Nebulous "It" and Absolutes

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I admit that I have come to this thread late, and while I have done my best to catch up on the full debate, the overwhelming volume and complexity of the posts has defeated me (somewhat) – so if I am about to replicate points that have already been made, please do let me know!

At any event, the first thing that has spurred me to post here is the idea of Frodo and repentence. Davem, you ask (and then answer):

Has Frodo anything to repent of? If he claimed the Ring in full knowledge of the implications, then, yes.

The moment at which Frodo claims the Ring has always struck me as being wonderfully ambivalent on just this point:

“‘I have come,’ he said. ‘But I do not choose now to do what I came to do. I will not do this deed. The Ring is mine!”

At first glance it does indeed appear as though Frodo is making his own choice, albeit under huge (perhaps, as Tolkien argued, irresistible pressure) from the Ring. But the language is so loaded. Syntactically the sentences as Frodo utters them are clumsy, but they do allow the following two phrases:

“I do not choose now” and “I will not.” This would seem to open the door to the idea that Frodo’s will has been overmastered by the Ring, and that he is not in control anymore. He is “not choosing” for his “will [is] not” his own anymore.

Also, the pattern of this little scene is suggestive that Frodo is not making his own choice here. It begins with the acknowledgement of his heroic act (“I have come” ), then moves into the above ambiguous expressions of intent (that is, he has lost the ability to choose and will to the Ring), and then he claims the Ring as his own. It is only after he has reached the point where he can “not choose” and “will not” that the he claims the Ring.

So, in answer to your question Davem: no, Frodo has nothing to repent of for he did not claim the Ring, the Ring claimed him!

The other thing that I have had flitting through my mind as I read over the posts is Frodo’s parting words to Sam:

“‘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 has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.’”

Now, before I started ploughing through this thread, I had always thought that this referred to the sacrifices people made in war to preserve or save the homeland. But now I think about it differently: it seems to me that with the end of the War of the Ring, much that is good and beautiful is passing from Middle-Earth: Galadriel, Elrond and Gandalf are all on the same boat with Frodo. These beings are the repository of memory: the memory of Westernesse, and the First Age and of all that is now gone. For them to leave and Frodo to remain means that in Middle-Earth there will no longer be beings who remember the light, but at least one being who remembers the darkness. It’s not that Frodo will remain in Middle-Earth like the blot of ‘sin’ but as a reminder and commemoration of Sauron’s works -- that is, he knows the full nature of the One Ring.

I’m still not entirely happy with this last thought, but it seems intriguing enough (to me at least) to throw out there.

[mark12_30]

Fordim, thank you for a well-crafted and thorough description of Frodo's Sammath Naur experience... I'll bookmark that post.

--mark12_30

ps. Dare I say it: your purely Trilogy-derived position also *happens* to agree with Letters... (ducks flying objects)

[littlemanpoet]

I thought I might regret throwing out Job's words, "I repent in dust in ashes." I do. The analogy is imperfect. To apply it to Frodo is to jump into a bush of thistles, I think.

Now I must take my pruning hook to the thistle bush. (If I may make so bold)

I don't know if Frodo has anything to repent of. Actually, I'm not sure the question is appopriate to ask. Why not? Because so far it's based on an analogy to Job, which I don't find altogether appropriate either, and I'm the one who broached it! Job's repentance in dust and ashes was, I think, if one looks at the context of the book, was because he thought he could do a better job of running the world than his God; which is precisely where Yahweh questions him. This was not at all what Frodo was about. So in that sense, the analogy was poor, and I rescind it (in dust and ashes). :P

Whether Frodo has anything to repent of or not, I must oppose, as kindly as I may, the general direction in Fordim Hedgethistle's post (no wonder I came up with the thistle analogy!). It splits hairs. Such hair splitting is called "casuistry", which developed, at least among Protestants, as a new legalism after the Protestant Reformation. It had to be reformed from. Long story.

I don't think it works to use casuistry at all, and not in the context of Frodo's choice at Mount Doom. Whether stated negatively or positively, a choice was made by Frodo, whether or not his will was overwhelmed by the Ring. Does it make him guilty? The question doesn't matter to me, because I think it's beside the point.

Tolkien's purpose, in part, was to present an impossible task that a normal hobbit (read human being) would not be able to achieve, and would be broken by it. He succeeded admirably, to say the least. I think that he succeeded just as admirably in tapping into the reality of human existence in that all of us, who truly live, have the impossible task of living whole lives. None of us succeed. Any of us who are willing to admit it, do, that we are broken, and need to be made whole. We need the numinous.

