Fantasy Morality

[Dakêsîntrah]

My apologies, Mnemosyne, for disregarding your name. I think I had a moment of "fast" typing, wherein I glossed over the specific "who-said-what."

Now, the example of Job: I am simply stating that since your personified "Satan" is out of the equation, and therefore it is one of God's good guys judging Job, testing him ,if you will, then it may be even harder to put God in an exonerated stance. One is forced to come up with another workable hypothesis, notwithstanding taking in regard the Hebrew grammar.

No, when you think of 'God" in an anthropomorphic sense, this limits his All-Power, and the moment God either 1) gives up his "omnipresent" being for anthropomorphism or 2) temporarily withdraws at least one of his attributes, he ceases to be the "Supreme" ontological being. In the ancient world, function/relationship determined existence, not the modern structure/origins.

Therefore, Galadriel55, it must be insisted that we drop our modern preconceptions of structural creation. In all of the ancient texts, man did not necessarily describe "creation from nothing" thereby assuming universe origins. That was not what was important to them.

In the book of Genesis, it is not describing a creation ex nihilo. Why? The primordial waters of chaos already existed. It is not "water" in the literal sense, it is a metaphysical term for the Void; that which is Orderly Chaos, or that which has no boundaries. Once you ascribe physicality, we have boundaries, limits. How is it to describe God? It is rather better to be silent, implies Dionysius the Areopagite. For in Silence you cannot negate God by describing him as Love, Holy, Good, or any other attribute the human mind attributes in limited form. God is not Love, Holy or Good. He (even 'He' is negation) is Not That Which Is, a universal paradox; because the paradox is precisely the Mechanism by which Ages are Not Which Once Was.

I'm not sure why there is a need to hang on to the notion of 'free will.' As Eru, the One is that which is between the two extremes of chaos and order, then you are a product of His limitation, Which Is Not Limitation? Why? Because That Which Is Not Limitation is negation, the other cosmic balance. All things with limitation (physicality) dissolve into One. It's the cyclical process of Nature.

Inziladun, thank you for pointing out those references I forgot to cite! Still, it is good to cite your own articles you produce! However, it is indeed interesting stuff to engage in, isn't it I was hoping it would prod someone to study further for the sources. It lets me know someone is active in pursuit of truth!

Now, respectively, I think you missed my point about "allowable suffering." Regardless of whether suffering is allowed or not, the point is maintained that had God let suffering perpetuate, or even much more so that he actually does not allow suffering, neither can withstand it, he is still the author of it. He is the author, the root of evil, for simply being the only uncreated One. Even if evil (suffering as the result in most cases) was inactive (that is, not fully consumated in real time) it was still conceived as a static thing of the Mechanism. Evil, I contend, is simply the gaping hole of primordial Chaos, that did indeed exist at each successive Creation catastrophe that brought about new Ages. Good can only really be defined as something which has limits or boundaries (see above for my explanation of physicality as boundaries) - indeed, "definition" is a bounded term. Something can only be defined by separating a physicality with another.


Bethberry, good question about the Buddhists. Buddhists ought not to be religionists. Buddhism was not established by Guatama as a religion but as a philosophy. In other words, ethical standards to live by. When religion comes in it is always pervaded by propaganda (propaganda, ironically was a term invented by the Church to spread about its dogma) which in itself is coerced in a fashionable manner by dogma. Therefore, your Buddhists that worship Buddha as a god are practicing coercive dogma, which is false. Not all Buddhists follow this, however, which is "good."

[Dakêsîntrah]

Nerwen,

I understand completely tumhalad's interpretation regarding a seemingly contradictory moral universe in COH in comparison to other Tolkien works. And in that, I am disagreeing with him, offering another solution that seems to be far more tenable. It is a working solution, so bear with me, or else I encourage you to bear yourself the time to look more in depth at what I have to say.

