And Eru Smiled

[Iarwain]

Somehow, upon pondering existence a few days ago, I (again, somehow) arrived at the fascinating conclusion that Good and Evil are not perfect opposites. Perhaps I could spend a few pages discussing some philosophical proofs (if such things exist) that verify my conclusion, but perhaps not (you, reading, will know better than I). I will, at least, begin with an explaination and (inevitably) digress from there. Be warned, this will likely become a sort of theology for Middle-Earth ( :rolleyes: hmm. that doesn't sound very good, does it?).

As Middle-Earth is inescapably tied to a reality of "ethical monotheism," all things inevitably find their roots in the divinity who presides over it (Eru), and, just for clarity, as it is ethical monotheism, and not dualism in any way, all things, in origin, are "good". I may be quite incorrect here, but it seems to me that within M-E, Arda, Ea, etc. Eru is both omnipotent and omniscient, and existence as a whole is within his sphere of influence. In the end, we could probably argue (and we will) that all existence is a part of Eru himself.


Yes, well, anyway, back to all beings being (in origin) "good." In the Ainulindale we saw the beginning of Melkor's corruption, his first greed, jealousy, etc., which led centrally to his dischord, bringing an end to the first theme. The battle (if it can be termed as such) was fought in the second theme, and Melkor's dischord was overwhelmed by and absorbed into the third theme.

I seem to be jumping about an awful lot, so I'll just get to the point. Here is my theory, in three points:

1: Because of the providence of Eru, the origin of all things is good

2: Because of the corruption of some created beings, evil exists as (primarily) greed, pride, and fear (from which flow hate, etc.) and drives thoseof it to attempt to separate themselves and be independant of Eru. This constitutes a sort of spiritual suicide, since all existence is a part of Eru.

3: But, becaue of the mercy of Eru, and the rational nature of existence, this is impossible, and the fundamental good found in evil beings, actions, etc. is restored back into the harmony of divine exitence, while the evil ceases to exist of its own accord.

Note: by providence, i mean merely that Eru is in control throughout existence, I don't mean the Calvinist principles of predestination, though that will be argued when I return.

Please enjoy,
Iarwain



P.S. I've done a quick read through, and I believe I've caught most misspellings. It's almost funny how themed most of my threads are.

P.P.S. For a discussion on "goodness," see "All those 'Good' Guys."

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Very interesting post above. A few brief comments:
It seems to me clear that Middle-earth is not manichæist in philosophy. The primary cause of evil in Middle-earth (aside from its being rather necessary for a ripping good yarn) is free will. In some other forums some have argued for what seems to me to be a form of dualism in Ea, but I see JRRT accomodating free will with Ea being essentially "good". Two examples: Gandalf says somewhere in LOTR that he will not have wholly failed if anything fair survives (to me implying an eventually resurgence of good even if Sauron triumphed in the War of the Ring), and Iluvatar's comments to Melkor in the Ainulindale:
"And thou, Melkor, shall see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."

This doesn't mean that rational creatures cannot do evil that negatively effects others and the world, but rather that (eventually) this evil will be redressed.

I hope this isn't too much off the topic, but the concept of free will in Middle-earth is interesting and rather ambiguous (especially as related to Turin and his family).

[lindil]

By and large I agree Iarwain, and welcome to the Downs Tuor.

However, I would nitpick the following:it seems to me that within M-E, Arda, Ea, etc. Eru is both omnipotent and omniscient, and existence as a whole is within his sphere of influence
Eru is not or perhaps it would be better to say that He rarely exercises omnipotence over the freewill of his children.

I rather imagine you already agree with this but I just wanted to underscore it.

[Boromir88]

The point I have noticed is that no matter how "good" someone is there is always that touch of evil in them. And no matter how "evil" someone is there is always good in them.

You have the most powerful "good" people I can come up with right now, just from LOTR here, umm, Galadriel and Gandalf. Galadriel and Gandalf both made it clear that they were "tempted by the ring," now they passed their "tests" and prevailed, but the "temptation" was the little bit of "evil" they have in them. We can make the assumption Bombadil is all good, since he's not persuaded by the ring at all, and the ring has no effect on him. If you ask me Bombadil really couldn't of been Eru, no Istari or Valar, debatable whether he is Maia or Tolkien. Famous Maiar's in the stories fell to evil, not all Maiars were accounted for but seems like Maiar's would be tempted by greed and power. Which leaves me to say Bombadil is Tolkien writing himself into the stories. Anyway I'm getting too far off track.

This leads me to my second point that evil cannot survive without good. No one is born "evil," a 6 month year old isn't going to say "i'm going to murder 11 million people later on in life." Everyone at one point in time was "good." It was their decisions later on, their choices, and their greed, that led them to become evil. So Evil would not exist if it wasn't for good. And it seems like good can't live without evil. Even after all the good years with Elessar as king, I'm sure down the line someone like a Morgoth will say I want all this to myself and turn evil. So, in conclusion Good and Evil "coexist" without one the other just simply doesn't exist. If some of that is confusing just say so I'll try to clear it up, I just kind of threw all my thoughts down at once.

[Son of Númenor]

An interesting and (dare I say it?) good thread idea, Iarwain.

The way I see it, Eru, being the sole Creator, is the lone arbiter of goodness; his will is the only objective measure of what is 'good'. Melkor was the first entity whose will conflicted with Eru's. Ergo, Melkor is evil. Melkor could not exist, nor have a will to oppose the will of the Creator, without the Creator creating him and his will. I have just deductively proven that, in Middle-earth, 'evil' owes its existence to 'good'. Good is Eru's Will, and Evil is an Opposing Will. Any omnipotent and omniscient God is an ethical God, for it is God who decides (in monotheistic theory, of course) the Ethics.

And no sooner had he typed his first paragraph, than he was called away to give counsel on matters of grave importance (Should sun-tan lotion be brought? If so, how much? What SPF? Etc.) Hopefully I'll be able to elaborate, lest each sentence of my post is angrily refuted whilst I am helpless to defend it.

Ciao, Downers.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

...the "temptation" was the little bit of "evil" they have in them. (Boromir88) I don't think temptation in itself is evil. After, the world's only perfect person was tempted himself.

But I see part of what you mean. Galadriel's temptation...
...when at last all that [Galadriel] had desired in her youth came to her hand, the Ring of Power and the dominion of Middle-earth of which she had dreamed...

(UT II 3 - emphasis mine) ...came from her inherent desire to own the Ring and destroy Sauron with it. A good quest, but the dominion of Middle-earth afterwards?

Gandalf's on the other hand came from his desire to do good. [Sorry, no quotes!] So his temptation is not evil. If he succumbed, he would have thought he did good, then it would get evil quickly.

So there. That's it. all other things that I would have said myself had already been said.

Oh, yeah. Evil never wins. :)

[Evisse the Blue]

Evil never wins...ultimately. But it does score a lot of smaller scale victories, although in the final battle, Evil cannot win. Heroes die, injustices happen, Arda is marred and villains are allowed to linger on even when an end could have been put to them before they could cause more suffering (I'm thinking of Melkor here, and how the Valar could have subdued him long ago). I guess this has something to do with Eru's passivity. I'm thinking of something Haldir said to the Fellowship, that goes approximately like this: "In all lands love is mingled with grief and its beauty is not dimmed but grows the greater" (I know this is horribly slaughtered from the real thing, so maybe someone can post the real quote).

Is this maybe the reason why suffering and evil is a part of Eru's will? In order to enhance the beauty of its creation?

[The Saucepan Man]

Any omnipotent and omniscient God is an ethical God, for it is God who decides (in monotheistic theory, of course) the Ethics. (Son of Númenor)

I'm thinking of something Haldir said to the Fellowship, that goes approximately like this: "In all lands love is mingled with grief and its beauty is not dimmed but grows the greater" ... Is this maybe the reason why suffering and evil is a part of Eru's will? In order to enhance the beauty of its creation? (Evisse the Blue)But that's hardly an "ethical approach" as we would understand it, is it?

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Any omnipotent and omniscient God is an ethical God, for it is God who decides (in monotheistic theory, of course) the Ethics. (Son of Númenor)
Is this maybe the reason why suffering and evil is a part of Eru's will? In order to enhance the beauty of its creation?(Evisse the Blue
But that's hardly an "ethical approach" as we would understand it, is it? (The Saucepan Man) Of course. For Eru to "ethically" cleanse evil from the world, he would have to destroy it. Rather, in his Ethics, he allowed Melkor's music to merge with his themes, instead of destroying him right then and there. I could not understand why he did so, considering there is no eternal life or punishment that we know of in Arda.

Instead of uprooting evil with a force of violence he moved on with his plan, but he used Melkor's discordant themes to improve the Ainulindalë.

So there. The Ethics of Eru's passivity. Personally, I would be scared for Arda if Eru is not passive. Remember what happened to the Flat Earth Theory? ;)

[Iarwain]

Time for responses!

Tour, I agree with you completely, and your post was as on topic as it could be.

Lindil, you were right, it is extremely rare that Eru excercises his will on "creation," but somehow I still think he has supreme power, but he also excercises judgement on when to use it.

