Post by Cobalt60 on Jun 27, 2007 14:43:17 GMT -5
Obiwan's biggest mistake was allowing the democratic senate to define "good" and "Evil" in the eyes of the Jedi Council
ie: "..the jedi are selfless they think only about the common good" [/anakin skywalker]
^^ THAT was the root of the problem
(read on..)
-=========-
some of you have probably already seen my ten-page Diatribe on "morality" in Star Wars
I often edit it (and re-edit it) so it has evolved quite a bit over the years.
here's the latest version, c/w many changes:
(one day I'll write a book on this stuff LOL)
Star Wars is all about good and evil, dark and light, right and wrong. In other words "morality", and how it dictates our actions, given our own freewill.
The Force is used as a metaphor for our own freewill: once the hero learns to control "the force", then how will he use it? For "good" or for "evil"? Which path will he choose? The "Dark Side" or the Light?
In defining the two paths for our hero to choose, George Lucas has defined a universal standard of good and evil, right and wrong, light and dark. He calls it "the dark side of the force", but what does this actually mean? And how does a universal standard for morality clash with the Jedi's role as a protector of a democratic society (with their commitment to act out laws passed by a democratic senate)?
To borrow a quote from star trek, "..the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one." This same theme crops up in Star Wars, and is used by Lucas to define the difference in philosophy between his "Jedi" and "Sith"; at first glance, the Universal Morality of dark and light seems to depend on selfishness.
We know from Anakin Skywalker's dialog in Return Of The Sith that "..the Sith think only about themselves" and "..the Jedi are selfless, they are only concerned with helping others". This illustrates two classic, opposing positions on "morality"; I'll get to the third one in a minute.*
A Sith would argue that "morality" is defined by the individual, that any two people might have two different sets of "morals" which define right and wrong, given their individual background and history; that anything they might choose to do, or feel comfortable doing, may be morally justified, to them, as per their own "individual" moral code.
(ie: an otherwise "evil" action can still be seen as "good", from a certain point of view, as long as it satisfies their own personal and unique sense of justice).
A JEDi would say, morality belongs to an entire society, NOT to the individual. That it would be impossible for two people, living in the same society, to be operating under differing "moral codes" so to speak, (in fact it would be technically incorrect to say that an individual could even HAVE unique "morals" of his own design), since the morals which define right and wrong belong to the society as a whole, not to the individual personally.
(for example: morals are often taught through storytelling. Stories are used by indigenous peoples to define their culture and their identity; in the same way, the stories that we tell our children define our culture and our identity as a people. In fact, the stories that we read to childran often state explicity at the end ".. and the moral of this story is". These lessons or "morals" belong to the entire group of people who practice them. They belong to the society who TELLS the story, not to the individual who hears it. If that makes any sense).
((IF unique morals could possibly belong to each individual in a society based on their own personal judgement and experience, like the SITH position above, then an individual could argue for example that murder is morally justified, to him, and then just go around murdering "younglings" like Anakin Skywalker in the third episode. But there's a difference between morals and scruples. Just because different people might have different scruples, and just because they each might feel comfortable about acting in different ways, doesn't mean that the way they choose to act is always defined as "moral", even in their OWN eyes. Some actions which we choose to commit are in fact "immoral", and we know it, even as we commit the act, (but we do it anyways). And the measuring stick, ie: the "moral code" which determines which actions are right and wrong, always, belongs to society; not the individual)).
This presents a problem with the Jedi position, with respect to "universal" morality. ie: different societies can have different moral codes with respect to each other, and worse, each society's moral standards might change over time. Afterall, there was a time when our own society sacrificed virgins to make the crops grow. They thought it was for the "Good" of all involved, but now, the same culture would define that same action as "Evil".
It turns out, (any) society's sense of "Good" is (always) defined by "the common good"; anything contrary to the common good is considered "EVIL".
That is how a democratic society tends to define the line between "right and wrong"; by the "needs of the many" (so to speak); buy the "Common Good". And this line WILL change through the ages, as the needs of society change through the ages, with "national security" being one of the big ones.
The point is, there can be no universal standard for determining Good and Evil, Dark and Light, right and wrong, as defined by the democratic needs ANY given society. When using the COmmon Good as a measuring stick for morality, the standard of Good and Evil can never be written in stone, like the proverbial "dark side of the force".
