#Jedi Code

[derickbatista31]

The Jedi Code

[revanknightwoman]

[adragonsfriend]

There are no trash takes on Jedi philosophy, there is contextual analysis.

As may be obvious from the title (humorous--I have gone through several common misinterpretations myself), this is about that infamous scrap of poetry,

There is no emotion, there is peace. There is no ignorance, there is knowledge. There is no passion, there is serenity. There is no chaos, there is harmony. There is no death, there is the Force.

And the other version,

Emotion, yet peace. Ignorance, yet knowledge. Passion, yet serenity. Chaos, yet harmony. Death, yet the Force.

I've seen quite a few interpretations of these along the lines of "the second version is reasonable but the first version is crazy and stupid," so here's why I think both versions are actually communicating the same idea, and the wording doesn't really change the meaning much at all.

So just like I did in my post about "do or do not there is not try," let's start by asking some questions to establish context before we look at the text itself.

Is it THE Jedi Code or just a mantra? Legends says it's the Code, canon says it's a mantra. The fact of the matter is that no matter what, it's really a scrap of poetry which couldn't encompass the entire philosophical basis of a culture even if it was trying, so we'll consider it a mantra.

Does the fact that it's a mantra rather than THE Jedi Code mean that we can't get anything deep or meaningful out of it? Of course not. Just because it's not the whole of or a full explanation of Jedi philosophy doesn't mean it's just a nice sounding string of words.

Who is saying this to who? This mantra is often used to focus a meditation, with the first phrasing used by adults in the culture, while the second phrasing is more often used by children.

What were George Lucas' inspirations for Jedi culture that relate to this mantra? (borrowing from this post) A combination of christianity, buddhism, and his interpretations. I'm not an expert in any religion, and definitely not in buddhism, but I know enough to know I'm about to make some sweeping generalizations, so take this with a grain of salt. Disclaimers aside, this mantra, and the way it is phrased, indicate it is being inspired more by buddhism. The way christian texts, specifically the Bible, are written typically goes "here is a story about people doing something, and here is how big G god and/or Jesus reacted." There are metaphors sprinkled in, but they are mainly there to clarify for readers. Buddhist texts on the other hand (and lots of other eastern belief systems as well, like daoism, hinduism, etc. It's an important note that these belief systems don't necessarily conform to the western idea of what a religion is, and often their original languages don't even have a word which is equivalent in meaning to "religion") use metaphor in often deliberately contradictory ways, to make the reader think about things which are difficult to express in words alone. The ongoing struggle to reconcile contradictory descriptions is the point. This doesn't mean those texts can be interpreted however a reader would like. There may be multiple right interpretations, but there can also be wrong interpretations.

What the mantra does NOT mean:

"There is no ___ …" =/= "The experience of ___ is fake news."

"There is no ___ …" =/= "___ is not a useful concept."

"There is no ___ …" =/= "We should totally ignore ___ and pretend we've never heard that word before."

The mantra is not realy a set of advice on how to act. It's a set of statements about Existance. And I do mean capital E, philosophical, epistemological, weird, deep, think-y, Existence.

Temperature Metaphor

You know the first time someone tells you as a kid that cold isn't real, it's just the absence of heat and you're like… "but I'm touching something right now and it feels cold???" It sounds wild the first time you hear it, but as you think about it more, maybe learn about it a second time in science class, get some more context about how molecules work, etc. it begins to make more sense. It gets easier to grasp, until eventually the knowledge feels intuitive--especially if you're a STEM person who thinks about it a lot. We still talk about cold as a concept, because it's useful to us as well--lack of heat can have damaging effects on our bodies after all, and a cold drink is great on a hot day--and it's more efficient to say "cold" than it is to say "lack of heat." But there are some situations, like developing refrigeration or air conditioning, where it is not just useful but essential to think of temperature as it really is--heat exists, cold doesn't--and thinking of it colloquially can only hold us back (if this isn't actually intuitive to you, that's fine, it's just a metaphor--you could also think about dark being the absence of light, vacuum being the absence of mass, any number of things mirror this).

