Interesting post, and some thoughtful contributions above [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
The problematic duality and/or ambiguity in Tolkien's myth of origin reflects to some degree the unresolved - though perhaps intuitively manageable - contradictions in the Christian concept of omnipotent Creation and Free Will. Simply put, if Eru (or God, if you like) creates and knows everything (or creates beings or forces that themselves create in turn), then the presence of evil, and the evil that may and does result from free will, are a known, inextricable and inherent part of that creation. The 'Fall', in whatever form, cannot arise from some power or source outside of Eru (there is none), nor can Eru be unaware that it will happen. Yet Eru's reaction is an increasing anger towards Melkor's discord, and he is at regular intervals "punished" by the Valar (acting with the will of Eru).
Now, I think this IS a contradiction - or perhaps mystery is more apt - yet one that is central to Christian faith and the moral sensibility of Tolkien's work. I do NOT believe there was any sense of an Eastern 'balance' between good and evil, nor do I think there is a kind of moral determinism ie. "evil is required to act as a catalyst for good". These interpretations are antithetical to Tolkien's beliefs and to the text itself, in which the end of utopian (harmonious) existence and the destruction of nature are clearly tragic and regrettable. The ultimate (and complete) triumph of good over evil in LotR illustrates the values at work.
Of course, dramatically, or in structural terms, 'discord', 'opposition' or 'dangerous unpredictability' etc. are necessary narrative elements, and obviously Tolkien was telling a story. This is probably more important than we have acknowledged - Tolkien was not a philosopher, and not primarily concerned with creating a rationalisation of existence, nor was he constructing an RPG scenario with a straightforward background in causality. He was a storyteller (much of his writing arose out of the telling of stories to his children). And stories need ... well, a story.
Logic, or an academic analysis of Tolkien's stories or contextual writings, will not in this instance resolve the essential contradiction. But for most people, this and similar dualities have been part of our collective culture since Descartes. Art can and does reflect the irreconcilable within ourselves, moral and otherwise, and our individual states of conscience and consciousness. And on that level, we have the capacity to intuitively grasp personal, and I guess, philosophical, contradictions.
Personally, I find contradictory and co-existing realities reasonably effective as a rational framework for humanity (or mortality) if you will, although traditional Catholicism a la Tolkien is nodoubt more absolutist. But the kind of philosophical logic (or 'systems analysis', if you prefer)we take for granted these days was not prevalent at the time of the Gospels. In the 11th Century (sigh ...) Anselm and other medieval philosophers developed the "ontological argument" for proving the existence of God (which is irrefutable but can be sidestepped [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ) as part of an attempt to reconcile Christianity with the ancient Greek philosophers, but in the end, Western rationality will always allow for competing paradigms - only faith provides (philosophically unsound) certainty.
This takes us back to the subject (phew) ... Tolkien's faith, therefore, allows for a narrative of Creation and Fall in which the archetypal manifestation of Evil is consistent. And the telling of a story (in the tradition of the great myths he so admired) demands that a pantheon of archetypal (and in differing degrees oppositional) forces (and characters) is present.
Perhaps I should have just said "poetic licence" and left it at that [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]
Peace
|