Fantasy Morality

[Dakêsîntrah]

Now, to continue with the topic at hand: Tumhalad contends that "God" (Eru, Tolkien's world) is an inconsistent god as he does not exercise clear omnipotent sovereignty in the Children of Hurin compared to the Creation narrative at the beginning of the Silmarillion.

That is a very good point.

It's always been a problem, Tumhalad, for orthodoxy to logically explain an omnipotent god of the Universe that also allows suffering and evil in the same token. I use the term 'omnipotence' to denote that which also includes omnipresence, omniscience, and the like, because, All-Power ought to encompass all of the said aspects.

The problem of Evil lies in an orthodox paradox; and it has perpetuated ever since Augustine of Hippo systematized it. It is perpetuated so much, that is has become an Evil in its own right. And that is the notion of Original Sin. One of the biggest frauds the Church endorses by coercion. Now, to that extension, you will find that "God" must be evil Himself by allowing evil, because He is the actual origin of such a thing. If someone wants to argue here, by exonerating God as the author of evil, then that person will have to logically find a origin that is not God in such a paradox that cannot exist without a Good, additionally conceding that Morality is not an umbrella notion transcendent by God as a non-active Idea before it is set out in real time to actually become a "sin" in the world.

Quite succinctly, then, Turin Turambar's higher standard to follow in Eru is still quite consistent in the Children of Hurin. If one sees 'God' as a cosmomythological cycle perpetuated by man, then Turin as part of that cycle of godhood, the races of Midgard are simply "gods" to themselves (as Midgard is the revelatory aspect of Eru). Tolkien quite understood this notion.

Turin "listens" to his sword, because it comes from the highest metal. Tolkien devotes quite a few words to Anglachel/Gurthang in his accounts of Túrin. The made characteristics we learn is that the weapon was made of iron that came from a fallen star. This material could cleave all iron ore from Middle-earth.

Star-Fire or the nectar of the gods has a prominent role in Ancient Near Eastern cosmomyth.

In strict terms, the original Star Fire was the lunar essence of the Goddess, but even in an everyday mundane environment, menstruum contains the most valuable endocrinal secretions, particularly those of the pineal and pituitary glands. The brain's pineal gland in particular was directly associated with the Tree of Life, for this tiny gland was said to secrete the very essence of active longevity, referred to as soma - or as the Greeks called it, ambrosia.

In mystic circles, the menstrual flow-er (she who flows) has long been the designated flower, and is represented as a lily or a lotus. Indeed, the definition 'flow-er' is the very root of the modern word flower. In ancient Sumer, the key females of the royal succession were all venerated as lilies, having such names as Lili, Luluwa, Lilith, Lilutu and Lillette.

In pictorial representation, the Messianic Dragon bore little relation to the winged, fire-breathing beast of later western mythology. It was, in essence, a large-jawed serpent with four legs - very much like a crocodile or a monitor. This was the sacred Messeh whose name was Draco. This sovereign beast was a divine emblem of the Egyptian pharaohs, a symbol of the Egyptian Therapeutate in Karnak and Qumrân, while also being the Bistea Neptunis sea-serpent of the descendant Merovingian Fisher Kings in Gaul.

In old Hebrew texts references to serpents are made by use of the word nahash (from the stem NHSH), but this does not relate to serpents in the way that we might perceive them as venomous snakes. It relates to serpents in their traditional capacity as bringers of wisdom and enlightenment - for the word nahash actually meant 'to decipher', or 'to find out'. Serpents, in one form or another, were always associated with wisdom and healing - with the Trees of Life and Knowledge being customarily identified with serpents. Indeed the insignia of many of today's medical associations is precisely this image of a serpent coiled around the Plant of Birth - a depiction shown in the reliefs of ancient Sumer to be Enki's own personal emblem.

Interestingly, though, another common emblem for medical relief organizations depicts two coiled serpents, spiralling around the winged caduceus of Hermes the magician. In these instances, the true symbolism of the Star Fire ritual is conveyed and this symbol can be traced back to the very origins of the alchemical mystery schools and gnostic institutions. The records explain that the central staff and entwined serpents represent the spinal cord and the sensory nervous system. The two uppermost wings signify the brain's lateral ventricular structures. Between these wings, above the spinal column, is shown the small central node of the pineal gland.

