Nebulous "It" and Absolutes

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

I am running out the door to work, but just wanted to raise one brief but critical question:

willingness to suffer on the individual's part doesn't excuse the one who inflicts that suffering.

I agree but exactly who is it that "inflicts" the suffering on Frodo? Tolkien seems to make it fairly clear in his writings that the suffering came because of Morgoth and Sauron who clung to their own plans for power or control rather than following along with the music that Eru had spelled out: that plus those Elves and Men who elected to follow a similar path for reasons of greed, immortality or whatever .

If Eru (or God) gives us free will to make our own choices, is he 'inflicting' suffering on us, or is he giving us the chance to function as mature beings in a very complex world?

[Lyta_Underhill]

Yet Tolkien, through Frodo, seems to be saying that 'spiritual' growth merely brings sadness, resignation, & a sense of failure, at least within the world, & so, only has any value 'beyond the World' . In other words, only religious belief, faith in something beyond the world can give meaning to our suffering here. So, athiests actually gain nothing through suffering.

I think this is what Tolkien meant by making Frodo a "sacrificial hero." Frodo couldn't gain for himself that which he saved for others. The wounds of Frodo are sufferings that cannot find redress in Middle Earth simply because of the rarification that they have caused in him. He is aware that the Shire has been saved, and he knows that he played a part, but he is discontent that he is not recognized in a traditional manner for it and that he cannot, in good conscience, share in that kind of glory.

I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one must give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.
--Frodo to Sam in "The Grey Havens"

Its still 'wrong', in the same way that even if all the young men of Tolkien's generation who fought on the Somme had volunteered (& most of them did) in order to save their country, & went over the top willingly, the mass slaughter was still 'wrong', because willingness to suffer on the individual's part doesn't excuse the one who inflicts that suffering. It may be a 'fact' that that's how things are in the world, but that 'fact' is simply not good enough.

It is, of course, impossible to say that slaughter and evil on any scale is 'right.' I hope I didn't say that it could be, because it cannot. But it is also impossible to deny its existence, because the wrongness does exist, and it must be dealt with as it is, not as it should be. So, Frodo's choice is really:
1) Take the Ring away from the Shire, and on to Mount Doom and have some hope that the Shire will not be devastated.
2) Give up the Ring and entrust the safety of the Shire and all of Middle Earth to someone else who has no more defense against this force you know all too well (through 17 years of possession) and give up your attempt to do good through resignation or assigning the task to another.

The fact that Frodo is the perfect one for the task and the fact that he realizes it is one thing. The fact that Frodo goes the extra step and takes on the responsibility is another. I think certainly, if he had known at the outset the depth of the suffering he would endure, he would have (at least in theory) thrown the thing away and bolted. But then, he would have a greater guilt to deal with, knowing that anyone, good or evil, benevolent or inimical, could pick it up and do what he would with it.

So, the "wrongs" I believe are perpetrated on the part of the evil forces, as Child mentions, Morgoth and Sauron and all they corrupted. The sufferings of Frodo are inflicted as a direct result of this evil. The fact that he takes them on himself, rather than allowing another or many others to suffer in his place simply points to Frodo's strength and clear sight.

This question of "why does Eru/God allow suffering in the world" has been a theme question in the world for many ages itself. If He were to simply quash Morgoth and Sauron and all their abominations and deeds, the world itself would be laid to waste and he would have to start again. Instead, the good creations fight "The Long Defeat" and thereby prove their goodness. Why fight "The Long Defeat?" Why get up in the morning when so much evil surrounds us? ...Why not? The alternative is rotting in idleness and bitterness, cursing reality for being, cursing evil for existing when one cannot simply wipe it out by asking God to use the cosmic eraser on it. "Start again!" The director might say, but, alas, the same flaws and darknesses would flow again; the universe would exist in an endless stutter of sameness, a haunted fugue with no development or resolution, waiting for the solution that can never come unless the Long Defeat be allowed to proceed to the Last Battle and the remaking of Arda. I think the inevitable outcome of the temptation to shake one's fist at God or any "higher being" is to fall into the trap of bitterness and follow the fallen into the Void, where there can be no beauty or goodness.