This raises a problem for Lucas, given his underlying concept of "Dark side" vs. "Light side" (aka: "universal morality") in the Star Wars saga.
So whats a Jedi to do? ("..how will I know the good side from the bad"? -Luke Skywalker)
By virtue of their political position in episodes #1-#3 (being bound by law to take orders from a democratic senate), the Jedi Council have been using the force to act out the "Will of the People" for thousands and thousands of years (which has been changing over time according to politics). They think only about the "Common Good", as mentioned above. And the Common Good in Star Wars is determined by democracy. The Jedi represent "the needs of the Many" (the Will of the People).
Meanwhile the Sith have been acting out the Will of the Individual; they think only about themselves, and at the time of The Phantom Menace (episode #1) they have successfully corrupted the entire democratic senate to the point where the will of the people is no longer being represented in the Senate anymore. The will of the people has been bent, towards the Will of the Individual. The sith represent "the needs of the Few" (or the One).
* The only OTHER classic source of "morality" in literature...
...is to get it from a "higher power" (so to speak). Enter "THE FORCE", as religion.
The third option mentioned above, is to listen to the "will of the living force", and take your moral code from a higher power, without question. Some might call it, "faith". To, quite literally, "let the force guide your actions", in the same way that a christian might let the bible guide his actions (for example).
This was Qui-Gon's position from the start: he listened to the will of the force, even over the will of the Jedi Council (which of course was tied by law to the will of the people). He was willing to openly defy the Jedi Council in order to do what he thought was "the right thing". He did not define "good and evil" by the will of the democratic senate, or even by his own ambitions; he defined good and evil by the "dark side" and "light side" of the force itself. He used a universal standard of Good and Evil to define his actions.
IF we take QuiGon's position as the correct one, (by virtue of the fact that his character was the one granted "immortality" by the writer at the end of the trilogy), then it would seem that anybody who uses the force in a way which is contrary to the "will of the force", is doomed. While anybody who uses the force to enact the will of the force itself, is granted immortality. The parallels to real-world religion, as a source of "universal morality", are fairly obvious.
In the end, after two trilogies and six films, Luke Skywalker is the only one left alive in the universe with an ability to even "use the force" at all, and he was explicitly taught throughout the original trilogy to "let go his conscious self" and "act on instinct". ie: He has been taught to heed the will of the force, even over his OWN conscious will. He does not use the force to the enact the will of the galactic senate, or anyone else for that matter, including himself. He uses the force to enact the will of the force.
The Return of the Jedi marks a "return" to the jedi practice of using the force again as the source of their morality (a return to the force, as religion). This fulfills the "prophecy of the chosen one" and untimately brings "balance to the Force".
Consider the following analogy: the "balance of the force" is like the balance of "Nature".
The Sith are like corporations/industry: they TAKE from the natural world, without giving anything back. From their POV, "the force" exists only to serve THEM (not vice versa). They do NOT live "in balance with nature", by any stretch of the imagination. The do not replant the forest after they clear-cut the trees, so to speak.
The Jedi are like american indians: they lived in balance with nature for thousands of years. They were the Caretakers of "the force", for generations. They took from the natural world, only what they needed. They were conscious of the "will" of their enviroment, and acted it out in the real world. They lived in perfect harmony with Nature (so to speak), as if nature itself was a living thing with a spirit of its own.
((And this was NOT dependant on "how many" indians walked the forests, at any time in history, by the way. This was dependant on HOW they lived, not "how many". Population had very little to do with it; it was the WAY they lived, which maintained the "balance of nature")).
In Star Wars, this natural balance in "the force" was upset by the sith, using the force for their own selfish gain. ie: According to Obi-Wan Kenobi in episode 4, the force is supposed to be "an enery field CREATED BY all living things", NOT vice versa; the force is supposed to draw its energy from "life" itself. But in the third episode we learn that the Sith had found a way to draw energy from the force "in reverse" (so to speak); that they had used the force to create/prolong life itself. This was their stated goal (to use the force for their own immortality). In essence, what they were doing, was DRAINING the force of life. They were using the force "in reverse", so to speak, and thats what caused the "imbalance" in the prophecy.
(So the Sith agenda needed to be stopped, in order to restore balance).