Again, my point, respectively, is to say that Tolkien is being entirely consistent in his Legendarium in addition to the COH, specifically, the story of Turin Turambar. It is certainly not "atheistic" when I point out the fact of meteoric objects made into temples or swords were actually mediums of contact with the gods. It negates the whole theory of Turin being isolated in his morality from Eru. Read again, and you may see the connection.

This is the praise I give Tolkien for writing this yet "hidden" ancient theme.

I think this thread provides key alignments with Morality. For Morality is that which umbrellas the whole theme of Creation (that is, Creation defined by catastrophic upheaval under an auroral sky). For instance, if you were to ask an Egyptian priestess to describe Ma'at, she would make it a laughing matter, for it ought to be obvious that Ma'at (law of Morality) is that of Isis, the Judge (satan) of Creation.

The bottom line is that my extended posts were designed to challenge your presuppositions, and then we can get to the meat of the matter.

[Nerwen]

Again, my point, respectively, is to say that Tolkien is being entirely consistent in his Legendarium in addition to the COH, specifically, the story of Turin Turambar. It is certainly not "atheistic" when I point out the fact of meteroic objects made into temples or swords were actually mediums of contact with the gods. It negates the whole theory of Turin being isolated in his morality from Eru. Read again, and you may see the connection.

My point is that you could easily have said this much more clearly in far fewer words, my friend– perhaps more as you did just now. (Besides, the fact that meteorites have often been considered sacred is not exactly news.) I must admit that I am also still confused about what exactly you're trying to say here– that Turin thought the sword spoke to him with the voice of Eru? Really?

In general, I cannot help feeling that your own "presuppositions" (perhaps about the ignorance and bias of everyone else?) have led you to misinterpret or disregard much of what has already been said.

[Nerwen]

I'm sorry if I sound overly-irritatated there, it's just that it is almost impossible to discern whatever points you are trying to make when they're so obscured by a fog of semi-random information. Whether you intend this or not, it really does end up looking like deliberate obfustication.

Okay?

[Dakêsîntrah]

Nerwen,

I concur. I certainly could have said this in fewer words. But unfortunately, many other people require more evidence. I am quite happy to expound upon long lines of text.

Meteorites being sacred is not new, but that's not the point. It is the metaphysical principles that come from such rare phenomena (cosmic catastrophe) that encompasses Morality (that which exists by function/relation).

Respectively, if you would have noticed this occult theme of Tolkien, Turin's sword shall have seemed to drive a chasm between human subjective law by action and divine accommodated law.

Furthermore, who's to say Eru actually speaks anthromorphically? I contend he doesn't. In all other ancient Creation myths, there are narratives where a Creation god "speaks" as if the man was already present as a created (structural/origin theory) being. This is anachronistic if you fall into the mindset of anthropomorphism. Eru "speaks" as he is defined, yet unchanged by the successive cycle of Ages. They are not mere words (Tolkien's parallelism is undeniable). Eru enables his foremost Beings to sing "themes." This is not an anthropomorphic choir. This is a visual look into the Ages of Good (limitation) and the Ages of Evil (Chaos). Ages of Good are met with the growth of boundaries (Elves), while balanced by the destruction of Chaos (Melkor). Both are necessary for the balance of nature and the eventual subsumation of Eru, the One. As Eru says, anything Morgoth does he providentially aides Eru in keeping the balance.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Meteorites being sacred is not new, but that's not the point. It is the metaphysical principles that come from such rare phenomena (cosmic catastrophe) that encompasses Morality (that which exists by function/relation).

Respectively, if you would have noticed this occult theme of Tolkien, Turin's sword shall have seemed to drive a chasm between human subjective law by action and divine accommodated law.

The anthropomorphic blade has nothing to do with Eru. The sword speaks for two reasons:

1) It is a direct lift from the Kalevala, in which the anti-hero, Kullervo, having had an incestuous liasion with his sister (unknowingly of course, just as in CoH) commits suicide. But first he asks his magic blade (given to him by the Finnish thunder god Ukko) to do the deed for him:

Kullerwoinen, wicked wizard,
Grasps the handle of his broadsword,
Asks the blade this simple question:
"Tell me, O my blade of honor,
Dost thou wish to drink my life-blood,
Drink the blood of Kullerwoinen?"

