Lord of Gravity

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I believe it is safe to assume that Rohan and Gondor have always been significant havens for such good Men.

You will recall that after Gandalf fell into Khazaddûm with the Balrog, it was Aragorn of Gondor who said, "Then we shall have to do without hope." It is living without hope that is the earmark of the Nordic worldview, making of a dire life - and inevitable death - what one can.

I don't think that propensity towards evil is a must for all Men. Rather, I would expect that, in later ages, when there is no other highly corrupting mythological incarnation of evil, a larger portion of Men would develop desirable character traits.

When has there not been a highly corrupting mythological incarnation of evil, whether real or imagined, throughout the history of the Seven Ages?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

When has there not been a highly corrupting mythological incarnation of evil, whether real or imagined, throughout the history of the Seven Ages?

Well, the Third Age seems to be the last one that had any:

Originally Posted by Notes on motives in the Silmarillion, iii, Myths Transformed, HoME X

Sauron, however, was a problem that Men had to deal with finally: the first of the many concentrations of Evil into definite power-points that they would have to combat, as it was also the last of those in 'mythological' personalized (but non-human) form.

You will recall that after Gandalf fell into Khazaddûm with the Balrog, it was Aragorn of Gondor who said, "Then we shall have to do without hope."

I believe that the reason for this is the awareness of dealing with far superior foes, another Nordic motive. However, after the Third Age, it is pretty much a level playing field between good and evil, so no such despair would be called for.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, the Third Age seems to be the last one that had any...... I believe that the reason for this is the awareness of dealing with far superior foes, another Nordic motive. However, after the Third Age, it is pretty much a level playing field between good and evil, so no such despair would be called for.

The incipient challenge of this thread's discussion, as established in the first post, is that we are to presume that the stories of Middle Earth as presented by Tolkien, are point of fact. Thus anything from known history that contradicts the assertions laid out by Tolkien, are not allowable. Therefore, Sauron must be accepted as the last great corrupting mythological figure. Morgoth is banished; all that is left is the taint of Morgoth on all that has been created.

It must be acknowledged that, for the purposes of this discussion, Maiar still are extant and may and will do as is in them to do.

There have been mythologies in which both good and evil Maiar have ensconced themselves throughout the Seven Ages. We may not, for the purposes of this discussion, dismiss them out of hand just because Tolkien is not the recorder of their histories. So we have the Mayan, Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian, Hittite, Hindu, Chinese, Hebrew, Celtic, and last but not least, Nordic myths, and no doubt many others which I have not named.

We may conclude that these myths were engendered and inhabited by Maiar still at loose in Arda; and since they are by and large at odds with those histories recorded by Tolkien, we may conclude that they are filled with lies. Since they are filled with lies, we can deduce that they are in fact inhabited almost exclusively by evil Maiar. Though of less stature than Sauron and Morgoth, these evil Maiar may be concluded to have been Pluto, Set, Murdok, Kumarbis, Lucifer, Surt, and so forth.

Have humans indeed comported themselves well throughout history, whether in servitude to these myths' Maiar or after they have been thrown out in favor of a limited set of myths that are these days called 'world religions'?

Has slavery ever not been part of human history through these last three of the Seven Ages? Has genocide? Conquest? Petty theft? Murder? Sacrificing one's own offspring to the gods - er - excuse me, Maiar? I'm very sorry, but throughout the history of the Seven Ages, there is little evidence to suggest that humans by and large have comported themselves very well at all.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The incipient challenge of this thread's discussion, as established in the first post, is that we are to presume that the stories of Middle Earth as presented by Tolkien, are point of fact. Thus anything from known history that contradicts the assertions laid out by Tolkien, are not allowable.

Although I very much enjoy a debate, it should be noted that this was far from what Tolkien intended with this "imaginative invention", that is, to present some of his apprehension of th world. He didn't put very much effort into synchronizing primary and secondary reality and he didn't expect much of it.

Therefore, Sauron must be accepted as the last great corrupting mythological figure. Morgoth is banished; all that is left is the taint of Morgoth on all that has been created.

It must be acknowledged that, for the purposes of this discussion, Maiar still are extant and may and will do as is in them to do.

