And it slips through our fingers

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Oh, you take me too seriously. I keep drawing you in to these discussions & you always end up going off in a huff (or if that's too soon a minute & a huff )

Remember, if you go away everyone will think I've won

Oh hardly, I think, davem, particularly since I've drawn you to admit your MO here.

And in answer to Eomer's question about whether Tolkien's idea of the long defeat goes against Enlightenment ideas, my point about Gould's ideas on evolution and progress rather suggests no.

As to Tolkien's ideas about Eden, his letter #96 states his thoughts about perfection and its loss. It is probably one of his most explicit statements of his own personal hope.

[alatar]

Been thinking about this more and think that it all comes down to change.

Whether it is the fate of the world, art, architecture, etc, it's about change. As humans we not only detect patterns, we also detect 'change' in that some event has risen above some noise threshold to be consciously noticed by us. The caveat is that we have limited and biased viewpoints.

You may think that the world is spiralling down into moral muck, yet it may be that the world is changing (like it always does) and you are now aware that something is happening. On the other side it could be you that has changed, and so now the world now looks different. I know that my POV changed after leaving childhood and after having children. When I was leaving childhood I learned that the world wasn't just like my limited experience could have imagined, but actually a large and wonderful place with all kinds of new crazy people to meet and from whom to learn. When I had my first child, I started looking at the outside world differently yet again. The culture in which I live did not just get ugly, yet suddenly I was concerned about the future and more specifically the future in which my children will live.

We may think that we are living in the worst or best of times, but could it be, like the stock market, we are just experiencing a short-term peak or valley? Averaged over hundreds or thousands of years, our current peak/valley may not even be significant. Hate to say it, but as a species, we may not even be significant in the bigger scheme (did someone say mice?).

Sure, our technology is better - we have better stone tools - but how much have we changed emotionally/spiritually/physically over the past few thousands of years? It's still the same wants of a full stomach, a warm and safe place to sleep and a mate with which to create the next generation. With our advances we now have time to navel-gaze a lot more, yet on the other hand while we're not out gathering food we have to kill the time doing something, like even posting to forums and such. One thing that I've noticed is that many people have an almost instinctual fear of snakes, yet except for the zoo and excluding the two-legged species, just when was the last time most people have had an encounter let alone an adverse encounter with a snake?

We're still cave dwellers.

And though I won't debate global warming here, there was a time in the 70's when the big scare was global cooling. As a youngster I was sure that my house was going to be run down by a glacier and so me and my friends devised several strategies for pushing the ice back (it's always lasers).

Art changes. Note that my exposure to 'art' is limited, yet I've seen that in one era it's beautiful lifelike paintings of divine beings and then suddenly it's crazy-headed 2-D people then it's large soup cans. Each era's art has some temporal meaning (counterculture? etc), and then may have a different meaning to the next generation ("Those large soup cans sure would make nice planters...").

In 'Merica I'm sure that we have some 'old' architecture somewhere, but the issue with our culture is that we are always looking for the new (and note, fellow countrypersons, that I speak in generalities here in). The old is cool because it is different, but then again, we have the need to build a mega-mart every three miles or so, and the parking lots must be big enough for our SUVs (I believe that my British cousins would call these vehicles 'buses' ), and so sometimes those 25 year old buildings have to be torn down to make way. Again my experience is limited but I would say that my culture is generally focused on the future.

I live in a neighborhood with some old beautiful houses, yet these are falling into ruin as many people have left the city (Did I say city? That might not be the best word...please insert the word that means "a place that should be torn down and be replaced with a slum as an improvement") due to high taxes, poor government and the loss of the steel industry, and so the houses are vacant, ill-kept or ill-used. It's a shame as my parents tell of a completely different place. And they surely thought that steel was going to live forever, and yet here we are.

And to get back on topic (or off my tangent), looking over the ages of Arda, one would see a downward slope if the measure were 'perfection,' yet other variables may have positive slopes (non-embalmage, humanity, diversity).

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by alatar

the issue with our culture is that we are always looking for the new

Maybe this is down to money. There is little money to be made if we hang on to the past, especially the recent past. Clothing being a case in point - if we all kept our old clothes they would come back into fashion again and we would get more use from them (if indeed we are even interested in such things as fashion at all), recently things seem to come 'in' and 'out' as quickly as every three years. But we are constantly sold 'new' trends and feel we have to buy them, so we have no room for the old things and chuck them out/give them away, only to find that we could have got more use from them.