Boromir, I disagree with you very much. I recall a point in "The Unchaining of Melkor" when Tolkien states that Manwe could not fathom the will of Melkor, because Manwe's mind was untainted. So, there is one example of good without evil. Also, if we look at supremes, on the "good" side is Eru who has no trace of evil, and Melkor is reverse, but Melkor has traces of good. I think I understand your argument, but please don't mention Tom Bombadil again in this thread, it's very dangerous.

Bravo, Son of Numenor! I like the thoughts, please elaborate.


And now, my 30 minutes of downers time are up for the day. I must get to class, but I hope to respond to the rest tomorrow.

Fare thee well,
Iarwain

[Iarwain]

I agree with Saucepan. To say that Eru 'willed evil' is irrational. It's sort of like me willing the blood vessels in my hand to rupture. (not the best analogy, I know)

And here, part 3 of my composition comes into focus. Because of the mercy of Eru, Melkor's rebellion was not immediately annihilated. I think this ties in with the fact that there is no heaven or hell in M-E. Perhaps being evil is it's own punishment. Imagine Melkor as a sort of Sisyphus, eternally struggling to separate himself and be victorious over Eru, but doomed to eternally fail. And thus, perhaps Eru was unwilling to remove Melkor because of the remnants of goodness that remained within him. (And the word "good" becomes even more ambiguous.)



Good Day to you All!
Iarwain

[Evisse the Blue]

If I'd wanted to be really sarcatic I'd say: "Thus, the vicious circle of suffering is completed. Melkor suffers because he's evil, the others suffer because he's evil, Eru watches mercifully over all."
But as I did a little more thinking, I realized that putting an end to this neverending misery rests not with the good, but the evil: should Melkor use his free will and decide to be good, it would all end, and he would himself be pardoned. Makes sense. Eru did think of everything. (as did Tolkien).

[Lhunardawen]

But it could also end in another way. Should Melkor and his minions choose to remain contending with the will of Eru (which they did, I think), the good would have to take the matter into their hands and act upon this "war" once and for all to end it. Eru could finally stop being passive and use his omnipotence to destroy evil, however he will do it. Nothing was evil in its beginning. Even Melkor was not so. It could be that no evil will remain in the end. Since Eru put everything into existence--even evil, but just indirectly--he could probably choose to put something out of existence if it would be for the good of all.

Oh my, I'm actually working with just speculations here.

[Son of Númenor]

2: Because of the corruption of some created beings, evil exists as (primarily) greed, pride, and fear (from which flow hate, etc.) and drives thoseof it to attempt to separate themselves and be independant of Eru. This constitutes a sort of spiritual suicide, since all existence is a part of Eru. (Iarwain)I perfectly agree with this, particularly the part about evil's want to be independent of Eru and the emotions/'sins' that you pinpoint as the manifestations of evil. In some of these topics, threads seem to stray far into the abstract and philosophical, but your theory, and this part in particular, is very well-grounded in Tolkien's beliefs about his world, imho.

I do not understand, however, your suggestion that Melkor had "remnants of goodness" within him. It says in the Silm (which is conveniently packed away in my luggage in the car so that I cannot quote from it) that Melkor's evil is complete and utter, and that he has become so corrupt that any chance of his thinking a 'good' thought (much less doing a good deed) is beyond hope. This, actually, raises an interesting question: does exercising one's will in an 'evil' way, to become independent of Eru and attempt (as in the cases of Sauron, Melkor, Saruman) to become an omnipotent tyrant, in the end ultimately negate one's Eru-given 'free will'? Does this wilful act of rebellion put an end to the 'free will' so that, as in the case of Melkor, the rebel can no longer act out of goodness, and is utterly controlled by evil?

[Lhunardawen]

I belive you are right, Son of Numenor. Melkor could have had the false sense of free will, but used it entirely for evil. And without realizing it, he himself is controlled by his desire to wreak havoc in Arda, and all his actions became bent on that desire.

Sauron, however, had the chance to turn his back from this, only he did not. He still had his free will, but when he chose to continue the evil works of his master, he had totally and finally forsaken it. Not that I could blame him, for the seeds of evil were sown deep into his heart.

[Encaitare]

Awesome point, Iarwain. That's actually how I view God/dess, Spirit, the Guy in the Sky, or whatever you want to call that supreme being we all try and get to like us. And I believe it works here, too. The Song does come from Eru/Ilúvatar, and all parts or themes of it come from him/it as well. Therefore, I guess that Eru is neither good nor evil, he simply is everything. (Though this is not to say that he supports Morgoth in any way;) ) Good and evil need each other to survive, I think, because they play off and feed off of each other. No doubt Eru could destroy Morgoth or any other evil in a second, but he's wise enough to realize that this would throw off the balance that good and evil have, and this would basically wreak havoc on the world. (And as an afterthought, someone else evil would come along later anyway... how cyclic life is...)

[Iarwain]

I think I'll respond to Encaitare first, because your post struck me particularly. I disagree with the system you describe:I guess that Eru is neither good nor evil, he simply is everything... Good and evil need each other to survive, I think, because they play off and feed off of each other. No doubt Eru could destroy Morgoth or any other evil in a second, but he's wise enough to realize that this would throw off the balance that good and evil have, and this would basically wreak havoc on the world. (Encaitare)

But, as Son of Numenor described above, Eru is necessarily good, because good is judged according to the nature of Eru. Also, though you say you agree with me, your post says the opposite in that you think Tolkien's created existence (I'll abbreviate as TCE from now on) is subject to a form a dualism. This, according to my understanding, is not so. In order for it to be true, Melkor and Eru would have to be equals, or a higher being on "Melkor's side" (good and evil would no longer be objective, but subjective- both sides would be "right" according to their diety) would be needed who could and would contend with Eru. However, as TCE stands, Eru is supreme and he stands alone, leaving your statement about "the balance" as a sort of divine masochism. Evil by nature is a disruption in the balance. Eru is perfection (solely because he is Divine), and therefore evil (a rebellion against Eru's will) is utterly imperfect and it wreaks havoc on the world. An instant, forced elimination of evil by Eru would also, however, destroy some good.

This brings me to my "remnants of good." Evil (and Tolkien says this in the letters) can never be complete. The moment a being becomes totally evil is the moment that being ceases to exist, because it has separated itself from Eru, and as Eru is existence, it has also separated itself from existence itself (spiritual suicide). Therefore, it is necessary for all evil beings to have some good in them, otherwise they would not be in the first place. I don't know how else to explain... Hopefully you understand.


Good Day to All!
Iarwain

[davem]

This brings me to my "remnants of good." Evil (and Tolkien says this in the letters) can never be complete. The moment a being becomes totally evil is the moment that being ceases to exist, because it has separated itself from Eru, and as Eru is existence, it has also separated itself from existence itself (spiritual suicide). Therefore, it is necessary for all evil beings to have some good in them, otherwise they would not be in the first place. I don't know how else to explain... Hopefully you understand.

This is very like Meister Eckhart's idea - God is only aware of 'good', which He holds in existence. To the extent that we are 'good' we are held in being by God. If at any point we were to become wholly evil, God would instantly cease to be aware of us, & consequently of the need to hold us in existence, & we would simply cease to be.

Of course, Eckhart complicates things by saying that God is constantly creating Past, Present & Future from a point outside serial time, so that would require God to be aware of, & be creating, the person the person in the past, while they were good, but not aware of them in the present, when they had ceased to be good & become entirely evil. But you'd think He'd notice something was wrong if the person was there, needing to be created (ie 'held in being') in the 'past', but not there in the 'present' or the 'future', all of which periods would exist for God 'now'.

[Encaitare]

Hmm... fascinating. Perhaps my respose was just me trying to get philosphical and failing ;)

But in response, I don't think it's an actual "dualism" as in Eru has an evil equal or anything, but it seems that in his outline of the Song he has a plan for everything and knows what is going to happen, unlike any of the Valar or Morgoth. He's definitely a good force, but he seems to understand that good and evil both have their place.

Hopefully this clears some stuff up...

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Iarwain got to this first, but I would also like to share my disagreement. Here are my reasons.

1. Evil did not co-exist with good in the beginning. No-one was evil from the beginning, after all.

2. Evil is but a corruption of good.

First, of course, good would have to be defined in the context of Arda.
What is good? It is the fact that creation - the ability to create and the fruits of the ability - belongs to Eru alone, and that the Children of Ilúvatar deserve life.
So, in this context, how did evil begin? Melkor desired to be creator himself, and when he couldn’t do so, he defaced creation instead.

It is said that Morgoth’s worst evil was the creation of Orcs. Why? Because he corrupted the works of Eru both on the outside and on the inside. By inducing this race to hate, to disrespect others’ right to live, he removed the Orcs’ right to live.

I know this seems wrong, but have you noticed that nobody has called a truce with an Orc? It is because they’d either kill you anyway if you sue for peace, or that they wouldn’t understand your mercy and fight to the death.

