What is the Force

Manu wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: EVERYTHING is The Force..

Uzima Moto wrote: What is The Force, you ask? Living Light-Energy that is the foundation of ALL that exists. Natural or Super"natural"..

You state everything is the Force, but then you go on to narrow it down by saying it is "Light-Energy" (as opposed to what? Darkness, Void?) and the foundation of all that exists (so is it all that exists, or only its foundation).

Can’t any one choose a definition of the Force for themselfs ?

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Can’t any one choose a definition of the Force for themselfs ?

Yes, of course. Everybody already does.

My question is not meant to attack a position (or definition), but to understand it.

Manu wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Can’t any one choose a definition of the Force for themselfs ?

Yes, of course. Everybody already does.

My question is not meant to attack a position (or definition), but to understand it.

Agreed. This thread was moving toward a single attribute we could all agree was the force. It seems inconsistent to say the force is all things and then say the force is an energy field. I'm curious as well, if we can resolve this down and get a better understanding.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Manu wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Can’t any one choose a definition of the Force for themselfs ?

Yes, of course. Everybody already does.

My question is not meant to attack a position (or definition), but to understand it.

Agreed. This thread was mo int toward single attribute we could all agree was the force. It seems inconsistent to say the force is all things and then say the force is an energy field. I'm curious as well, if we can resolve this down and get a better understanding.

How is that inconsistent? Being all things, and an energy field? Isn't that how it was first described?

For reference:

"It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together." -- Obi-Wan Kenobi: a New Hope

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Manu wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Can’t any one choose a definition of the Force for themselfs ?

Yes, of course. Everybody already does.

My question is not meant to attack a position (or definition), but to understand it.

Agreed. This thread was moving toward a single attribute we could all agree was the force. It seems inconsistent to say the force is all things and then say the force is an energy field. I'm curious as well, if we can resolve this down and get a better understanding.

It is improbable we will “solve” the issue just by philosophically musing on an Internet forum. But it’s good food for thought. And somewhat fun.

I rarely ask to insight drama - promise Manu!
I do like where it came from - the question. We can define it as we choose or have chosen and it can be a many things. I guess we should put disclaimers out periodically ??

Disclaimer : the Force can be a number of things from a number of difrent people ... here’s my choice and practice ...
something like that - every time ? Lol

Well, to be fair, discussing the idea of the force can be so abstract and subjectively and objectively encompassing, we could all be disagreeing about it (or something about it) and all of us still be "right" in some sense that just isn't practically understandable in human (or at least English) language. So I think it is even more tricky to talk about properly than we are probably capable of clearly working with. So I think we can find things that several of us "see" or "observe" about it but not necessarily every one of us. I think it's more of a topic to kind of play (or as Watts might say, "dance") in for similar reasons as, say, listening to music, as opposed to solving the ultimate mathematical equation.

Arisaig wrote:
How is that inconsistent? Being all things, and an energy field? Isn't that how it was first described?

For reference:

"It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together." -- Obi-Wan Kenobi: a New Hope

You do realize that Obi-Wan was a fictional character right? from a science fiction movie? I hardly think that qualifies as a valid reference in this discussion. He also flew around and moved objects with his mind. Are we to now also consider that as valid evidence for telekinesis?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote:
How is that inconsistent? Being all things, and an energy field? Isn't that how it was first described?

For reference:

"It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together." -- Obi-Wan Kenobi: a New Hope

You do realize that Obi-Wan was a fictional character right? from a science fiction movie? I hardly think that qualifies as a valid reference in this discussion. He also flew around and moved objects with his mind. Are we to now also consider that as valid evidence for telekinesis?

WHAAA? I had no idea!

smh.

Never said anything about telekinesis. Only the Force.

EDIT: Nice dodge of the question to throw a jab...

Arisaig wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote:
How is that inconsistent? Being all things, and an energy field? Isn't that how it was first described?

For reference:

"It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together." -- Obi-Wan Kenobi: a New Hope

You do realize that Obi-Wan was a fictional character right? from a science fiction movie? I hardly think that qualifies as a valid reference in this discussion. He also flew around and moved objects with his mind. Are we to now also consider that as valid evidence for telekinesis?

WHAAA? I had no idea!

smh.

Never said anything about telekinesis. Only the Force.

EDIT: Nice dodge of the question to throw a jab...

Ok lets take your very definition. It is an "energy field" created by all living things. We can conclude two things from this. 1. Only living things, not all things, are involved in this process. 2. Some sort of energy force or field is created as a result that is separate from those living things. Connected maybe but still a separate thing. The electromagnetic spectrum is also an "energy field" but it is not all things. Somehow not explained it binds the universe together. No different than our other forces of nature such as the electromagnetic spectrum, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and gravitation. So where is this 5th force and how does it bind the galaxy together? I can show you mathematical proofs of the other fields. Where is your proof of this Force you speak of? And why do you think it is consistent for someone to say it is all things where you yourself have clearly defined it as NOT all things?