Meanwhile, being bound by law to enact the will of the democratic senate, which had become identical to the Will of the Sith by way of politics, the Jedi were (indirectly) acting out the Sith agenda as well. They were taking their orders from the galactic senate and its new dictator, the Sith Lord (Palpatine). They were part of the problem, not the solution. They had an agenda, to follow the senate wherever it might lead them. Even if it led them into darkness.
(So the Jedi agenda needed to be stopped too, in order to restore balance).
BOTH sides were part of the problem.
For thousand of years, before the republic, the "balance" of the force had come from the fact that the Jedi had existed for the sole purpose of acting out the will of the living force in the macroscopic world. They existed as "symbiotes" with it, in Qui-gon's words; they were its servants. The Jedi listened to the "Will" of the force, through the voice of the midichlorians, and they acted it out on a macroscopic level. They used the force, to enact the will of the force.
But then, something drastic happened which set the unievrse on its ear: the Will of the People took over, and usurped the Will of the Force. The Common Good replaced the Universal Good. By the time of the Phantom Menace, the Jedi are NO LONGER acting on the will of the force anymore, as they had done for thousands of years. Instead they are using the force, to enact the will of the democratic senate (which was corrupt). THIS is where the imbalance starts: politics, and the Jedi's sworn relationship to the senate.
Quote: (Obiwan) "..we will do EXACTLY as the council has instructed!"
note: the jedi do not listen to their own instincts anymore, which are supposed to be attuned to the will of the force. Instead they only listen to the will of the Senate (which is corrupted by politics).
"Imbalance" came from the fact that the Jedi had allowed themselves to become bound by law to act out the will of the galactic senate in the first place. The Jedi had become bound by law, to use the force, to enact the Will of the People (contrary to the will of the force, if needs be). That was the root of the problem.
And before long, the problem grew. By the time of 'Revenge of the Sith' (episode 3), the Jedi found themselves fighting a neverending war for national security, driven by FEAR. The Sith had taken over the senate, and the Jedi were tied to the senate's laws; they were bound, by democracy, to enact the Sith agenda.
By the time the Jedi finally "woke up" and realised it was EVEN happening...
(ie: by the time Mace Windu finally decided to go against democracy, so to speak, and confront the emperor in "Return of the Sith")
..it was too late. They were all destroyed except yoda and obiwan, who were then forced into exile. But notice, even THAT didn't restore "balance" to the force at the end of the trilogy. Thats because this idea of "Balance" had nothing to do with "numbers", or "population", of Jedi vs. Sith; it had nothing to do with limiting both sides to a roster of just two members each; it had everything to do with HOW they each used the force (not "how many").
In the end: the "imbalance" in the force was caused by the fact, that the Will of the People had become identical to the Will of the Sith. And the Jedi were bound by Law to enact the Will of the People, so really, BOTH sides were acting out the will of the Sith.
That is why the so called "Chosen One" was spawned BY the living force, to kill/destroy/neutralize EVERY SinGLE "force user" in existence, who had NOT been listening to the will of the force, through the voice of the midichlorians.
Jedi AND Sith, alike.
They ALL needed to be destroyed, in order to restore "balance" to the force. Even the Younglings in the temple.
In the end, after two trilogies, and a galactic civil war spanning six films, Luke Skywalker is the only one left alive with an ability to use the force at all. And, like I said above, he was given very unorthodox training. He was explicitly taught to "let go his conscious self" and "act on instinct"; he was taught to heed the will of the living force, even over his OWN conscious will. He does not use the force to the enact the will of the galactic senate, or anyone else for that matter, including himself. He lets the Force "control his actions", in the same way that a christian might let the bible control his actions (for example). He takes his morality from a higher power.
summary:
- the jedi are selfless they think only about the "common good" (the "will of the people")
- but the common good is determined by politics (and driven by fear).
- when the "will of the people" is bent, by the politics of fear, to match the "will of the Sith"...
...then the Jedi are bound to enact the will of the sith.
- this causes IMBALANCE in the force.
solution:
- ignore the "will of the people" and go back to heeding the "will of the living force" (as Qui-Gon did).
-=================-
-=================-
in the end anakin declared his allegiance "...to the republic: to democracy!"
he stuck by the "will of the people" (even if it meant following the path of the sith)
he didn't listen to the voice of the living force.
