The Non-Attachment Rule: An Examination

One of the biggest critiques of the Jedi Order that comes up time and again is the strictures regarding non-attachment. Many people understand it as a total repression of emotion and interpersonal connection, and in that light rightly regard it as deeply unhealthy. My understanding-- and I'd argue, the understanding we are meant to have-- is a little bit more... nuanced than that.

My feelings are as follows:

• Non-attachment isn’t about no-friends-no romance-total-detachment-from-the-universe. Non-attachment is about not letting those feelings overwhelm you and doing terrible things because of them.
  • To use Anakin Skywalker as a totally random example, the point at which Anakin broke the non-attachment rule is not when he married Padme, or even the when he fell in love with her. He broke non-attachment when he decided that burning down the universe to keep her safe—whether or not she would appreciate that­­– was an acceptable action.
  • There's a post on tumblr that say, “Your feelings are valid—but that does not mean that they are privileged above kindness or good sense”. That’s what non-attachment is supposed to be. Having feelings, loving a person in particular instead of the concept of people in general—that’s fine. That’s part and parcel of being alive and living in the universe. Letting those feelings hurt people? Less fine.
    • Being angry, being scared, being lonely... you are allowed to feel these things. You are encouraged to feel these things, even. What you're not allowed to do is lash out because of it.
  • It also means that if somebody you care about a great deal is being threatened, you don't drop everything-- especially not your mission-- to go rescue them. You don't let an atrocity happen because your spouse has a gun to their head. You don't expend the lives of many to rescue one.
• Non-attachment isn’t just about friends or things. It’s also about ideals.
  • Jedi, as an order, deal with thousands of unique cultures, many of whom may or may not have elements that the Jedi find personally distasteful. That does not mean that these people are not deserving of help.
  • Also, you know what we call outsiders who come in to a culture not their own and start going “you are all barbarians, here let me fix things for you”? Not good things, that’s for sure.
• You know what non-attachment is also about? Not valuing stuff over people. It means that it doesn’t matter if that’s your father’s watch or the Taj Mahal, it’s just a ­thing and that means it is infinitely less valuable than a life.
  • It also means that you don’t accept bribes. It means that no matter how badly you personally want that painting, if it means somebody is going to get hurt, you don’t get that painting.
• There’s a reason non-attachment exists, and it’s not just because it’s actually a pretty good perspective to keep in mind in general.
  • Jedi act as arbiters, diplomats, and negotiators. You know what you get when the people with a hand in setting policy value themselves and their own goals over the long term wellbeing of the populace? The Republic Senate. You get the Republic Senate and the absolute clusterfuck of corruption and conflicting politics that led to the Clone Wars in the first place.
  • Also, colonialism.
  • And the empire.
• Essentially, non-attachment is the Jedi version of “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.”
  • In typing this I have realized that the Jedi and the Vulcans actually have an incredible degree of philosophical overlap.
  • Mr. Spock and Obi-wan would be terrible nerd frienemies and I would pay cash money to see Obi-wan flirt with Spock in front of Kirk.

Photography Thursday

Same flowers on the same tree as last week's, but taken three days apart. Fun how lighting affects mood, isn't it?