I believe you are contradicting yourself, since surely any surviving evil Maia, still interacting with Arda, would definitely qualify as a mythological incarnation of evil - an instance which cannot be accepted based on Tolkien's quote.

We may conclude that these myths were engendered and inhabited by Maiar still at loose in Arda; and since they are by and large at odds with those histories recorded by Tolkien, we may conclude that they are filled with lies.

Some may even accept that all these stories are true, but have not manifested themselves on the material level, but on more subtle ones.

I'm very sorry, but throughout the history of the Seven Ages, there is little evidence to suggest that humans by and large have comported themselves very well at all.

I would say that we evolved even morally. Many things that would have been accepted as normal decades or centuries ago are not so anymore (at least for the average person, disregarding what some politicians do or pass as laws). Human rights have taken great leaps forward, and even if there is much to fear today, there is also much reason for hope. I, for one, am not pessimist, but I hold to the idea that, "if we are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves".

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Although I very much enjoy a debate, it should be noted that this was far from what Tolkien intended with this "imaginative invention", that is, to present some of his apprehension of the world. He didn't put very much effort into synchronizing primary and secondary reality and he didn't expect much of it.

By saying this you seem to be implying that there is no need to resolve contradictions. If so, there is no debate, period. Any assertion may be made, and no one can contradict it on any evidence whatsoever.

I believe you are contradicting yourself, since surely any surviving evil Maia, still interacting with Arda, would definitely qualify as a mythological incarnation of evil - an instance which cannot be accepted based on Tolkien's quote.

If you imply above that which I have inferred, my so-called contradiction doesn't matter. If not, then you are hoist with your own pitard, for I was arguing from your assertion that there have been no mythological incarnations of evil since Sauron; if we accept the evidence of the worldwide mythologies, there indeed were.

Some may even accept that all these stories are true, but have not manifested themselves on the material level, but on more subtle ones.

What precisely are those accepting who hold to this view?

Okay, the above was in part facetious. What follows is serious.

I would say that we evolved even morally. Many things that would have been accepted as normal decades or centuries ago are not so anymore (at least for the average person, disregarding what some politicians do or pass as laws). Human rights have taken great leaps forward, and even if there is much to fear today, there is also much reason for hope. I, for one, am not pessimist, but I hold to the idea that, "if we are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves".

An assertion that humans have evolved morally is, sad to say, "gobtwiddle". The 20th century was a span of one hundred years in which the largest number of humans died unjustly at the hands of others, through war and genocide: World War One. World War Two. The Korean War. The Vietnam War. The India/Pakistan wars. Stalin's murder of tens of millions of Ukrainians. Hitler's murder of six million Jews. The Killing Fields of Campuchia. Mao Tse Tung's genocide of tens of millions of Chinese. Drug Cartels. Enslavement of young women internationally. Child pornography. International businesses that have grown so large that they can ignore the laws of the nations where they were started, engendering many of the injustices that are holding the nations of Africa in hock so that they cannot break out of abject poverty. Cynical powermongering warlords in Afghanistan, Sudan, Uganda, and so forth.

And politicians can only do what the citizens blithely allow them to do, if we actually have democratic governments anymore. If our governments are no longer democratic such that we can control the politicians, that speaks no better for your claim of moral evolution.

As for He who holds Justice as His own sole possession, no entity can deprive Him of anything at all, for He holds it all anyway. It is His to reward or punish, and the "deprivation" of any one soul in no way makes Him a loser.

I hold to hope as do you. But the questions being posed here, absent any sureties that we may hold as His followers, can only be answered with despair. It is only logical. Thus, the Nordic noble hero with no hope is the most logical ideal when argued to the question's conclusions.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

By saying this you seem to be implying that there is no need to resolve contradictions.

Pretty much, yes. The main purpose of his effort at synchronizing seems to be directed at easing the acceptance of his work by the modern readers.

If so, there is no debate, period. Any assertion may be made, and no one can contradict it on any evidence whatsoever.

I don't see how accepting Tolkien's writings as ultimate evidence concerning his imagined world implies that any assertion is valid.