3. Good and evil could not co-exist forever. They are both locked in a battle for survival. The history of Middle-earth is a testimony to that. In the end, one would have to be utterly destroyed, and the other would rule. Considering the history of Middle-earth, and Eru himself, we could see the outcome of such a battle.

So, in conclusion: Evil did not share its beginnings with good, and it would not share its end. There is no balance of good and evil in Arda, except maybe that evil should be non-existent.

Oh, Melkor. You naughty, wayward child.

[Encaitare]

Indeed you are correct... as I said, I tried to get philosophical going on my own opinions and it seems that I completely failed to look at things through the Middle-earth lens.

You're right, Nilpaurion, and looking at it in the context of Tolkien's world I'm realizing that you guys have definitely got it here.

Oh, Melkor. You naughty, wayward child.

lol, indeed. Oh well, there's always one ;)

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Does this wilful act of rebellion put an end to the 'free will' so that, as in the case of Melkor, the rebel can no longer act out of goodness, and is utterly controlled by evil? (SoN)
Well, I think Melkor's consummate fall is not judgment, but foresight. There’s a part in the Gospels where Jesus addresses a group of Pharisees, saying that they could never be saved (or something like that . . . I don’t have exact quotes): I think it’s not that they can’t be saved, but they refuse to. Same as Melkor, perhaps. He is still of Eru. He could be saved. Unfortunately, he’s so consumed with what he wants that he forgot that.

Or perhaps he just no longer comprehends good—cf. Manwë not comprehending evil.

You said "Melkor", Noldo. Noldor don't say that.

Oops.

[Lhunardawen]

Does this wilful act of rebellion put an end to the 'free will' so that, as in the case of Melkor, the rebel can no longer act out of goodness, and is utterly controlled by evil? (SoN)
In the case of Sauron, he has always had the will to refuse Morgoth and remain on the side of the Valar. But he chose power and dominion as Sauron's servant over being "just like everyone else" as a faithful Maia. When Morgoth was overthrown, he chose to continue what his master has begun in him, and he has never been able to retract his steps from the path of evil.

Does this mean that once you become evil, you become evil forever with no hope of redemption? Not so! Sauron had the chance to turn his back from Morgoth's ways and be reaccepted by the Valar, only he has been in too deep with his rebellion that he cannot escape. It's something like what they say about giving the devil a foothold in your heart; once he has stepped in through the door, it would be very difficult to drive him away again. Sauron could return to good if he really wanted to, if he tried his best to get rid of Morgoth's lies and ask for the Valar's pardon (and, perhaps, "salvation"). But he found it too much of an effort, and considered his old ways to be the "easier" road.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Actually, Sauron seems to have had a genuine (if shallow) repentence
after the War of Wrath.
When Thangorodrim was broken and Morgoth overthrown, Sauron put on his fair hue again and did obeisance to Eonwe, the herald of Manwe, and abjured all his evil deeds. And some hold that this was not at first falsely done, but that Sauron in truth repented, if only out of fear, being dismayed by the fall of Morgoth and the great wrath of the Lords of the West.
==========================
And having just rewatched the movie "Death on the Nile",
the French detective, Poirot, advises the chief planner of the convoluted murder plot:
"Do not let evil into your heart, it will make a home there." :eek:

[Iarwain]

I'm surprised at myself and all the others who posted on this thread. I was wandering (as always), and I returned here, to reread my original post. At the beginning, I was fine with what I said, but after getting about halfway through I became somewhat disgusted with myself for making an amazingly reckless statement and failing utterly to back it up.

I said "In the end, we could probably argue (and we will) that all existence is a part of Eru himself." Why should this be? In fact, I disagree with my last-year self and propose that such a statement is foolish to the extreme.

Why?

Eru, however ethical and good, is undeniably lacking in a physical Middle-Earthian presence. In fact, the only instance I can give of actually participating within Arda is in the destruction of Numenor. If everything and everyone within TCE is a PART of Eru, somehow I think he would be more involved.

Iarwain

[littlemanpoet]

On the other hand, I have heard it said once that the entire universe is a figment of the imagination of Eru/God. Which makes it no less real, of course! But of course that's not exactly what you're correcting yourself about.

Perhaps Eru was more involved than it at first seems upon one reading. How many times in all the legendarium isn't there a reference to something "meant to be"? The workings of Eru would, I can imagine, be most subtle and quite invisible to his creatures, even those storied beings in Valinor.

So maybe Eru is passive, or maybe he only seems that way.

[davem]

So maybe Eru is passive, or maybe he only seems that way.

Or maybe He's just lazy - as Treebeard says 'Its easier to shout 'Stop!' than to do it'.....

[Formendacil]

Or maybe He's just lazy - as Treebeard says 'Its easier to shout 'Stop!' than to do it'.....

I realise that this was probably intended in jest, but to take it in a serius direction...

If one assumes that Eru = God (of Catholics,etc), then when Eru says "Stop", it must happen. As in creation, "God said, "let there be light," and there was light", etc, etc.

In any case, Eru having been the one to direct the Music that caused Arda, and having been the One to call it into being, and having been the sole creator of the Children of Eru, I think it unlikely that he played NO part in the workings of Arda. I would agree that, if Arda is part of his thought, however, that his workings would be very subtle, being the workings of Arda, Time, and Fate, and as inexplicable to the Ainur as to his lesser children.

[davem]

If one assumes that Eru = God (of Catholics,etc), then when Eru says "Stop", it must happen. As in creation, "God said, "let there be light," and there was light", etc, etc.

Way, way too much of an assumtion for me! Eru is as much an invented character as Frodo or Feanor. Eru sprang from Tolkien's mind, while Tolkien sprang from God's mind. One can discuss the nature & motives of Eru as one can the nature & motives of any other character in the story because on one level all the inhabitants of Middle earth are equal in that they are inventions of an author. One can declare Eru is stupid, callous, lazy, incompetent, etc, because one is 'greater' than Eru. One cannot make the same kind of judgement of God, because God is greater than we are.

Jumping back on my hobby-horse for a moment, this is the danger of bringing primary world baggage into the secondary world. Eru is not, cannot be, God. The most he can be is a reflection of Tolkien's idea of God - but we can't even be sure He's that. We can't make any one to one correlation between Eru & God. All we can say is that Eru is the supreme deity of Middle earth & while we sojourn there we must accept Him as that, but while we are there we must leave God in the primary world (well, to be precise, we must keep the worlds seperate - God is not Eru or vice versa, anymore than Shelob is Lilith ;) ). Our knowlege of the one may inform our understanding of the other, but that is subjective & optional.

(Just wanted to clarify my position in case anyone took offence at my post - I wasn't saying God is lazy)

[Formendacil]

Never said that you did...

However, it isn't such a huge assumption as you want to make it.

Granted, not everyone will take it as assumeable, but I don't think it takes a leap of faith.

Tolkien had Eru and the Valar to reconcile his love for the multiple, Norse gods with his beliefs in a One, omniscient God, who is the God of Catholicism. Therefore, if he is trying to reconcile his world with Catholicism by creating a parallel Eru, then surely it stands to reason that this Eru should, statements contradicting notwithstanding, have the same powers and such as the "real" person on which He is based.

Furthermore, later in life, Tolkien took the time to reconcile "the One" of Eru with the "Trinity" of God (in the Debate of Finrod and Andreth).

So, disagreers statements to the contrary, I stand by my assumption as being reasonable and not far-fetched.

[davem]

Tolkien had Eru and the Valar to reconcile his love for the multiple, Norse gods with his beliefs in a One, omniscient God, who is the God of Catholicism. Therefore, if he is trying to reconcile his world with Catholicism by creating a parallel Eru, then surely it stands to reason that this Eru should, statements contradicting notwithstanding, have the same powers and such as the "real" person on which He is based.

Furthermore, later in life, Tolkien took the time to reconcile "the One" of Eru with the "Trinity" of God (in the Debate of Finrod and Andreth)..

Still, Eru is Tolkien's invention, God is not. Tolkien may have been attempting such a reconciliation, but are his readers? My position is that Middle earth should stand alone & not require any primary world input/baggage to make it wither understandable or accessible. Therefore, Eru must stand alone as a figure within Middle earth, & not be dependent on God to be meaningful. Eru may have the same or similar attirbutes to God, but does that come across within the story? If you had no knowledge of God how would you understand Eru? Would he seem omnipotent, omniscient, compassionate, involved in the life of His creatures?

Is the Legendarium a 'parable'? Probably, to my mind, but it is not an allegory, in that it is not dependent on, or in the service of, another story - if it was it would not be able to stand alone. As far as the Athrabeth goes, Tolkien himself was uncomfortable with its similarity to the Christian Incarnation. Personally, I think that the incarnation of Eru as predicted in the 'Conversation' fits in with the internal logic of the Legendarium, & its relationship to the Christian story owes more to applicability than allegory, similarity to, rather than dependence on, a primary world event.

He himself stated that primary world religious symbols did not belong in secondary worlds, because they inevitably either make the secondary world into an allegory, or they result in the 'purposed domination of the author'. If Tolkien had made 'Eru=God'. 'Eru's incarnation=Christ's incarnation' then the reader would be 'dominated' by the author's interpretation of the story.

