Gollum and Eagles: Deux ex machina?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm a bit uncertain about simply classing anything we can't currently explain as a 'miracle' & attributing it to 'God'. This 'God of the Gaps' approach seems a bit superstitious. Many things our ancestors would have classed as miracles because they couldn't explain them are accepted by us as results of natural processes & I'm sure many things which we now call 'miracles' will go the same way.

In short, its a bit presumtious to say what is within & what is outside 'natural law' when we don't know what the parameters of 'natural law' are. Also, if God is 'within', at the heart of, creation, then the 'Divine' is also the 'natural', so its a bit difficult to draw a line between them (another consequence of Incarnation, I suppose)

Hmmm... so I'm being presumptuous? ...... again?!? Whereas it's true that certain things that were deemed miraculous in past ages are now understood as being governed by known natural laws, that can't be said for all the possibilities that fall within the parameters of "a miracle operating in such a way as to function outside the parameters of natural law". Some instances will necessarily always fall outside natural laws because they're supernatural. There is matter (that which is classed under physical law), psyche or soul (that which is classed under psychological principles), and spirit (that which is classed under spiritual law). This probably clarified nothing for you, but it makes perfect sense to me.

[Elu Ancalime]

It's an unfortunate expression. "God in the Machine." I suppose it probably originated during the enlightenment era?

While the concept might be used long before, i believe it was Shakespearan.

So if anything, it's more like "Homosapiens ex Deum".... or something like that.....

Well, thats how it is supposed to appear, because at the end of a book a/the/whatever God really did come down and end the conflict, the term would be unnessecary because it is literal.

By definition, a miracle should have such a low probability of occurance that you can only shug your shoulders and say, "I have no explanation as the event is contrary to every other thing that I observe."

But that still means it is possible. It is just phsycologically dissmissed and up to that point, physically impossible. But because its never happened before dosn't make it impossible. So I agree with you.

But I agree with you in regard to the Eagles not functioning as "miraculous", by either definition.

Well this might be where theres a No1 and a No2 in the dictionary. Surely it wasnt: "WHOA! Eagles can fly and carry hobbits! Thats impossible!"

So instead of it being physically, its the circumstance.

See the Hand of God? Don't think so. As lmp kids Formendacil, technically, in an Eru-constructed universe, everything is wrought by Eru's hands, even Melkor and his subsequent deeds. But I think that when we talk about D E M/ HoG, we mean a specific intervention of the divine that tips the scales, miraculously, in a 'good' way. The eagles show up so that Gandalf can rescue the hobbits, but if they were purely the HoG, then they could have went to Mount Doom without Gandalf's prompting. Maybe Eru's hands via Manw? make the eagles available, but again, the eagles themselves aren't D E M.

Once again, I think the idea is not meant to be direct and literal. The idea of the DEM is that it is allegorical and representational. HoG, however, sounds like the direct and literal term.
________
Herbal vaporizers

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Hmmm... so I'm being presumptuous? ...... again?!? Whereas it's true that certain things that were deemed miraculous in past ages are now understood as being governed by known natural laws, that can't be said for all the possibilities that fall within the parameters of "a miracle operating in such a way as to function outside the parameters of natural law". Some instances will necessarily always fall outside natural laws because they're supernatural. There is matter (that which is classed under physical law), psyche or soul (that which is classed under psychological principles), and spirit (that which is classed under spiritual law). This probably clarified nothing for you, but it makes perfect sense to me.

But you're still defining 'miracles' as things which are inexplicable in terms of natural law, when we haven't actually set the parameters of natural law. Where, exactly, are you setting the dividing line between natural & supernatural - & what's your justification for setting it there as opposed to elsewhere?

Now, if you were saying that the fact that there is something rather than nothing is a 'miracle', that the sun shines on the grass, & every blade is both similar to & unique from every other, that there are sunsets & mountains, that I can experience all of those things - that all those things are 'miracles' (even the fact that there are natural laws which apply in every part of the Universe) I'd struggle to argue with the point, but to say that 'X' can't be explained by current scientific thinking, therefore it (& it alone) is a 'miracle' seems a bit limiting. The whole thing is a miracle, not just the bits we can't explain - what you're calling a 'miracle' I'd just call inexplicable.

[Bêthberry]

If you are going to get into miracle versus DEM, why not expand the terms of reference to include Gandalf's return as Gandalf the White?

