[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

If I seemed less than tolerant towards Red, I apologize. But Red is blunt and prefers that others be the same, unless I miss my guess. Came across as more testy than I intended because I'd just had an argument with a friend.

Obloquoy, the trouble you're referring to is moral pluralism, a PC enforcement of any action, speech or mind-attitude being okay when viewed from a certain perspective, creating a world without moral boundaries or consequences.

With moral pluralism any kind of personal moral code can be considered inimical to somebody's set of beliefs, somewhere, so it all has to be discarded.

For what? The lowest common denominator generated by a vast socio-political network?

That idea is the opposite of idealism, and I shudder to think of the result if people don't strive to be their own personal best but allow the common morality to rule. Ugh.

So I wasn't referring to Pop-Morality. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I was referring to something simple. Something Tolkien brings up a lot and which makes the story so compelling for me.

He so clearly presents how idealism, morality and tolerance can coexist, not by moral pluralism (which is the death of ideals) but by placing the responsibility for the ideal on the individual (example Frodo) and offering tolerance to others (example telling Frodo essentially not to hate Gollum). It's a pretty clear message.

Arrogant of me, I suppose, to play Gandalf and point out moral direction. Without going into my life, it was, ahem, my job to do just that, for a very long time. Came with the job description it did.

What difference does it make that Frodo thinks Gollum should die? Not foresight of Gollum's part to play, though he suspected Gollum's path was tied up in the ring. Gandalf's wisdom was not founded on foresight, as Aragorn told Boromir. Nope, it was something truer.

Hatred takes many forms, and on a personal level Frodo had to watch the seeds of it. As I've stated elsewhere, the first stage of hatred is to dehumanize. While the path of wisdom and compassion is rooted in the understanding Gandalf described. It's impossible to condemn what you understand once you've "walked a mile in another's shoes." The Lord of the Rings hits some deep water, profound topics.

It's a very high standard he sets. Easy to say, hard to live.

I'm sorry you and Red are faced with a world where it's not always easy to have understanding or compassion. The are so many opportunities for even unintentional cruelty. Uniformity makes it simpler, so does only meeting good people that you approve it. The trick is to catch the seeds, early. But most people live soft lives and there isn't much chance to bring out our best as exemplified by say Frodo. I think harsh tests of that kind either brings out your best or your worst. If we lived in a vacuum of course it wouldn't matter as much, save for our own sake.

One of the most touching moments in the LotR when Lobelia is cheered, after being so maligned and disliked.

The attitude of condemning others is out of keeping of the spirit of Tolkien's works, make no mistake. "Even the wise cannot know all ends."

It's not the PC answer you expected I imagine.

(silme-ranaa, once again I've taken so long to post, someone has answered while I was writing. I didn't mean to ignore you. Actually, it was my English teacher in high school who pointed it out to me, but took me until adulthood to see where he could get such an idea. Though I did have friends who thought the same. You're no idiot, it's a fairly common observation. But a little touchy for some people as you can see!)

-Maril

[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]