The combination of the central pineal and its lateral wings has long been referred to as the Swan and in Grail lore (as in some Yogic circles) the Swan is emblematic of the fully enlightened being. This is the ultimate realm of consciousness achieved by the medieval Knights of the Swan - as epitomized by such chivalric figures as Perceval and Lohengrin.

The pineal is a very small gland, shaped like a pine-cone. It is centrally situated within the brain, although outside the ventricles, and not forming a part of the brain-matter as such. About the size of a grain of corn, the gland was thought by the 17th-century French optical scientist, Renê Descartes, to be the seat of the soul - the point at which the mind and body are conjoined. The ancient Greeks considered likewise and, in the 4th century BC, Herophilus described the pineal as an organ which regulated the flow of thought.

In the days of ancient Sumer, the priests of Anu (the father of Enlil and Enki) perfected and elaborated a ramifying medical science of living substances with menstrual Star Fire being an essential source component. In the first instance, this was pure Anunnaki lunar essence called Gold of the Gods, and it was fed to the kings and queens of the Dragon succession. Later, however, in Egypt and Mediterranea, menstrual extracts were ritually collected from sacred virgin priestesses who were venerated as the Scarlet Women. Indeed, the very word 'ritual' stems from this practice, and from the word ritu (the redness), which defined the sacred ceremony.

Hormonal supplements are, of course, still used by today's organo-therapy establishment, but their inherent secretions (such as melatonin and serotonin) are obtained from the desiccated glands of dead animals and they lack the truly important elements which exist only in live human glandular manufacture.

In the fire symbolism of ancient alchemy, the colour red is synonymous with the metal gold. In some traditions (including the Indian tantras), red is also identified with black. Hence, the goddess Kali is said to be both red and black. The original heritage of Kali was, however, Sumerian, and she was said to be Kalimâth, the sister of Cain's wife Luluwa. Kali was a primary princess of the Dragon house and from her Star Fire association she became the goddess of time, seasons, periods and cycles.

In the early days, therefore, the metals of the alchemists were not common metals, but living essences, and the ancient mysteries were of a physical, not a metaphysical, nature. Indeed, the very word 'secret' has its origin in the hidden knowledge of glandular secretions. Truth was the ritu, from which stems not only ritual, but also the words rite, root and red. The ritu, it was said, reveals itself as physical matter in the form of the purest and most noble of all metals: gold, which was deemed to represent an ultimate truth.

Just as the word secret has its origin in the translation of an ancient word, so too do other related words have their similar bases. In ancient Egypt, the word amen was used to signify something hidden or concealed. The word occult meant very much the same: 'hidden from view' - and yet today we use amen to conclude prayers and hymns, while something occult is deemed sinister. In real terms, however, they both relate to the word secret, and all three words were, at one time or another, connected with the mystic science of endocrinal secretions.

Such 'Star-Fire' could only have come from the heavens, it is certain. And most likely we get the ancients insisting on a world in successive catastrophe. Intruding comet and cometary debris is evident in geological and dendrology. Yes, the sky was much different to the ancients and they most certainly made time-honored rituals according to fallen meteor or cometary debris.

Such a hidden tradition I am sure Tolkien invested time into; for the Anglo-Saxon tradition is the latest ancient world heir.

As known by world ritual, most meteorite that is venerated (example the Ka'aba in Mecca) is also made into fantastic weapons that not only had better strength and power, it also was a medium to communicate to the godhead (the bringer of knowledge), and the mechanism behind this cosmic energy- which is THE "supreme God" personified by cyclical world upheavals (Creations) that signified the passing of the Sun through various planet gateways, moreover creating successive Ages of Men and Elves.

Furthermore, Turin's sword is said to be black. This denotes a meteoric rock. For such objects, we have the name Kali which in English is 'coal' (denoting that which is black) stems also from this name via the intermediate word kol. In the Hebrew tradition, Bath-Kol (a Kali counterpart) was called the Daughter of the Voice, and the voice was said to originate during a female's puberty. Hence, the womb was associated with the enigmatic voice and Star Fire was said to be the oracular Word of the Womb. Is this alignment too coincidental to be true? It is the Voice from the Stone, which immediately applies to Turin's sword cut from the stone of a meteorite.