Probably the easiest like to get one's head around, imo at least, is "there is no ignorance, there is knowledge."

Taken hyper-literally it would mean "why seek out knowledge ever when everyone already knows everything?" But if we say knowledge is to heat as ignorance is to cold, then we can understand the real meaning--knowledge is real, where ignorance is only the name of an experience.

The Whole Mantra

This is the way the Jedi are understanding of emotion, ignorance, passion, chaos, death, etc. They are introduced, as children, to the idea that whilst they may feel all of these things, what they are actually experiencing is the lack of the other things--peace, knowledge, serenity, harmony, the Force. That's why they start with the "___ yet ___" phrasing--it introduces them to the first steps of understanding:

They can feel emotions, yet peace is still real and out there to reach for no matter how overwhelming those emotions may be at the moment,

They can feel ignorant or unknowledgeable, yet knowledge is out there to find,

They can experience passion (meaning suffering or pain in this context), yet know that serenity will return to them,

They can find their surroundings chaotic, and yet look for the harmony in the noise,

They can understand that death happens, yet be comforted by the fact that the person dying is still as much a part of the Force as they ever were.

Eventually they move onto the full mantra:

They will always feel emotions, but if they always reckon with those emotions and pass through them they can always return to a place of peace,

If they feel ignorant, they must seek out knowledge, rather than acting rashly. Also, their own knowledge is not the limit--others may hold knowledge in places they consider clouded,

They may experience suffering and pain--it may even feel like a good thing--but there is no wisdom in pain, it is the distraction from serenity, which is where truth can be found,

No matter how chaotic the world appears, it is actually a part of an underlying harmony that makes up all the patterns and the beauty in the world,

Death is not an ending, no matter how much it may look like one. It is a natural transition back into the Force, the place all life comes from.

A Jedi youngling is someone for whom this understanding is an essential part of the culture they are being brought up in.

A Jedi Padawan is someone who is beginning to learn to apply this understanding outside the confines of the Jedi temple, in a world where not everyone shares it.

A Jedi Knight is someone who has learned to apply this understanding on their own, without supervision.

A Jedi Master is someone for whom this understanding has become intuitive and automatic, no matter their surroundings.

All this is to say,

[giveamadeuschohisownmovie]

I’m gonna be honest. The more I think about it, the more I’m believing that the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy could’ve been better than the Original Trilogy if the script was tighter (a lot tighter). But George needed to let other people handle the script and he needed way more help with bringing his vision to life.

I mean, just think about it. The OG trilogy was a fairly straightforward, good vs evil storyline. Jedi and Rebels good, Emperor and Sith bad. Amazing storyline, but fairly simple. In comparison, the Prequel trilogy is far more complex in terms of what it was trying to achieve. If you look past the shitty dialogue and questionable storyline choices, the story that George came up with deals with:

1) Duty vs. Desire (Anakin trying to remain a Jedi but wanting to pursue Padme)

2) Questioning the Jedi Code instead of just blindly accepting it as gospel. Because despite how much Anakin was struggling with his complicated emotions, the Order doesn’t notice. In fact, the Order encouraged him to bury his emotions, which we see led to disaster since that led him right to the Dark Side.