Thus his trusty sword makes answer,
Well divining his intentions:
"Why should I not drink thy life-blood,
Blood of guilty Kullerwoinen,
Since I feast upon the worthy,
Drink the life-blood of the righteous?"

and 2) Unlike Kullervo's divinely wrought blade, Anglachel (Gurthang) was smithied by Eol the Dark Elf, who created a masterwork that was imbued with the artist's aura. Not unlike Feanor's Silmarils or Sauron's Ring, Anglachel had the semblance of life, an echo of the artisan who crafted it. Melian saw this at once when she noted to Beleg:

"There is malice in this sword. The dark heart of the smith still dwells in it. It will not love the hand it serves, neither will it abide with you long."

So, Tolkien borrowed the idea from the Kalevala, but removed the divine reference from the sword; although it is forged from meteoric metal, I see no direct inference that Tolkien wished to imply divinity in the blade. The blade was indeed magic, but unlike Kullervo's blade (bestowed by the god Ukko), it was wrought by Eol, who in Elvish subcreative fashion creates a weapon instilled with his own malevolence, pride and ill-will. That the sword could ascertain injustice might just as well be because Eol himself always felt ill-used or wronged.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Bethberry, good question about the Buddhists. Buddhists ought not to be religionists. Buddhism was not established by Guatama as a religion but as a philosophy. In other words, ethical standards to live by.

Not so fast. Not sure that "religionists" is a fair term to use to decribe Buddhists, as they are likely less prone to being zealots than other practitioners of faith. However, there are some generally agreed upon distinctions that can be made between philosophy and religion which allow Buddhism fairly and justly to be called a religion.

Buddhism is based on revelation and faith, while generally philosophy is not, since it is based on rational and logical systemic search for knowledge. It is a way of thinking rather than a way of behaving, although ethics are studied philosophically. Is meditation a way of behaving or of thinking?

Also, religions have rituals and ceremonies for important events of the year and of life. These are both private and communal. (This is something generally regarded as absent in Tolkien's mythology, except for Faramir's men facing west.) Philosophers do not ritualistically cleanse their hands before reading Hegel or pray to Schopenhauer for enlightenment. Buddhism does have an extensive practice of rituals.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Therefore, your Buddhists that worship Buddha as a god are practicing coercive dogma, which is false. Not all Buddhists follow this, however, which is "good."

Note, I do not "own" any Buddhists, as they are people, not material objects. And I did not speak of any Buddhists who worship Buddha. (I said Buddhism raises interesting questions about divinity. ) In fact, I don't know of any Buddhists who worship Buddha as a god, so I have no idea where you got this point about "practicing coercive dogma." As a statement, it's unproven opinion.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Note, I do not "own" any Buddhists, as they are people, not material objects. And I did not speak of any Buddhists who worship Buddha. (I said Buddhism raises interesting questions about divinity. ) In fact, I don't know of any Buddhists who worship Buddha as a god, so I have no idea where you got this point about "practicing coercive dogma." As a statement, it's unproven opinion.

Also, why are these hypothetical Buddha-worshippers assumed to be using force to spread their doctrine? I mean, they might, of course, but I don't see why such a belief, however mistaken, must be automatically "coercive", any more than any other.

[Nerwen]

As for the meteorite business– I must concur with Morthoron: nowhere is there the least hint that Anglachel has, or is regarded as having, divine authority.

Dakêsîntrah, is it possible that you have fallen into the error of assuming that a symbol has the same meaning in all times and any context? Again, your general argument, as far as I can make out, *cough* presupposes that Tolkien was deeply versed in what appears to be some form of hermetic tradition– and I can't help feeling there's a lack of evidence for this.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Dakêsîntrah, is it possible that you have fallen into the error of assuming that a symbol has the same meaning in all times and any context? Again, your general argument, as far as I can make out, *cough* presupposes that Tolkien was deeply versed in what appears to be some form of hermetic tradition– and I can't help feeling there's a lack of evidence for this.

