No Sun or Moon

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

That the same kind of cataclysm is described in farflung cultures, does not merely suggest, but leads a reasonable mind to ask what can be understood from the strange points of agreement from culture to culture.

Indeed - and I would say that what can be understood from this are certain facts about the human mind and human society. This explanation is quite viable and does not contradict the preponderance of scientific evidence; whereas an explanation such as "the myths are actually true" does.

a sun god who is the benevolent universal ruler par excellence, who resided at the north pole, and is associated with the planet Saturn
an anatomically impossible dragon, sometimes bearded, or hairy, flying across the sky, wreaking destruction upon earth
a comet which is the heart of the dying sun god, which bursts forth into the heavens, and is associated with the planet Venus

Are you really claiming that these are three points of similarity across all (or most) natural mythologies? I'd have to disagree. Number 1 is true of Egyptian mythology, for example, but certainly not of Greek nor Aztec nor Indian nor even really of Germanic (Odin/Woden is a sky god but not specifically a sun god). I will concede that number 2 is fairly universal - most myths have at least some kind of monster, though not necessarily a flying one. As for number 3 - though I don't doubt that you know of some mythos with this element, I confess I can think of none in which a comet is the heart of the dying sun god.

You mis-apprehend what I'm saying. The reason I have a problem with much of modern science is that when confronted with yet more evidence that the paradigm is wrong, our scientists do not question the paradigm; instead they create yet another ad hoc theory that cannot be tested in any lab.

Though I am admittedly biased, being a scientist myself, I cannot help but think that you have mis-apprehended the nature of the scientific method. When new evidence is presented that contradicts current theories, those theories are rejected in favour of new theories with which the evidence does agree. Sometimes multiple such theories are proposed and must compete with each other. The only criterion for success is that the theory agrees with the evidence. Usually, the new theories that are proposed are modelled very closely on the old, rejected theory - which makes sense if the rejected theory was reasonably succesful. Sometimes, though, when necessary, the whole conceptual framework is rejected and replaced with a new one. General relativity is a perfect example. When the evidence finally built up that Newtonian mechanics was not correct, and that no easy modifications could bring it into line with the data, its whole paradigm of absolute space and forces was rejected.

Regarding black holes, according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a thing cannot exist with an infinite degree of any one aspect of reality, such as gravity. Black holes have, according to theory, infinite gravitational force. So either one or the other is incorrect; yet, modern science is not denying Einstein's theory, nor is it admitting that black holes cannot exist. With good science, either one or the other must be put to rest.

This is actually a fairly common misconception. As a matter of fact, general relativity has been put to rest in a manner of speaking. We know now that it is not a valid theory for describing phenomena like black holes, where the strength of gravity becomes as powerful as the other forces. The only trouble is we don't yet have a new theory that adequately describes both gravity (which GR does all right at in most cases) and the other forces (which are, on their own, fairly well described by quantum field theories).

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Having long been a student of mythology, I believe that one should consider the definition of "myth." One I personally prefer is stated in the Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology, and Legend:

Myth: A story, presented as having actually occurred in a previous age, explaining the cosmological and supernatural traditions of a people, their gods, heroes, cultural traits, religious beliefs, etc. The purpose of myth is to explain, and, as Sir G.L. Gomme said, myths explain matters in "the science of a pre-scientific age." Thus myths tell of the creation of man, of animals, of landmarks; they tell why a certain animal has its characteristics (e.g. why the bat is blind or flies only at night), why or how certain natural phenomena came to be (e.g.why the rainbow appears or how the constellation Orion got into the sky), how and why rituals and ceremonies began and why they continue. Not all origin stories are myths, however; the myth must have a religious background in that its principal actor or actors are deities; the stories are thus systematized at least to the extent that they are related to a corpus of other stories in which the given god is the member of a pantheon. Where such interrelation does not occur, and where the gods or demigods do not appear, such stories are properly classified as folktale.

As Tolkien said that his tales were an attempt to create a mythology for England, I feel he succeeded quite well, and that any later attempt to try to make those tales more scientifically accurate was a mistake. The beauty of myth does not lie in its scientific precision, but rather in how it shows the ingenuity of the human mind, striving to understand the world in which it lives, as best it is able. In my humble opinion, of course.

That said, trees play major parts in many myths about the early world (the Tree of Life, the Tree of Knowledge, Yggdrasil, etc.) and there certainly are quite a few myths about the bringing of light and/or fire from the gods to man (Prometheus comes screaming to mind ). I find the Two Trees a clever and elegant blend of such myths. I don't believe Tolkien was the first to invent a tree of light (I'd have to dig up some of my more esoteric mythology texts to check it out, but I seem to recall such tales in some Eastern mythologies), but he may have been the first to use it as a basis for a myth to explain the reality of the sun and moon.

