Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
Look, I've used tarot in the past & I know it has worked. There are various theories as to why. The 'traditional' theory is the 'Angel of the Tarot' - ie an Angel communicates the truth about the future through the cards. A jungian would call it synchronicity. A fundamentalist Christian would say it was demons attempting to lead me away from God. All I actually know is that for me Tarot worked.
|
I cannot let this pass without comment
. Seemingly it is easier for some to believe in the works of their own hands than for a creator for the universe (Isaiah 2:8). Not sure what
davem means by "Tarot worked," but I can think of many ways for it to have provided a satisfactory result yet be completely non-supernatural (i.e. cold reading, vague answers that are interpretted as correct by the mark, etc). Found a link that was a little hard on the eyes and addled with a bit of crude language, but summed it up pretty well. I can provide the link to those so interested. This
link is more professional and very informative but not as funny. My point is that we can fill in the gaps with just about anything that is consistent within its own secondary world, but for the most part, there's a simpler more mundane explanation.
Back in the day a fellow lab rat talked about going to see a psychic. She'd seen the psychic at a party and the psychic was presumably the real deal. I was skeptical (
) and suggested that before she blew the $30 for the reading that she ask one question of the psychic. "I have placed an object significant to me in a room in my house. What is it and where is it? Write out the specific room and the exact object on a piece of paper in front of both of us. I will not utter another sound and will not look at either you or the paper until you are finished. Any attempt to get me to speak or move will invalidate the test. I cannot give you $30 and expect to hear of my future until you've completed this simple task."
Of course the woman did not pre-test the psychic and handed over the money (
"I see that you are getting ripped off..."). She told me of the revelations and stated that the psychic told her things that she just couldn't have known otherwise. I showed that I could do the same thing, but she knew that I was 'cold reading' and so that wasn't the same. And I noted that months later, regardless of the pretzel-logic used, none of the future came true.
Why don't we seek to test? It's been posited that if I tried to sell you a flask that would forever flow wine, ale or tea, you would tell me to take a hike. If, however, I said that the same flask could help your stereo speakers sound better by simply sitting atop them, or when spun tell the future, or if strapped to your wrist would help any pains that you might have that I might be able to become rich. In this thread we've considered some things that are beyond the ken of science/testing. Does God exist? Did He enter history? There's just no way to test these things. But tarot?
Ar-Pharazôn, the brash wise king who humbled Sauron, could not resist the Call of the Ban. Wise fool, with a little test he could have averted disaster. The Valar, in their silliness, set up the Ban to protect men from entering Aman, something that was just not permitted and would actually be hazardous for men. What were they thinking? Like in Eden, if you tell us not to go somewhere or do something, you just know what's going to happen. YHWH should have known better; Manwë was a poor leader - but that's not my point. Here we have the unknown, the Banned seas. Ar-Pharazôn had access to knowledge that the Ban might actually be for mankind's protection, and so should have sent a small party to see just what would happen to those who placed their feet upon Aman's jeweled shores ("Good idea, Sauron, and so maybe *you* should lead the way..."). A palantir may have come in handy. Sure, he would have technically broken the Ban, and most likely would have been destroyed, but if the Valar would have truly been wise, then they would have permitted the test so that, once and for all, it would have been observed that Aman was fatal to humans.
Yes, I know that in a few lifetimes that even those who had seen would have forgotten, but better to have permitted a test than to leave a big gap which attracts all kind of fantasies and horrors.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bêthberry
Please correct me if I have the wrong interpretation, but it seems to me that people are understanding 'miracle' merely as something which violates the natural order or principle of the material, physical universe.
However, if 'miracle' is understood as something that occurs other than what was expected, the concept of miracle can be related to Tolkien's idea of eucatastrophe. Think for a bit about the destruction of the Ring. Was Frodo's desire not to throw the Ring into Mount Doom a violation of natural principles or expectations? No, most readers understand that by that time he had come completely under its influence. Is Gollem's jump and the violence of his act to take the Ring a violation of our expectations? No, not at all. Competely what we would expect of him at that point in the story.
|
Miracle is a pretty big word. If you think about it, it's even bigger in Middle Earth. Why? We have a world where Balrogs have dragons for pets, and eagles fight with angels. The threshold for something to be a miracle, therefore, is much much higher than it is in our more bland world.
And just how eucatastrophic did Sauron think Gollum's fall to be? Isn't that word/idea slanted to the side of the good? Was the Fall of Fingolfin another eucatastrophe, but from the other point of view?