LMP

[mark12_30]

I see LMP's point also, about the casuistry. Let me clarify:

When discussing "Does Frodo need to repent", the usual question is, "Of Treason." Tolkien in letters (Letter 191) responded with a resounding "no" to that, which is why Fordim's post appeals to me. WHile Tolkien's logic is not quite the same as Fordim's, there are similarities.

However Tolkien also states (in Letters; I'm still ducking flying objects from the Canon Book Vs Reader thread) that Frodo does need to repent of pride, and, desire to still posess the ring and regret its destruction. But that's very different indeed than having to repent of treason.

I'm not sure how that all weaves into LMP and Fordim's discussion and I don't want to derail that. I hope my references to Letters have not done so. I offer them as "additional information."

Grace and peace, --mark12_30

[The Saucepan Man]

There is a great discussion of whether or not Frodo made a conscious decision to claim the Ring here:

Frodo at Sammath Naur

Personally, I think that the words used (I choose ..., I will ...) indicate that it was a conscious decision on Frodo's part, albeit one which he had no power to resist (anyone for casuistry? ).

[davem]

LMP

Clearly the 'Job question' is a difficult one - a 'surface' reading of the text has God & Satan playing a game, with Job as a pawn - Satan says to God 'I bet I can turn him against you', & God replies, 'Go on then, try it'. Job is then broken by Satan while he & God watch from a safe distance, like a couple of vivisectionists testing a lab rat. When its all over, & Job has lost everything, including his wife & children, God pops up, tells him he's an ignorant, ungrateful worm, but then, in His infinite mercy, decides He'll 'forgive' him & gives him a new family & replaces his livestock.

So, we have the impression of a God who doesn't really care about anything but His own majesty, & plays vicious games with His children's lives.

This, I suppose, was where I was coming from with my original criticism of Eru's treatment of Frodo. Frodo is used by Eru to help get rid of Sauron. He is simply used as a pawn in a 'game' between Eru & first Melkor, then Sauron. Frodo is broken as a result, but Eru, in His infinite mercy, takes Frodo off into the West & fixes him up.

Paul states 'All have sinned, & all have fallen short of the glory of God'. So, did Tolkien feel this statement applied in Middle Earth? If so, then Frodo has sinned. But then we are left with the question of what Frodo's 'sin' actually was. Are we talking about 'original' sin, or individual sin?

If it was 'original' sin, then why should Frodo suffer more than anyone else, be broken more completely, suffer more absolutely? If it is an 'individual' sin, then that sin must be more severe than any other, if the consequence is more severe.

But now we are back to your point - we cannot look at things in this way, because suffering cannot be 'explained' or accounted for logically, or in terms of credits & debits totted up & punishment assigned. Suffering is a fact, 'sin' - at least 'original' sin - is a fact, part of the way things are in the world. Suffering can only be transcended, climbed above, like the storm in Jung's analogy, & the reasons for it left behind. We have to leave suffering behind, as God, in' forgiving' our sins, is effectively leaving them behind, so that in the end we can say 'suffering' was , 'sin' was.

To bring in the idea of 'enchantment' from the 'canonicity' thread, enchantment is what happens when suddenly, for a moment, we step out of the Shadowlands into the Light, out of galadhremmin ennorath - 'tree tangled Middle Earth', & see suddenly the light of the stars of Elbereth. So, 'enchantment' in this sense is not a delusion, but a sudden clear sight of the truth - which we here find in Tolkien's secondary world. The truth 'enchants' us, whether the light that suddenly shines on us has its source in this world or in Middle Earth. In the Shadowlands, in tree tangled Middle Earth we stumble blindly in the dark, & 'sin' & suffer. Frodo, at the end, will not so much be 'healed' as 'enchanted'.

But the 'living happily ever after', as we see in Frodo's story, takes place beyond this world, because here the light shines fitfully, & the enchantment passes often before we realise we were enchanted.

And, yes, I realise I've now adopted the polar opposite position to the one I started out with!

[Dininziliel]

I gave up on the idea of trying to compose a full-fledged post after it took me two hours to compile what follows. I’m simply going to let it stand as a draft of excerpted quotes & responses that struck me along the way in the order that I was struck. The unfolding of this thread as follows was surprising, and also renewed a small hope for the near future of my brain cells.