I'm not talking of Art here - that this develops and changes is a good thing, but even here the pursuit of the new can be harmful. I remember when a new band would spend a few years struggling before they made it big, giving them time to grow and develop; nowadays they are snapped up right away and have burned out by the time their second or third album is released.

It is also wasteful. Both of resources and our own money - and where does that money come from? Our time, which by extension we are also wasting, trying to work a few more hours to earn that latest cool 'thing' instead of having a few more hours to read and think.

Which leads me on to another thing:

Originally Posted by alatar

With our advances we now have time to navel-gaze a lot more, yet on the other hand while we're not out gathering food we have to kill the time doing something, like even posting to forums and such.

Have we really got more time these days? One of the greatest ironies is that with the rise of new technology, from the automatic washing machine to the mp3 player, instead of taking advantage of these tools and giving ourselves more free time, we instead fill up that free time with more work, or we have to work longer to get the next gadget, or even spend time looking after said gadget. It was ironic that as things like automatic washing machines freed women to seek work outside the home, our lives did not become any easier, instead we have ended up with even more work to worry about, more expectations to fulfill. And I wonder how many households now bicker about who's going to fill/empty the dishwasher instead of who's going to wash and who dry?

From this culture comes the logical idea that anything (or anybody? ) old and used is no longer useful. As seen in the Scouring of the Shire - the old Mill is replaced for something much more efficient, and the old smials are dug up to be replaced with new houses. I wonder how long they would have lasted in comparison to the old ones? It would have been no matter to Saruman, as long as the Hobbits had kept wanting the latest 'thing' and paying more money for it.

Now I must go and find my hair shirt after that little rant...

[Lathriel]

I feel that because technology is becoming more widly available to everybody and that it is cheaper the importance of quality has lessened.
E.G everyone is getting an ipod or discman but nobody tries to (or cares) to figure out if the sound quality of their headphones are any good.

With the war machine that Saruman created, quality also did not seem to matter, as long as everybody had a sword that could do damage.

Maybe Tolkien also felt that with the introduction of machines and cars etc. the quality of life would decrease.

But I am rambling and I am mixing up my thoughts. Still this is just a little idea.

[Angry Hill Troll]

Going back to the original discussion on the thread a little, one quote that popped into my head (and I can't quite remember for the life of me where it appears, probably in ROTK) that someone asks Gandalf whether everything in ME will fade or be corrupted, and Gandalf says simply "That is its fate."

Thinking about this statement a bit, Gandalf has just spent 2000 years combating Sauron, trying to preserve all that is fair (or at least something that is fair, as his statement to Denethor about he (Gandalf) also being a Steward indicates), even though he knows his effort is ultimately "futile" in the sense that nothing he manages to save is destined to ultimately endure. Furthermore, he never seems to act as if he's consigned to a futile task (melancholy, as Elrond and Galadriel both appear at times)

Since it seems that Gandalf in many ways represents Tolkien's ideals, it may be interesting to speculate on how Gandalf's statement reflects or embodies Tolkien's own view on the Long Defeat, and on the necessity and rationale behind fighting an unwinnable struggle.

BTW, I'm not sure that the religious or Catholic view would necessarily imply the concept of the Long Defeat. Certainly one of the tenets of Christianity is that Man will always be flawed, and a utopia cannot be achieved without divine intervention. But it doesn't seem clear (to me, anyway) that this implies that the world must necessarily get continually worse, just that it has severe limitations on its ability to get continuously better. The religious view antithetical to the Enlightenment, is certainly not the only one which has ever existed in Christianity (Scholasticism comes to mind), and if one looks closely either at the historical record of world history or religious scripture, one sees that in times past, things have often been extremely problematic. It's just that we tend to be more preoccupied with the problems of our own time.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Angry Hill Troll

I'm not sure that the religious or Catholic view would necessarily imply the concept of the Long Defeat. Certainly one of the tenets of Christianity is that Man will always be flawed, and a utopia cannot be achieved without divine intervention. But it doesn't seem clear (to me, anyway) that this implies that the world must necessarily get continually worse, just that it has severe limitations on its ability to get continuously better.

Actually, orthodox Christianity (both Roman Catholic and Protestant forms) have in common an "eschatology" (teaching on 'last things') saying that things will get worse until the glorious end.

I will not quote at length from Scripture; you can take a look for yourself. There is some of this type of writing in Daniel and Zechariah in the Old Testament. But this eschatology is derived especially from the New Testament: Matthew 24 and 25, Luke 21, the first letter to the Corinthians, ch. 15, 2 Peter 3, and, of course, Revelation (the whole book).

