Again... am I saying "NO! YOU'RE WRONG!". No, you're absolutely right according to science. All I'm saying is that science has limitations and therefore our understanding of life my be equally limited. I don't think anyone has all the answers.

Trees are, rocks and dirt are not. Again, not because the planet is or isn't (it isn't), but because trees fulfill the criteria and rocks do not.

Rocks are a mixture of different mineral deposits. They're quite similar to teeth. Teeth are not alive and once you lose your second set that's it. Teeth change depending on what you eat; similar to the affects of air and water on rocks a.k.a erosion. We can look at all of these parts of our own body and question whether each one is "alive" but at the end of the day they are all part of a larger living organism. Us. And that's how I view the Force.

Phortis Nespin wrote: Close. My point is that it is great to have discussions and debate about The Force. It helps us to explore our feelings and correlate our thoughts, but in the end it is your understanding of The Force that matters.

This is what I am curious about. Why do you put so much emphasis on personal understanding that is irrelevant to global understanding? Is it not these very sorts of personal understandings that cause conflict, destruction, wars? We have seen this countless times in the past. The Christians have a different personal understanding than the Muslims and war is the result. Even the Christians themselves have different personal understandings and denominations are the results with infighting all claiming the other is not a true christian because the don't believe X or do practice Y. This seems to be at the very core of separation, not integration. So my question is how do we get past this and find that thing that connects us instead of separates us?

Uzima Moto wrote: The Void is emptiness. It Is, yet Is Not.. the existing nonexistence..
It's both the foundation of ALL and is ALL.

Uzima Moto wrote: The Force that underlies reality is intelligent and alive.. it's the only explanation to how reality can be ordered and animated essentially almost out of nothing..

Whatever this Power is, it's always been there. The Void is the space it occupies.. not the origination point..

How does nonexistence exist? How can you have nothingness to even examine to determine this?

This is an incredibly bold claim to say that the ONLY explanation for the order and animation we see in the universe is an underlying intelligent living entity. Are you in possession of ALL knowledge? If so you must be a God and if not this is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. You can’t think of a better explanation so you just make one up that seems correct and then assert it to be true.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Phortis Nespin wrote: Close. My point is that it is great to have discussions and debate about The Force. It helps us to explore our feelings and correlate our thoughts, but in the end it is your understanding of The Force that matters.

This is what I am curious about. Why do you put so much emphasis on personal understanding that is irrelevant to global understanding? Is it not these very sorts of personal understandings that cause conflict, destruction, wars? We have seen this countless times in the past. The Christians have a different personal understanding than the Muslims and war is the result. Even the Christians themselves have different personal understandings and denominations are the results with infighting all claiming the other is not a true christian because the don't believe X or do practice Y. This seems to be at the very core of separation, not integration. So my question is how do we get past this and find that thing that connects us instead of separates us?

Just one suggestion ... of many- begin to make it personal . Smiley face

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: ... This is what I am curious about. Why do you put so much emphasis on personal understanding that is irrelevant to global understanding? Is it not these very sorts of personal understandings that cause conflict, destruction, wars? We have seen this countless times in the past. The Christians have a different personal understanding than the Muslims and war is the result. Even the Christians themselves have different personal understandings and denominations are the results with infighting all claiming the other is not a true christian because the don't believe X or do practice Y. This seems to be at the very core of separation, not integration. So my question is how do we get past this and find that thing that connects us instead of separates us?

I see this differently, in terms of understanding the Force ... and yet enthusiastically acknowledge that our personal understanding of it should never serve as a basis for aggression, conquest, or attack.

When we contemplate the Force, given the limits of our cognitive processes, we are of necessity contemplating a mystery, and something experienced subjectively. It is probably impossible to attain a perspective about it as universally acceptable as is, say, our shared perspective on something observable and measurable in the 3-D world, like gravitation or yeast making bread rise. Accepting a personal understanding of the Force that leaves us room to grow, to learn more, is the best that our individual experience and perception will lend us.

But, realizing that our ever-evolving, subjective personal understanding inevitably is incomplete and (probably) distorted can grant us the humility to peacefully acknowledge that the understanding of another may be different than our own. We are working on understanding this mystery together, and with each of us having just partial perception of the whole, we can coexist knowing that there are apparent contradictions between our perspectives that we do not yet have the knowledge to reconcile, though we may like to.

I'd submit that perhaps it is the very insistence of fundamentalists that their perspective become a globally-shared one that leads to the violence and suffering to which religion is often a party. The lack of tolerance for a differing point of view is what inspires the dichotomy of us and them, and the certainty that it is "them" which must be converted or destroyed.

