[davem]

Having been justly taken to task by Legolas in a PM for my aside to Aiwendil, I suppose I must explain my accustaion of 'literalism'.

When I said that 'facts' like 'killing is wrong' or 'water is wet', etc are nothing to do with 'Truth' I meant simply that they are facts, which are 'products' of our response to Truth - ie, 'Truth', in the sense in which I am using it, refers not to moral codes or precepts, but to the source of those codes, the thing which inspires them in us. I just considered Aiwendil was conflating the two things. Helen was speaking of the 'consequence' of our experience of 'Truth', the moral values it inspires in us, I was referring to what inspires those values. Hence, in my mind at least, no contradiction.

Aiwendil

My problem in so far as coming to an agreement as to what Truth is, in an attempt to reach some kind of common ground, is that I cannot 'translate' my conceptions of Truth, Joy, etc into terms which would fit your world view, at least not without sacrificing what I mean by them, in order to make them 'fit' - & if I could, we wouldn't really be debating on common ground, we'd be debating on grounds that you had set out, & we would have to remain on that sharply defined ground, if we wanted the debate to continue, & wherever the debate went, it could only go where you allowed it to go. My world view includes the metaphysical as well as the physical, but yours seems limited only to the physical, so I would not be allowed to offer metaphysical 'proofs' - which by their nature can only be expressed through feelings & experiences.

But the point is, Tolkien accepted metaphisics, spirituality, Truth & Joy as 'givens', if you will not allow the term 'facts'. So, how can we discuss the meaning & purpose of Tolkien's writing if the ground of our discussion doesn't include those things as 'realities', given that Tolkien himself saw them so. If we limit ourselves to the physical, material world, that can be encompassed by current psychological & literary theories, whatever conclusions we may come to would not really be relevant, as central issues would have been rejected. We would be limiting the result to what you will accept before we even begin.

Look, Jung had as a patient a woman who believed she had really visited the Moon. Jung took the idea absolutley seriously, & was questioned about it. He responded that if that was what she believed, then the only way to understand her was to accept it as true.

What I'm saying is, whether you believe in such things or not, if you wish to understand Tolkien's works, you have to behave as if they're real. You have to accept the existence of Truth & Joy as facts. Just as you have to accept the Elves & Hobbits of Middle Earth as 'facts' if you are to fully imerse yourself in Middle Earth & be affected by it. For myself, I go further than simply accepting them as facts temporarily, based on my own experiences. Enchantment is a 'real' experience for me - I am in 'different' mental or 'spiritual' state. It is 'real', as all perception is 'real' - subjectively at least. I also experience Eucatastrophe as equally 'real' but more intense. & what I 'glimpse' while in that state seems more 'real', Truer, still. I call it Truth, because its the 'Truest' thing I know, & its that simple. So, how else can I define it, how can I fit it into your worldview? What terms or definitions can I use to make it fit, that you would find acceptable enough for us to have found 'common ground'?

I actually take statements like :

' A fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the Walls of the World, poignant as grief'....In such stories when the sudden 'turn' comes we get a piercing glimpse of joy, & heart's desire, that for a moment passes outside the frame, rends indeed the very web of story, & lets a gleam come through.'

as being literally True, that there is a such a 'real' True thing as 'Joy beyond the Walls of the World .. that for a moment passes outside the frame, rends indeed the very web of story & lets a gleam through.' And I accept it because I've experienced it, & it won't fit into your theory, so your request for a definition so we can meet on common ground can't be answered, because it won't fit into the ground you're allowing me.

None of that 'invalidates' your own, or anyone else's experience - I even tried to make my position clear yesterday when I said that if you experience 'Joy', are uplifted, moved, inspired, consoled, opened up, whatever, then you've got it, & there's nothing more to look for, no 'secrets' to uncover. Where I have difficulty with your position is your consistent atttempts to reduce all those things to brain function - but I accept it is my difficulty & not yours.

I have to say that you & SpM seem to get het up at claims that you are missing something, almost as if you're 'demanding' that I, or Helen, or H-I should 'reaveal' the 'secret' to you, or stop implying that there is such a 'secret'. Yet you claim to be so confident that you have understood it all in the way that you want, & that anything we could 'reveal' - if we deigned to let you in on the hidden meaning - would not interest you because it can't be True anyway, because there's no such thing as Truth.

So, here we are, us saying Truth exists, you denying it exists, but demanding that we tell you what it is anyway. If you don't feel you're missing out on anything why do you keep asking us to tell you what you're missing out on?

I can't tell you, because you're asking me to tell you in a language which doesn't have the words for me to describe it, & if I use the words that are there, what i tell you will be so limited the description won't describe it. But how can I not speak about things Tolkien accepted as facts, & wrote about, & are at the heart of his stories, & yet expect to get anywhere in understanding the man or his work.

You are demanding too much of me, I'm afraid, & I'm stuck. I can't give up on Truth & expect to get anywhere, because that's where Tolkien, imo, is trying to take me.