Like the original poster of this thread, I believe Dakêsîntrah has read far too much into the story we're discussing or, rather, wishes to subsume his (or her, I suppose) own prolix agenda into Tolkien's text. In any case, he lost me completely when he started talking about pineal glands and menstrual flow.

[Dakêsîntrah]

Bethberry, it's quite simply really. When religion is separated from myth, as it has been done by the Church over the centuries, it becomes propaganda; that which is pervaded by dogma. Dogma divides like a sword because it seeks to use political coercion to convert masses. Therefore, myth becomes "faith."

In prehistory, myth was not, nor ever was intended to be divided from ritual (that which is conceived by experience, ie, religion. It was merely a passion and resurrection play that mirrored the cyclical nature of the cosmos.

Morthoron, the Kalevala is quite fascinating indeed.

However, are you aware of how many parallels I can glean from other ancient texts regarding "life-blood?"

"Now when he [Diomedes] had pursued her [Aphrodite] through the dense throng and come on her, then great-hearted Tydeus` son thrust with his keen spear, and leapt on her and wounded the skin of her weak hand; straight through the ambrosial raiment that the Graces themselves had woven her pierced the dart into the flesh, above the springing of the palm. Then flowed the goddess`s immortal blood, such ichor as floweth in the blessed gods; for they eat no bread neither drink they gleaming wine, wherefore they are bloodless and are named immortals." - The Illiad Book V, Homer

Now, as much as we like to think with modern lenses that this description is anthropomorphic, it is not. Ichor is Homer's term for a blueish watery discharge. It flows from the gods, and is therefore the "life-blood" of the gods.

Life comes from immortality. You cannot have life as that which has a beginning in itself. There must be a priori that has always been; therefore, ichor ("life-blood") is a product of immortality. Notice the distinction between Homer's gods having "immortal blood" yet being "bloodless" like mortal men.

If the Kalevala wished to convey the blood of mortal men in the sense of anthropomorphism, then it would have easily resorted to "the blood of men" instead of "life-blood."

For instance, as in this case of Osiris:

Zagreus as Dionysos (Osiris) is known as the god of many names, most of which refer to his twofold character as the suffering mortal Zagreus, and the immortal or reborn god-man. Many titles also refer to him as the mystic savior. He is the All-potent, the Permanent, the Life-blood of the World, the majesty in the forest, in fruit, in the hum of the bee, in the flowing of the stream, etc., the earth in its changes -- the list runs on indefinitely, and is strikingly similar to the passage in which Krishna, the Hindu avatara, instructs Arjuna how he shall know him completely: "I am the taste in water, the light in the sun and moon," etc. (BG ch 7).

Notice how immortality relates explicitly to being "re-born." This is not anthropomorphism, but cosmo-myth. Being reborn signifies the endless cycle of Creation (catastrophe or chaos to renewal of limits).

Furthermore,

In the Finnish mythology of the Kalevala, a bee is the messenger between this world and higher realms. In Scandinavian mythology bees again play an important part with the world tree (Yggdrasil). Immortality is aligned with the will and the urge to enter into the solar life or the spirit. Dying and being reborn into the cosmos as divine energy is the ascension to immortality, and thus humans mirror the cosmic play of Creation; cyclical destruction and rebirth. And these events mark the successive Ages of Men and Elves.

Another principle is that of the ancient serpent (wisdom, bringer of gnosis) signifies spiritual immortality, wisdom, reimbodiment, or regeneration. In the triad of sun, moon, and serpent or cross, it denotes the manifested Logos, and hence is often said to be seven-headed. As such it is in conflict with the sun, and sometimes with the moon; but this conflict is merely the duality of contrary forces essential to cosmic stability. The Ouroboros signifies cyclical Creation by always consuming itself by the tail.

Moreover, we have in the Kalevala the fight between Ahti and the evil serpent. This "fight" is signifying the dual aspect of cyclical Creation; destruction and renewal. the serpent is two-poled as having a head and a tail, Rahu and Ketu in India, commonly described as being the moon's north and south poles, the moon thus being a triple symbol in which a unity conflicts with a duality.

