Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I can't even begin to grasp this

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that this moral person we are talking about can have two imaginary proccesses, one which deals with the actual neighbour, the other with an imaginary identical neighbour - and the only thing that makes the first imaginary process immoral and the second not so, is that the second imaginary process is, well, more imaginary.

Yes, but you see, I can tell the difference between the real neighbour & the fantasy one - even if both exist in my mind. And the point is I wouldn't act out my fantasy on real life.

It seems to me that you fail to acknowledge - in this argument - that the "real" neighbour doesn't exist in one's mind as such, but it is only an imaginary construct. All the world is re-created in our mind - we imagine it. Frankly, l find this to be common sense in the modern world.

Yes, & the universe is simply a vast energy field - & I'd like to see how you bring morality into things on the sub atomic level. Morality comes in at a higher level.

If two imaginary processes are identical, in every aspect, then if one implies immorality, so does the second.

It may 'imply' it. It doesn't prove it. It may just imply one can create a false analogy.

But this work does contain, in and of itself, elements of moral and religious truths, regardless of whether reader chooses to ignore them or not.

Not if the reader doesn't pick up on them. And who says it 'contains elements of moral & religious truth anyway - who says that the 'moral & religious truths' are actually 'true'? Again, this is assuming that which is to be proved. The reader may be perfectly moral, but not hold these 'truths' to be true. They may not consider Tolkien's characters to be anymore 'real' or convincing than a cartoon character. They may even be able to recognise that they are made up figures with no emotions, thought processes, capacity to really suffer, hope or dream, than Tom or Kenny. They may have no more reality to the reader than a figure in a computer game.

The problem is you are attempting top make moral judgements about a reader based on what the characters mean/represent to you, when the reader may feel nothing of the sort about them.

I take it this is an instance of british humour concerning the possibility of writting better novels while being brain damaged and crippled.

No. Its an example of a character being hit by a piano, which character, as far as we know, did not write a novel. Lizzie Bennett being the heroine of Pride & Prejudice which was written by Jane Austen. (Though actually, in my fantasy of Lizzie being hit by the piano she wasn't left brain damaged or crippled, but made a full recovery - the only long term effects being that she had piano keys for teeth......)

[Raynor]

Yes, but you see, I can tell the difference between the real neighbour & the fantasy one - even if both exist in my mind.

But they are identical. You cannot tell a difference between two identical imaginary processes - by definition.

And the point is I wouldn't act out my fantasy on real life.

I never argued on that direction in this thread.

It may 'imply' it. It doesn't prove it.

Can you please rephrase?

Not if the reader doesn't pick up on them.

Who do you think cannot pick up this moral and religious elements? If you mean that one spots them but chooses to ignore them, then no problem.

The reader may be perfectly moral, but not hold these 'truths' to be true.

So, what 'truths' could not be hold by a 'perfectly moral' reader, to use your own expression?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

But they are identical. You cannot tell a difference between two identical imaginary processes - by definition.

I can.

It doesn't prove it. It may imply it.

Who do you think cannot pick up this moral and religious elements? If you mean that one spots them but chooses to ignore them, then no problem.

I mean someone who thinks they're just reading a fantasy novel. And if the reader is not religious they may not be aware of the 'religious' elements - all they may be aware of is that some of the characters have a religious belief.

So, what 'truths' could not be hold by a 'perfectly moral' reader, to use your own expression?

Ones that may apply in a secondary world but not necessarily in the Primary world. In the secondary world it is 'true' that balrogs are a threat to life & limb. In the primary world it is not. In the secondary world it is 'true' that Morgoth has corrupted the very stuff of the material universe. In the primary world it is not. In the secondary world it may be 'true' that torturing an Elf is a bad thing. In the primary world one would have to prove that Elves actually exist here for that to be true. A reader may be reading the book for escape, not for edification.