[Nogrod]

But you're still defining 'miracles' as things which are inexplicable in terms of natural law, when we haven't actually set the parameters of natural law. Where, exactly, are you setting the dividing line between natural & supernatural - & what's your justification for setting it there as opposed to elsewhere?

The "natural law" -thing is a case in point. People really started to believe in natural laws only at the 17th century - and even then, most of them needed a Divine mind to correct them and to keep them going. We've come a long way after that.

What I have been wondering somewhat, is that, is there any supernatural for people, who don't have the idea of the natural in our sense?

Talking of naturalness / supernaturalness begs definition! One can't just suppose, that because we have concepts like that, they readily apply to reality just like that?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

What I have been wondering somewhat, is that, is there any supernatural for people, who don't have the idea of the natural in our sense?

Talking of naturalness / supernaturalness begs definition! One can't just suppose, that because we have concepts like that, they readily apply to reality just like that?

A passage from 'The Blue Cross' by GK Chesterton comes to mind:

"Ah, yes, these modern infidels appeal to their reason; but who can look at those millions of worlds and not feel that there may well be wonderful universes above us where reason is utterly unreasonable?"...

"No," said the other priest; "reason is always reasonable, even in the last limbo, in the lost borderland of things. I know that people charge the Church with lowering reason, but it is just the other way. Alone on earth, the Church makes reason really supreme. Alone on earth, the Church affirms that God himself is bound by reason."

The other priest raised his austere face to the spangled sky and said:

"Yet who knows if in that infinite universe--?"

"Only infinite physically," said the little priest, turning sharply in his seat, "not infinite in the sense of escaping from the laws of truth."

"Reason and justice grip the remotest and the loneliest star. Look at those stars. Don't they look as if they were single diamonds and sapphires? Well, you can imagine any mad botany or geology you please. Think of forests of adamant with leaves of brilliants. Think the moon is a blue moon, a single elephantine sapphire. But don't fancy that all that frantic astronomy would make the smallest difference to the reason and justice of conduct. On plains of opal, under cliffs cut out of pearl, you would still find a notice-board, `Thou shalt not steal.'"

[alatar]

Interesting.

Just a quick comment on the "Blue Cross" as quoted by davem. Surely thoug shall not steal...

Unless, of course, thou children are starving.

My point is that, morality, like some physical laws of the universe, is relative.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

Interesting.

Just a quick comment on the "Blue Cross" as quoted by davem. Surely thoug shall not steal...

Unless, of course, thou children are starving.

My point is that, morality, like some physical laws of the universe, is relative.

I don't know that Moral values are 'relative'. If your children are starving that is a sure sign that you are living in an immoral society. In such a case I don't think that taking what you need, if there was no other way, would be 'stealing' as such (one could argue that the real 'thieves' were the ones who kept the food from your children & that you were taking what you had a right to).

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

But you're still defining 'miracles' as things which are inexplicable in terms of natural law, when we haven't actually set the parameters of natural law. Where, exactly, are you setting the dividing line between natural & supernatural - & what's your justification for setting it there as opposed to elsewhere?

Now, if you were saying that the fact that there is something rather than nothing is a 'miracle', that the sun shines on the grass, & every blade is both similar to & unique from every other, that there are sunsets & mountains, that I can experience all of those things - that all those things are 'miracles' (even the fact that there are natural laws which apply in every part of the Universe) I'd struggle to argue with the point, but to say that 'X' can't be explained by current scientific thinking, therefore it (& it alone) is a 'miracle' seems a bit limiting. The whole thing is a miracle, not just the bits we can't explain - what you're calling a 'miracle' I'd just call inexplicable.

Okay, I agree with what I've bolded above. Still, there are distinctions that can be made and have been since at least the first century of the modern era; namely, between body, soul, and spirit. The three cannot in reality be disentangled from each other save by death (an ultimately unnatural event according to my beliefs). However, we're capable of distinguishing from them by their character. Body is matter which I really need not explain any more than that, I hope. Soul is mind, will, emotions, and all that which is part and parcel of the psyche. Spirit is that part of reality that is hardest to define, describe, explain, et cetera.

Spirit seems to be most easily described by means of metaphor and story. Thus, I point out a few primary instances of spirit from Tolkien: (1) Tom Bombadil and the Barrowdowns incident; (2) Weathertop; (3) the Bridge of Khazad-dum; (4) Frodo atop the Hill of Seeing.

