[The Saucepan Man]

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. (davem)

"Truth" means "the source of truth" where the uncapitalized is understood in the conventional sense - is that it? That's certainly a definition I can live with …(Aiwendil)

Yes, me too. Indeed, I think that it is a very good one (assuming that it is acceptable as a broad proposition to all). If this is the definition that we are using, then I would say that I do have a belief in the existence of Truth, although it is neither strong nor central to my life. In fact, it would probably be more accurate to say that I recognise the possibility of the existence of Truth. Just as I recognise the possibility of glimpsing truth in LotR, although I have not glimpsed it there myself. I readily accept that I have experienced enchantment in LotR, but I have never experienced Eucatastrophe in it, or indeed in any other form of art, if I correctly understand that term to mean a religious experience. To put it another way, I do not have what is often described as “Faith”. Is that wrong? Am I somehow “missing out” on something? No, I don’t feel that either is the case, since I am perfectly content with my current state of belief. I do not feel the need for anything more. Of course, I do not preclude the possibility that I may someday glimpse Truth, if it exists, since I do not preclude the possibility of its existence.

Now, I hope that finally clarifies why it is that I have taken the position that I have on certain discussions within this thread.

Now, I think I would like to find out what claim or authority does the reading community have on the interpretative act of the reader in this encounter? Or/and: what claim or authority does the interpretative act of the reader have on the reading community? (Fordim)

The reading community cannot, imo, have any claim or authority on the interpretive act of the reader, unless it has come to a consensus as regards what 'facts' are to be interpreted … If the text only means what the reader decides it means, or experiences it as meaning, then there can never be a 'community interpretation' to make a claim on the individual reader - there would only, could only, be a lot of individual readers - never a community. (davem)

I agree with your first point here, davem, but not your second one. Of course, neither the reader nor the interpretative community can have any automatic claim or authority over the interpretative act of the other. But that does not, to my mind, render interpretative communities valueless. What I was trying to say in my previous posts is that we can still discuss Tolkien’s works and reach consensus (or something approaching it) on a range of issues. But their value is much greater than that. By sharing our thoughts, interpretations and experiences in relation to his works, and listening to those of others, we can, I think learn a lot about ourselves and even be persuaded to change our views (if not our beliefs) on certain issues. By exposing ourselves to what others have to say, we open up the range of possibilities available to us, and some things which we had not thought of before, or on which we previously had different thoughts, may just “click” into place. If nothing else, this thread has certainly increased my knowledge, and will probably influence the way that I read LotR next time I pick it up (although that’s not to say that the way I read it was wrong before ). And it has also made me think very deeply about the spiritual aspects of my own beliefs and, though it may not have changed them, it has helped me to define them a little better within my own mind. And though I did say that they are not central to my life, it does not follow that they are not of interest to me.

The sentiments which I am trying to express here are, I think, similar to those expressed by Child in her last post, upon which I make no comment save to agree wholeheartedly with everything said within it (and that’s not cheerleading, it’s admiring and agreeing. )

If the world is a result of random development, the conscious mind of a man, is, likewise, result of enormously long chain of over-numerous accidents, and thinking process which takes place in said mind is equally accidental and random. Therefore, any conclusions that mind comes to, are all based on billion years worth of fortuity, and chances of it reflecting the affairs 'as they are' are ridiculously small. (HerenIstarion)

But the evolution of physical attributes is not random. Creatures evolve in such a way that they are admirably suited to their environment. Why should moral precepts not evolve in the same way? Of course no creature is ever ideally suited to its environment, but then again can we say that any society has an ideal moral code? OK, you may not accept evolutionism, but there is to my mind a sound rational basis behind it. And I do not see it as inconsistent with a belief in Truth, since Truth can still be the source of the process if not the outcome.

And finally:

TONY BLAIR: the chicken was going on a humanitarian mission (HerenIstarion)

A most enjoyable post overall, H-I. But I have to say that, to my mind, Tony Blair and humanitarianism go together about as well as Sauron and pink fluffy bunnies.