Just my two cents', as ever.

[Lush]

lmp - I strongly suggest that you check out Ken Wilber. You don't have to be into Buddhism to get good stuff out of him. Who knows? You might really like him.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lush

lmp - I strongly suggest that you check out Ken Wilber. You don't have to be into Buddhism to get good stuff out of him. Who knows? You might really like him.

I did check him out before you posted this. His Buddhism doesn't throw me off so much as his promotion of the sciences of supernatural phenomena. Being Christian, I think he is in dangerous waters.

Alatar, I doubt that the recordings of cataclysm go back to prehistoric humanity because (according to my limited knowledge), that which was recorded reveals a rather highly developed understanding and ability to measure the phenomena outside the earth's atmosphere, such as among Babylonians, Mesoamericans, and Egyptians. Additionally, the symbols used for recording these phenomena are quite ideosyncratic to each culture. This suggests that the events occurred within the memory of a culture, but before writing was invented.

Regarding a Golden Age, I have no interest in "going back" either; but I do wish to understand what the ancients meant to convey.

I think science NEEDS to chuck everything and start down a new path.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Alatar, I doubt that the recordings of cataclysm go back to prehistoric humanity because (according to my limited knowledge), that which was recorded reveals a rather highly developed understanding and ability to measure the phenomena outside the earth's atmosphere, such as among Babylonians, Mesoamericans, and Egyptians.

Yes and no. Not that I am not amazed by what they did learn and know, but show me one of these cultures that knew of the planet Neptune. And even more interestingly, why didn't the astrologers know of this and other planets, as each of these massive objects surely had some effect on the person's destiny.

Additionally, the symbols used for recording these phenomena are quite ideosyncratic to each culture. This suggests that the events occurred within the memory of a culture, but before writing was invented.

I'm sorry; I'm not sure what (or all) phenomena to which you refer. What would be amazing is a culture that knew nothing of the sun or moon.

Regarding a Golden Age, I have no interest in "going back" either; but I do wish to understand what the ancients meant to convey.

Agreed, but again I think that the message was more psychological than scientific. Some today consider the 1950's the Golden Age as you had drive-in restaurants and cars with fins. Gas was cheap, and everyone wore bobby socks (whatever they were).

I think science NEEDS to chuck everything and start down a new path.

Meaning? Science does this to some extent, but definitely not to the extent you intend. Should we give up the scientific method? Observe, assume, test, refine, repeat?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by alatar

Yes and no. Not that I am not amazed by what they did learn and know, but show me one of these cultures that knew of the planet Neptune. And even more interestingly, why didn't the astrologers know of this and other planets, as each of these massive objects surely had some effect on the person's destiny.

Neptune is, of course, not visible to the human eye and needed the invention of the telescope. What, in your mind, is the significance of the ancients not knowing about Neptune other than to point out that they didn't have telescopes? As to planetary effect on people's destinies, are you going tongue in cheek? I think astrology in terms of planetary influence on one's destiny is off the mark. But one must wonder why every culture has a tradition of associating disaster with comets? Please, do try to allow yourself to consider that, just maybe, it's not a matter of psychology.

I'm sorry; I'm not sure what (or all) phenomena to which you refer. What would be amazing is a culture that knew nothing of the sun or moon.

Apologies. One such complex of images from culture to culture are: the bearded flying dragon; the hairy flying dragon; the flying hairy witch; (bearded Santa Claus riding from the north pole behind his flying reindeer perhaps being a remnant of this); and these dragons and witch symbols serving in these ancient cultures as the symbol for a comet; and further, this comet symbol being the same symbol used for the planet Venus. Either the mesoamericans in particular really had themselves confused, or they were describing something they were seeing in the sky. (Oh, and we can add to this the Greek mythic legend of Venus being born from the head of Jupiter). These are just some examples.

Agreed, but again I think that the message was more psychological than scientific. Some today consider the 1950's the Golden Age as you had drive-in restaurants and cars with fins. Gas was cheap, and everyone wore bobby socks (whatever they were).

Meaning? Science does this to some extent, but definitely not to the extent you intend. Should we give up the scientific method? Observe, assume, test, refine, repeat?

No, I'm speaking of paradigms. Have you read the work of Thomas Kuhn? Think of the old folk tale of the 7 blind men and the elephant. One of the blind men feels the elephant's leg and concludes that it is a tree, because it feels like a tree. He even goes so far as to discover four trees! And better yet, rounding on one "side" of these four trees, he comes across a very maleable branch, and decides that he has come across a new species of tree.