@omhu,

Yes I agree about what you are saying. Our personal understandings should not be a point of contention but they will still evolve into that because of various reasons. That was not the focus of my question though. My focus was WHY it is so subjective to each of us? In order for a thing to exist it must have attributes. And at least some of those attributes can be agreed upon objectively. For example we can all agree that fire is hot and that it burns paper. So why can we not do this when it comes to The Force? If it is actually an object that can be observed and studied then it must possess some common attribute that all can agree upon. I don't buy this assertion that its just so big it cant be conceived of in this way. That has never been demonstrated to be true and so I do not accept it.

So given these ideas what I'm looking for is either that common attribute we can all agree upon is associated with The Force or if we cant do this, that possibly that we could actually agree that The Force is not an object to be observed by an observer at all because it does not actually exist. Instead it is the act of subject (each of us as conscious beings) actually observing ourselves (subject) in the act of experience. That The Force is simply the construct of experience we all create for ourselves subjectively but has no counterpart in objective reality.

The common attribute should at least be that the Force is a ubiquitous metaphysical power which is the underlying/fundamental nature of the universe.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: So my question is how do we get past this and find that thing that connects us instead of separates us?

Sounds like that is the drive for sameness, rather then the acceptance of difference that is causing those conflicts you mention.... and a human behavioural problem. The concept of the Force could be said to be a deeper unification of spiritual or psychological essence beyond culture and more in line with biology IMO. Morals being associated to the balance of individual (body, mind), community (spirit, purpose, identity) and environment in terms of 'health' etc.

ren wrote: The common attribute should at least be that the Force is a ubiquitous metaphysical power which is the underlying/fundamental nature of the universe.

This is interesting but ultimately not specific enough. I would hesitate to call The Force Ubiquitous. I'm just not convinced it could be classified as omnipresent. Also Metaphysical proposes a problem as it defines itself in various aspects including existence as well as abstract idea. And the idea of power is vague. How is power defined in this instance? Finally if it is abstract in nature, how is it an underlying aspect of the universe?

This is what I am curious about. Why do you put so much emphasis on personal understanding that is irrelevant to global understanding? Is it not these very sorts of personal understandings that cause conflict, destruction, wars? We have seen this countless times in the past. The Christians have a different personal understanding than the Muslims and war is the result.

Kyrin,

I see it from a different view...Muslim is a group of people, Christians are a group of people, TOTJO is a group of people. A group of people cannot have a personal understanding.They share an understanding, but in the end, some will not agree with the whole and conflict starts. Conflict continues when one group wants to inflict their beliefs of other groups.So not only within a group there is conflict, it continues by promoting conflict with other groups. We have seen this throughout history with the most noted conflict being the Crusades. Even within the Christian ranks, there was conflict between the different factions.

As long as I have my beliefs and I respect your right to your beliefs, where does conflict start? Global understanding? That is an unobtainable notion in my experience. The world cannot even agree to the sanctity of life, but I wish it were so.

Phortis Nespin wrote: As long as I have my beliefs and I respect your right to your beliefs, where does conflict start? Global understanding? That is an unobtainable notion in my experience. The world cannot even agree to the sanctity of life, but I wish it were so.

How does one draw the line? Muslim nations are infamous for marrying off girls (as in prepubescent children) to much older men, and if I must be tolerant, I have to accept that is OK because it is their culture and I have to respect that. As belief invariably spills over in to all aspects of life (politics, ethics, etc.) wouldn’t it at least be easier if we leveled the field by applying standard, predictable rules (i.e. science) for analyzing and discussing these big questions that impact our lives? I of course understand that our particular experience of reality is always going to be unique, but if we are able to at least talk to each other in the same language, with the same rules, would be not be able to better get along and move forward to greater understanding?

"I really don't understand what this 'water' is you keep trying to describe. I don't see it and nothing you tell me is convincing me it even exists!" said one fish to the other.

Proteus wrote: "I really don't understand what this 'water' is you keep trying to describe. I don't see it and nothing you tell me is convincing me it even exists!" said one fish to the other.

Lol that's an absolutely horrible analogy. It's like saying you dont believe air exists. Easy to disprove.

Phortis Nespin wrote:
Kyrin,

I see it from a different view...Muslim is a group of people, Christians are a group of people, TOTJO is a group of people. A group of people cannot have a personal understanding.They share an understanding, but in the end, some will not agree with the whole and conflict starts. Conflict continues when one group wants to inflict their beliefs of other groups.So not only within a group there is conflict, it continues by promoting conflict with other groups. We have seen this throughout history with the most noted conflict being the Crusades. Even within the Christian ranks, there was conflict between the different factions.

As long as I have my beliefs and I respect your right to your beliefs, where does conflict start? Global understanding? That is an unobtainable notion in my experience. The world cannot even agree to the sanctity of life, but I wish it were so.

I don't think I could have said it any better than manu. What happens when your beliefs violently conflict with anothers beliefs. As a Jedi is it not your very charter to improve the lives of others any way you can? So what happens when anothers belief to slaughter jedi in the name of his God conflicts with your belief that you have a right to exist?

That is the good thing about communication, it can be civil amid disagreement.