[Guinevere]

Originally Posted by Angry Hill Troll

Going back to the original discussion on the thread a little, one quote that popped into my head (and I can't quite remember for the life of me where it appears, probably in ROTK) that someone asks Gandalf whether everything in ME will fade or be corrupted, and Gandalf says simply "That is its fate."

I think I know where your quote comes from: in the "History of Galadriel and Celeborn" in U.T. there are 2 versions of the origin of the second Elessar:
In the first, Galadriel speaks with Gandalf because she longs for Aman and yet is unwilling (or not permitted) to leave ME:

She sighed and said: "I grieve in Middle-earth, for leaves fall and flowers fade; and my heart yearns, remembering trees and grass that do not die. I would have these in my home." Then Olórin said: "Would you then have the Elessar?" And Galadriel said: "Where now is the Stone of Eärendil? And Enerdhil is gone who made it." "Who knows?" said Olórin. "Surely," said Galadriel, "they have passed over Sea, as almost all fair things beside. And must Middle-earth then fade and perish for ever?" "That is its fate." said Olórin. "Yet for a little while that might be amended, if the Elessar should return. For a little, until the Days of Men are come."

Then Gandalf (Olórin) gives her the Elessar, as a gift, or rather a loan, from Yavanna.
( In the other version this talk is between Galadriel and Celebrimbor, and the words are very similar, but then Celebrimbor makes the second Elessar and gives it to Galadriel out of love for her..)

Galadriel is grieved because the living things around her that she has loved fade and die -

"So that the land of my dwelling is filled with regret that no spring can redress."

(as she tells Celebrimbor)
But that's the way it is : all living thing must fade and perish - but new life is continually born - after every winter there is a spring with new leaves and flowers. But this seems apparently no comfort to the exiled Elves. They want no change, they want to keep things exactly as they were.

Angry hill troll wrote:
Thinking about this statement a bit, Gandalf has just spent 2000 years combating Sauron, trying to preserve all that is fair (or at least something that is fair, as his statement to Denethor about he (Gandalf) also being a Steward indicates), even though he knows his effort is ultimately "futile" in the sense that nothing he manages to save is destined to ultimately endure. Furthermore, he never seems to act as if he's consigned to a futile task (melancholy, as Elrond and Galadriel both appear at times)

I don't think this particular quote is meant to mean that everything on Earth will continually deteriorate, and that all the efforts of Gandalf are in vain.

And in general I think it is so too: many species have been extinct, but others have succeeded them, much that was beautiful and good is lost for ever, (but of course not everything in the past was good and beautiful! and many evil things have have been overcome as well.) but there are always new good and beautiful things too.(But new ugly and evil things as well, alas! Humanity as a whole doesn't seem to have learnt much: the same mistakes are made all over again. ) The older one gets the more things that one cares for, change or have vanished for ever, and one tends to remember mostly the good things, and to gloryfy the past. I think the mentality of the Elves in the third age is a bit like those of old people, though their bodily appearance is still unchanged.
I must say that I rather sympathize with their view, and what Tolkien wrote in his essay "On Fairy-stories" about "escape" resonates deeply with me:

It is indeed an age of "improved means to deteriorated ends". It is part of the essential malady of such days - producing the desire to escape, not indeed from life, but from our present time and self-made misery - that we are acutely conscious both of the ugliness of our works and of their evil.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Guinevere

The older one gets the more things that one cares for, change or have vanished for ever, and one tends to remember mostly the good things, and to gloryfy the past. I think the mentality of the Elves in the third age is a bit like those of old people, though their bodily appearance is still unchanged.

I like the analogy of Elves being a little like old people in that they lament the passing of things they have known well. Though with Elves I sometimes think that they experience grief in a wholly different way to how a mortal might experience it. Not only do Elves see the natural world around them changing, they also see or have seen (now they shut themselves off from it) how Men also wither and die.

These things simply cannot be saved in any way, there is simply nothing that they can do about it. When Men see such things wither away then it may bring to mind their own withering and passing, but for Elves, they can only see an eternity where those things will never be seen again. Elves, being detached from Death, I think cannot understand how withering is a part of the world, so their grief is different.

Maybe it is a demonstration of Gandalf's wisdom that he has at least some understanding of how mortality might feel, while the Elves have a different perception. Perhaps it is because Gandalf has received some kind of knowledge from Eru?