3) An actual attempt at more complex politics rather than just evil empire versus good resistance. For example, it’s a meme that Anakin made an argument in favor of fascism, but in the hands of a better writer, that could’ve been a really good moment. We get an idea of why the Empire would have its supporters, despite being the obvious bad guys. It humanizes the Empire in a way that it doesn’t make you sympathize with them, but makes you understand how someone could end up on that path. That’s more true to life than just evil people being evil. (Andor is probably the one Star Wars media that understood this, which is partly why it’s one of the best Star Wars content out there)

4) The hero is genuinely a tragic character. He’s a child prodigy who was freed from slavery with the promise of a better life. But as he grows up, he becomes frustrated with how his life is turning out. He’s powerful, but not powerful enough to save his mom. He falls in love, but can’t be with Padme since it’s against the Jedi Code. Obi-Wan looks over him, but Anakin doesn’t feel he’s respected. The Order assigns him dangerous mission after dangerous mission, but he doesn’t get the rank of master. Anakin’s arc is about a man who feels like he’s not in control of his life (which is doubly sad when you remember he grew up in slavery) and, in his lowest moment, turns to a man who claims to be able to give Anakin everything he’s ever wanted. And that becomes his downfall since he ends up losing way more than he gained.

I’m sorry, but, that storyline is way more interesting than Luke and Leia’s story. No offense to Luke and Leia, but their dad’s story sounds like a Shakespearean tragedy. What messed it up was that George Lucas needed someone else to write the script.

[jedi-enthusiasm-blog]

The Heart of a Jedi

It is a common belief in the galaxy that the Jedi are not permitted to love. Silently, some people mourn the children given to the Jedi, believing they will be brainwashed to hide their emotions and be unable to love. Disdainfully, some parents who don't wish to give their children to the Order claim that their children will never know love if they are taken in by the Order.

But love is a word with many connotations. How can a Jedi affirm or deny such accusations when they may be working with widely different definitions of the same word? When beings can mean any number of disparate emotions, many compatible with their way or life and many others contradictions of their code, values and vows?

The Jedi do not claim love is forbidden to them. How could they, with what love means to them? Saying love is allowed is misleading, and saying it's encouraged severely understates how important love is to them.

Love is essential, central to a Jedi's life. One cannot be a Jedi if they are devoid of love.

The Jedi do not claim that love is forbidden to them, as they share an ideal of kindness and compassion for all forms of life.

How could they strive towards this without love, as they understand it? Not affection, necessarily, for a Jedi must be compassionate even towards those they dislike. Rather, a deep respect for life, an attempt to understand it and its connections, and an endless drive to reduce suffering where they can.

That, to a Jedi, is love.

A Jedi must love everybody. They love the starving, the abused and the slaves of the galaxy, because they need their help. They love pirates, slavers, and corrupt politicians, when they dislike and want to stop them.

They even love the Sith.

But for many beings in the galaxy, that is not enough. For many beings in the galaxy, that is not love. And as long as the Jedi reject the cruel thing the galaxy calls love, that grasps and steals and demands to own, long as the Jedi accept the inevitability of death, the futility of holding on to what is not meant to be held, there will be those that call the Jedi loveless.

How sad, a Jedi would say, to be unable to conceive love without cruelty.

[gffa]