From this perspective, what Tolkien intended is not really relevant - he may have intended what you say (actually I agree with you), but he was also a great enough artist to write his story in such a way that the reader is free to apply a Christian interpretation or not.

So, I'm not saying that your 'application' of God to Eru is wrong, only that it is not an inevitable one-to-one correlation, & that it is not necessary to an understanding & interpretation of the character. I would say, though, that if Eru is only understandable as an allegory of God then the secondary world is not self contained & is merely an aspect of the primary & dependent on it for its meaning & relevance. In other words, the secondary world & its inhabitants are dependant on us to supply the reason for their existence.

[littlemanpoet]

My position is that Middle earth should stand alone & not require any primary world input/baggage to make it wither understandable or accessible.

Wither?

Your position requires an impossibility. No readers can read any book without bringing in their baggage.

As to your other questions, I daresay enough is presented throughout the Legendarium that readers can safely draw conclusions as to the nature of Eru. Based on these conclusions (among which are that Eru is Good and in no wise Evil, is All Powerful which is based on His ability to draw even Melkor's rebellion into His purpose (omnipotent), the Source of Life (holder of the Secret Fire), etc., etc.,), readers can then build an understanding of Eru which .... surprise! .... bears a striking resemblance to the Christian God!

I am so thunderstruck. How amazing. Who would have thought that an author who is a self proclaimed Catholic Christian, would actually subcreate a Creator that is for all practical purposes equivalent to the Christian God?

Spellbindingly obvious, isn't it?

[HerenIstarion]

*hums under his nose no dark sarcasm in the classroom...

um, I know I'm not Eru and there is no reason my 'stopping' should have an effect, but unless stray Eru-substitute in the face of a mod passes by and puts a stop to whole show, would you mind pleasing old (relatively) windy me by staying cool?

Thank you

[davem]

Wither?

'either'.

I think we may be risking some very boring posts if we start picking each other up on every mis-keying that slips past us.

Your position requires an impossibility. No readers can read any book without bringing in their baggage.

No, it merely requires us to distinguish between 'me' & 'not me', between Eru & God. Even if your point is correct, one should still make the effort to distinguish between your baggage & what's already there. You seem to be saying that a kind of 'participation mystique' is inevitable & that its impossible to know where the primary world ends & the secondary world begins, where God ends & Eru begins - or even where you end & 'Frodo' begins. 'Know thyself & Know thy baggage'. Or if you can make those kind of distinctions, then I'm not asking the impossible.

As to your other questions, I daresay enough is presented throughout the Legendarium that readers can safely draw conclusions as to the nature of Eru. Based on these conclusions (among which are that Eru is Good and in no wise Evil, is All Powerful which is based on His ability to draw even Melkor's rebellion into His purpose (omnipotent), the Source of Life (holder of the Secret Fire), etc., etc.,), readers can then build an understanding of Eru which .... surprise! .... bears a striking resemblance to the Christian God!

I am so thunderstruck. How amazing. Who would have thought that an author who is a self proclaimed Catholic Christian, would actually subcreate a Creator that is for all practical purposes equivalent to the Christian God?

Spellbindingly obvious, isn't it?

I'd say that Eru is definitely similar to a certain concept of God, but He does not correspond exactly to the 'Christian God' for either practical or non practical purposes. As I said, he may (or may not) correspond to Tolkien's concept of the Christian God, but that 'similarity' or 'correspondence' is not the issue. The issue (as I see it) is: does Eru stand or fall as a figure in His own right, or does He need a knowledge of the Christian God to be understandable? If He does then he is an allegory, dependent on something external to the secondary world in order to be intelligeable. Seeing in Eru the Christian God is applicability - its something you as a reader are doing - it does not 'come with the set'.

[Lalwendë]

Eru is not God, Eru is Eru. He is a literary creation, which has some similarities to the God of certain sectors of Christianity, but not all. Eru, and the greater cosmological structure of Middle Earth, also have similarities to the God or Gods of other religions and beliefs. Eru ought not to be 'claimed' by followers of one faith, but if they wish to see the similarities then obviously they are perfectly entitled to! I think that referring to Eru as He much as we would refer to God as He does not help, either (and likewise, some Christians may indeed find that blasphemous).

Yes, Tolkien was a Catholic, but he also did not want to write an allegory, so if we can happily say that Eru is the same as God, then equally we could say that Sauron is Hitler, and so forth. In my opinion, such debates may be interesting, but I'm not sure how useful they would be as one 'given' about Tolkien's work is that it was not allegorical.

I believe Tolkien's Christian faith was visible in the morality of the world he created, but remember that these morals are not exclusive to Christianity, they are universal morals, whatever our beliefs. This is why people from all cultural and religious backgrounds can enjoy and appreciate Tolkien's work. When he said that the symbols of religion had no place in fantasy, I think this could be what he was getting at - that a newly created secondary world had to be concrete within itself, and that symbols which could be divisive in the real world had no place in a created world. I think he was also aware that his work should not be misappropriated, bearing in mind that he wrote at a time when Nordic myth was being misappropriated by political groups.

I don't have a faith, but I follow broadly unitarian principles in that all faiths have equal merit and deserve equal respect. Coming from this angle I see that while LotR was written by a Catholic, it is no more about Catholicism than about any other faith. Likewise, if you wish to see such similarities in Tolkien's work then you are perfectly free to do so, and indeed, such discussion is interesting, but it is important to bear in mind that LotR is not an allegory. I'm hoping here that we can all be careful when aligning Tolkien's work with our own faiths. :)

[The Saucepan Man]

The issue (as I see it) is: does Eru stand or fall as a figure in His own right, or does He need a knowledge of the Christian God to be understandable?The answers (as I see them) are yes and no.

[littlemanpoet]

I'll try and be a good boy, H-I. ;)

Just to pick a nit, I said "striking resemblance", not "is the same as".

Tolkien referred to Eru in the masculine pronoun when he used it at all. I am following his precedent, with no intent to offend.

yes and no You elf. :p

As to wither/either, davem, I really didn't know what word you were shooting for.

I'm not even sure how this applies to the discussion, but it strikes me that there is much more held in common by Tolkien's readers than not. Of course, there are bound to be slight variations which reveal themselves in discussions like these. But the fact that there can be such a site and that we can actually hold (semi-)intelligent discussions at all, demonstrates the commonality as being far greater than the differences. This, I imagine, would hold just as much for Eru as any other character in the Legendarium.

[davem]

I can't help wondering whether a Muslim reader would have much of a problem with Eru - quite possibly seeing in 'Him' a certain 'applicability' with Allah. Perhaps the only problem they would encounter would be with the possibility of Eru's incarnation prophesied in the Athrabeth. I don't think a Hindu would have difficulty even with that.

Even an athiest, if they weren't too 'militant' could accept Eru within Middle earth, because Eru is a given within that world. There are some 'blatant' Christian references for those with eyes to see - the Fellowship setting off from Rivendell on Dec 25th, the Dark Tower falling on March 25th, but it is not necessary to know that those dates have primary world references to appreciate the story. Even when such symbolism is present it can be ignored or missed even by Christian readers.

If Tolkien's readers share any belief or worldview I suspect it is along the lines of what Lewis referred to as 'natural law' - something he finds in all religions (even pre-Christian ones). As Tolkien stated, the 'religion' has been absorbed into the story. By that 'absorption' it becomes something different. Originally, as John Garth has shown, the orcs of the mythology were closely associated with the Germans of WW1.

Applicability is all we can expect because of the absorption of the religious dimension into the story - it is not present in its primary world form. But even then the process will be different in each case - I may apply the account of the Dead Marshes to Tolkien's WW1 experiences, but my 'application' will be 'accademic', because I never experienced seeing dead soldiers rotting in the foxholes of nomansland, whereas for Tolkien or another verteran, it would be much more visceral. My 'application' would be optional, the veteran's would quite possibly be overwhelming & unavoidable. Yet other readers would not make such a connection at all. For them the Dead Marshes would simply be what they are stated to be in the book. Whose experience of reading the book would be 'better' or 'deeper'? Impossible to answer, though I would say that the latter's reading would be 'purer' because it would be an experience onlyof the secondary world. Such a reader, I would say, would be more likely to be 'enchanted' - because rather than having to leave their 'baggage' at the door, they would have no baggage at all.

[littlemanpoet]

I said "In the end, we could probably argue (and we will) that all existence is a part of Eru himself." Why should this be? In fact, I disagree with my last-year self and propose that such a statement is foolish to the extreme.

Why?

Eru, however ethical and good, is undeniably lacking in a physical Middle-Earthian presence. In fact, the only instance I can give of actually participating within Arda is in the destruction of Numenor. If everything and everyone within TCE is a PART of Eru, somehow I think he would be more involved.

Iarwain, please accept my humble apologies for leading this thread on that wild tangent that got mixed in from another thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11919&page=1) and would have done well to stay there.