----------------------------------------------

Now, for someone's reference to Job:

The Problem of Evil cannot be applied here.

Why?

Satan is not evil.

"Satan" in ancient Hebrew simply means "judge," "opposer" or "accuser." God can be all of these things. However, he has agents of good that carry out his commands, as he is actually not "omnipresent" (an ad hoc claim perpetuated by orthodoxy). There is a hierarchy of being called e'lim or elohim in the ancient Hebrew and the "messengers are one of the lowest ranks. The Judges or Accusers stand in court judging the wicked. These are the satans. Concurrently, humans can also be called satans if they simply oppose. Peter is called satan by Jesus. He opposed him. In all of the Bible, there is no strong evidence to suggest any main antagonist called THE Satan. It's simply a title. And Lucifer is simply a title. It means Son of the Dawn, or Helel ben Shachar in Hebrew, as Isaiah puts it. It can be applied to any messenger who comes in the Name of the El.

I hope this may clear up some things, Tumhalad. These posts were for you.

Always be aware that people tend to disagree, not because they are "idiots" but because they already have an established presupposition.

Best Regards

[Mnemosyne]

Originally Posted by Dakesintrah

Now, for someone's reference to Job:

I have a name, you know.

And I fail to see how the identity or good/evilness of Satan applies to Job in the context of bad stuff happening to good people.

I specifically did not bring up the "behind the scenes" parts of Job, or Satan at all, because Job the person did not have access to that side of the story. All that happened was that his life suddenly started going sour, even though he had done nothing wrong.

In fact, I didn't even apply Job to the "Problem of Evil"--that was tumhalad. I only wanted to highlight the context of a text accepted by Jews and Christians, in which suffering happens for no apparent reason, and suggesting that the fact that Jews and Christians alike have used it to grapple with the idea of suffering, without necessarily engendering a different "moral universe," would suggest that the same sort of reconciliation could and did happen in the fictional Middle-earth.

All of this is quite far, I think, from Tumhalad's original point, but I dislike being misrepresented. This, however, is spot-on:

Always be aware that people tend to disagree, not because they are "idiots" but because they already have an established presupposition.

For you and me both, Dakesintrah. Cheers.

[Inziladun]

Interesting stuff, Dakêsîntrah.

Just so it's clear, you may wish to cite the other sources of these quotes, in addition to the one you did note from the Alford essay.

This and this.

It's always been a problem, Tumhalad, for orthodoxy to logically explain an omnipotent god of the Universe that also allows suffering and evil in the same token.

Once again, it isn't that suffering is "allowed". Many misfortunes, Túrin's certainly among them, were caused by, or at least were enhanced by individual exercise of free will.

As to the age-old argument of "why do good things happen to bad people", well, think of it this way. If life were all sunshine and roses, what meaning would faith have? It's quite easy to be reverent and good when things are going well; quite different when things are falling to bits around one.

Let's look at Tuor again. He was born an orphan, raised in the wild by fugitive Elves; a hard life. As a boy he was captured by the Easterlings and made a slave. He was able to escape after three years. He watched the signs and was led to Vinyamar. There, met by an incarnate Ulmo, he agreed to take up Ulmo's errand.

What ultimately set Tuor apart from his cousin was humbleness, and a realization that his own feelings and desires were not the basis on which all his decisions should be made. Tuor, like Frodo later, possessed the instinctive knowledge that there were things above him that he had to do, regardless of whether he himself would be rewarded or even would understand what was happening. Faith.

[Galadriel55]

Just a side note:

If "God" creates the world and all creatures in it so that the creatures can use their mind and free will, he has to give them an opportunity to make choices. If there is only good, there is no choice. If creatures cannot make their own decisions, what is the use of free will and mind? And if there's no mind or free will, it's as if the creatures are lumps of stone that cannot do anything on its own (hehe, like Aule's stone dwarves and what Eru said about them). It's like a puppet show. Doesn't the world lose all its beauty that way?