LET ME YELL ABOUT WHY I LOVED THIS MOMENT from Star Wars: From a Certain Point of View: Return of the Jedi | "Brotherhood". I have long argued that the "Jedi Code" is more of a meditation mantra, because almost every single time it comes up in supplementary material (it doesn't exist in the movies or TCW) it's used during a moment when a Jedi is trying to calm themselves down or meditate in the Force. And I have long argued that I don't think it's a literal guideline for how to live their lives, but instead a description of the Force. Because the prequels Jedi taught two different versions of the "Jedi Code": There is no emotion, there is peace. There is no ignorance, there is knowledge. There is no passion, there is serenity. There is no chaos, there is harmony. There is no death, there is the Force. Emotion, yet peace. Ignorance, yet knowledge. Passion, yet serenity. Chaos, yet harmony. Death, yet the Force. The second is from the Kanan comic, where Depa is leading a meditation with the younglings, while Obi-Wan and Mace and Yoda watch over them. So, if both of these versions are taught by the prequels Jedi, how can they both be applicable? Because they're not describing Jedi--they're describing the Force. They're describing what it's like to interact with the Force. That's why they use it as a meditation mantra! The Force itself has no emotion, it has no ignorance, it has peace. The Force has no passion, it has serenity. The Force has no chaos, it has harmony/ The Force has no death, it is the Force. Yet, when a Jedi interacts with it, they have emotion but they seek peace. They have ignorance yet they seek knowledge. They have passion yet they seek serenity. They have chaos yet they seek harmony. They have death yet they seek the Force, they become one with it when they die. Then this short story is about Anakin becoming one with the Force when he dies-- A warmth without temperature. An embrace without touch. A belonging despite isolation. A quiet that revealed. It's so evocative of the Jedi's description of the way they interact with the Force via the "Jedi Code"! It's the Force versus what you're bringing to the Force, it's about what a Jedi seeks in the Force--Anakin has no temperature, but he seeks warmth. Anakin has no touch, but he seeks an embrace. Anakin has isolation, but he seeks belonging. There is quiet in the Force. This is what the Force is, this is how the Jedi interact with it, they bring their own experiences to it and work to shed those things to find what they need in the Force, this is why the "Jedi Code" is structured the way it is and Anakin experiences that exact same thing when he steps into it. And I am legit emotional because I think of how much comfort and warmth and clarity the Force can bring when you let it move through you, when you let it embrace you, rather than trying to dominate it.

[bberry005]

thinking way too hard about this page from kanan: the last padawan and how much it shows about him as a character during rebels and also how that relates to ezra and their sacrifices at the end of the show

it's clear from the first episode of rebels that kanan has no qualms about attachment in general, which is a stark difference from most of the other jedi that we see. he cares freely and openly and deeply about all the members of the ghost crew. he might care too much at the beginning, but that's part of his journey as a jedi that we see throughout the show.

"you must not grow too attached, too fond, too in love with life as it is now" is a fundamental thing that kanan must remember during season 2 of rebels. because he DID become too attached to his life as it was with the ghost crew running around lothal, and when they join up with the larger rebel fleet, he doesn't like it and dislikes how things are changing. he has to relearn the ability to adapt and change before he's declared a jedi knight in the season 2 finale.

part of being a jedi is loving enough to know when it's time to go, which is something that kanan mastered. he and ezra leave at the end of season 2 to protect the rest of the rebellion, he teaches ezra to let sabine go with her family on mandalore, he helps hera reconcile with her past on ryloth. through love and attachment, kanan also learned sacrifice. he lost everything as he became kanan jarrus instead of caleb dume. he was forced to leave behind all the attachments of his former life in order to survive. he didn't learn to do that necessarily, he was forced into it out of necessity, which is very different than him consciously learning how to let go during rebels.

in rebels, kanan leaves by choice. in season 2, he knows that leaving is necessary to the survival of the rebellion. in season 4, he's standing on top of the fuel tank and holding back the explosion and he probably wants nothing more than to try and go with hera, ezra, and sabine. because that's his FAMILY. he loves them more than anything, but he knows that if he does not let go, they will not survive.

so he does. he sees them one last time, and then he lets them go and sacrifices himself to save them all, and in a way, this was the last lesson he ever taught ezra

its no secret that their sacrifices were meant to mirror each other, but here's the images again for reference

in his final moments, kanan teaches ezra about sacrifice. yes, you must love and feel and experience life, but to be a jedi knight, you must be able to master those feelings and do what you must for the greater good. in his actions, kanan was essentially repeating what depa told him when he was a padawan. "you must not grow too attached, too fond, too in love with life as it is now. those emotions are valuable and must not be surpressed, but you must learn to rule them lest they rule you". ezra fully learns that lesson during "the world between worlds" when he leaves the memory of kanan's death behind in the world between worlds and learns to stop his attachment from going too far.

