Edo_Secco

I would like to share a thought (based on canonical information as much as possible) about healing by the Force seen in Ep9 and which has caused so much discussion.

I have always thought of it as very simple: the ability to heal is achieved by mastering the Living Force (which is one of the two aspects of the Force, the other being the Cosmic Force) and learning to "channel" it. As I understand from the prequels, the study of the Cosmic Force was very prevalent, while the study of the Living Force was lapsed and followed by a minority current of Jedi (e.g., the very first dialogue between Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan in Ep1). One aspect of mastering the Living force is maintaining one's self-awareness even after death (thus being able to manifest as a Force ghost), another may well be the ability to elicit healing from physical damage in living tissue. Anakin could not save his mother because, while potentially powerful, he knew nothing about it. Even Sidious did not know about it, which gives me pause as to how even the Sith as far as studying the Force were no better off than the Jedi, although then he must have learned something because in Ep9 he manages to absorb the Living Force from Ben and Rey to toughen his decaying body. While in the Ahch-To texts Rey found the ancient indications to that effect and learned it (and perhaps Plagueis similarly, or re-discovered it on his own). In Yoda's species this ability might be innate (Grogu heals Karga) but after a very long time spent considering almost only the Cosmic Force the master almost forgot it. Am I making it too simple? 🙃

Intrigued by the fact that many Bibliogram/Nitter/Invidious/Piped instances are from sites that also offer other services, I set out with good will to sift through them one by one, and here are the results: (and I must say I discovered many instances that are not indexed on the “official” directories).

Obviously if I missed any I will point them out and add them.

Intrigued by the fact that many Bibliogram/Nitter/Invidious/Piped instances are from sites that also offer other services, I set out with good will to sift through them one by one, and here are the results (and I must say I discovered many instances that are not indexed on the "official" directories).

Obviously if I missed any I will point them out and add them.

Intrigued by the fact that many Bibliogram/Nitter/Invidious/Piped instances are from sites that also offer other services, I set out with good will to sift through them one by one, and here are the results: (and I must say I discovered many instances that are not indexed on the "official" directories).

Obviously if I missed any I will point them out and add them.

Siamo tre matti scatenati che cercano di far ridere (non solo i polli, per lo meno)!

https://www.fuoriritmo.it/

(e visto che siamo sul Fediverso, ci trovate anche su Funkwhale e Pixelfed 😉)

Può sembrare una brutta provocazione anti-democratica, ma è solo un dubbio sincero. Spero lo prendiate in quanto tale.

Ho cercato se se ne fosse già parlato qui, ma non ho trovato niente, in caso contrario mi scuso.

Ho avuto un pensiero improvviso: mettiamo che una certa questione venga approvata o affossata da un referendum; nel giro di, mettiamo, una ventina d'anni la popolazione votante può cambiare e anche di molto, a seconda della mortalità di chi era in là con l'età e dei bambini e ragazzi che sono diventati maggiorenni nel frattempo.

Per non parlare dei cambiamenti di mentalità, delle scoperte scientifiche nel caso la questione referendaria fosse stata di quell'ambito, ecc.

Alla luce di questo, come considerare la valenza di un risultato referendario con progressivo passare degli anni?

Davvero, prendetelo come un dubbio sincero, io non mi ritengo il più brillante degli esseri umani, quindi è probabile che sia la domanda a essere posta male.

Grazie a chi risponderà!