You need evil to create a difference, a choice.


Just imagined a really weird thing: this "God" sitting up there watching us discuss him and compare him to Eru!

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Now, to continue with the topic at hand: Tumhalad contends that "God" (Eru, Tolkien's world) is an inconsistent god as he does not exercise clear omnipotent sovereignty in the Children of Hurin compared to the Creation narrative at the beginning of the Silmarillion.

That is a very good point.

Firstly, while the conversation may have veered in this direction, tumhalad's original contention, and the one he has made in multiple threads, is actually that Children of Hurin presents a "moral universe" outside the rest of Tolkien's work, that it is in fact "athiestic", and that it is written as a "counterpoint" to the "providential" Lord of the Rings. Which is not the same thing– in fact, I should say the "contradiction" applies to the whole Legendarium. That has been my contention and that of various other people.

Secondly, you seem to have misunderstand Mnemo's point about the Book of Job– which I thought pretty clear myself but there you go– you're certainly quite right that people interpret things differently!

Thirdly, look, Dakêsîntrah– would you mind being a little more concise and on-topic in your comments in future, please? So much of what you've said here, though interesting in itself, is about as far OT as you could get. As just one example, while this–

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Turin "listens" to his sword, because it comes from the highest metal. Tolkien devotes quite a few words to Anglachel/Gurthang in his accounts of Túrin. The made characteristics we learn is that the weapon was made of iron that came from a fallen star. This material could cleave all iron ore from Middle-earth.

may be somewhat relevant, I cannot for the life of me see why it needs to be backed up with this–

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Star-Fire or the nectar of the gods has a prominent role in Ancient Near Eastern cosmomyth.

In strict terms, the original Star Fire was the lunar essence of the Goddess, but even in an everyday mundane environment, menstruum contains the most valuable endocrinal secretions, particularly those of the pineal and pituitary glands. The brain's pineal gland in particular was directly associated with the Tree of Life, for this tiny gland was said to secrete the very essence of active longevity, referred to as soma - or as the Greeks called it, ambrosia.

In mystic circles, the menstrual flow-er (she who flows) has long been the designated flower, and is represented as a lily or a lotus. Indeed, the definition 'flow-er' is the very root of the modern word flower. In ancient Sumer, the key females of the royal succession were all venerated as lilies, having such names as Lili, Luluwa, Lilith, Lilutu and Lillette.

I mean, I may be right out here, but it really looks to me as if you've simply posted an entire essay on "Echoes of Ancient Near Eastern Mythology in Tolkien's Work", or something like that, in the middle of a topic to which it's only marginally relevant, if at all. I really think this should be given its own thread, where we can actually discuss some of this without the risk of being savaged by arboreal rodents.

Perhaps we could start with the question of how it is that the Sumerians based their symbolism on a pun in a language that had yet to exist at the time?

I look forward to it!

[Dakêsîntrah]

My apologies, Mnemosyne, for disregarding your name. I think I had a moment of "fast" typing, wherein I glossed over the specific "who-said-what."

Now, the example of Job: I am simply stating that since your personified "Satan" is out of the equation, and therefore it is one of God's good guys judging Job, testing him ,if you will, then it may be even harder to put God in an exonerated stance. One is forced to come up with another workable hypothesis, notwithstanding taking in regard the Hebrew grammar.

No, when you think of 'God" in an anthropomorphic sense, this limits his All-Power, and the moment God either 1) gives up his "omnipresent" being for anthropomorphism or 2) temporarily withdraws at least one of his attributes, he ceases to be the "Supreme" ontological being. In the ancient world, function/relationship determined existence, not the modern structure/origins.

Therefore, Galadriel55, it must be insisted that we drop our modern preconceptions of structural creation. In all of the ancient texts, man did not necessarily describe "creation from nothing" thereby assuming universe origins. That was not what was important to them.

In the book of Genesis, it is not describing a creation ex nihilo. Why? The primordial waters of chaos already existed. It is not "water" in the literal sense, it is a metaphysical term for the Void; that which is Orderly Chaos, or that which has no boundaries. Once you ascribe physicality, we have boundaries, limits. How is it to describe God? It is rather better to be silent, implies Dionysius the Areopagite. For in Silence you cannot negate God by describing him as Love, Holy, Good, or any other attribute the human mind attributes in limited form. God is not Love, Holy or Good. He (even 'He' is negation) is Not That Which Is, a universal paradox; because the paradox is precisely the Mechanism by which Ages are Not Which Once Was.