---> and neither did obiwan. thats why Obiwan didn't kill him. because "thats not the jedi way"
(( BOTH sides lacked the ability to hear the living force;
they each followed their own interpreation of "the Common Good",
but each from a different point of view.
neither side was listening to the voice of the living force as QuiGon did ))
ie: "..the jedi are selfless they think only about the common good" [/anakin skywalker]
^^ THAT was the root of the problem
(read on..)
-=========-
some of you have probably already seen my ten-page Diatribe on "morality" in Star Wars
I often edit it (and re-edit it) so it has evolved quite a bit over the years.
here's the latest version, c/w many changes:
(one day I'll write a book on this stuff LOL)
Star Wars is all about good and evil, dark and light, right and wrong. In other words "morality", and how it dictates our actions, given our own freewill.
The Force is used as a metaphor for our own freewill: once the hero learns to control "the force", then how will he use it? For "good" or for "evil"? Which path will he choose? The "Dark Side" or the Light?
In defining the two paths for our hero to choose, George Lucas has defined a universal standard of good and evil, right and wrong, light and dark. He calls it "the dark side of the force", but what does this actually mean? And how does a universal standard for morality clash with the Jedi's role as a protector of a democratic society (with their commitment to act out laws passed by a democratic senate)?
To borrow a quote from star trek, "..the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one." This same theme crops up in Star Wars, and is used by Lucas to define the difference in philosophy between his "Jedi" and "Sith"; at first glance, the Universal Morality of dark and light seems to depend on selfishness.
We know from Anakin Skywalker's dialog in Return Of The Sith that "..the Sith think only about themselves" and "..the Jedi are selfless, they are only concerned with helping others". This illustrates two classic, opposing positions on "morality"; I'll get to the third one in a minute.*
A Sith would argue that "morality" is defined by the individual, that any two people might have two different sets of "morals" which define right and wrong, given their individual background and history; that anything they might choose to do, or feel comfortable doing, may be morally justified, to them, as per their own "individual" moral code.
(ie: an otherwise "evil" action can still be seen as "good", from a certain point of view, as long as it satisfies their own personal and unique sense of justice).
A JEDi would say, morality belongs to an entire society, NOT to the individual. That it would be impossible for two people, living in the same society, to be operating under differing "moral codes" so to speak, (in fact it would be technically incorrect to say that an individual could even HAVE unique "morals" of his own design), since the morals which define right and wrong belong to the society as a whole, not to the individual personally.
(for example: morals are often taught through storytelling. Stories are used by indigenous peoples to define their culture and their identity; in the same way, the stories that we tell our children define our culture and our identity as a people. In fact, the stories that we read to childran often state explicity at the end ".. and the moral of this story is". These lessons or "morals" belong to the entire group of people who practice them. They belong to the society who TELLS the story, not to the individual who hears it. If that makes any sense).
((IF unique morals could possibly belong to each individual in a society based on their own personal judgement and experience, like the SITH position above, then an individual could argue for example that murder is morally justified, to him, and then just go around murdering "younglings" like Anakin Skywalker in the third episode. But there's a difference between morals and scruples. Just because different people might have different scruples, and just because they each might feel comfortable about acting in different ways, doesn't mean that the way they choose to act is always defined as "moral", even in their OWN eyes. Some actions which we choose to commit are in fact "immoral", and we know it, even as we commit the act, (but we do it anyways). And the measuring stick, ie: the "moral code" which determines which actions are right and wrong, always, belongs to society; not the individual)).
This presents a problem with the Jedi position, with respect to "universal" morality. ie: different societies can have different moral codes with respect to each other, and worse, each society's moral standards might change over time. Afterall, there was a time when our own society sacrificed virgins to make the crops grow. They thought it was for the "Good" of all involved, but now, the same culture would define that same action as "Evil".
It turns out, (any) society's sense of "Good" is (always) defined by "the common good"; anything contrary to the common good is considered "EVIL".
That is how a democratic society tends to define the line between "right and wrong"; by the "needs of the many" (so to speak); buy the "Common Good". And this line WILL change through the ages, as the needs of society change through the ages, with "national security" being one of the big ones.
The point is, there can be no universal standard for determining Good and Evil, Dark and Light, right and wrong, as defined by the democratic needs ANY given society. When using the COmmon Good as a measuring stick for morality, the standard of Good and Evil can never be written in stone, like the proverbial "dark side of the force".
This raises a problem for Lucas, given his underlying concept of "Dark side" vs. "Light side" (aka: "universal morality") in the Star Wars saga.