As a last musing, I'll review an argument that my husband, aka, "The Witch King," as I call him, differs with me about. The fact that Gandalf leaves the hobbits to fight their own battle upon the return to the Shire after the War of the Ring. Gandalf could have gone and righted all through his terrifying "Gandalf the White" presence, couldn't he? He could have saved Merry and Pippin a whole lot of trouble and kept them all from experiencing the direct threats they did experience by confronting the corruption in the Shire head-on. Mr. Witch-King believes that Gandalf should have helped them, but I disagreed and thought that Gandalf was wise to let them fight this battle on their own. In microcosm, this could be seen as a higher power allowing the lesser ones to fight a battle that must be fought. By doing so, Gandalf allows the flowering of the strength of the hobbits he knows is there. Merry and Pippin come into their own and are hailed as saviors of the Shire. They are ready for any challenge and can handle their realm without the need for intervention. This, too, is spiritual growth, albeit in a visible, physical way. It is the flowering of the sleeping Shire of the Third Age into the awake and capable Shire of the Fourth Age. It is evolution, maturation, what have you. The growth of Sam, Merry and Pippin is not the same as that of Frodo, but the growth is there and is practical.

I sure hope I haven't rambled on too long and put you all to sleep! I hope you've enjoyed it as much as I have been enjoying this topic myself!

Cheers!
Lyta

P.S. I couldn't help but address this part of davem's post above:

And if they can get there without experiencing the degree of suffering & purification Frodo does, then that implies that Frodo's suffering is not necessary to pass beyond the circles of the world - which means his suffering cannot be justified as the only way to gain Paradise. Which strengthens the sense of 'wrongness' about it, even if it is 'like things are in the world'

It is interesting to note that the instances of Frodo's woundings along the path come mainly when he loses his focus and gives in to temptations or urges that are presented by the evil he is fighting against. He gives in to the temptation to put on the Ring at Weathertop, thus opening himself to the Witch King's Morgul blade wound; Shelob gets him after he lets go his caution and runs whooping loudly along the pass, leaving Sam and all good sense behind him, and finally, his major fall to temptation at the Cracks of Doom results in his loss of the Ring and the finger on which it resides. I can't say this is a one to one causal relationship, and I do admit that Frodo is a special case, a "study of a hobbit broken down completely," so that I would not take his example as the norm for Everyman but rather a mythical example that can inspire and make one think. (I'm not sure this answers anything, but I thought it good to mention...)
Now, I'm really going...

[Essex]

Lyta, very interesting. The only thing I strongly disagree with in your post is the point that you, and many before you, have made regarding Frodo's 'disontentment' as you call it. i.e.:

He is aware that the Shire has been saved, and he knows that he played a part, but he is discontent that he is not recognized in a traditional manner for it and that he cannot, in good conscience, share in that kind of glory.

I have never seen ANY proof in the texts that Frodo is discontent that he is not recognised as a hero. This is totally against his nature.

Now if you can find something that proves this, be it the text or a letter from Tolkien then I will stand corrected, but I've asked this point on different threads on and on different sites before and nothing has swayed my belief.

Frodo does not need to be seen as a hero to his people. If he really wanted praise (which he didn't), then the King of Gondor kneeling before him I reckon is good enough.

Davem, re:

Its still 'wrong', in the same way that even if all the young men of Tolkien's generation who fought on the Somme had volunteered (& most of them did) in order to save their country, & went over the top willingly, the mass slaughter was still 'wrong', because willingness to suffer on the individual's part doesn't excuse the one who inflicts that suffering. It may be a 'fact' that that's how things are in the world, but that 'fact' is simply not good enough.

Unfortunatley you are talking about a Perfect world. I think Tolkien's work is showing, that even in his Fantasy, Middle-earth is not perfect. Even the Elves themselves, his 'higher echelon', maybe comparible to Christian Angels, were not perfect. In fact they were quite a nasty bunch at times........ So, yes you can say it is 'wrong', but then not everything is black and white in this world. There are shades of grey.

PS Lyta, re the Scouring. Gandalf's work was done. I agree with your point that it helps the hobbits grow, but really his hands were tied anyway, as his job was already finished and he was in retirement! He needed to pop down to the Old Forest anyway to see Tom (his Boss) to pick up his P45!!!! Oops, opened up a can of worms there...............