I'm not sure why there is a need to hang on to the notion of 'free will.' As Eru, the One is that which is between the two extremes of chaos and order, then you are a product of His limitation, Which Is Not Limitation? Why? Because That Which Is Not Limitation is negation, the other cosmic balance. All things with limitation (physicality) dissolve into One. It's the cyclical process of Nature.

Inziladun, thank you for pointing out those references I forgot to cite! Still, it is good to cite your own articles you produce! However, it is indeed interesting stuff to engage in, isn't it I was hoping it would prod someone to study further for the sources. It lets me know someone is active in pursuit of truth!

Now, respectively, I think you missed my point about "allowable suffering." Regardless of whether suffering is allowed or not, the point is maintained that had God let suffering perpetuate, or even much more so that he actually does not allow suffering, neither can withstand it, he is still the author of it. He is the author, the root of evil, for simply being the only uncreated One. Even if evil (suffering as the result in most cases) was inactive (that is, not fully consumated in real time) it was still conceived as a static thing of the Mechanism. Evil, I contend, is simply the gaping hole of primordial Chaos, that did indeed exist at each successive Creation catastrophe that brought about new Ages. Good can only really be defined as something which has limits or boundaries (see above for my explanation of physicality as boundaries) - indeed, "definition" is a bounded term. Something can only be defined by separating a physicality with another.


Bethberry, good question about the Buddhists. Buddhists ought not to be religionists. Buddhism was not established by Guatama as a religion but as a philosophy. In other words, ethical standards to live by. When religion comes in it is always pervaded by propaganda (propaganda, ironically was a term invented by the Church to spread about its dogma) which in itself is coerced in a fashionable manner by dogma. Therefore, your Buddhists that worship Buddha as a god are practicing coercive dogma, which is false. Not all Buddhists follow this, however, which is "good."

[Dakêsîntrah]

Nerwen,

I understand completely tumhalad's interpretation regarding a seemingly contradictory moral universe in COH in comparison to other Tolkien works. And in that, I am disagreeing with him, offering another solution that seems to be far more tenable. It is a working solution, so bear with me, or else I encourage you to bear yourself the time to look more in depth at what I have to say.

Again, my point, respectively, is to say that Tolkien is being entirely consistent in his Legendarium in addition to the COH, specifically, the story of Turin Turambar. It is certainly not "atheistic" when I point out the fact of meteoric objects made into temples or swords were actually mediums of contact with the gods. It negates the whole theory of Turin being isolated in his morality from Eru. Read again, and you may see the connection.

This is the praise I give Tolkien for writing this yet "hidden" ancient theme.

I think this thread provides key alignments with Morality. For Morality is that which umbrellas the whole theme of Creation (that is, Creation defined by catastrophic upheaval under an auroral sky). For instance, if you were to ask an Egyptian priestess to describe Ma'at, she would make it a laughing matter, for it ought to be obvious that Ma'at (law of Morality) is that of Isis, the Judge (satan) of Creation.

The bottom line is that my extended posts were designed to challenge your presuppositions, and then we can get to the meat of the matter.

[Nerwen]

Again, my point, respectively, is to say that Tolkien is being entirely consistent in his Legendarium in addition to the COH, specifically, the story of Turin Turambar. It is certainly not "atheistic" when I point out the fact of meteroic objects made into temples or swords were actually mediums of contact with the gods. It negates the whole theory of Turin being isolated in his morality from Eru. Read again, and you may see the connection.

My point is that you could easily have said this much more clearly in far fewer words, my friend– perhaps more as you did just now. (Besides, the fact that meteorites have often been considered sacred is not exactly news.) I must admit that I am also still confused about what exactly you're trying to say here– that Turin thought the sword spoke to him with the voice of Eru? Really?

In general, I cannot help feeling that your own "presuppositions" (perhaps about the ignorance and bias of everyone else?) have led you to misinterpret or disregard much of what has already been said.

