Quote"Well, of all things else, I thought of Turin as argument in my favour. Indeed, what good did his pride brought him himself? He ended up murderer and suicide, committer of incest. Noldor likewise. There is no telling what may have happened if Noldor restrained from rush action. For one thing, there would have been no Kinslaying. What good is following their bad action, is result of Eru's 'bringing good out of evil' principle, but for the doers there is woe and misery. Turin dies, and Noldor are relieved only after total humiliation, when they are almost swept off ME shores into the sea"
Ah, but here we come to the 'Frodo Question' In worldly terms Frodo doesn't gain very much - he ends up feeling a 'broken failure', sad, miserable & unhappy. But he has saved others.
Turin's pride leads him to do terrible things, of course, but his pride leads him to almost fight Morgoth's foes to a standstill, & leads him to kill Glaurung - & these things are done
because of his pride, not in spite of it - it isn't a case of Eru turning a disaster brought about by Turins pride to bring about good, Turin's proud acts
produce the good results.
In the case of the Noldor its the same - imagine if they hadn't rebelled & returned to ME - Morgoth would have totally enslaved &/or slaughtered Men, Dwarves & the Sindar, he would have increased his forces, & possibly have built up an army strong enough to assail Valinor. The pride, selfishness & desire for revenge of the Noldor is what holds Morgoth in check till the Valar can get their act together & deal with him. ME would have been lost to Morgoth if it had not been for the 'sinfulness' of the Noldor - again, not a case of Eru bringing good out of the faults of the Noldor - their 'faults' are what bring about those results.
If Turin & the Noldor had done what they 'should' have done, behaved 'well' it would have brought about disaster. In a sense, it was necessary for them to 'offend' if Morgoth was to be dealt with. The Valar were 'good', behaved as they 'should' & would have enabled Morgoth to win hands down - what's the message there?
Quote:but it seems to me that it is the same thing, whether one looks at old thing with new eyes or new thing with old eyes. Can not be told apart, somehow:
But there is a difference between one tree & another. And there is a difference between seeing the same tree from a different angle or in a new way, & looking at a completely different tree. Eckhart states somewhere that if we could see a flower, as it has its
being in God, it would be a greater thing than the whole world. But one flower is not the same as another.
Quote:But the priority is Love and Good of the Children, the perfection is merely consequence of [the logical conclusion that] the deed proceeding from the perfect being can not be imperfect, or else the being doing the deed is not perfect in the first place.
But does Eru, from his eternal perspective, make that distinction? Would not the 'Love & Good of the Children' be the same as the manifestation of the 'perfect' eternal state? One could not be without the other. Maybe Eru's prime desire is to bring about 'perfection' & the love & good of the Children is a part of that. Would Eru see them as separate things?
Quote:The mere ability of separating Great Ring from their own Elven Rings proves the opposite. The concept is brought in by Sauron. It may be argued that it is actualization if not Morgoth's, than of his greatest minion's themes. Once it is known that Annatar is indeed Sauron, in case the concept you propose be true, than there would have been for elves two ways only - to go on using the rings and be evil, or reject and destroy them on the spot. Ture, Sauron haven't seen or touched Elven Rings, but the idea of applying power just so proceeds from him.
I'm not sure he does introduce the concept of the Rings - he introduces the particular form. He doesn't introduce the desire to control & preserve. In a sense the One Ring merely does what the Elven Rings do, only 'more so'. It is a more effective version - it too is designed to 'control & coerce' Sauron wants to dominate & control the world, the Elves also want to do that - their motivations & the end results may differ, but there is little difference in the desire. This is why, I feel, that Tolkien describes them as having 'flirted with Sauron' - meaning not so much that they went along with him in making the Rings, but that they 'flirted' with what he symbolised. But their goals & his are not all that different - for all Galadriel's dismissal of 'the deciets of the Enemy'. Their Rings can bring them what they desire - why would they destroy them? This is their temptation, this is how Sauron ensnares them - not by introducing some totally new idea & conning them into going for it, but by offering them what they
really desired all along - as he did with the Numenoreans.
Quote:
(but they couldn't seperate the concept 'jet' from the concept 'fighter'. )
Now that's mere speculation.
Not if 'Jet-fighter' is Morgoths introduction, & exists as a single concept in the Music - If I'm right that would put the Elves in a 'take it or leave it' position as regards flying machines - of course, Morgoth probably introduced a concept more like a flying Dragon - so to rephrase the point - the Elves couldn't have soncieved of breeding a 'good Dragon' they would either have to breed an evil destructive dragon, or not breed one at all. I suggest Men could concieve of a 'good dragon' because they would be free to seperate the concept :'Good' from the thing :'Dragon'
(It is fun, all this, I must admit - though I'm daily expecting a PM from the mods saying 'You two are confusing (& boring!) everybody else to death - go away & do that stuff on your own time!
)