Then again we can come around the fact that Iluvatar knew what was going to happen, he knew what they were going to choose to do, but I don’t think we can fully understand his mind. [Hookbill the Goomba] A god I can fully understand with the mind I currently have couldn’t do much for me; I need something much, much bigger.

but other beauty and goodness can reach him; it simply cannot be found where he had always looked before. [LMP] As the sayings go, when we do what we’ve always done, we’ll get what we always got; and if we expect different results, we’re insane. (history, anyone?)

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. [LMP] There is no joy that does not contain sorrow; joy w/out sorrow = mere happiness. IMO, another way to say what LotR is about is that it is an exemplification of the journey to joy.

. . . rather than causing Arda to be marred, he allowed it to be marred. [Firefoot] Many people have an immature understanding of God and confuse “allowing” w/”causing.” Understanding that small difference makes the whole difference in how we perceive the world, God, and ourselves in relationship to all.

But in creating Arda already flawed by incorporating Melkor's themes Eru increases the likelihood that the Children will choose evil [davem] God allowed the serpent into Eden—did God not know the nature of the creature he created?

If Eru, motivated by a desire to bring about the Good, (& even if He knew that it was the only way to achieve the Good), allows Evil into existence, is He not responsible for the suffering that results along the way to the good? [davem] No, because, we have the power to choose Good or Evil, Love or Fear. We are not doomed, forced, nor tricked into choosing evil/fear no matter how stacked the deck is. There is always the option to choose again. At any moment, we can choose heaven or we can choose hell. And we can do this over and over and over in any order we like. If this isn’t free will, then what is? IMO, it is axiomatic that we are responsible for our part in the consequences of our choices.

In a sense, Frodo IS the Music, rather than being a puppet of Eru. [Lyta_Underhill] Yes! Each of US is a note—the challenge is to play it beautifully. (That’s a quote, but I can’t recall the source.)

how can Eru be justified in choosing Frodo for the task in circumstances in which he (Frodo) cannot possibly concieve the scale of the loss which he will suffer in carrying it out . . [Saucepan Man] If not Frodo, who? Who could possibly know the full scale of the task? Is it possible for anyone at any time to understand the full scale of a task at any point in its undertaking? This is not possible as it is impossible to trace an action to an absolute beginning or to an absolute ending (as this discussion seems to be illustrating so well). [SM cont’d] and in which, once the Ring comes into his possession, he really has very little choice in the matter (if Sauron's victory is to be averted). It doesn’t matter what size the choice is, there is still a choice—if nothing else, we can choose a perspective. Read Viktor Frankl’s Will to Meaning for unforgettable & explicit evidence for this. (By the way, SM, I like your signature!)

And yet the question remains . . . Does Eru bear any responsibility for His choices [davem] This presupposes a sameness of level in being which is something that Lyta_Underhill brought up earlier. I guess a simpler way of saying this is, again, if I can understand God (or even Eru), then God (& Eru) are too small. Or . . . I make myself as big as God/Eru. Does God/Eru make choices as we understand the notion of choice? This is, indeed, a mystery I choose not to discuss this particular matter! (It can only remain a mystery upon which we can only dash our brain cells against in a vain attempt to solve.)

how much freedom do we actually have? Eru will step in to manipulate events & even individuals. [davem] Again, we have to freedom to choose again and again. Bilbo could have chosen to keep the Ring (Frodo did). Gollum could have chosen to forgive Frodo. (He didn’t.) There are lots of choices along the way that could have changed the outcome of the Ring in that year. It may be that God/Eru has “stacked the deck”—if so, I say, “Thank you!” because I can relax in the knowledge that all will be well. The fact that there is pain does not negate this for me, because I am now empowered w/the knowledge that though pain is inevitable, suffering is optional. It’s all a matter of perspective, aka choice! You can either blame God/Eru for what seems to be wrong on earth/ME, or you can be grateful for everything just as it is. [Din bows to Buddha]

Job, who lost everything, asked all kinds of "why" questions, and finally saw God; once he did, he no longer needed the question answered; having seen God was his answer. [LMP] Exactly. Well put!

The storm is still going on, but you can watch it from a safe distance. Perspective. [davem] Exactly.

Is he actually 'healed' in the sense of having what was wrong with him put right, or do his wounds remain forever, but he himself is made different by having had them inflicted on him, suffering them? [davem] Is there really a preferable difference (what is healing if it is not a transformation?), or is all this actually about not liking the way we perceive that God/Eru does things?