[Child of the 7th Age]

Essex,

You raise this point:

I have never seen ANY proof in the texts that Frodo is discontent that he is not recognised as a hero. This is totally against his nature.

Now if you can find something that proves this, be it the text or a letter from Tolkien then I will stand corrected, but I've asked this point on different threads on and on different sites before and nothing has swayed my belief.

What about this quote from a draft letter written in September 1963? It clearly states that part of Frodo did crave recognition as a hero. The italics are my own....

.....it was not only nightmares of past horrors that afflicted him, but also unreasoning self-reproach: he saw himself and all that he done as a broken failure. 'Though I may come to the Shire, it will not seem the same, for I shall not be the same.' That was actually a temptation out of the Dark, a last flicker of pride: desire to have returned as a 'hero', not content with being a mere instrument of good.

Child

[davem]

Lyta, I can see what you're saying, & part of me agrees with it - except the idea that his wounds could be considered his own fault for 'slipping' at certain points - it seems a bit harsh, but maybe I'm taking a too negative view of your point.

But Frodo is hardly allowed to make a free choice & is told by both Gandalf & Elrond that he is meant to have the Ring, & that the task is appointed for him & if he doesn't find a way, no-one will (shall we translate: 'if you don't succeed in detroying this Ring we'll all be killed or enslaved, & it will be all your fault'.?)

He is given a task he cannot suceed in achieving, told it will be his fault if he doesn't achieve it, & in the end is left with nothing, except the overwhelming sense of failure & only the option of exile to relieve his suffering. And, rationalise it as we will, it is wrong, & cruel, whether Illuvatar, or fate, or the Music, or Morgoth, or Sauron, or simply 'the way things are in the world' is responsible.

We, looking on from a distance, may be able to see that he's 'grown' into a more spiritual' person, but i don't get any sense that he feels that. So, what is the value to him, as opposed to all those 'charming, absurd Hobbits', & the 'great' in their palaces? What does he actually get out of it all? Not too much. So, while it might be 'fair' & good, & admirable from the perspective of others that he's done all that for them, given so much for them, while we might be able to look at him & say 'My, how he's grown!', he is broken & lost, & we have no idea what form his healing will take, how 'healed' he will feel at the end of his 'treatment'. But the rest of the world will be OK, so that's alright?

Except its not alright, really, is it? Not for him, & that's the point. What he suffers is wrong, when all's said & done. Its not really enough to say these big, cosmic battles have to be fought (which is true), because those who fight them (as with Tolkien's generation) suffer horribly so the rest of us can carry on.

Frodo doesn't actually do what's right - he really does what's 'wrong'. because as Sam says 'Its all wrong', & that's in a way what's both truly tragic, & truly admirable about him. He's placed by Eru, or fate, or the way things are in the world, without being asked, in a world that's all wrong, & is told 'Its your job to help put it right, now, get on with it - people are depending on you!' What becomes of him seems almost secondary - but its 'alright', because when he's been wrecked & broken they (the ones who put him in the position where he got broken, will come along & put him back together again, & say, 'There you are, young Hobbit, that's alright then, all better now, off you go to your destiny beyond the Circles of the World'.

It feels 'wrong', & I can't shake that feeling.

[mark12_30]

davem,

I disagree that the ones who assigned the task to Frodo leave him hanging. The very three who assured Frodo that carrying the Ring was his task-- Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel-- are with him, on the very ship on which he sails away. They each are Ringbearers. They know (more than anyone else could) what Frodo went through. They alone (of any living creatures save the Nazgul) could empathize with him. Yes, they knew the task was impossible; they understand his final failure; they accept him nevertheless, and continue their commitment to help him.

In a sense, they are his kinsmen now.

[Imladris]

But Frodo is hardly allowed to make a free choice & is told by both Gandalf & Elrond that he is meant to have the Ring, & that the task is appointed for him & if he doesn't find a way, no-one will (shall we translate: 'if you don't succeed in detroying this Ring we'll all be killed or enslaved, & it will be all your fault'.?)

I wouldn't say that. What I think Galadriel is that the only person who had a chance of doing it was Frodo. Everybody else was either too foolish (eg, Merry and Pippin) or had too much power that could easily be enslaved to the ring (eg, Gandalf). I believe I read in another thread once was that they knew he would fail...how could he not? They knew he was "human" and had his faults. They knew there was not much hope. Why would they blame him for that?

