Visible souls....

[littlemanpoet]

Originally posted by davem: It is now but it wasn't then.

Come to think of it, when then was "now", there was no such thing as a fairy tale. It was the "ferny brae", or whatever the name was for any given neck of wherever.

... if we're the stuff of fairy tale, if fairy tale is a true reflection of our psyches, then what has happened to the world?

We have been splintered, cut into parts. We are not whole anymore. I'm not talking about "the Fall", either. We're an advanced culture with all its distinctions. This is why we hunger for myth; it is whole, and while we are in it, so are we. So imagine living in a myth. Imagine that you believed again, davem. I heard a talk by an author in which she located the universe in the Mind of God; hence, we are figments of God's imagination. God being God, we are as real as we feel ourselves to be! God being God, our subcreations are also figments of God's imagination; every bit as real as we are. Tolkien's Middle Earth, with Frodo, Bilbo, Gandalf, Aragorn, Éowen, Lúthien, Beren, etc., are all as real as we are. Delusional? So be it. Maybe I'd rather believe the delusion and be more whole than my contemporary moderns. Maybe after I pass beyond the walls of the world, I will stumble upon Gandalf having a friendly chat with Tolkien. That would be a gift, don't you think?

Originally posted by Lalwendë: This would depend entirely upon the character. With Gollum, evoking character by representing his behaviour does work.

Are not all the characters in LotR evoked by representing their behaviours? The greatest difference between Gollum and the characters, for example, of the Fellowship of the Ring, is that his character has been dismantled by the Ring because he has murdered, broken moral law, to have it. The fellowship members, by contrast, remain within themselves because they live out of the natural law of their respective cultures.

By way of covering the possible objections, Boromir does succumb to temporary madness, but through grace or whatever you might wish to call it, he is restored to himself. Frodo also succumbs to temporary madness, such as in the Tower of Cirith Ungol, and also is restored to himself by, his native virtue; he strives against the Ring, having chosen against his will to be its bearer but not its owner, until its strength finally destroys his mind and will at Orodruin.

I imagine that Tourette's has its applicability, as does drug addiction (if you want to follow Peter Jackson and Andy Serkis), but neither example gets to the heart of what's going on in Gollum. His is a moral condition (I almost called it a disease!), and has curdled him right down to his soul. Yes, there is a sliver of Sméagol left, but so weak; so weak.

Compare this to how someone without the condition might behave - all these impulses are kept internalised.

But this is not so. Frodo's behavior does show the effects of the Ring. Boromir's grasping attempt to wrest it from Frodo hows its effects. Galadriel (never mind the weirdness of the movie) exhibits in her behavior the effect of the Ring when Frodo offers it to her. More so Gandalf when Frodo offers it to him.

It is true that Gollum cannot keep his thoughts internalized, but it is not a natural condition for the other characters to keep their thoughts internalized either. As the quote describes, they are visible souls.

I am in complete agreement with the final two paragraphs of your post.

[mark12_30]

...or falling asleep again?

"Our life is no dream; but it ought to become one, and perhaps will."
--Novalis

[davem]

Originally Posted by LmP

I heard a talk by an author in which she located the universe in the Mind of God; hence, we are figments of God's imagination. God being God, we are as real as we feel ourselves to be! God being God, our subcreations are also figments of God's imagination; every bit as real as we are.

I can accept this idea absolutely. In fact its something Lalwende & I were discussing into the early hours over Christmas. I did read somewhere that its possible to translate 'God created man in His own image as 'God created man in His own imagination' I don't know if that's true, & it does lead into areas of theological enquiry which I'm not qualified to enter.

I suppose all thoughts in God's mind must be 'Real' in an absolute sense - because nothing could be more real - God being the source of all 'Reality'. And if everything exists as thoughts in God's mind, then all those 'thoughts' must have an equal 'Reality' - I'm not saying they have a moral equality, merely an equality of 'being'. Their moral worth would depend, I suppose, on the extent to which they are in harmony with God's essential nature.

Perhaps that's what we respond to in the works of Tolkien - that 'harmony' with the Divine. Tolkien's works help to move us back into a state of harmony with 'God', helping to heal that sense of seperation we feel, of being 'out of synch' with 'something' which for most of us these days is unnameable....

Come to think of it, when then was "now", there was no such thing as a fairy tale. It was the "ferny brae", or whatever the name was for any given neck of wherever.