So whats a Jedi to do? ("..how will I know the good side from the bad"? -Luke Skywalker)
By virtue of their political position in episodes #1-#3 (being bound by law to take orders from a democratic senate), the Jedi Council have been using the force to act out the "Will of the People" for thousands and thousands of years (which has been changing over time according to politics). They think only about the "Common Good", as mentioned above. And the Common Good in Star Wars is determined by democracy. The Jedi represent "the needs of the Many" (the Will of the People).
Meanwhile the Sith have been acting out the Will of the Individual; they think only about themselves, and at the time of The Phantom Menace (episode #1) they have successfully corrupted the entire democratic senate to the point where the will of the people is no longer being represented in the Senate anymore. The will of the people has been bent, towards the Will of the Individual. The sith represent "the needs of the Few" (or the One).
* The only OTHER classic source of "morality" in literature...
...is to get it from a "higher power" (so to speak). Enter "THE FORCE", as religion.
The third option mentioned above, is to listen to the "will of the living force", and take your moral code from a higher power, without question. Some might call it, "faith". To, quite literally, "let the force guide your actions", in the same way that a christian might let the bible guide his actions (for example).
This was Qui-Gon's position from the start: he listened to the will of the force, even over the will of the Jedi Council (which of course was tied by law to the will of the people). He was willing to openly defy the Jedi Council in order to do what he thought was "the right thing". He did not define "good and evil" by the will of the democratic senate, or even by his own ambitions; he defined good and evil by the "dark side" and "light side" of the force itself. He used a universal standard of Good and Evil to define his actions.
IF we take QuiGon's position as the correct one, (by virtue of the fact that his character was the one granted "immortality" by the writer at the end of the trilogy), then it would seem that anybody who uses the force in a way which is contrary to the "will of the force", is doomed. While anybody who uses the force to enact the will of the force itself, is granted immortality. The parallels to real-world religion, as a source of "universal morality", are fairly obvious.
In the end, after two trilogies and six films, Luke Skywalker is the only one left alive in the universe with an ability to even "use the force" at all, and he was explicitly taught throughout the original trilogy to "let go his conscious self" and "act on instinct". ie: He has been taught to heed the will of the force, even over his OWN conscious will. He does not use the force to the enact the will of the galactic senate, or anyone else for that matter, including himself. He uses the force to enact the will of the force.
The Return of the Jedi marks a "return" to the jedi practice of using the force again as the source of their morality (a return to the force, as religion). This fulfills the "prophecy of the chosen one" and untimately brings "balance to the Force".
Consider the following analogy: the "balance of the force" is like the balance of "Nature".
The Sith are like corporations/industry: they TAKE from the natural world, without giving anything back. From their POV, "the force" exists only to serve THEM (not vice versa). They do NOT live "in balance with nature", by any stretch of the imagination. The do not replant the forest after they clear-cut the trees, so to speak.
The Jedi are like american indians: they lived in balance with nature for thousands of years. They were the Caretakers of "the force", for generations. They took from the natural world, only what they needed. They were conscious of the "will" of their enviroment, and acted it out in the real world. They lived in perfect harmony with Nature (so to speak), as if nature itself was a living thing with a spirit of its own.
((And this was NOT dependant on "how many" indians walked the forests, at any time in history, by the way. This was dependant on HOW they lived, not "how many". Population had very little to do with it; it was the WAY they lived, which maintained the "balance of nature")).
In Star Wars, this natural balance in "the force" was upset by the sith, using the force for their own selfish gain. ie: According to Obi-Wan Kenobi in episode 4, the force is supposed to be "an enery field CREATED BY all living things", NOT vice versa; the force is supposed to draw its energy from "life" itself. But in the third episode we learn that the Sith had found a way to draw energy from the force "in reverse" (so to speak); that they had used the force to create/prolong life itself. This was their stated goal (to use the force for their own immortality). In essence, what they were doing, was DRAINING the force of life. They were using the force "in reverse", so to speak, and thats what caused the "imbalance" in the prophecy.
(So the Sith agenda needed to be stopped, in order to restore balance).
Meanwhile, being bound by law to enact the will of the democratic senate, which had become identical to the Will of the Sith by way of politics, the Jedi were (indirectly) acting out the Sith agenda as well. They were taking their orders from the galactic senate and its new dictator, the Sith Lord (Palpatine). They were part of the problem, not the solution. They had an agenda, to follow the senate wherever it might lead them. Even if it led them into darkness.