and also like...kanan's life had FINALLY worked out when he died. hera just said that she loved him, they're back on lothal ready to free their home from the empire, he's figured out this whole jedi thing, and he may or may not know that hera is pregnant with their child depending on your interpretation. but he must let go. he cannot let his love and attachment stop him from doing what must be done for the greater good. he saves them, but he also leads to the empire blowing up their own fuel depot, which is the only reason the rebels can take back lothal. he put his purpose (saving the galaxy) over his feelings (because there was definitely a part of him screaming to go with his family, but he was able to control it in order to see the bigger picture)

the jedi fight for peace and the greater good, which at it's core requires immense selflessness and sacrifice and a clear head acting on logic rather than emotion. kanan and ezra were learning that together throughout the whole show, and one last time, kanan teaches ezra a jedi lesson that he finally figured out through trying to guide ezra through it

"but remember, caleb, the galaxy is far from static, and as it changes, a jedi's role in it too must evolve." jedi were keepers of the peace, then they were generals, then they were scattered teenagers who didn't know what to do in the wake of order 66, and now? now they are rebel fighters, once again getting at the heart of what it is to be a jedi. to be a jedi is to love, to sacrifice, to keep the peace. kanan and ezra show why jedi are KNIGHTS and not diplomats. they fight for peace, but they know it is just that: a bloody, brutal, violent fight, and that those fights require sacrifice in order to keep going. they both embody luthen's line from andor where he says "i burn my life for a sunrise i will never get to see", which is also a perfect way to think about why the jedi fight for peace. they really believe in it, and are willing to lay down their lives to make a peace that will never be achieved in their lifetimes.

(what's also crazy is that in this episode, we're essentially shown that kanan jarrus has found caleb dume again and therefore reconnected with his jedi past but that's a post for a whole other day)

i have so many feelings about this that basically boil down to: rebels is so well written and so underrated and kanan and ezra teach us far more about what the ideal jedi should be than any of the skywalker saga main characters (WHICH IS A VERY HOT TAKE I KNOW but it's my take)

[darth-jess]

Hello ! Here's a Star Wars question. What's your opinion on "love isn't attachment" interpretation of the Jedi Code that has been going around?

Hey! Sorry it took me so long to answer this!

Short answer: Love and attachment often go hand in hand, however, they are NOT the same thing.

Long answer:

At the end of the day, this question hinges on how you define love, and what kind of love you are talking about. The English language is quite limited when it comes to love, because there are many different kinds love. (I've said it before, and I'll say it again, we need to bring back all the Ancient Greek words for all the different kinds of love, they were on to something.)

Love in general is not forbidden for Jedi, which means that there are at least SOME kinds of love that do not require attachment.

As Anakin puts it:

Compassion/agape/unconditional love is essential to being a Jedi. And this kind of love is not attachment. This kind of love expects nothing in return. This kind of love is never jealous, is never possessive, and does not hinge on ego or desire. This kind of love is not physical or sexual. There is no "I love you, I want you, I need you," and instead, there is self sacrifice, there is generosity, and it transcends personal desire.

HOWEVER.

When it comes to romantic love, there is always some aspect of attachment. This kind of love (when shared between two people) does come with expectation: I expect you to support me emotionally, I expect intimacy, I expect communication, I expect commitment, I expect loyalty, etc… (might sound demanding, but put it this way: would you be with someone who didn't care about your emotions? Who never wanted to be intimate with you? Who refused to communicate? Who refused to commit to you? Who cheated on you? I hope the answer is no because that would be very unhealthy).

Romantic love without attachment can come off as very cold, and uncaring. If your romantic partner said, "Hey, I love you so much, but if you left me for someone else or died, I would let you go and get over it and be fine, it's just the way of life," you might be slightly hurt.

Romantic love is deep, biological (not only in the sense of "it's for procreation" because it's so much more than that, and so much deeper, it fills a need for human companionship, friendship, someone you can trust beyond trust, someone to share everything with), and at its core, romantic love requires some level of attachment. It comes with all that "I LOVE YOU, I WANT YOU, I NEED YOU" passionate emotional insanity which is also inherently possessive. Romantic love requires an acknowledgment of the ego, it feeds the ego: I love you, AND you love me, and that feels great.