Of course he suffered wrong. But this is an imperfect world. No one would have suffered at all if Melkor hadn't gotten on his high horse and corrupted Middle-earth. As hard as it is to accept, this is the way that Middle-earth and our world works. It's unfortunate, but it's the hard truth. There is suffering in this world, and none of it is fair. But what can be more beautiful than a few soldiers giving up their life, their happiness, for the good of the human race? It's called self-sacrifice. Would you rather have Middle-Earth suffer under Sauron because what would happen to Frodo would be wrong? Would you rather have Sauron king of Middle-earth because what would happen to Frodo would be unfair?

[davem]

Firefoot, we seem to be saying the same thing. What happens to Frodo is wrong - everyone in the story seems to know that - Sam certainly does - his last words to Frodo show him struggling to accept the wrongness of his fate. The world is wrong, & what happens to Frodo is wrong. It is the 'way things are in the world' & has to be lived with, but it must still be acknowledged as 'wrong'.

To stray into a 'dangerous' area - Christ comes to die, to save the world. If he hadn't died on the Cross, if he'd lived a quiet life as a carpenter, got married, had kids, grown old & died peacefully in his sleep, that would have been a 'good' life for him. But no salvation, no hope beyond the world, everything would just have carried on in the same old messed up way. So, he had to die, as he did. But still, when we look at, think about him hanging there, being tortured to death, our instinctual response is that's its wrong, that it should not be happening. Intelectually & theologically we might understand why it happened & even be thankful for it, but on a gut level we what see is the 'wrongness' of the world symbolised in that one event.

Now, back to the 'plot

Moral choices are not made in a vacuum, & Frodo is put in a postion of having to take up the responsibility laid on him, or end up feeling a worse failure than he does in the end anyway. He is manouvered, by Eru, among others (Gandalf tells him he was meant to have the Ring - & not by its maker). And ultimate responsibility lies with Eru, not with Morgoth or Sauron, because Eru states that none may alter the Music in his despite.

So, does Eru have any 'moral' responsibility for his 'intentions', for what happens to individuals as a result of the changes He does or does not allow? Surely He must, if he can demand that of the inhabitants of Arda? Can Eru be held to account? Would He also require, perhaps, forgiveness from his creatures?

And please remember, none of this is to question God in this world - (though Jung seems to ask these questions about God in his 'Answer to Job'). Eru is a character in a story, God of Arda, not of this universe & we can analyse his behavour with just as much right as we analyse that of Frodo or Sauron.

[littlemanpoet]

Child:

When a person is totally immersed in despair, they are incapable of appreciating either goodness or beauty. The fact that Frodo could look on those shores and sense their underlying purity suggests that something in him was still capable of responding to goodness.

No. I must disagree that despair removes one's ability to appreciate goodness or beauty. I speak from personal experience. This simply does not ring true. It is quite possible for Frodo to be in the midst of despair, the world seeming grey to him, and the present goodness and beauty around him not touching him, because it cannot reach past the despair; but other beauty and goodness can reach him; it simply cannot be found where he had always looked before. There is Frodo's Elvish nature, which, because the 3rd age has died, no longer can find fulfillment in Middle Earth.

Davem:

If we accept the 'conceit' behind LotR - it was written by the Hobbits involved - then who exactly wrote the account of Frodo's arrival at the Undying Lands? Sam did.

In this case, the conceit doesn't work. At this point we have omniscient narrator. Not Sam. I really don't think that the conceit does work. (hmmm.... has there ever been a thread about this?) Whereas the conceit serves it purpose as a means of adding to the historical feel of the story, by this point in the story, the conceit is no longer needed, nor affecting the reader. If the reader has stayed with it as far as Frodo's journey across the Sea, the story itself, and all that has transpired, is enough to move the reader, and does so, obviously.

Davem:

I can't see Frodo thinking 'Whoo, yeah! I'll have some of that! Where do I sign up?'

Firefoot:

Frodo could not have known what he would go through when he volunteered to take the Ring in Rivendell.