I think that you are correct that "all existence" is not "a part of Eru". There's simply no evidence for it in the Legendarium, and much against it.

Maybe, fellow dead, we could reserve comments on "broken enchantment", "werewolves", "the movie sucked", or whatever, for threads more appropriate to those topics, and leave discussions of Eru on this one. Sound good? Just a suggestion.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:
Even an athiest, if they weren't too 'militant' could accept Eru within Middle earth

Well, thank you, I believe I will.

Seriously, I think that unless an author is using his or her story as a veiled platform for some specific political or philosophical message, a wide variety of readers who do not share all the beliefs treated as premises in the story can nonetheless enjoy it. Indeed, if this were not true to some extent, then we could not "suspend disbelief" and accept such trappings of Tolkien's world as Elves, magic, etc. For me, accepting the existence of Eru is no different at all from accepting the existence of Gandalf.

[Formendacil]

Okay, I'm going to go back to explaining WHAT I was saying...

Let's imagine that I decide to write a political thriller, set in Washington D.C. of the present day. It will be based around my fictional hero, but because this is a politics-related story, there will be quite a few real life people in there. Naturally, there will be the President of the United States (Reagen, Bush, Clinton, Bush II, whoever...). He will have, in the book, as much of the "real" President's personality, power, and style as I am capable of putting into the book.

So someone comes along, reads my book, and makes an assumption about a plot thread based on what is known about the "real" President.

Is this assumption justified or not?



So, you see where I'm going? Although Eru can/should stand on His own in Arda, and should not need a translation for readers without a Christian background, it should be permissible for a reader who IS familiar with the Christian God, whom Eru is intended to be a "book translation" of, to assume that he will have all the personality, power, and style of the "real" God.

And while this understanding/belief is not necessary for understanding Eru and His role in the story, it should clarify for the curious reader how Tolkien (the "real" final arbiter of Arda) viewed Eru, and what powers Eru had.

As I recall, my original point was that Eru had the same powers (exercised or no) in Arda as God does in our world (according to Christian religion).

[davem]

So, you see where I'm going? Although Eru can/should stand on His own in Arda, and should not need a translation for readers without a Christian background, it should be permissible for a reader who IS familiar with the Christian God, whom Eru is intended to be a "book translation" of, to assume that he will have all the personality, power, and style of the "real" God.

And while this understanding/belief is not necessary for understanding Eru and His role in the story, it should clarify for the curious reader how Tolkien (the "real" final arbiter of Arda) viewed Eru, and what powers Eru had.

As I recall, my original point was that Eru had the same powers (exercised or no) in Arda as God does in our world (according to Christian religion).

This is applicability, & is an individual choice/reacction to the text. I do feel (personal opinion expresed here) that applicability can only happen when the enchantment has been broken or left behind - because I think that while one is caught up in the secondary world one would be experiencing the characters & their world in their own right.

My understanding of the process of 'applicability' is that having been in the secondary world we may bring out our memories of it & apply them to things in the primary world, which process may actually give the primary world an air or 'echo' of the enchantment we experienced in the secondary world. But, it doesn't work the other way - if we apply our 'memories'/knowledge of the primary world to the secondary world while we are 'in' there, the enchantment will not work. This is because the primary world, by its nature is not enchanted, but mundane. Experience of the secondary world may 'enchant' our vision so that when we look on the primary world again it will seem to have an enchanted air, but if we carry things from the primary world into the secondary they will make it seem mundane by association.

[Lalwendë]

So, you see where I'm going? Although Eru can/should stand on His own in Arda, and should not need a translation for readers without a Christian background, it should be permissible for a reader who IS familiar with the Christian God, whom Eru is intended to be a "book translation" of, to assume that he will have all the personality, power, and style of the "real" God.

I personally would not wish to deny you the right to 'see' God reflected in Eru. The problem arises when we take it as a given that Eru is the same as God. The nature of God in the real world is so varied that it is difficult to pinpoint the nature of God apart from in a personal sense; if a person is lucky enough to have faith in one religion then they find it easier to pinpoint God's nature, but even when this is the case, another person will have an equal level of conviction that God takes yet another, different nature. So it's a subjective comparison in that respect, that will not be universally accepted.

Where I also have a problem is when people of other faiths (and I don't mean different branches of the Christian faith) also 'see' their God reflected in Eru. Is it that God is universal or is it proof that Eru is yet another version of the variety of Gods? If that makes sense. :)

[littlemanpoet]

Could it be that one of the down-sides of the waxing of democracy and individualism in the primary world is that we begin to assume that God is subject to our vote? Of course, that's assuming that God is real, and that God is above and beyond our puny minds' best attempts to comprehend said entity... (avoiding baaaaad pronouns ;))

[Formendacil]

My understanding of the process of 'applicability' is that having been in the secondary world we may bring out our memories of it & apply them to things in the primary world, which process may actually give the primary world an air or 'echo' of the enchantment we experienced in the secondary world. But, it doesn't work the other way - if we apply our 'memories'/knowledge of the primary world to the secondary world while we are 'in' there, the enchantment will not work. This is because the primary world, by its nature is not enchanted, but mundane. Experience of the secondary world may 'enchant' our vision so that when we look on the primary world again it will seem to have an enchanted air, but if we carry things from the primary world into the secondary they will make it seem mundane by association.

I'm going to set aside the God/Eru problem for now, since there's little more to be said about it. I've stated why I think one can make the connection of Eru=God, should the reader feel it necessary, and why it remains as a legitimate connection in regards to the author's own intentions.

But Davem's said something here that I wonder about... The bolded portion.

IS this primary world of ours not enchanted, but mundane? I, personally, feel that this is hardly the case. Our world is very much enchanted. I can look out at the Rockies from our house on a clear, sunny day, and see the sharp, snow-capped peaks rising into a clear blue sky. Or perhaps seeing the thrill in a young kid's eyes as he or she is looking at the animals in a zoo.

These enchantments are just as real to me, if not more real, than those found in a book. And they are the products of the real world. And is not the enchantment of the books a part of the enchantment of our own world? If we did not have this world to refer to, would the enchantment of the books be there?

Isn't the book a product of the mind of someone in this world?

Maybe for some people this is a world of the mundane, but for myself, it is a world with plenty of enchantment, just waiting for someone with the right frame of mind to walk around the corner and find it.

[davem]

.IS this primary world of ours not enchanted, but mundane? I, personally, feel that this is hardly the case. Our world is very much enchanted. I can look out at the Rockies from our house on a clear, sunny day, and see the sharp, snow-capped peaks rising into a clear blue sky. Or perhaps seeing the thrill in a young kid's eyes as he or she is looking at the animals in a zoo.

These enchantments are just as real to me, if not more real, than those found in a book. And they are the products of the real world. And is not the enchantment of the books a part of the enchantment of our own world? If we did not have this world to refer to, would the enchantment of the books be there?

Isn't the book a product of the mind of someone in this world?

Maybe for some people this is a world of the mundane, but for myself, it is a world with plenty of enchantment, just waiting for someone with the right frame of mind to walk around the corner and find it.

I think what you say about 'the right frame of mind' is the key to what we're talking about. Mountains in & of themselves are not 'enchanted' - they're just very big rocks. Animals in the zoo are not 'enchanted', either, or 'enchanting'.

The enchantment they inspire in us comes from the 'story' we tell ourselves about them when we look at them. We are responding to something else, something 'other' - to what they 'symbolise' for us. Its about awe, about suddenly being open to the Other. I'd say what you're talking about is a sudden 'baggage-free' moment, when the mundane is seen through, & there is a glimpse of 'Joy, beyond the walls of the World, poignant as grief.'

So, in the instances you cite, I'd say that rather than experiencing an 'enchantment' inherent in the primary world, you are experiencing an enchantment that comes through the primary world, from another level of 'Reality'.

I find this happens in reading Tolkien works - when I read them as they are, without theorising or making connections with primary world contents. The Secondary world is a 'between place', between the mundane primary world, & somewhere 'Else'. When we enter 'Faerie' we move a step closer to a place or state beyond words. The 'enchanting' of the primary world that we experience is a result of seeing it 'through enchanted eyes', & that enchantment happens within the secondary world - when it is experienced as much as possible as a world/state in its own right.

I'd say that whether you are conscious of it or not, that when you look at those mountains, you are not enchanted by their size, or their age, or their sense of permanence, but by the 'story' behind those things. I think its something along the lines of Charles William's 'Beatrician experience'/Romantic Theology - an experiencing of the Creator, the Source, through other creatures. He called it the Way of the Affirmation of the Images. Rather than rejecting the creation as 'not-God' & following an ascetic lifestyle in order to find the Divine, we seek to experience the divine through the creation, through the 'Images', or 'Masks' of God.

[littlemanpoet]

IS this primary world of ours not enchanted, but mundane?

I think what you say about 'the right frame of mind' is the key to what we're talking about. Mountains in & of themselves are not 'enchanted' - they're just very big rocks. ... The enchantment they inspire in us comes from the 'story' we tell ourselves about them when we look at them.

