Lord of Gravity

[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.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

In free republics and democracies, or at least so-called ones, the people are responsible for the government that rules them.
...
the "civilized" citizens who elect their leaders care more about our local football teams and retirement funds and entitlements.

In my opinion, you are raising too high the standard for what you consider moral advancement in this area, while disregarding it in others. Progresses, or at least fights, are made in that direction, but it ought to be taken into account that the current system immensely benefits a certain few, and these oligarchs (public or private) are willing to use their vast resources to preserve the status quo. Frankly, if we truly had the rule of the people, it would pretty much be already Arda Unmarred, since, according to some studies, it would take only the agricultural production of two advanced countries to ensure food for all humanity, a fraction of what is spent on military would ensure worldwide education and cover other basic needs, and the means to advanced technologically can be acquired without hurting the environment. We are not already there, but the necessary cognitive liberation is taking place even in this aspect.

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.

Well, we might have that inclination; happily (and we should say happily, no matter how bitter the situation), though "being set amid the turmoils of the powers of the world, [we] would stray often, and would not use [our] gifts in harmony", events occur in our lives that open our eyes and our heart.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Raynor

In my opinion, you are raising too high the standard for what you consider moral advancement in this area, while disregarding it in others.

It's not my standard, it's the moral standard. Right action is right action, or else it is wrong.

We are not already there, but the necessary cognitive liberation is taking place even in this aspect.

Cognitive liberation simply isn't enough. Saruman knew what he had become which is demonstrated in his recognition of its opposite in Frodo. But he refused because he wanted to hate and ruin others' lives rather than humble himself and receive mercy, let alone pay for his crimes. He's an illustration of the need for a "cardiac" liberation.

Well, we might have that inclination; happily (and we should say happily, no matter how bitter the situation), though "being set amid the turmoils of the powers of the world, [we] would stray often, and would not use [our] gifts in harmony", events occur in our lives that open our eyes and our heart.

Yes, if we choose to accept it.

Tolkienist, 7th Age, living in Arda. "Son, we live in Arda marred. The taint of Morgoth is upon all things. We will mourn the loss of our friends on the heights, and we shall put their deeds to song."

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

It's not my standard, it's the moral standard. Right action is right action, or else it is wrong.

It is commendable that you hold yourself to such high standards; however, concerning judging others, I agree with Tolkien:

Originally Posted by Letter #246

To others, in any case of which we know enough to make a judgement, we must apply a scale tempered by 'mercy': that is, since we can with good will do this without the bias inevitable in judgements of ourselves, we must estimate the limits of another's strength and weigh this against the force of particular circumstances.

Cognitive liberation simply isn't enough. Saruman knew what he had become which is demonstrated in his recognition of its opposite in Frodo.

True, but again, we are not talking about the same subjects, since it is our average "hobbit" (Man) that I have in mind. In the end, maybe a lot of us would be highly tempted to perpetuate the status quo, if it would bring great benefits, albeit at great costs to others; I am not casting any stone. "We are finite creatures with absolute limitations upon the powers of our soul-body structure in either action or endurance". My point is that cognitive liberation may be enough to move people to action; as far as I know, most of our liberties and rights have occurred due to upward public pressure, and not otherwise; in several writings I read on the subject of social movements, cognitive liberation is a highly significant step towards social change.

Yes, if we choose to accept it.

From my knowledge and experience, it is not a once in a lifetime opportunity .