[Nerwen]

I'm sorry if I sound overly-irritatated there, it's just that it is almost impossible to discern whatever points you are trying to make when they're so obscured by a fog of semi-random information. Whether you intend this or not, it really does end up looking like deliberate obfustication.

Okay?

[Dakêsîntrah]

Nerwen,

I concur. I certainly could have said this in fewer words. But unfortunately, many other people require more evidence. I am quite happy to expound upon long lines of text.

Meteorites being sacred is not new, but that's not the point. It is the metaphysical principles that come from such rare phenomena (cosmic catastrophe) that encompasses Morality (that which exists by function/relation).

Respectively, if you would have noticed this occult theme of Tolkien, Turin's sword shall have seemed to drive a chasm between human subjective law by action and divine accommodated law.

Furthermore, who's to say Eru actually speaks anthromorphically? I contend he doesn't. In all other ancient Creation myths, there are narratives where a Creation god "speaks" as if the man was already present as a created (structural/origin theory) being. This is anachronistic if you fall into the mindset of anthropomorphism. Eru "speaks" as he is defined, yet unchanged by the successive cycle of Ages. They are not mere words (Tolkien's parallelism is undeniable). Eru enables his foremost Beings to sing "themes." This is not an anthropomorphic choir. This is a visual look into the Ages of Good (limitation) and the Ages of Evil (Chaos). Ages of Good are met with the growth of boundaries (Elves), while balanced by the destruction of Chaos (Melkor). Both are necessary for the balance of nature and the eventual subsumation of Eru, the One. As Eru says, anything Morgoth does he providentially aides Eru in keeping the balance.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Bethberry, good question about the Buddhists. Buddhists ought not to be religionists. Buddhism was not established by Guatama as a religion but as a philosophy. In other words, ethical standards to live by.

Not so fast. Not sure that "religionists" is a fair term to use to decribe Buddhists, as they are likely less prone to being zealots than other practitioners of faith. However, there are some generally agreed upon distinctions that can be made between philosophy and religion which allow Buddhism fairly and justly to be called a religion.

Buddhism is based on revelation and faith, while generally philosophy is not, since it is based on rational and logical systemic search for knowledge. It is a way of thinking rather than a way of behaving, although ethics are studied philosophically. Is meditation a way of behaving or of thinking?

Also, religions have rituals and ceremonies for important events of the year and of life. These are both private and communal. (This is something generally regarded as absent in Tolkien's mythology, except for Faramir's men facing west.) Philosophers do not ritualistically cleanse their hands before reading Hegel or pray to Schopenhauer for enlightenment. Buddhism does have an extensive practice of rituals.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Therefore, your Buddhists that worship Buddha as a god are practicing coercive dogma, which is false. Not all Buddhists follow this, however, which is "good."

Note, I do not "own" any Buddhists, as they are people, not material objects. And I did not speak of any Buddhists who worship Buddha. (I said Buddhism raises interesting questions about divinity. ) In fact, I don't know of any Buddhists who worship Buddha as a god, so I have no idea where you got this point about "practicing coercive dogma." As a statement, it's unproven opinion.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Note, I do not "own" any Buddhists, as they are people, not material objects. And I did not speak of any Buddhists who worship Buddha. (I said Buddhism raises interesting questions about divinity. ) In fact, I don't know of any Buddhists who worship Buddha as a god, so I have no idea where you got this point about "practicing coercive dogma." As a statement, it's unproven opinion.

Also, why are these hypothetical Buddha-worshippers assumed to be using force to spread their doctrine? I mean, they might, of course, but I don't see why such a belief, however mistaken, must be automatically "coercive", any more than any other.

[Nerwen]

As for the meteorite business– I must concur with Morthoron: nowhere is there the least hint that Anglachel has, or is regarded as having, divine authority.

Dakêsîntrah, is it possible that you have fallen into the error of assuming that a symbol has the same meaning in all times and any context? Again, your general argument, as far as I can make out, *cough* presupposes that Tolkien was deeply versed in what appears to be some form of hermetic tradition– and I can't help feeling there's a lack of evidence for this.