But Frodo did, at the Council of Elrond, have a notion of what was going to be required when he volunteered to take the Ring; he knew then that it was a sacrificial quest, and likely would end in his own death. He had already experienced the Morgul Blade, and been changed by it. Think of Gandalf's thoughts as he watches Frodo: "to the wizard's eye there was a faint change, just a hint as it were of transparency, about him, and especially about the left hand that lay outside upon the coverlet." And Frodo "signed on". Why would anyone do such a thing? Would you? Would I? The answer is that indeed, some of us, many of us, would. Why? Because we weigh the thing out as did one high priest a couple thousands of years ago: the sacrifice of one is worth the saving of many - even if that one is myself.

Firefoot:

I believe Frodo had hope - not for himself, but for the whole of Middle-earth.

Precisely.

Child:

One of the things that strikes me is how generally moral the Hobbits are, a morality based on instinct rather than formal belief.

It's not really based on instinct. Tolkien's Hobbits are strongly based on pre World War One English society, the culture of which was deeply rooted in Western Christianity. Those underpinnings remain among Tolkien's Shire, even if they have been unmoored from their initial context. This is proven all the more by the familiarity between the Hobbits and the Rohirrim, by which Tokien essentially evokes a time travel within his novel from 19th century England to Anglo-Saxon England of 1000 years previous. In other words, the Hobbits travel back in time as they travel south toward Rohan, Gondor, and Mordor. All of which is to say that the Hobbits' morality is basically God-fearing, even if the text does not say so, per sé.

At the beginning of the story, even, Frodo is different than the other Hobbits, which is in part why Bilbo chose him as his heir. Even here, I suppose, Frodo didn't have a choice. Bilbo made it for him, to be the heir of the Ring. As Child said, davem, when it comes right down to it, none of us has a whole lot of choice in much of anything, only sometimes between the worse, and the lesser, of two evils. Such is fallen/flawed life. And it hurts. Heh. Reminds me of an aphorism I made up for myself: "The essence of humanity is not in the exercise of free will but in the nuanced expression of suffering." Ouch! But I guess I still believe it, two years later.

Dininziliel:

Is it possible to have the opposite outcome where "all is light and full of joy"?

I believe that is is possible. Notice the quote in my sig. It's the essence of being human, I think: "You will be healed in such a way that the harm done to you, and the suffering you endure, will become the stuff of your healing." How this happens, I don't know. Does it happen in LotR? It's hard to say. Does it happen in real life? Absolutely. Thus, it seems to me, that light and joy take up into itself all the darkness and horror and suffering, and transform it into something new. How? It depends on what you believe, I suppose, and it's a little bit what this season is about for some of us.

Well, I haven't waded through the entire thread, but I'm getting long winded here, so I'll post up and be quiet for a bit.

"May your song always be sung." -Bob Dylan

LMP

[Lyta_Underhill]

Except its not alright, really, is it? Not for him, & that's the point. What he suffers is wrong, when all's said & done. Its not really enough to say these big, cosmic battles have to be fought (which is true), because those who fight them (as with Tolkien's generation) suffer horribly so the rest of us can carry on.

It feels 'wrong', & I can't shake that feeling.

I, too, have this 'wrong' feeling at times, but there is also a warring feeling that I get that my view of this 'wrong' is a human conceit, a desire for things to be handed to me, for the truths and beauties of the vast universe to be handed to me on a platter. Thus, I cannot condemn inevitable suffering, nor place blame on a higher power. Ultimately, I am responsible for my own enlightenment, and to seek personal fulfillment to the exclusion of all other realities seems, to me, too egocentric a berth to proceed from. The closest label I can put on it is "spiritual envy," and that does not cover it completely, I am sure.

I cannot remember exactly when I came to the realization not only that life really wasn't fair, but that it was a dangerous conceit to wish it to be so. I found that, the more I railed against the injustices that could not be controlled, foreseen, nor avoided, the more depressed I became. I still become depressed, but I maintain these warring views and a firm conviction that, as Eru maintains in the Ainulindalë, there is no part of the Music, not even the discord of Melkor, that does not have its source in Him. The danger is to ascribe to Eru a willful malice, a desire to harm or toy with the creation. The danger is to believe that we know better than the Creator, but we would not be human if we did not question the creation, and, yes, rail against it as well. Of course there is the view of absence, that there IS no will controlling the progress of the universe, and, if I were to subscribe to this view, then I might as well stick my head in physics books and never emerge, because I'd STILL have to try to explain it somehow. I am only human after all, even if I am a hobbit!