Completeness seems like the only possible conclusion to suffering, and it seems to be what Tolkien is suggesting not only for Frodo, but for Sam and the rest of the Fellowship as well. [LMP] Exactly. And for us, too. Suffering leads to transformation (when Love is chosen over fear); transformation leads to completeness; completeness = wholeness; wholeness = atonement (at-one-ment) = as one w/God = Heaven.

I suppose part of the problem is that LotR ends before we see Frodo's final state. [davem] I am reminded of Christ’s words to Thomas—“Must you see to believe?” If we could know by somehow seeing what has been “unseeable” does that not nullify free will? If I can know the answer to all my questions through my senses & mind (which is informed & shaped by the senses), then . . .think about it.

wounds remain ugly because they are not illuminated [davem] Exactly!

So, we can never see God in ourselves, only in those around us. [davem] While I’m further back on the journey than what I’m about to say, I sometimes think I’m on the road to it: Is there a difference between God outside and God inside? Do we not see ourselves in others and others in ourselves?

Has Frodo anything to repent of? [davem] Yes, in the sense of atonement, for believing that there is a separation between self & God and choosing self instead of God as evidenced when he claimed the Ring at Doom, thus necessitating the suffering for his transformation. Which brings us full circle to the beginning of this thread . . .

“I do not choose now” and “I will not.” This would seem to open the door to the idea that Frodo’s will has been overmastered by the Ring, and that he is not in control anymore. He is “not choosing” for his “will [is] not” his own anymore. [Fordim] As Tolkien has said, Frodo was overmatched, and thus doomed (as are we all when going mano a mano w/pure evil). However, he made the choices leading to that point. These choices were made of good & noble stuff at first (choosing others/Love), then slowly changed as he came nearer to Mt. Doom—he was choosing personal self, which resulted in the ultimate & inevitable abandonment of Higher Self (self in the world vs. Self in God). This is, IMO, the nature of Frodo’s wound/suffering.

So, 'enchantment' in this sense is not a delusion, but a sudden clear sight of the truth - which we here find in Tolkien's secondary world.. . Frodo, at the end, will not so much be 'healed' as 'enchanted'. [davem] Wow, I like this notion. I started checking out the Canonicity thread, but did a quick U-turn back to this one when I saw how deep Canonicity was. I’m going to complete my U-ee and do a 360! [And about time, too, exclaimed the chorus of exasperated hobbits! ]

[littlemanpoet]

davem: how much freedom do we actually have? Eru will step in to manipulate events & even individuals.

din: Again, we have freedom to choose again and again. Bilbo could have chosen to keep the Ring (Frodo did). Gollum could have chosen to forgive Frodo. (He didn’t.) There are lots of choices along the way that could have changed the outcome of the Ring in that year. It may be that God/Eru has “stacked the deck”—if so, I say, “Thank you!” because I can relax in the knowledge that all will be well.

LMP: Sorry, but I must take exception to God "stacking the deck". By giving us free will, that is rendered impossible. Every creature born with free will is one more creature who limits God's omnipotence, and it appears that that's the way God wants it. Now, just in case it occurred to anyone, to posit that God actually retains God's omnipotence by making the chooser choose what the chooser chooses, flouts free will, not to mention good sense, rendering human life a farce, and pain and suffering reason enough to commit suicide; which is no solution, because if one's spirit continues after physical death in a universe constructed like that, we're all doomed in an existence governed by a God worse than Melkor. So it can't possibly be that way. I can't believe in that kind of God, certainly not to try and save some piece of dearly loved traditional doctrine!

>din: The fact that there is pain does not negate this for me, because I am
>now empowered w/the knowledge that though pain is inevitable, suffering
>is optional. It’s all a matter of perspective, aka choice! You can
>either blame God/Eru for what seems to be wrong on earth/ME, or you can
>be grateful for everything just as it is. [Din bows to Buddha]
>
>
LMP: Maybe this is just a matter of semantics, but it appears that you're saying that suffering is a choice based on the perspective of the one experiencing pain. Buddhist or not, it seems to me that such thinking confounds good sense (apologies to all Buddhists). Example: Christ suffered on the cross. To use this thinking, all he had to do was get the right perspective and it wouldn't have hurt so bad? A mother suffering the pains of childbirth: just put her mind in the right frame and she won't suffer from the pain of ripped muscle? An abused spouse or starved child - all they have to do is think about it the right way? Need I go further with the examples? Buddhism doesn't seem to touch suffering in a satisfactory manner. Experiencing pain is passive while suffering is active? Sorry, it just sounds offensive. I see a clear distinction between suffering real agony and the next step of having a bad attitude about it. It's true that the early Christians actually sang praises to God while they were being tortured to death, but they considered it an honor because of their faith; they were being tortured precisely because of their faith, which had been promised to them by Christ as a kind of sacrifice of praise they could offer to God. Yes, it sounds weird to us moderns, but I can see the how and why of that a lot better than a beaten wife who never chose that her husband should beat her. She suffers, no matter what her attitude about it is.