(So the Jedi agenda needed to be stopped too, in order to restore balance).
BOTH sides were part of the problem.
For thousand of years, before the republic, the "balance" of the force had come from the fact that the Jedi had existed for the sole purpose of acting out the will of the living force in the macroscopic world. They existed as "symbiotes" with it, in Qui-gon's words; they were its servants. The Jedi listened to the "Will" of the force, through the voice of the midichlorians, and they acted it out on a macroscopic level. They used the force, to enact the will of the force.
But then, something drastic happened which set the unievrse on its ear: the Will of the People took over, and usurped the Will of the Force. The Common Good replaced the Universal Good. By the time of the Phantom Menace, the Jedi are NO LONGER acting on the will of the force anymore, as they had done for thousands of years. Instead they are using the force, to enact the will of the democratic senate (which was corrupt). THIS is where the imbalance starts: politics, and the Jedi's sworn relationship to the senate.
Quote: (Obiwan) "..we will do EXACTLY as the council has instructed!"
note: the jedi do not listen to their own instincts anymore, which are supposed to be attuned to the will of the force. Instead they only listen to the will of the Senate (which is corrupted by politics).
"Imbalance" came from the fact that the Jedi had allowed themselves to become bound by law to act out the will of the galactic senate in the first place. The Jedi had become bound by law, to use the force, to enact the Will of the People (contrary to the will of the force, if needs be). That was the root of the problem.
And before long, the problem grew. By the time of 'Revenge of the Sith' (episode 3), the Jedi found themselves fighting a neverending war for national security, driven by FEAR. The Sith had taken over the senate, and the Jedi were tied to the senate's laws; they were bound, by democracy, to enact the Sith agenda.
By the time the Jedi finally "woke up" and realised it was EVEN happening...
(ie: by the time Mace Windu finally decided to go against democracy, so to speak, and confront the emperor in "Return of the Sith")
..it was too late. They were all destroyed except yoda and obiwan, who were then forced into exile. But notice, even THAT didn't restore "balance" to the force at the end of the trilogy. Thats because this idea of "Balance" had nothing to do with "numbers", or "population", of Jedi vs. Sith; it had nothing to do with limiting both sides to a roster of just two members each; it had everything to do with HOW they each used the force (not "how many").
In the end: the "imbalance" in the force was caused by the fact, that the Will of the People had become identical to the Will of the Sith. And the Jedi were bound by Law to enact the Will of the People, so really, BOTH sides were acting out the will of the Sith.
That is why the so called "Chosen One" was spawned BY the living force, to kill/destroy/neutralize EVERY SinGLE "force user" in existence, who had NOT been listening to the will of the force, through the voice of the midichlorians.
Jedi AND Sith, alike.
They ALL needed to be destroyed, in order to restore "balance" to the force. Even the Younglings in the temple.
In the end, after two trilogies, and a galactic civil war spanning six films, Luke Skywalker is the only one left alive with an ability to use the force at all. And, like I said above, he was given very unorthodox training. He was explicitly taught to "let go his conscious self" and "act on instinct"; he was taught to heed the will of the living force, even over his OWN conscious will. He does not use the force to the enact the will of the galactic senate, or anyone else for that matter, including himself. He lets the Force "control his actions", in the same way that a christian might let the bible control his actions (for example). He takes his morality from a higher power.
summary:
- the jedi are selfless they think only about the "common good" (the "will of the people")
- but the common good is determined by politics (and driven by fear).
- when the "will of the people" is bent, by the politics of fear, to match the "will of the Sith"...
...then the Jedi are bound to enact the will of the sith.
- this causes IMBALANCE in the force.
solution:
- ignore the "will of the people" and go back to heeding the "will of the living force" (as Qui-Gon did).
-=================-
-=================-
in the end anakin declared his allegiance "...to the republic: to democracy!"
he stuck by the "will of the people" (even if it meant following the path of the sith)
he didn't listen to the voice of the living force.
---> and neither did obiwan. thats why Obiwan didn't kill him. because "thats not the jedi way"
(( BOTH sides lacked the ability to hear the living force;
they each followed their own interpreation of "the Common Good",
but each from a different point of view.
neither side was listening to the voice of the living force as QuiGon did ))