Lyta, I can see what you're saying, & part of me agrees with it - except the idea that his wounds could be considered his own fault for 'slipping' at certain points - it seems a bit harsh, but maybe I'm taking a too negative view of your point.

I don't, in fact, blame Frodo for losing focus. Most who would try to carry such a burden would fall much more quickly and easily. It is inevitable that Frodo will have some failings, but my point was that his failings resulted in immediate and definite consequences, thus bringing home the narrowness of focus required to see this quest through. The wounds of Frodo Baggins are not his fault; they are the result of evil or chaotic forces acting upon him. The relationship with his loss of focus or will seems to me to point out the gravity of the quest and just how difficult it is to carry it through. I do not cast blame upon Frodo himself, for, under the circumstances, I think he did as well or better than any other being could have done.

Cheers!
Lyta

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

I think you are asking something so basic, something so fundamental to being human, that it simply can't be contained in the character of Frodo alone, or on the pages of this thread.

The basic reality is this: there are no assurances in this life. Tolkien recognized that in his own childhood, and he wove that truth into the characters he created. Frodo is the most obvious example of someone who did the right thing, yet had to pay the consequences. Yet there are other characters in the book whose lives were tinged with untold sadness and loss: Arwen, Elrond, the Ents, and even poor Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, to name but a few. Sometimes, like Frodo or Arwen, we make a conscious decision to do what is right, knowing that stance will require us to sacrifice. More often, we are like Elrond or Lobelia, trying to muddle through things until something hits us in the stomach--something so massive that we know we'll never truly be ourselves again.

You might laugh at the inclusion of Lobelia's name in the list, but stop and think about it. She was a mother who saw her son murdered and probably cannibalised. With all her small sins and shortcomings, did she (or her son) really "deserve" such a fate. As a mother myself, I think it is clear that she did not.

I'm in my mid-fifties which is older than most people on this thread or site. As I've gone through life, one of the things that's struck me is how few people come to middle-age without being touched by a major tragedy in some way. As I talk to friends and neighbors, I compile a list of truly heartbreaking things, families touched by all the shadows and griefs of the universe, things that just shouldn't happen to good and decent folk.

Tolkien became an expert in such things at a very young age: losing both his mother and father, having to contend with the anti-Catholic prejudice that was rampant among his relatives, and enduring the horrors of trench warfare including the loss of close friends. The young man had a choice. He could have become embittered and unproductive, and turned his back on the faith his mother gave him. Like so many others of his generation, he could have embraced alienation and made cynicism his hallmark. But he didn't do that.

Instead, he kept plugging along, combatting the depression, which evidently did come in bouts, by finding meaning in friends and family, religious faith, and the myths he loved so much. When I read LotR, the impression I come away with is of sadness, loss, and sacrifice, but with one important difference. I sense that there is something good and decent that lies at the core of Middle-earth and also at the core of life so that perhaps Frodo's suffering (and ours as well) has some meaning, even if I am too limited to understand it fully. When I set down the book, I do not feel despair, horror or alienation, which is true with many other works I've read, but rather sadness deeply intertwined with joy.

Sadness intertwined with joy..... I think Tolkien has it right. Life is like that. One minute you're laughing, the next you're crying, and sometimes you're doing both at once. This is not to belittle one feeling or the other, merely to say that they're both there, and we simply don't have a lot of control over what hits us in the face. As Gandalf more eloquently said, we can't control what's presented to each of us, we can only try to make the right and decent response. And sometimes that's so hard....

I grieve with Frodo and with those around me who've hit a tough spot in this universe. I grieve for my own losses. Only a blockhead would deny that injustice doesn't exist. I've seen enough of it to know. Yet is that all there is? I just don't think so, and Tolkien's writings resonate with me precisely because he felt the same way.

Read those last words that Tolkien wrote when Frodo first saw the shores of Tol Eressea. Really read them.... the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back , and he beheld white shores and beyond them a green country under a swift sunrise. There is no way that could be Samwise speaking. It sounds nothing like him. It is Frodo and Frodo's visions from the house of Bombadil, and to me it speaks of the possibility of healing. Not the assurance but the possibility, and that's all we can expect in this life.