'Halflings!' laughed the rider that stood beside Éomer. 'Halflings! But they are only a little people in old songs and children's tales out of the North. Do we walk in legends or on the green earth in the daylight?'
'A man may do both,' said Aragorn. 'For not we but those who come after will make the legends of our time. The green earth, say you? That is a mighty matter of legend, though you tread it under the light of day!' - J.R.R. Tolkien in The Two Towers

Recovery (which includes return and renewal of health) is a re-gaining -- regaining of a clear view. I do not say "seeing things as they are" and involve myself with the philosophers, though I might venture to say "seeing things as we are (or were) meant to see them" -- as things apart from ourselves. - Tolkien in On Fairy-Stories

Here Tolkien describes precisely what that "right frame of mind" is, as he understands it in On Fairy-Stories.

I'm (more than) troubled by the subjectivity that seems to take over every discussion I observe on the BarrowDowns lately, such as here, regarding "the stories we tell ourselves". Tolkien is saying something different: To see mountains, or the green earth, with a clear view, is to see them as we are meant to see them. They are not mere stones nor mere dirt unless we tell ourselves otherwise. The mountains and earth don't need us to reinterpret them as something more. They are, to use Tolkien's words, "meant to be" the stuff of legends. Yes, here's story, but not "stories we tell ourselves". Rather, it's story that gives us the chance to regain the ability to see mountains and green earth the way they were meant to be seen. Meant to be? Who is purposing this "meaning to be"?

Of course, it could, and probably will be argued, that this was Tolkien's subjective opinion, and the "author is dead", and we all reinterpret not only his stories but also his essays as we will and must because we are who we are. Sigh.

I am troubled by Tolkien's paranthetical "or were", as if he is no longer sure that we are meant to see things with a clear view. There are perhaps many possibilities as to what could be meant by that. It could be that Tolkien believed that the Someone who "means" us to see things with a clear view is as distant as Eru seems to be (by some readers) in the Legendarium. It could also be that Tolkien knew that subjectivistic moderns like us are losing the ability to regain a clear view (this would not be a surprising view for him, considering his pessimism). Or it could be that Tolkien is referring here to the nature of language and the way in which it changes, which brings me back to Owen Barfield and Poetic Diction, which I've interpreted in the Mythic Unities thread. In short, the language we speak has been developed to such a point that we are no longer able to comprehend the wonder of things in the primary world; to which Tolkien would say we need Fairy-story to regain the clear view (which is done, I think, through the unities).

The 'Way of Affirmation' or 'Beatrician Experience' posited by Charles Williams is something I've given a lot of thought to over the years. It's interesting to me that Tolkien is known to have said that when it came to literature, he and Williams "had nothing to say to each other". Which suggests to me that Tolkien didn't have a very high opinion of the Way of Affirmation. Nevertheless, it could be argued that LotR is itself a Way of Affirmation. Anyway.

[davem]

But its this question of 'how we are meant to see them that intrigues me - are we 'meant' to see mountains as big rocks, or are we 'meant' to see them as physical symbols of spiritual things? Mountains may be 'meant to be the stuff of legends' but materially thay aren't that at all. If they are to be seen as the stuff of legends then there have to be legends about them. Legends are human inventions, stories we tell ourselves & each otherabout mountains. It is our stories about them that enable us to see them as something other than big rocks.

When we tell those stories we are giving to (or discerning) a meaning in them, but that meaning comes from our stories not from the mountains themselves.

The 'Way of Affirmation' or 'Beatrician Experience' posited by Charles Williams is something I've given a lot of thought to over the years. It's interesting to me that Tolkien is known to have said that when it came to literature, he and Williams "had nothing to say to each other". Which suggests to me that Tolkien didn't have a very high opinion of the Way of Affirmation. Nevertheless, it could be argued that LotR is itself a Way of Affirmation. Anyway.

I think Tolkien's relationship with Williams was more complicated than that. Certainly Tolkien valued Williams as a friend, & as Carpenter has pointed out, Tolkien was to some degree affected by jealousy of Lewis close friendship with the man. A lot has been written about the Tolkien Lewis friendship but very little about Tolkien's relationship with Williams. There is work to be done on that.

[littlemanpoet]

That you keep talking, davem, about mountains as "just material objects" points to how our language has developed into all the abstract distinctions that split off the abstract from substance. Not that this is bad, but it has come at a price.

What Barfield was saying, and what Tolkien built into the aesthetic experience that is LotR, is that we are meant to see mountains neither as big rocks, nor as symbols of spiritual things; rather, we are meant to see mountains as a unity. Think of Caradhras. No mountain has as much personality as Caradhras; but to say that Tolkien was using personification, severely understates the case. He was communicating that particular mountain to be perceived by (most) readers the way a pre-modern would perceive it, before all the abstract distinctions pulled away from the mountain all those things premoderns understood it to contain.

"Our stories" about mountains are quite a different thing than what individuals tell themselves. "Our stories" speaks to a communal experience that a culture, or part of a culture shares. There's a richness in that compared to the relative bankruptcy (pun not intended but I'll leave it there) of individualistic reinterpretations.

As to Tolkien and Williams, the Letters speak to the fact that they had a great frienship and quite enjoyed each other during Inklings meetings. Still, their creative imaginations ran along decidedly different paths. If not for Lewis, there never would have been a Tolkien/Williams friendship.

[davem]

But Caradhras is not a primary world mountain. LotR is a legend - a story told us by a storyteller, which affects the way we see mountains in the primary world. So, it is legends - either traditional ones or modern ones like LotR - that enable us to see Mountains as more than big rocks. Without human minds to create & tell stories about mountains they would be simply big rocks. Only humans create/experience these stories. Only when those 'pre-moderns' made their stories did mountains become 'magical'. Before there were stories about mountains there were just big rocks. Caradhras is a 'story' about a mountain, not a mountain. Secondary worlds are collections of stories about things, not the things themselves. Mountains are big rocks in the primary world, only in the secondary world (the world of the human imagination) do they become 'Mountains', Mountains, Gandalf!'

[littlemanpoet]

Before there were stories about mountains there [sic] were just big rocks.

How do you know that? You weren't there. What myth are you espousing in holding forth about something you never experienced? In other words, what story are you presuming was true?

I said nothing about "magical". The word is entirely too limiting. Tolkien used his Elves to communicate this.

'For this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean' says Galadriel to Sam, in The Mirror of Galadriel. Consider, all she does is pour whater from a pitcher into a basin. What's magical about that? It is Elvish, because she's an Elf who has lived for perhaps more than ten thousand years, but that is saying much more than "magical".

Mountains are big rocks in the primary world.

Again, how do you know this? It's akin to saying that stars are just hot balls of exploding gas. That's not what a mountain is, it's just what it's made of, to borrow a very good phrase from C.S. Lewis. Be careful about dragging in the (rather bankrupt) myth of mere materialism.

[davem]

I'm sure before there were stories about mountains there was 'awe' felt in their presence, or 'participation mystique', or whatever, but as soon as the aweful thing became a 'Mountain' there was a story about it, to account for its existence, to define it.

Edit: No, the two things, the identification of the 'Aweful thing' as a mountain & the story would have been simultaneous events. A story is an account of 'Aweful things', an attempt to make sense of them, to understand them, to see them as they are.

[Formendacil]

I fail to see how any "enchantment" cast by a book (where it is 'seen' through our reading) is any different than the "enchantment" cast by real life (where it is 'seen' through our physical eyes.

With regards to the frame of mind, it is necessary for both book enchantment and real world enchantment.

Indeed, what I was endeavouring to say, is that real and book enchantment are one and the same.

When Bilbo says that he wants to see "mountains again", I never once got the feeling that he would find the Rockies or the Alps to be any less "mountains" than the Misty or the Blue.

Perhaps the problem is that Davem's "real world" enchantment regarding mountains is broken by realising that they are "just rocks" in the same way that LMP's "book" enchantment is broken by realising that Gandalf's speech is "just narrative". :p

If one goes about looking for enchantment, one will find a great deal more than if one goes about looking for cracks in the enchantment.

[The Saucepan Man]

I'm (more than) troubled by the subjectivity that seems to take over every discussion I observe on the BarrowDowns lately ...This is inevitable, surely. What troubles me more is that every Book discussion these days seems to end up focussing on the same issues ...

[littlemanpoet]

Perhaps the problem is that Davem's "real world" enchantment regarding mountains is broken by realising that they are "just rocks" in the same way that LMP's "book" enchantment is broken by realising that Gandalf's speech is "just narrative".

I think this is a rather keen insight, Formy. Spot on I daresay.

[HerenIstarion]

If one goes about looking for enchantment, one will find a great deal more than if one goes about looking for cracks in the enchantment.

Truly so. But I'd say if one just goes not looking for anything particular, the chance of finding enchantment among numerous things else is soaring high :smokin:

[Iarwain]

dare I say it?

STOP!

PLEASE!