Try this out: suppose that the magnetic field of the Earth, and gravity, and lightning, and sunspots, and solar wind, and the nodal tapestry of magnetic fields surrounding the sun's "face", are all directly related to each other. What might the mechanism be?

Just thought I'd lay that out there. It seems no clearer answer than that from William Cloud Hicklin will come by way of answer to my original question, and therefore I would have to say that this thread is starting to not be about Tolkien; but you asked the question, so I answered.

[mark12_30]

If I recall correctly, in one of the early versions of the two trees, the elves collected the--- water? Lamp juice?-- from the broken lamps and kept it in pools, basins, resevoirs (which glowed). THen they used this water to , er, water the trees. And the trees shone that way.

Not as nice, perhaps, as trees that shine all by themselves. I think I prefer Laurelin and Telperion having their own intrinsic glow.

If one compares them(Laurelin & Telperion) to the tree of Life and the tree of Good and Evil.... did those trees shine? or of not physically shine, did they in a sense give off revelation?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Neptune is, of course, not visible to the human eye and needed the invention of the telescope. What, in your mind, is the significance of the ancients not knowing about Neptune other than to point out that they didn't have telescopes?

We now can see farther. Should we base our understanding on our solar system pre- or post- telescope? Which would be a more accurate reflection of reality? When we sent a probe out of the solar system, we (not me - had nothing to do with it )...we had to take this planet into account. Ancient beings could be indifferent to Neptune the planet as it had no effect on them. They didn't know it was even there...like germs, the stratosphere, the motion of the planet, etc.

Neptune/Poseidon/Ulmo, however...

As to planetary effect on people's destinies, are you going tongue in cheek?

Surely you know me better than that.

I think astrology in terms of planetary influence on one's destiny is off the mark.

It's called ad hoc. Science discovers a new planet and suddenly the astrologers account for its influence. Do they state that all previous readings were in error?

But one must wonder why every culture has a tradition of associating disaster with comets?

Maybe because some comets caused disasters when their smaller cousins - meteors - smashed into the Earth. That and we are a pattern-seeking lot. Give a person a few random points and s/he will string along a very nice story.

When Julius Caesar was born/died - one of the two - supposedly a comet streaked through the sky. Is there anyone of the same importance today that we could watch that would necessitate the same heavenly signs? And with our telescopes, we have a lot more comets to pick from.

Please, do try to allow yourself to consider that, just maybe, it's not a matter of psychology.

I hope to be as open as stated in your sig. But think of the fun we can have with comets. As we know - for many of them - when they will pass by, we can ask those that believe what events will happen before the comet is here, and then see what happens when it does occur. Also, as many comets are known in history, we can see if truly any event actually occurred at that time. As I noted earlier, Andrew White wrote much about comets and what was believed about them, and, as we gained telescopes and some insight, how our beliefs turned from 'objects thrown by an angry god' to a 'big ball of ice to which we sent a probe.'

And I wonder just what the Shoemaker-Levy comet was trying to say when it smashed into Jupiter on 22-July-1994.

Will consider the rest of your interesting post when time permits ("Santa the bearded witch dragon...hmmm, it's all starting to make sense.")

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Mind you that the Sun-tree and Moon-tree featured in "Valinor", almost the first poem Tolkien wrote containing elements of his later legendarium- 1914 IIRC.

Tolkien's imagination often ran to vignettes or tableaux- scenes intensely visualized which then wound up generating tales. You can still see some of this in the LR. It's characteristic of Tolkien's pre-Somme poems that they depict static scenes- snapshots of an Otherworld which as yet has no history, indeed doesn't appear to move in Time at all (except for the characteristic sense of fading, decay and lost grandeur). It's probably fair to say that "Valinor" and other similar poems like "Habbanan" and "Earendel" predate the mythology, in that they were written without any idea of a narrative or 'historical' context: that was built up around them.

My personal theory is that the idea of the history didn't arise until, and arose because, Tolkien invented a *second* Elvish language, Gnomish/Goldogrin. To a comparative philologist, you coudn't have two related languages, descended through many sound-shifts from a common ancestor, without the populations that spoke them having becaome separated and subjected to different influences. The question immediately presents itself, Why? Tolkien's answer was the 'travail of the Noldoli,' the unwritten Gilfanon's Tale. It was of course characteristic of JRRT to envision an end-state and work towards it, but never get there (vide the Voyages of Earendil).