Romantic love centers around the self. Romantic love stems from what you want. (I'd never tell my sister, "On your next date, don't think about what you want or what you are looking for, think about what the guy wants and be selfless" because that is the worst dating advice ever.) Romantic love is inherently selfish- you want to end up with the person that makes you happy!

AND THAT IS NOT A BAD THING.

Unless you are a Jedi. (If you need a reason why, please just watch the Star Wars Prequels and you'll have your answer.)

IN CONCLUSION

Love is NOT attachment, however romantic love inherently comes with attachment.

Footnote: while attachment, possession, selfishness, and jealousy are all very normal of romantic love, every romantic relationship needs a balance. There are levels of possessiveness and selfishness and attachment that have to be worked out in every relationship and people have to find what levels of these things they are comfortable with. Not ALL manifestations of possessiveness in a romantic relationship is good/bad, etc. just clarifying.

[reashot]

How Ruby Ruined NNN for Jaune.

Jaune: There is no emotion, there is peace...

Ruby: Whatchu doing there Jaune. Can I join you? ☺

Jaune: There is no ignorance, there is knowledge...

Ruby: Oh Jaune. I'm presenting myself to you~

Jaune: there is no passion, there is serenity...

Ruby: But I'm feeling so very submissive and breedable right now~

Jaune: There is no death there is only the... Oh there goes my trails of thoughts.

Ruby: You're welcome Jaune. 🥰

[currentlyobsessedwithobi-wan]

Random thoughts about the Jedi Code.

(Reminder that I am no expert, so what I'm going to write at are just that : thoughts and opinions)

I guess what irks me is that, in my opinion, those who said that the Jedi Code/mantra is wrong take it way too literally.

People sees sentence like :

There is no emotion, there is peace

Or

There is no passion, there is serenety

And immediately thinks "oh, the Jedi aren't allowed to have or express emotions. How unhealthy !"

Now, I'm not religious but my mother is and so when I was younger I sometimes went to the church with her. And of course, I know the jedi order and christianism isn't the same thing at all, but what I realised is that religious writing have deeper meaning than it seems. And sometimes this meaning isn't quite obvious at the first read. Otherwise, there wouldn't be someone willing to spends minutes explaining one single sentences.

And even if we don't talk about religion, there's also philosophy. I don't know about other countries but where I'm from philosophy exams consisted in reading a complex text (sometimes long, sometimes short), difficult to understand and then "rewrite" in our own words and making it easier too understand. And sometimes I will actually spend an hour trying to understand it, because often the meaning of the text wasn't obvious. Because I had to study it and actually make an effort trying to understand it.

What am I trying to say ? Each field of knowledge has it's own vocabulary, it's way of expressing itself. Same words don't always have the same meaning depending in which field it's used (like attachment in psychology vs attachment in Buddhism). And knowledge, especially the philosophycal kind, is usually expressed in a more complex way than we would like.

I don't think I'm doing a good job at explaining this. Ironically, I'm not very good with words.

Basically, when I see "There is no emotion, there is peace", or there is no passion, there is harmony", I don't immediately think "the Jedi can't have emotion". I think about how none of the Jedi are emotionless, I think about Obi-wan joking with Anakin. I think about Obi-wan laughing in the elevator scene. I think about how kind Plo Koon is. I think about looking so broken as he hold his dying Master. I think about obi-wan getting angry at Anakin before the fight with Dooku. (I realise of course, that obi-wan is my main exemple, but since this is mostly based on the movies it's either he or Anakin). Anyway, if Jedi were forbidden to have emotion, he would have been expulsed a long time ago. But I also think about how Yoda said that "fear lead to anger. Anger leads to hate. And hate lead to suffering". And so, all of that considered, when I read "there is no emotion, there is peace" what I understand is that one shouldn't allow their emotion to control them. One can feel emotion and acknowledge them, but should always have a clear head, be balanced, before acting. Because instantly acting on emotions, mean acting on impluse. And acting on impulse when lives are on the line isn't the best decision, in my opinion.