Has no one here a concept of what constitutes a discussion? We are NOT here to wander aimlessly in search of nothing. As the introductory post on this thread stated, this is meant to be a sort of Theology of Middle-Earth. Forgive me for attempting some level of direction , but I believe the last 20+ posts have been completely (or nearly so) irrelavent to our discussion. I hoped to stand by and wait for the storm to pass, but it seems that if I do, any hope of intelligent inquiry will end up like the little hobbits on the face of Caradhras. What we need is direction. Commonly, I belive that it is useful for the initiator of a discussion to direct its flow to a degree, and I see that I have neglected my duties in that respect.

We must ALL realize that what is (99+% percent of the time) important in intelligent discussion has almost nothing to do with personal feelings about a subject. Who cares if your Atheist (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Agnostic, Buddhist, Taoist, Animist, hippie) upbringing causes resent (or not) when you read about a Judeo-Christian (see above) Eru? Certainly not anyone interested in the growth of understanding on this subject. Arguments in this forum are intended to deal with solid refrence from Tolkiens works, not our personal responses to others' personal responses to shadowy references to the books. Consequently, please move your discussions to where they are (A) welcome and (B) appropriate, and I'm sure they will flourish.

(that is to say, in the words of Mr. Bilbo Baggins:
"This is the END. You are going. You are leaving NOW. GOOD-BYE!"

Alas, I am so very frustrated. First this, and then twice when I attempt to continue discussion, the text of my post is deleted in some freak accident.

I wished to continue (very much) with a list of events that take place directly inloving Eru, during the Ainulindale, but that will have to wait now.


Hating blasted Compaq computers, :mad: :mad:
Iarwain

P.S. In rewriting my post, I left out the primary request of this post: Please, remove all discussions of Enchantment, "claiming Eru" the nature of Cahadras and other objects, symbolism, allegory, the nature of Fiction, etc. from this thread. They do not belong here, and should not be here, they should cease to be active within this thread. I belive the words of Mr. Baggins as quoted above apply perfectly. Good day.

[Formendacil]

dare I say it?

STOP!

PLEASE!

Has no one here a concept of what constitutes a discussion? We are NOT here to wander aimlessly in search of nothing. As the introductory post on this thread stated, this is meant to be a sort of Theology of Middle-Earth. Forgive me for attempting some level of direction , but I believe the last 20+ posts have been completely (or nearly so) irrelavent to our discussion. I hoped to stand by and wait for the storm to pass, but it seems that if I do, any hope of intelligent inquiry will end up like the little hobbits on the face of Caradhras. What we need is direction. Commonly, I belive that it is useful for the initiator of a discussion to direct its flow to a degree, and I see that I have neglected my duties in that respect.

Conversations, be they normal, spoken ones, or be they thought-out, typewritten online ones evolve. Some stay on the topic they were started for (many telephone conversations of a shorter nature do). Some do not, but move quickly to other matters- including those that are the "hot topics" of the current time.

Of course, having attempted to establish law and order here, I predict that you will will see a flowering of a third topic: "what is on topic", which is likely even farther away from what you think THE topic is.

Look at it as a sign of the "interconnectedness" of Middle-earth. All subjects are related. And, personally speaking, as long as the broad topic is Tolkien and Middle-earth, I am not personally averse to an amount of wandering.

Keeps things interesting.

[The Saucepan Man]

Of course, having attempted to establish law and order here, I predict that you will will see a flowering of a third topic: "what is on topic", which is likely even farther away from what you think THE topic is.That should not be necessary, as Estelyn Telcontar kindly provided chapter and verse here:

Guidelines for Forum Posting (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11805)

Formendacil is right. As long as they remain Tolkien-related, threads can, and often do, wander into a variety of related issues. If you wish to direct the discussion in a particular way, Iarwain, you are free raise the issues which you which to discuss (and I appreciate that you would have done so, but for your computer problems :( ). But I am afraid that you cannot really prevent people wandering of at tangents if that is what they want to do (particularly after such a long absence - although it is good to see you back :) ).

[Iarwain]

It is good to be back (to the small degree that I am) among such a worthy community, and I apologize for my forwardness. :)

I'm now going to embark on the process I thought of nearly a week ago, and hopefully others will be somewhat enthusiastic.

In order to better understand anyone or anything, it is sometimes best when we are denied a view of its psyche or essence, to glimpse it through its involvement in various scenarios which, in fact, we do have access to. In this case, we are discussing Eru and questioning his nature. Now, of course, it is just as easy for me to look at Tolkien's divinity and suggest that he is a reflection of Tolkien's own beliefs. This seems too easy, though, and is likely subject to fallacy. For example, Tolkien created Frodo as the protagonist for LotR, does this mean that he heroized Frodo's character? Perhaps it does, but I think we all have enough insight to realize that there is (was) more to Tolkien's view of the hero than Frodo, so similarly we should realize that there is more to his personal theology than is contained in Eru. Well, what of it? If this is true, then we must admit that since Tolkien is not directly replicating A) his ideal hero in Frodo, or B) his personal theology in Eru, neither of these characters are limited by his holdings on these matters. That is to say that just as there was certainly more to Tolkien's personal theology than he put into Eru, it is very likely that there is more to Eru than can be found in Tolkien's personal theology.

Well, then, since we have decided here not to limit Eru to Tolkien's theology, we ask what scenarios are available to us. In listing these, it is easiest to move chronologically. Thus, we begin:

1. Eru Supreme
2. Eru Creates Ainur: "offspring of his thought"
3. The Great Music, composed of three themes:
i. Beautiful, Harmonious, turned into "a sea of turbulent sound" by Melkor, (Eru smiles)
ii. Gathers Power and "new beauty" Melkor's discord prompts some Ainur to be silent (Eru stands with "stern" countenance --BoLT he weeps)
iii. At first soft and sweet, yet unquenchable, absorbs the most triumphant notes of Melkor's discord.
4. Eru Stands, raises both hands "and in one chord, deeper than the Abyss, higher than the Firmament, piercing as the light of the eye of Iluvatar, the Music ceased."
5. Eru prepares the Ainur for the revelation of the vision, and explains to Melkor that "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite"

I could continue here with the revelation of the vision, but I believe that there is already an abundance of discussable material above, and by doing so I would just drown it out, and I fear we would loose some of the subtleties revealed above. I recommend all to first read the opening pages of the Ainulindale, and then to comment.

Note-- As the title implies, this post serves merely as a question. It provides almost no relevant argument or discussion. But, having the question is (as the saying goes) being halfway to getting an answer. If no one takes up the offer perhaps I will continue, but I have sufficient faith that there are many here who will be willing (if not eager) to share their thoughts. :)


Best to all,
Iarwain




PART II: A CONTINUATION

The truth is that I'm quite surprised that no one has taken me up on my offer yet. So, I suppose I'll have to write some more. The idea here is to take the givens and reach a conclusion, and that is what I'll try to do. I think that the key part of the above is Eru's quote to Melkor: "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite." A few days ago, I was thinking about what I might say if I posted again and I realized the implications of our interpretation of that quote. I believe that almost the entire theology of ME is wrapped up in it. So I ask you all a question:

What is Eru saying?

If he is saying that all creation is a part of him and that nothing can be done outside his will, then we have a middle-earth with a destiny. If he is saying that there is no pure evil and that evil actions will ultimately (and unintentionally) bear good fruit, then we have a fascinating world to discuss. Both of these have tremendous ethical implications and will play into our outlook on the lives of characters like Turin and family, Maeglin, Gollum, and especially Morgoth himself. I think that the best way to answer this question is to find instances in the books which point to the answer to our question, so that we can better see who Eru is, and better understand the ethical system inherent in TCE.

I hope that is sufficient to elicit a response. :)
Iarwain

[HerenIstarion]

The truth is that I'm quite surprised that no one has taken me up on my offer yet.

I suppose you scared people off shouting, and we know Bombadil's mighty voice is a good signal for fleeing ;)

But kidding apart, you haven't postulated real question in the first part of the post, it was rather list of material.

Part II, now, is another matter:

If he is saying that all creation is a part of him and that nothing can be done outside his will, then we have a middle-earth with a destiny. If he is saying that there is no pure evil and that evil actions will ultimately (and unintentionally) bear good fruit, then we have a fascinating world to discuss

I cast my vote, if that's what you expect, that he says both.

Option 2 (the one underlined in the quote above) presents quite perfect clothing for the thought, but its very perfection does not leave room for discussion per se (in my case, at least), and the only thing you'll elicit from me would be agreement

Option 1 (italics) is equally true, but let me point that concept of destiny does not cancel out individual freedom of will and equally does not cancel out second part of your statement

So, there is no real dichotomy there, as far as I'm concerned

I would not argue the point right here and now in order of not repeating myself and due to lack of time right now, but leave you for the time being with the promise of digging up links to places where the point was previously argued by yours truly :D

cheers

[littlemanpoet]

Before any response can be intelligently given to "What is Eru saying?", I think it has become necessary to define (according to the Legendarium, if possible) the following terms:

evil

pure evil

source

uttermost source

and most importantly:

Eru

After all, if we have not given ourselves a sufficiently exacting understanding of what and who Eru is, all discussion of said entity will be dashed upon the rocky shoals of misunderstanding.

