Interesting topic and ideas. I don't feel "tuned in" enough to start any bigger speculation, but let me just add my two cents.
First, to the lastly remarked thing -
Ibri's idea is quite good, in my opinion. I would say it the way that the failure of Sauron and Saruman (as well as Melkor, but that's another thing, he wasn't a Maia of Aulë) was the "possessiveness", once again, looking at Tolkien himself, I think it's a thing which can come easily to any (sub-)creator (I think he was aware of this danger and he was hinting at it in parts of his Leaf by Niggle and On Fairy-Stories. And, of course, in LotR and Sil). The problem is that anybody who works with some material is more prone to fall into this "possessiveness", "privatising" his works (like Fëanor, for example - and later, even those which are not his, as with Sauron and Saruman etc.). Aulë is a prime example of somebody who resisted the temptation, he is a shining ideal role model for anybody like that - he is willing to give up his works,
"his" Dwarves; after he allows somebody else to interact with his work (or in fact, accepts - because Eru had power over his creation all the time, only Aulë did not realise it - interesting, isn't it? And quite funny. But quite realistic. Just think of it), after he ceased to "privatise" it for himself, the Dwarves were given their own life and also their own independant personalities, changing from subjects to partners of Aulë, something he alone would have never achieved! Remember what the Ainur liked about the Children of Ilúvatar when they saw them first: "Therefore when they beheld them, the more did they love them, being things other than themselves, strange and free..." (Ainulindalë)
And just a second remark related to the general topic. In the book "Music in Middle-Earth" advertised also on this site (as some members here had also their hands in its making), there is a very interesting chapter by Jonathan McIntosh focusing largely on the question mentioned in the title of this thread. I will just sum it up very briefly here, the point McIntosh makes - and which is true, one only often does not think of it - is that the creation of Arda is "gradual", or with the "foreshadowings", where each step is eventually becoming richer and richer and more perfect, leading up to the creation itself. That is, you have the Music, which is a "blueprint" only in sound (perhaps metaphorically, as it was mentioned by some above, but that's not of our concern in this case), later "shown" in Vision, which is something more - "sight where there was only hearing" - but still the Vision is not full, and only after the Creation of Eä the world exists in its fullest.
Or perhaps not even then... maybe the quantitative switch, the re-making of Arda with the Music at the end of the days, will mean perfecting Arda even further? To Tolkien's cosmology, and considering his Roman Catholic faith, well, that really won't be anything unimaginable - quite the opposite. So all the unperfect things in "this" Arda we know are only a foreshadowing of the unmarred Arda, the re-made Arda, which will come to be after the end of the days?
"Then the themes of Ilúvatar shall be played aright, and take Being in the moment of their utterance, for all shall then understand fully his intent in their part, and each shall know the comprehension of each, and Ilúvatar shall give to their thoughts the secret fire, being well pleased." Sounds like that to me, especially combined with other Tolkien's beliefs I know about, and including one of my favourite quotes from his "On Fairy-Stories":
Quote:
|
All tales may come true; and yet, at the last, redeemed, they may be as like and as unlike the forms that we give them as Man, finally redeemed, will be like and unlike the fallen that we know.
|
The parallels to what I just said about Arda, I believe, are obvious... so, perhaps this is a plausible conclusion to make.