The principle nature of destruction and renewal in the universe consists of what scientists know today as plasma. Plasma can be seen in its illumined, glowing state as watery blue and other varieties of colors, especially in auroral skies.

Planets and thus comets, along with meteors discharge their energy in conjunction with charged plasma particles in the sea that is outer space. When we have Diomedes puncturing Aphrodite and her "ichor" is discharged, we should be envisioning planetary or cometary catastrophe. The same thing can be said in the Finnish myth of the Kalevala. Each successive ancient culture continued and adapted their own version which was rooted in the same primeval events long before.

The Planetary Discharge Model can be studied in fuller detail here: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ci...arsystem06.htm

The Exploding Planet Hypothesis Model can be studied in fuller detail here: http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp

We have the Norse wolf-god, Manegarm. He was known to chase the Moon every night, eat corpses and splatter the heavens with life-blood.

In the Egyptian Book of Going Forth By Day, we have in the Appendix of the papyrus of Nu, Sheet 14 the following:

"Horus is both the divine food and the sacrifice. He made haste to gather together [the members of] of his father. Horus is his deliverer. Horus is his deliverer. Horus hath sprung from the essence of his divine father and from his decay."

In Near Eastern mythology, the "divine food" is identical with the "nectar of the gods," that is, the life sustenance or "blood" of the gods. Therefore, it is no coincidence that initiates in ritual drink the "blood of Christ" or "the blood of the gods." The blood is the nourishment (food) because it sustains life.

Where does this material come from? It is space material, sample also having been collected off meteoric debris.
http://irisia.com/ormajiandminerals.html

For more information on this "divine food" or "life-blood," check out the following site:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bi...lianazar_4.htm

Yes indeed, meteoric weapons of might and "magic" - temple of ritual and metaphysic cosmic passion and renewal plays have root in this mysterious substance, which was insisted as the medium or gateway between man and the cosmos.

A sword may "speak" to Turin, not in the anthropomorphic sense, but, as an extension of his flaming spirit (Curufinwë), it is the innate "conscience" - just as your conscience does not "speak" to you anthropomorphically, it is that sense of instinct which is godlike, because everything subsists into the One, as the balance between Chaos and Order, boundary and limitlessness. The Creation narrative of the Ages. Therefore, Eru does "speak" to Turin via the divine energy within the blade. The blade is a product of the "theme" - the divine energy that sustains the cyclical balance - a product of chaos, the meteorite, providentially shaped by Eöl, the Dark.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

A sword may "speak" to Turin, not in the anthropomorphic sense, but, as an extension of his flaming spirit (Curufinwë)

Errr... what does Curufinwe have to do with anything? You seem to confuse Feanor and Turin. Feanor is the Spirit of Fire. If you're referring to the spirit of the sword, I'd say it's black (like Eol), not flaming.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Morthoron, the Kalevala is quite fascinating indeed.

However, are you aware of how many parallels I can glean from other ancient texts regarding "life-blood?"

Now when...and et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam...

A sword may "speak" to Turin, not in the anthropomorphic sense, but, as an extension of his flaming spirit (Curufinwë), it is the innate "conscience" - just as your conscience does not "speak" to you anthropomorphically, it is that sense of instinct which is godlike, because everything subsists into the One, as the balance between Chaos and Order, boundary and limitlessness. The Creation narrative of the Ages. Therefore, Eru does "speak" to Turin via the divine energy within the blade. The blade is a product of the "theme" - the divine energy that sustains the cyclical balance - a product of chaos, the meteorite, providentially shaped by Eöl, the Dark.

Occam's razor, Dakêsîntrah, Occam's razor. Rather than bludgeon us with reams of addled arcana and mythopoeic minutiae, Tolkien, as a linguist, would tell you in the most basic terms that "life-blood" is an anglicized translation of a kenning transcribed by Lönnrot while it was sung (usually in duet with the singers alternating verses). The measured beats of the singing was enhanced in the Kalevala by it distinct alliteration and occasional kennings, separate but not unlike the Skaldic tradition. For instance, the Sampo, the mill that miraculously grinds out wealth, has a kenning "kirjokansi" (that is, "bright-covered" or "multi-colored").