[HerenIstarion]

Evil - self infested with pride, arrogant, putting its own self/the good of its own self above good of other selves, in fact, above anything else, and ready to pursue such good at the expense of good of other selves. Not necessarily 'irredeemable' - that is, unable of selfless action at a moment. In short - self in worship of its own self, harming other selfs deliberately. Not independently arisen, but parasite on the body of Good, as to be evil means to desire some good, or good in general but wrongfully. (I.e power and well-being are things good, and to pursue the power and well-being is not bad in itself, but to seek them at the expense of others is bad)

Pure evil (sense 1) - self as described above which is already unable to change the mode of its perception, i.e. worshipping its own self and nothing else at all times, harming other selfs and finding delight in the process at all times. (possible)

Pure evil (sense 2) - such a self creating its own existence independently (impossible - existence as such is a good thing, so by the mere fact of existences such an Evil denies its Evilness - i.e. - if evil is opposite of good, and existence is good, than to be 'pure' - i.e. equal and opposite of good in all things, such an evil can not exist - it must 'non-exist', i.e. - exist not.)

Source - primal cause of some existence, some chain of events or mode of being, having no previous cause of its own in relation to the chain of events (though may be an effect of some other chain of events - i.e as each wave is a cause of the following and the effect of the preceding, but finds its source not in some 'first wave', but in the wind and gravity of the moon)

Uttermost source - primal cause of everything, having no cause of its own in relation to everything

Eru - Active ('and he made') Intelligent ('offspring of his thought'), Omniscient and Omnipotent ('no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me') Benevolent ('in all His designs the issue must be for His Children's joy') Free ('elves held that Eru was free at all times') Uttermost Source ('In the beginnig was') of Everything.

Also, not the One to withdraw Himself from the creation once it is created but actively guiding its way through ('He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves'), but grunting freedom to His creatures as well ('discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind') but able to work that freedom into the integrity of the design of the whole perfectly ('and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory')

[littlemanpoet]

Thank you very much, Heren Istarion. Well thought out. I appreciate the two senses of "pure evil". That was one of the more difficult shoals I had been concerned about. Sense Two is dualism, and has no place in Tolkien's Legendarium. I'm glad that's cleared up. So Sense One is Pure Evil within the context of the Legendarium. But you didn't really distinguish between Evil and Pure Evil-sense one. That's another shoal.

As for Eru, I think you've set an excellent basis on which to consider Iarwain's question. Will give more thought to this.

[HerenIstarion]

Thanks, lmp

But you didn't really distinguish between Evil and Pure Evil-sense one

Redeemable evil - evil
Irredeemable evil - 'pure' evil (where sense 2 is concerned, let pure stand in quotation marks)

I.e - Gollum is evil up to a point - there is a chance of him turning around, and that is what Frodo is trying - to actually redeem him. After Sam's rebuke, Gollum goes over to 'pure' evil state - there is no chance of his coming back. Mark the sign of the transfer a little before - Gollum the Great, Lord Smeagol etc he starts to call himself, though there are yet signs the transfer is not total - he wishes for fish in between. In the beginning he is after knowledge - he wishes to learn 'secrets under the mountains' at the early stage of being in possession of the ring.

Sauron likewise - by the end of First Age he's evil, but able to repent. Mark the sign of the transfer to 'pure' evil - self proclaim of being the god in Numenor and open self-worship

Roughly - evil is when self pursues some good but does so in crooked way. (Saruman - order and knowledge he's after are good, but the way he seeks them is bad. But pure evil seeks nothing that is good, but only worships its own self - once he switches from order as the final goal to the Saruman the Lord as the final goal, here is transition)

Mark how 'do not judge' principle is woven into the story - Gandalf does not give up trying to bring Saruman back. He is not trying to make Sauron repent not only because it is obvious Sauron is beond recall, but also as Sauron is the mentally stronger, and essey is more likely to pull Gandalf to the 'dark side' rather (personally, I sometimes wonder if Tolkien could write in Gandalf/Sauron stand-up by Palantir with Gandalf trying to make Sauron repent)

That's why the most 'purely' evil beings are orks - there was not a state from where they 'slipped' into evil ways, but they were so originally (at least, most of them, leaving aside elven theory and inbreeding of men). Self worship here is expressed in their urge to indulge they every wish. (hungry - bite at the one nearest, feel like tearing something apart - tear whatever you find 'tearable' etc)

Did I just repeat myself? Well, I suppose yes, but with samples this time :)

Here, I've found a good illustration:

In all the deeds of Melkor the Morgoth upon Arda, in his vast works and in the deceits of his cunning, Sauron had a part, and was only less evil than his master in that for long he served another and not himself. But in after years he rose like a shadow of Morgoth and a ghost of his malice, and walked behind him on the same ruinous path down into the Void.

The 'walking to the Void' starts as Sauron turns to self-service

[Lúmen Rómello]

The Question: What does Eru mean when he says to Melkor "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite." Looks to be a very interesting discussion. I just realised what I've been missing in my time away from the 'Downs. (yes, H-I, LMP, and Iarwain, I'm an oldster like you, just back under a different name. Eruhen I was in my youth in the Barrows which are forgotten. :cool: )

Regardless, Iarwain's posed a stimulating topic and I concur with LMP: while H-I laid a very good groundwork for a discussion, I'm going to need some time to think about this. It's getting too late in the day for me to worry about such things, but don't worry, I'll be back tomorrow with a post contemplating Eru, evil, sources, and their relationship within the Legendarium. I'll try my best to keep it limited solely to the Legendarium, but I can't make any promises that the primary world won't creep in.

Peace,
-LR.

[HerenIstarion]

It is tomorrow :)

[Lúmen Rómello]

And I only have internet access at work. Give a guy a break, H-I!

I'll try and get one typed up this afternoon, but no promises!

-LR.

[Lúmen Rómello]

Didn't manage to write one this afternoon, folks. I'll try to get one done this weekend, though.


-LR.

[Lúmen Rómello]

And here's the promised post.

The Question: What does Eru mean when he says to Melkor "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite"?

The Answer: It's simple, really. Since Eru made all things from his thought, especially the Ainur themselves, anything the Ainur or anything else created does has its ultimate source in him, since he gave them the powers and very existence which permitted them to do whatever it was that they did. :D

-LR































No, that's not all of my answer. I'm just being a jackass (something I'm very good at :smokin: ).

I had promised to use H-I's definitions of evil, pure evil, source, uttermost source, and Eru in this answer. His definitions of evil and pure evil seem especially true, particularly in a monotheistic system, which Eä most certainly is. In addition, Iarwain's hypothesis about what Eru is saying:

If he is saying that all creation is a part of him and that nothing can be done outside his will, then we have a Middle-Earth with a destiny. If he is saying that there is no pure evil and that evil actions will ultimately (and unintentionally) bear good fruit, then we have a fascinating world to discuss. serves as very fertile ground for a discussion of Eä's destiny and the places of free will and (dare I say it?) predestination in it. I'm going to address Iarwain's two hypotheses in order.

First, this one:

If he is saying that all creation is a part of him and that nothing can be done outside his will, then we have a Middle-Earth with a destiny. For all intents and purposes, I agree with this statement. However, it's time to flesh out my logic for agreeing with it (as well as a caveat or two). First, I would hesitate to say that Eä, the Timeless Halls, and their inhabitants are part of Eru. I definitely think that he has control of them (as exhibited most dramatically by the Downfall of Númenor and the Bending of Arda), but that they are seperate from him. The Ainulindalë speaks of his 'making first' the Ainur, how they 'each comprehended only that part of the mind of Ilúvatar from which he came', and how, after the Music ended, 'he went forth from the fair regions that he had made for the Ainur'. None of this seems to speak of his creations being a part of him. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Iarwain when he speaks of this, but it seems that he is positing a type of pantheism? Or am I misreading this when he's actually describing a type of panentheism? Speaking of which, what does anyone think about the possibility of Eru's omnipresence? I'm not sure if it's mentioned anywhere in the Legendarium.

I certainly agree that nothing can be done outside of Eru's will, however, this also needs a modifier. It is important to note that he seems to exist outside of time; indeed, it seems that Time is a part of Eä, since the places where the Ainur dwell are called "The Timeless Halls". If that's so, then Eru's will does not necessitate an immutable destiny for his creation. It is extremely probable that though the Music contained the plan and destiny of creation, it nevertheless allowed for personal choice by Ainur and Eruhini which shape the very course of Endor. The fact is that if Eru is outside of time and upholds his creation and illuminates it with the Secret Fire, then he can shape his creation's destiny at all times in response to the actions and requests of his creatures (assuming he can hear the requests of the Eruhini). To make a reference to the primary world (damn! I was trying to avoid these!), Lewis makes the point in his book Miracles that God can and does shape all of creation back to the beginning and forward to the end in response to prayers.

I'm going to have to wait till later on to discuss the second point and the actual statement by Eru, but this should suffice to serve as good discussion material. I'm certainly open to criticism about this and I hope that this will waken this thread up just a little.

Later, fellow deadites.

-LR.