I'm reminded of something Bob Stewart said in an interview, about the way we talk about the 'ignorant past'. He made the point that we are currently living in what our decendants will refer to as their 'ignorant past'. I suppose in a sense Faery is eternaly 'there' yet always just out of reach - hence the yearning we feel when we read fairy stories. Perhaps 'Faerie' is that 'harmony' which we feel should be the way of things but isn't.

We are 'thoughts' (of God) subcreating 'thoughts' of our own. I don't know why fractal images have just sprung to mind... Anyway, one could speculate on whether the thoughts of our subcreated characters have an equal 'reality' to our own. God 'dreams 'JRR Tolkien' who 'dreams' Frodo who 'dreams' of White shores under a swift Sunrise...

Unless I'm rambling as usual (& being a 'pest' again )

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

From littlemanpoet:

As I said above, I think Fordim's these days versus those days, davem's post-Freudian versus pre-Freudian, Sophia's internal versus pervasive, and my own psychological versus moral, are different subsets of the same discussion.

What's at the core? Is it linguistic? Philosophical? Literary versus scientific? Theological (heaven forbid!)? Faith versus Unbelief (uh oh)?

I read this, and something clicked on in my head. Unfortunately, like so often happens, it clicked right back off again immediately. But on further thought, the one of your options, lmp, which struck a chord with me was literary vs. scientific.

If literature (particularly pre-scientific-revolution literature... perhaps the term I want is "mythic") deals in unities then science deals in dividing things up. The basic presumptions of science (which I don't claim to be an expert on, by any means) involve finding the basis of reality--what it's made of and why it works. Ultimately that boils down to physics, lots of little bits rushing around and hitting each other at angles.

While it's not necessarily difficult to imagine water being H2O and then later to feel like water is the same thing it always was, it's a little more difficult with people. Once you get to dividing complex things up, sometimes it's tough to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Hence the loss of unity contributing to a more internal character development: the outside world of actions is some kind of separate piece.

Nice image with the fractals, davem. Its an image that both fits the idea of subcreation and ties in visually with Tolkien's repeated use of tree motifs.

A bit of a ramble, I'm afraid. But it is 5 a.m.

Sophia

[Lyta_Underhill]

lmp: We have been splintered, cut into parts. We are not whole anymore. I'm not talking about "the Fall", either.

davem: And if everything exists as thoughts in God's mind, then all those 'thoughts' must have an equal 'Reality' - I'm not saying they have a moral equality, merely an equality of 'being'.

davem again: I don't know why fractal images have just sprung to mind...

What an interesting development! By the way, my computer's background image has been a colorful Mandelbrot set for some time now...not to say I'm any kind of expert on fractals, but they would be an interesting concept to add to a discussion of souls, as they are simply fractional dimensions, a cutting in half of dimensions between which can be iterated into infinity and create smaller versions of the same designs in equal complexity. Fractals would be a good illustration of the microcosm and macrocosm, the making in God's image or sub-creation, I suppose. Again, I am no expert, but it was interesting to see the word pop up here!

Sophia: Nice image with the fractals, davem. Its an image that both fits the idea of subcreation and ties in visually with Tolkien's repeated use of tree motifs.

Indeed, you said it more succinctly than me!

lmp: God being God, our subcreations are also figments of God's imagination; every bit as real as we are. Tolkien's Middle Earth, with Frodo, Bilbo, Gandalf, Aragorn, Éowen, Lúthien, Beren, etc., are all as real as we are.

mark12_30: ...or falling asleep again?

Yet another relevance to my everyday life, but am I surprised? Not in the least! In the course of digging out old belongings and re-packing them, I came upon a rather tatty old abridged edition (that is to say, only one volume) of Fraser's Golden Bough and decided it would make great bedtime reading. Anyway, one section of this work tells how some cultures consider dreams to be simply the soul travelling outside the body during sleep and having its own adventures. Thus what happens in dreams is absolutely real, as real as the waking world.

I always like it when threads enter the realm of the weird and especially when they incorporate aspects of my visible surroundings...spooky!

Cheers!
Lyta

[drigel]

lmp: We have been splintered, cut into parts. We are not whole anymore. I'm not talking about "the Fall", either.