Of course, the reader is free to decide that torturing an elf is a fine thing, something to be encouraged, & that medals should be handed out for doing so. I won't condemn them for it, or think any less of them. In short, I don't think the reader's response to the characters in a book says anything about their morality. I'm not going to judge someone on their response to a book. I don't believe anything of any value can be learned about a person from their response to fictional characters.

[Raynor]

It doesn't prove it. It may imply it.

Thanks davem, that is really helpful. I can only pray you will excuse me if I don't give you a rep for this tremenous effort, but I am too tired by your game. This is the worst I ever got in any discussion on any Tolkien board.

I can.

This is pretty pointless, but I will ask anyway: how?

I mean someone who thinks they're just reading a fantasy novel.

I am not aware that reading a book merely as a fantasy novel precludes naturally identifying moral or religious elements.

And if the reader is not religious they may not be aware of the 'religious' elements - all they may be aware of is that some of the characters have a religious belief.

Aren't you contradicting yourself?

In the secondary world it is 'true' that balrogs are a threat to life & limb. In the primary world it is not. In the secondary world it is 'true' that Morgoth has corrupted the very stuff of the material universe. In the primary world it is not.

But these are not examples of moral truths, but examples of persons and events. You are dodging my question

In the secondary world it may be 'true' that torturing an Elf is a bad thing. In the primary world one would have to prove that Elves actually exist here for that to be true.

But surely you recognise that what is immoral is "torture of living beings" in itself.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

This is pretty pointless, but I will ask anyway: how?

It is pretty pointless of course. You set up a false dilemma. 'How can one distinguish between two identical things?' We aren't dealing with two identical things - we were talking about two similar things.

I am not aware that reading a book merely as a fantasy novel precludes naturally identifying moral or religious elements.

Again, they may not be looking for such elements, they may not even care about such elements.

But surely you recognise that what is immoral is "torture of living beings" in itself.

Elves are not 'living beings'. Again, you're failing to distinguish between a reader's response to fictional characters in a fictional world & real people in the real world. You cannot claim the 'thought' behind the two events is identical - its like claiming that thinking about a blue car is the same as thinking about blue sky because both thoughts are about blue things.

[Raynor]

We aren't dealing with two identical things - we were talking about two similar things.

So, the names, figures, places, sounds, and everything one can imagine about that scene are identical, but still, the two imaginary processes are not identical? How do they differ, davem?

Again, they may not be looking for such elements, they may not even care about such elements.

Does that mean that nothing precludes "naturally identifying moral or religious elements" when a book is read merely as a fantasy novel?

Elves are not 'living beings'.

But they represent living beings. By your reasoning, no 'perfectly moral' person could hold any truth to be actually true, because all characters in a book are in fact fictional.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

So, the names, figures, places, sounds, and everything one can imagine about that scene are identical, but still, the two imaginary processes are not identical? How do they differ, davem?

If they were 'identical' they wouldn't be two imaginary processes but a single imaginary process duplcated. Thus it is not possible to 'compare or contrast' them.

Does that mean that nothing precludes "naturally identifying moral or religious elements" when a book is read merely as a fantasy novel?

It doesn't 'precude' it. It simply may not be part of the reader's response. Making a salad does not preclude using celery, but a salad does not require celery to be a salad.

But they represent living beings. By your reasoning, no 'perfectly moral' person could hold any truth to be actually true, because all characters in a book are in fact fictional.

And yet they are not 'living beings' therefore the reader is not responding to living beings - unless they choose to respond to them as living beings. You seem to be implying that the reader has no choice in the matter, & that if they think a dragon frying an Elf is cool, or exciting they should be judged as immoral. Again, if a viewer laughs when Kenny is killed is the viewer laughing at the death of a child or his he laughing at the dispatching of a cartoon character? Is there a 'qualitative' difference or are the thoughts 'identical'? The reader may respond to Tolkien's characters as living beings, but they are free not to. A 'perfectly moral' being can choose how they respond to characters (or truths) in a book. Because its fiction.