In the case of his own text, Tolkien removes the kenning, and once again he rains on your hypothetical parade:

"Hail Gurthang! No lord or loyalty dost thou know, save the hand that wieldeth thee. From no blood wilt thou shrink. Wilt thou therefore take Túrin Turambar, wilt thou slay me swiftly?"

And from the blade rang a cold voice in answer: "Yes, I will drink thy blood gladly, that so I may forget the blood of Beleg my master, and the blood of Brandir slain unjustly. I will slay thee swiftly."

To think that Eru (or whatever Mother Goddess nonsensical addenda you wish to extrapolate) would say "I will drink thy blood gladly" is preposterous, and Turin rightly denotes the bloodthirsty nature of Gurthang, which was said to sing as it slew its victims. There is no divinity in the action, nor in the faithlessness of the sword -- a faithlessness emphasized several times in the story.

P.S. Besides, as Tolkien was an ardent Catholic, and since this whole long-winded and indulgent thread hinges on his religious beliefs in one way or another, then God (or his literary pseudo-counterpart, Eru), would not condone a suicide and certainly not facilitate the act through a weapon of sin. Even in a fantasy, it makes no sense.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Bethberry, it's quite simply really. When religion is separated from myth, as it has been done by the Church over the centuries, it becomes propaganda; that which is pervaded by dogma. Dogma divides like a sword because it seeks to use political coercion to convert masses. Therefore, myth becomes "faith."

Leaving aside for now that word "Therefore", which I do not believe logically follows from the previous sentences nor leads to its own clause . . . .

I beg your pardon? How on earth (or Middle-earth) does this relate to my point? What relationship has "the Church" had to Buddhism?

I think I need to reiterate our discussion so far:

I responded to your post #62 in which you (apparently) quoted (no quotation marks) from Allan Alford to the effect that "the primary element in religion" [is] the Supreme Being (or God)".

I pointed out that this might not be the case, as Buddhism, which is widely regarded as a religion, has no supreme being. (If we can't agree on first principles, then there's little chance for understanding.)

You denied it was a religion, and called it an ethical philosophy and you accused some Buddhists of worshipping Buddha and ascribed to them the act of "practicing coercive dogma" as a result of this practice. I pointed out that this statement is incorrect: Buddhists do not worship the Buddha, and so they cannot have this coercive practice.

You have replied that this coercive practice comes from the Church, by which I assume you mean the Holy Roman and Catholic Church. But when has "the Church" ever had any leading or commanding role in the development of Buddhism? What's the connection? You're pulling things out of the air and yoking them together when they have no logical or historical relationship with each other.

My initial point was to suggest that not all your facts are agreed upon. That is, you make authoritative statements that in fact are not true and have not been proven true. They are truely not as authoritative as you assume them to be.

Your entire theory is like this: illogically linking ideas, making deductions that are untenable, making flying leaps of comparisons, and I might add not using words correctly. (In addition to the "therefore" I mentioned above, in post #63 you claim that "modern linguistics" defines myth assynonymous with lies, but this is incorrect: Linguistics deals with grammar, morphology, phonology. It is the discipline of lexicology that studies the specific practical meaning of words. )

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

In prehistory, myth was not, nor ever was intended to be divided from ritual (that which is conceived by experience, ie, religion. It was merely a passion and resurrection play that mirrored the cyclical nature of the cosmos.

I have no clue what the first sentence here means. (Haven't you just tried to argue that religion is propaganda, and so therefore not "conceived by experience"?) Nor how it relates to my point that religions use rituals whereas philosophies do not.

This aside about the nature of religion does not relate closely to the topic of this thread nor to the more topical point which Morth and Nerwen make, but it seems emblematic to me of the difficulty in accepting your claims.