The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Kalessin · 03-22-2002, 02:30 PM

I think Maril has a subtle but important point here. The term 'objective truth' does not really deconstruct into anything that we can or should link to spiritual tenets, unless we return to a Platonic concept of 'things-in-themselves' having some essential and definitive quality that "exists" outside our perception - and we then assert that God, or gaia, or any divine phenomenon is part of that same unseeable reality (although we may find manifestations, which we may infer as evidential, within our ability to perceive).

Like Maril (I think), I would say that 'red' is not some kind of ultimate reality. Not all animals see the range of colours that the human eye does ; and between people also you will find variances in perceptive classification. Accepting 'red' is in fact more of a consensus that arises because of the particular calibration of our vision allied to the development of language and our predisposition to cognitive rationality.

Logic and philosophical enquiry have taken us further and further away from the notion of 'objectivity' in any kind of perception ... yet it is only through empiricism that we actually survive. Such strange beings we are [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

By the way, this not an anti-religious or anti-spiritual argument. I actually think that by accepting 'unknowability' and adopting a certain humility in our assertions, we can allow spirituality the room to breathe and to suffuse our day to day lives.

Now Estel, you say that Tolkien avoided allegory, but instead created both a 'parable' and an 'example' (or many) in LotR. And further, that parables and examples can happen (in real life) ... presumably "as well" as fulfilling their moral function, or coincidentally. You posit that LotR and The Bible are therefore alike in their use of particular narrative device/s. Now whether you use the term "apologist", "propagandist", or even "preacher", it still seems to me that you are reducing or diminishing Tolkien's work by defining it as a prescriptive and instructive object. Tolkien himself appears anxious to avoid this, and I am not aware of him describing LotR as either parable or example. There is no reason for a parable or an example to exist except as a means of communicating (also advocating and justifying) specific moral tenets.

You yourself said "I think that Professor Tolkien wanted his history to be taken "literally". Not that hobbits actually exist in our world, but hobbits must be understood to exist in "Tolkien's" world. They do not represent any virtue or vice."

There is arguably a differentiation between representation of vice and virtue via symbolism (in the form of allegory) and representation of vice and virtue by example or parable. But either way, you end up with a "do things this way ... here's why". Maybe an artist cannot help but imbue his/her work with some essence of moral belief and value judgement, and certainly Tolkien accepted that in respect of LotR. But the issue is one of intention and design - can you arrive at a parable by chance? Surely not - again, it merely diminishes the conscious creativity of the artist to suggest that. And I still do NOT believe the intention or design of LotR was to provide moral instruction ... and worse, that it therefore becomes the property of a particular interest group.

I haven't read all of Tolkien's letters, so I could be wrong about his intentions and designs. But if I am, I would be disappointed. And distanced from the wonder and pleasure that LotR gives me now.

(... I'm trundling off now to re-read Hume's refutation of cause and effect, just to restore my faith in the impossibility of everything [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] )

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

03-22-2002, 02:30 PM	#144
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	I think Maril has a subtle but important point here. The term 'objective truth' does not really deconstruct into anything that we can or should link to spiritual tenets, unless we return to a Platonic concept of 'things-in-themselves' having some essential and definitive quality that "exists" outside our perception - and we then assert that God, or gaia, or any divine phenomenon is part of that same unseeable reality (although we may find manifestations, which we may infer as evidential, within our ability to perceive). Like Maril (I think), I would say that 'red' is not some kind of ultimate reality. Not all animals see the range of colours that the human eye does ; and between people also you will find variances in perceptive classification. Accepting 'red' is in fact more of a consensus that arises because of the particular calibration of our vision allied to the development of language and our predisposition to cognitive rationality. Logic and philosophical enquiry have taken us further and further away from the notion of 'objectivity' in any kind of perception ... yet it is only through empiricism that we actually survive. Such strange beings we are [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] By the way, this not an anti-religious or anti-spiritual argument. I actually think that by accepting 'unknowability' and adopting a certain humility in our assertions, we can allow spirituality the room to breathe and to suffuse our day to day lives. Now Estel, you say that Tolkien avoided allegory, but instead created both a 'parable' and an 'example' (or many) in LotR. And further, that parables and examples can happen (in real life) ... presumably "as well" as fulfilling their moral function, or coincidentally. You posit that LotR and The Bible are therefore alike in their use of particular narrative device/s. Now whether you use the term "apologist", "propagandist", or even "preacher", it still seems to me that you are reducing or diminishing Tolkien's work by defining it as a prescriptive and instructive object. Tolkien himself appears anxious to avoid this, and I am not aware of him describing LotR as either parable or example. There is no reason for a parable or an example to exist except as a means of communicating (also advocating and justifying) specific moral tenets. You yourself said "I think that Professor Tolkien wanted his history to be taken "literally". Not that hobbits actually exist in our world, but hobbits must be understood to exist in "Tolkien's" world. They do not represent any virtue or vice." There is arguably a differentiation between representation of vice and virtue via symbolism (in the form of allegory) and representation of vice and virtue by example or parable. But either way, you end up with a "do things this way ... here's why". Maybe an artist cannot help but imbue his/her work with some essence of moral belief and value judgement, and certainly Tolkien accepted that in respect of LotR. But the issue is one of intention and design - can you arrive at a parable by chance? Surely not - again, it merely diminishes the conscious creativity of the artist to suggest that. And I still do NOT believe the intention or design of LotR was to provide moral instruction ... and worse, that it therefore becomes the property of a particular interest group. I haven't read all of Tolkien's letters, so I could be wrong about his intentions and designs. But if I am, I would be disappointed. And distanced from the wonder and pleasure that LotR gives me now. (... I'm trundling off now to re-read Hume's refutation of cause and effect, just to restore my faith in the impossibility of everything [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ) [ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]