Anyway, I'm not sure if most of you will be able to understand what i tried to say since I am, I repeat, bad with words (and English isn'tmy first language, I only use it on social media), but I wanted to share anyway.

[lieutenant-teach]

About attachment and the Jedi Code

Recently been thinking about typical takes ‘Yoda and his famous advice ‘do or do not, there’s no try’ = he bullies Luke’, ‘The Jedi forbid Anakin from loving Padme or Luke from loving his friends’. Or the Jedi Code with its ‘there’s no emotions, there’s peace’ = ‘Jedi forbid emotions’. And it occurred to me that a partial reason in these misunderstandings is that these moments are deeply connected with Buddhist understanding of attachment which is not explained exactly as Lucas intended. The movies imply that, but never pronounce it on-screen. And casual audience, let’s be fair, is not very media-literate. Moreover, most Western viewers assume a psychological definition ‘attachment = relationship’, and they don’t know there’s any other reading of it.

The Jedi Code is another can of worms – it’s not in the movies, it’s nowhere in the cartoons, the phrase itself ‘the Jedi Code’ is never even mentioned. Who decided it’s canonical? Regarding the meaning of the Code itself – as I read metas from more religion knowledgeable fans, this is more of a mantra, you’re expected to meditate on it, find a deeper, not surface-level meaning of it. But again, casual fans don’t know how you’re supposed to understand this kind of reading, because it’s nowhere in open sight when you start watching SW. I personally haven’t known about Buddhism as a basis for the Jedi views until I read some appropriate analyses, and I was a bit weirded out myself about ‘attachment’ thing during watching Original Saga (though even then I suspected it didn’t mean ‘just any relationship’). But one must be really invested into SW to even start looking into such depths.

And all of this – in what is supposed to be children movies. The older viewers expect them to be uncomplicated. And suddenly – some philosophical thoughts and concepts you’re supposed to contemplate about. How can this be in kiddies films?

Unfortunately, most of these viewers are too stubborn to change their mind even in face of evidence from Lucas himself. Disney creatives and book writers don’t consult him in their arrogance. All of this leads to the Dark Side clouding the fandom.

So, wish they had explained ‘attachment’ clearer. Maybe, we wouldn’t have so much Jedi-hate now.

[qo-promise-me]

There is no emotion, there is peace. There is no ignorance, there is knowledge. There is no passion, there is serenity. There is no chaos, there is harmony. There is no death, there is the Force.

(Jedi Code)

For @infinitejedilove 2024 Jinnobi Challenge

[my-autism-adhd-blog]

Speaking of Code, what exactly was the Jedi Code? Not to get attached to people? If so, they break their own code by having padawans and younglings. You mean to tell me that you can’t be attached to your master and teacher, the one who taught you everything you know?

Sounds like BS to me. Unless someone can explain it too me.

[giveamadeuschohisownmovie]

Lawyering through fandoms: Impossibility in contract law

When you become a Jedi, you have to give up all attachments as part of the Code. This includes romance as that is an attachment to your partner, which is why Anakin Skywalker kept his marriage to Padme Amidala a secret.

Under contract law, a party can raise an impossibility defense when an unforeseen event occurs after the contract is made which makes performance impossible. If this happens, impossibility can be used to excuse non-performance (basically, you don’t have to abide by the terms of the contract anymore).

Now, let’s say the Jedi Code is the contract you sign when you become a Jedi and the no-attachments rule is one of the terms. Well…Vader and the Empire destroyed the Jedi Order. Vader’s actions were unforeseeable since who the fuck expected Anakin to just wipe everyone out. Thus, we can say that anyone who signed up to be a Jedi no longer has to be bound by the Code since performance is impossible.