>davem: Is he actually 'healed' in the sense of having what was wrong with him put right, or do his wounds remain forever, but he himself is made different by having had them inflicted on him, suffering them?
>
din: Is there really a preferable difference (what is healing if it is not a transformation?), or is all this actually about not liking the way we perceive that God/Eru does things?

LMP: I really think that this is not about not liking the way God does things; rather, it's about trying to figure out a way to explain suffering such that we can abide living in a universe that such a God created. I think davem is asking the right kind of question here. "Made different" seems to imply: transformed in such a way that the pain suffered no longer has power over Frodo - or me.

>LMP: Completeness seems like the only possible conclusion to suffering, and it seems to be what Tolkien is suggesting not only for Frodo, but for Sam and the rest of the Fellowship as well.
>
din: Exactly. And for us, too. Suffering leads to transformation (when Love is chosen over fear); transformation leads to completeness; completeness = wholeness; wholeness = atonement (at-one-ment) = as one w/God = Heaven.

LMP: love chosen over fear. Quite so. It's fear, not hate, that is love's true opposite. Hate and anger are just masks to hide fear.

>davem: I suppose part of the problem is that LotR ends before we see Frodo's final state.
>
din: I am reminded of Christ’s words to Thomas—“Must you see to believe?” If we could know by somehow seeing what has been “unseeable” does that not nullify free will?

LMP: No, I think enhanced perception enables free will, which is too often enslaved by fear. I am saying that there are many times when we don't have free will because our wills are overcome by fear and its masks, hate and anger. Boromir is about as good an example of this, in Lorien, as anyone.

din: If I can know the answer to all my questions through my senses & mind (which is informed & shaped by the senses), then . . .think about it.

LMP: There's a difference between knowing answers to ALL my questions, and knowing answers to the MOST PRESSING questions that confound living, such as what to do with unjust suffering; by whatever means of enhanced perception.

>din: Is there a difference between God outside and God inside? Do we not see ourselves in others and others in ourselves?
>
>
LMP: I don't think it's avoidable. If we love ourselves, we view others as full of love. If we fear ourselves, we view others in fear. If we see God in others, they see God in us. Sure, we see others generally as they are, but we always carry a bit of ourselves into them. Don't you think?

>davem: Has Frodo anything to repent of?
>
din: Yes, in the sense of atonement, for believing that there is a separation between self & God and choosing self instead of God as evidenced when he claimed the Ring at Doom, thus necessitating the suffering for his transformation.

LMP: But isn't there a difference between believing there's a separation, and causing one? Maybe I'm understanding the word "separation" differently than you, din. Am I right in understanding that you're re not talking about mere separateness, but a dis-integration that should not be there? How did it get into Frodo? Was it there from the start? Or did it occur from the incessant power of the Ring?

>Fordim: “I do not choose now” and “I will not.” This would seem to open the door to the idea that Frodo’s will has been overmastered by the Ring, and that he is not in control anymore. He is “not choosing” for his “will [is] not” his own anymore.
>
din: As Tolkien has said, Frodo was overmatched, and thus doomed (as are we all when going mano a mano w/pure evil). However, he made the choices leading to that point. These choices were made of good & noble stuff at first (choosing others/Love), then slowly changed as he came nearer to Mt. Doom—he was choosing personal self, which resulted in the ultimate & inevitable abandonment of Higher Self (self in the world vs. Self in God). This is, IMO, the nature of Frodo’s wound/suffering.

LMP: But you're still saying that he was at fault for something he couldn't avoid because he was no match for it in the first place. So his "sin", as it were, was to volunteer to do something that everyone knew he couldn't. This choice was made at the Council fo Elrond, and the Elves, Gandalf, and everybody but Boromir, were impressed with Frodo's selflessness. Thus his "sin" is actually self-sacrifice. Since when does one need to repent of self-sacrifice, or am I being perverse?