I read that and consider the anthropoligical aspect. The characters presented to us in LOTR, Silm, et al are to me an idea that we all derive from in bits and pieces. The farther back we go, the more heroic the time, and the more total the individual is.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

Are not all the characters in LotR evoked by representing their behaviours?

Originally Posted by lmp

It is true that Gollum cannot keep his thoughts internalized, but it is not a natural condition for the other characters to keep their thoughts internalized either. As the quote describes, they are visible souls.

It's almost as if the discussion has come around full circle. I think that all the characters do display their 'souls' through their actions, and through their interactions; I think that there is not such a great contrast with 'modern' fiction, it is that instead of seeing the internalised thoughts of one protagonist, we see the psychological motivation of many characters, but expressed instead through representation of their thoughts in action and speech.

I did single out Gollum as we see more of his internal thought than we do of other characters, as he simply cannot keep his thoughts and, more importantly, basic impulses, to himself. Thus we see Gollum's soul truly laid bare; he is a raw character, brutal and immoral yet somehow fragile too. It's no surprise that he haunts the thoughts of many readers as somehow he reflects that most vulnerable and dark part of us all, that which is vulnerable to evil and corruption.

I like the way you bring in Frodo here. In Frodo we can see the beginnings of what happened to Gollum, but I do question how much of the effects can be down to the innate qualities of both Gollum and Frodo, as ultimately, the effects are the same, this 'evil' corrupts anyone who succumbs, no matter how good their intentions are. And I'm sure there is some kind of lesson in that.

Originally Posted by davem

We are 'thoughts' (of God) subcreating 'thoughts' of our own. I don't know why fractal images have just sprung to mind...

This is the infinite potential of time. We are here at one point and if we go this way then many things may happen but if we go the other way then many other things may happen. It might be termed fate, but ultimately if we did not go down x path then y could never have happened. Or could it? In the case of Frodo at the cracks of doom, who could have foreseen that Gollum would turn up and thus destroy the ring? It was as though the paths suddenly split but came back in upon themselves.

Originally Posted by davem

I'm reminded of something Bob Stewart said in an interview, about the way we talk about the 'ignorant past'. He made the point that we are currently living in what our decendants will refer to as their 'ignorant past'. I suppose in a sense Faery is eternaly 'there' yet always just out of reach - hence the yearning we feel when we read fairy stories. Perhaps 'Faerie' is that 'harmony' which we feel should be the way of things but isn't.

This is interesting as it hints at a basic fact of the human condition, that we are always looking about us for something which has been 'lost' to us. It might explain art, in that we seek to express the ineffable, or religion, in that we seek to find and construct a reason for the yearning, or even science in that we want to shape that uncertainty and find comfort in it. These are three aspects of human existence which I think are all linked to the soul, and more importantly to the sense of the soul, and to the sense that something is missing, just out of reach. It makes me wonder just how much each and every generation in this world has felt exactly the same as we do.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lyta

Fractals would be a good illustration of the microcosm and macrocosm, the making in God's image or sub-creation, I suppose.

I suppose its about 'reflections' & 'harmonics' & such. 'Being' reiterates itself, creating reflections of itself, & perhaps each reflection is slightly distorted - or may become so...

In that sense the Mandelbrot set is an 'ideal', in that its' 'reflections/harmonics' are perfect copies of itself, however much the design is magnified, or however 'deep' we go. I suppose this would have been Tolkien's aim - to subcreate a world which was a 'perfect' reflection of the 'Truth' - hence his constant seeking to discover 'what really happened'. Its like rather than moving 'inward', into the 'Mandelbrot' set, he was attempting to move 'outward'.

Perhaps (forgive speculation here) we could say that God's movement is 'inward' while our movement is 'outward'. Or God's movement is 'in', 'toward' us, while ours is 'outward', 'toward' 'Him'. (Too many words in quotes ).

Or to look at it another way, subcreation is an attempt to 'earth' the divine, to give it imaginative form, to produce a true (as far as we are able) reflection of the Divine Truth. 'As Above, So Below.' Niggle's single leaf contains the whole of the Tree - like a Mandelbrot set, or like a (real) holgram, in which, if broken, each fragment contains the whole image, but seen from the particular place at which that piece had been.

The fragment contains the whole, but from a unique perspective.....

(Well, this seemed a bit mad, & I'm not sure it makes sense, so I just tossed a coin to decide whether to post it or erase it, & it came up heads, so I'm posting it)