So, when this happens with Cal Kestis and Merrin:

Cal is all good since he has an impossibility defense, just in case some Jedi veteran asshat sues him by claiming he’s gone against the Jedi Code. In fact, Cal even says that the Order is gone and he’s not bound to the Code anymore.

(There, I justified Merrical on a legal basis LOL)

[hedgehogoftime]

Teenage Exocolonist Kids: How would they be as Jedi?

Sol: Our nonbinary icon is THE Jedi, especially after Transcendence. Goes on a long multi-lifetime journey to learn to accept there are things they cannot change and tragedies they cannot avoid is PEAK Jedi story. Definetly Master/Councilor material

Tangent/Tang: Eh, Tangent would probably not be a very good Jedi when it comes to active duty. She struggles with empathy which is a core Jedi value, but I think Jedi training would help her come to terms with her identity in a very helpful way. Definitely a more "stays at the Temple and researches/debates" type Jedi than one who goes out on active field work.

Cal/Recalcitrance: My gentle, plant-loving pacifist husband is PRIME Jedi material! Definitely head of the AgriCorps and teaches the younglings about cool plants from across the Galaxy on his off days. Man is literally great for the role of a Jedi. He's a Master, but probably not on the Council as he has no patience for politics.

Nem/Anemone: Eh... I do not think Nem would be a very good Jedi. Too angry, too attached to the memories of her loved ones. Relaly I see her more as a nat-born soldier or a light-aligned Bounty Hunter who works with the Jedi, but doesn't really get them. Not to say she's bad, but if she were trained as a Jedi she'd probably Fall at some point. However, I do think she'd make her way back to the Light eventually, with help. But, I don't see my girl as a very good Jedi.

Dys/Dysthymia: Dys would be a good Jedi... but only in certain circumstances. Definitely a Jedi Shadow, but with how he fails to get along with others I can't see him doing traditional Jedi things. However, he does have an instinctive knowledge of letting go. But, I do see his inability to feel fear as a detriment. Jedi train to overcome their fear and at in spite of it, but since Dys can't feel fear, i feel he would be missing a key piece of Jedi education. Not good.

Marz/Marzipan: Marz, actually would be a GREAT Jedi! Granted, not a very conventional one, with her love of the spotlight and drive to succeed, I see her as the Jedi's Liason to the Senate, as one of the few of the Order with a head for Politics. This lady would have the Senate and the Media eating out of her hand, giving the Jedi a sterling reputation. While she struggles with passion in some cases, I think she could easily overcome it!

Tammy/Aspartame: Did someone say Creche MasteR? Because this lovely lady is a Creche-Master! She would not only be great at caring for the Younglings, she's treasure every moment of working with them and readying them for the journeys ahead. And is Definetly secretly a Master and a badass, she actively chooses not to kick people's asses. Peace and love, baby.

Vace/Olivaceous: Not a good Jedi. At all. Too proud, too full of ambition and vainglory to hack it as one of the Servants of the Republic. Probably a Mandalorian, honestly, and a neutrally aligned one. If he were to become a Jedi he would fall. Period. He's too much like Anakin, too focused on his own glory and power to understand the Jedi Way.

Nomi-Nomi/Nomination: I'm...honestly at a loss, here. I think Nomi would make a very... weird Jedi? But a good one, probably? They're definitely kind and compassionate enough to be a Jedi, but they struggle with attachment so... probably a mid-ranked Knight who's a Smash Hit with the Younglings. Probably the first Jedi Twitch Streamer.

Rex/Basorexia: Honestly? Rex'd be a good Jedi. No in-depth explanations here, just vibes. Definitely Jedi material

[marietheran]

Whoever said that Jedi don't need to stay celibate as long as they don't get married is an idiot.

It might not go against the Jedi Code in the sense of forming a family, but it does go against it in the sense of using people, and I'd say that's more important.