There are other examples of spirit but they bear a greater admixture of psyche: (1) the Noldoran Elves in the Shire; (2) the flight at the Fords of Bruinen; (3) the mirror of Galadriel; (4) Shelob's lair; (5) Sam appearing as an Elf to the Orcs; (6) the struggle for the Ring at Mount Doom.

Read these passages with the idea of Spirit in mind as opposed to Soul, and perhaps you will perceive what I'm trying to convey.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Still, there are distinctions that can be made and have been since at least the first century of the modern era; namely, between body, soul, and spirit. The three cannot in reality be disentangled from each other save by death (an ultimately unnatural event according to my beliefs). However, we're capable of distinguishing from them by their character. Body is matter which I really need not explain any more than that, I hope. Soul is mind, will, emotions, and all that which is part and parcel of the psyche. Spirit is that part of reality that is hardest to define, describe, explain, et cetera.

This distinction is to be found from all over the world, and it is seems to be present also in the very old shamanistic cultures too. So let's speak about 10 000 + (maybe more than 20 000) years instead of the first century? Some people have attached the idea to the curios fact of dreaming during the sleep (remember f.ex. Australian aboriginals' notion of a Dreamtime as a basic metaphysical reality etc.). So there is the physical me here and now, my thoughts and ideas and mental presence in the world (soul) and then this "spirit" that goes to its wanderings when I sleep, that kind of is a part of me, and then isn't.

But the age of a belief certainly is not any proof of it being right...

[Glaurung]

Still babbling about Gollum... Of course it sounds stupid that Gollum would be a deux ex machina, but doesn't it sound weird that such a story as LotR ends when a skinny little creature just slips into the Mount Doom and that's it?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

This distinction is to be found from all over the world, and it is seems to be present also in the very old shamanistic cultures too. So let's speak about 10 000 + (maybe more than 20 000) years instead of the first century? Some people have attached the idea to the curios fact of dreaming during the sleep (remember f.ex. Australian aboriginals' notion of a Dreamtime as a basic metaphysical reality etc.). So there is the physical me here and now, my thoughts and ideas and mental presence in the world (soul) and then this "spirit" that goes to its wanderings when I sleep, that kind of is a part of me, and then isn't.

I guess I was referring to the knowledge of such distinctions within western civilization, with which we are most familiar and have the most history. But yes, you are quite right about the shamanistic traditions. We North Americans find the indigenous spirituality of native Americans to be quite a strikingly powerful and beautiful tradition when we take it on its own terms. Personally, I always find native American references to "the Great Spirit" to be breathtakingly refreshing. But that is an aside.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But the age of a belief certainly is not any proof of it being right...

Nor its opposite.

[davem]

Of course, the Music drives the world in a certain specific direction. Because of this is it not possible for any individual to 'divert' the course of destiny to any real degree. It is possible that (within M-e at least) what has been called a Deus ex Machina is simply the force of the Music exerting a kind of 'gravitational pull' on individuals/events.

The Ring is 'fated' or 'destined' to go into the Fire, so Gollum is 'pulled' in along with it by 'natural law' (well, the Ring is 'destined' to go into the Fire because Sauron is not destined to win, & the only way to ensure his defeat is to destroy the Ring. Hence, Sauron's defeat & the destruction of the Ring will happen, it just has to be brought about somehow, by someone within the world, because the Music works out within the world. The Quest is one way in which this could have been brought about - & probably the one that would result in the least suffering, or maybe the one that would produce the 'best results, for all concerned)

This 'force' is inexorable, but does not take away individual freedom completely. Individuals can effect change for good or ill, but only within the parameters set by Aunilindale.

If I'm correct then Deus ex Machina events would be necessary, 'miracles' as such would be the universe being pulled back into its predetermined course, almost as if the universe spontaneously produces 'antibodies' to fight a disease.

[littlemanpoet]

The determinism you present, dear sir, just doesn't seem in keeping with my reading of LotR. May I suggest that trying to get an 'inexorable force' and 'individual freedom' to square with each other in any logical way is an exercise in futility. Best to leave the paradox in all of its realities in the balance that we find it in real life as well as in really good fantasy. But hey, if you like exercises in futility, have at it!