If you imply above that which I have inferred, my so-called contradiction doesn't matter. If not, then you are hoist with your own pitard, for I was arguing from your assertion that there have been no mythological incarnations of evil since Sauron; if we accept the evidence of the worldwide mythologies, there indeed were.

I can understand half of that at most. Anyway, it was not my asertion that there weren't any more mythological incarnations of evil, it was a quote from Tolkien's writings. I am not sure where you are heading, it seemed to me that we accept comparisons between primary and secondary reality only as long as there is no contradiction to Tolkien's works.

What precisely are those accepting who hold to this view?

That all those stories manifest themselves on the realm of ideas & symbols, or on a myriad subtle, parallel planes of creation. Nevermind, I am allowed a wild speculation once in a while; you can safely ignore this line of my argument.

An assertion that humans have evolved morally is, sad to say, "gobtwiddle".

Thanks. Another English world unknown to the dictionaries I have access to .

The 20th century was a span of one hundred years in which the largest number of humans died unjustly at the hands of others, through war and genocide:

I believe I have made it clear in my argument that I am not referring to those who are in power. Aule said that the greatest are the most potent also for evil; unfortunately, for us it translates into power corrupts, etc. I was primarily referring to citizens from at least the "civilized" countries, where discrimination is at least frowned upon, death sentence is outlawed, torture is not seen as an everyday tool in gathering information, so on and so forth (I know, there is a notable exception). When dealing with the human powers-that-be, they still hold a virtual monopoly on violence. But even in such conditions, we do see organizing and action against injustices at home and abroad, and I certainly doubt that despair is at the foundation of these actions; quite the contrary, it is hope in victory that motivates.

But the questions being posed here, absent any sureties that we may hold as His followers, can only be answered with despair. It is only logical.

Ultimately, yes: absent faith, despair is surely the outcome, at least in Ea

Originally Posted by On the severance of marriage, Later Quenta Silmarillion, HoME X

...trust in Eru the Lord everlasting, that he is good, and that his works shall all end in good. This the Marrer hath denied, and in this denial is the root of evil, and its end is in despair.

Originally Posted by Author's note #7, Athrabeth

By the holiness of good men - their direct attachment to Eru, before and above all Eru's works - the Elves may be delivered from the last of their griefs: sadness; the sadness that must come even from the unselfish love of anything less than Eru.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Thanks. Another English world unknown to the dictionaries I have access to .

Fear not. I coined it. It means, loosely, "nonsense"; specifically, it is the act of batting one's lips up and down with the forefinger.

I believe I have made it clear in my argument that I am not referring to those who are in power.

Yes, you did, but I don't accept the distinction. In free republics and democracies, or at least so-called ones, the people are responsible for the government that rules them.

I was primarily referring to citizens from at least the "civilized" countries, where discrimination is at least frowned upon, death sentence is outlawed, torture is not seen as an everyday tool in gathering information, so on and so forth (I know, there is a notable exception).

Even this distinction overlooks the reality that the governments of "civilized" countries are supposed to be the most powerful in the world right now, and turn a blind eye to the injustices of Darfur, Rwanda, Sierre Leone, Nigeria, and others, all of which could be stopped if the so-called "civilized" and supposedly enlightened developed nations had the moral will to do so. However, that moral will is not there; the "civilized" citizens who elect their leaders care more about our local football teams and retirement funds and entitlements.

But even in such conditions, we do see organizing and action against injustices at home and abroad, and I certainly doubt that despair is at the foundation of these actions; quite the contrary, it is hope in victory that motivates.

Yes, except that these "We are the world" types of endeavors are really only band-aids placed upon symptoms. What Africa and other developing nations need is international justice; even a Marshall Plan or better for our time; but I don't see that kind of thing happening.

Ultimately, yes: absent faith, despair is surely the outcome, at least in Ea.

Yes.

However, this has strayed a good deal from the main point. The point I have been making is that humans have not evolved morally.

My earlier point, that despair is the only logical conclusion to the Tolkienian system, was facetious in part, based on my reading of history such that humans have a knack for forgetting about Eru, and thus tend to lose, over the course of perhaps three or more generations, the basis they once had for their hope.