Gollum and Eagles: Deux ex machina?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

If you're Formendacil, on the other hand, then all of life is a deus ex machina, and it's a moot point. Right, Formy?

I get the feeling I'm being mocked...

But yes, you could look at it that way...

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I get the feeling I'm being mocked...

But yes, you could look at it that way...

No! NO! No mockery intended; rather, an inside (so to speak) joke. Sorry for my unclarity! You see, you and I both believe (read understand ) that God is in the middle of all of life, so everything is therefore by definition a Deus ex machina. .... right?

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

No! NO! No mockery intended; rather, an inside (so to speak) joke. Sorry for my unclarity! You see, you and I both believe (read understand ) that God is in the middle of all of life, so everything is therefore by definition a Deus ex machina. .... right?

Only if the Universe is a 'machine', rather than a living process. Of course, the 'Machine' meant something different to Tolkien (as we've often discussed). Tolkien claimed the Ring as the ultimate Machine, so I suppose the
'deus ex machina' of M-e would be the Ring imbued with the life-force of Sauron.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Only if the Universe is a 'machine', rather than a living process.

It's an unfortunate expression. "God in the Machine." I suppose it probably originated during the enlightenment era? That would explain the reductionistic turn of the phrase. Of course I think it's much more organic than that. After all, the Universe itself resides in the Mind of God, remember? So if anything, it's more like "Homosapiens ex Deum".... or something like that.....

So basically, what you're saying, alatar, is that the Eagles are one of the races that make up the Free Peoples. If so, I agree.

Originally Posted by alatar

By definition, a miracle should have such a low probability of occurance that you can only shug your shoulders and say, "I have no explanation as the event is contrary to every other thing that I observe."

I would put it a different way. Be definition, a miracle must operate in such a way as to function outside the parameters of natural law. Such as a malignant tumor in the brain, scanned and documented one day, is not there at all a week later. Or a blind man receiving back sight by means of spit and dirt rubbed in his eyes.

But I agree with you in regard to the Eagles not functioning as "miraculous", by either definition.

[Earendilyon]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

It's an unfortunate expression. "God in the Machine." I suppose it probably originated during the enlightenment era?

Actually, the expression is far older, dating back to Greek and Roman theatre. It actually means 'god out of a machine/crane'. It refers, of course, not to God, but to one of the many Greek/Roman gods (though I've heard that in theological/philosophical circles these gods were the reflection of one God (to which the altar Paul saw in Athens dedicated to 'the unknown god' is said to have been dedicated to)).

[davem]

[QUOTE=littlemanpoet]
I would put it a different way. Be definition, a miracle must operate in such a way as to function outside the parameters of natural law. Such as a malignant tumor in the brain, scanned and documented one day, is not there at all a week later. Or a blind man receiving back sight by means of spit and dirt rubbed in his eyes.
QUOTE]

I'm a bit uncertain about simply classing anything we can't currently explain as a 'miracle' & attributing it to 'God'. This 'God of the Gaps' approach seems a bit superstitious. Many things our ancestors would have classed as miracles because they couldn't explain them are accepted by us as results of natural processes & I'm sure many things which we now call 'miracles' will go the same way.

In short, its a bit presumtious to say what is within & what is outside 'natural law' when we don't know what the parameters of 'natural law' are. Also, if God is 'within', at the heart of, creation, then the 'Divine' is also the 'natural', so its a bit difficult to draw a line between them (another consequence of Incarnation, I suppose)

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm a bit uncertain about simply classing anything we can't currently explain as a 'miracle' & attributing it to 'God'. This 'God of the Gaps' approach seems a bit superstitious. Many things our ancestors would have classed as miracles because they couldn't explain them are accepted by us as results of natural processes & I'm sure many things which we now call 'miracles' will go the same way.

In short, its a bit presumtious to say what is within & what is outside 'natural law' when we don't know what the parameters of 'natural law' are. Also, if God is 'within', at the heart of, creation, then the 'Divine' is also the 'natural', so its a bit difficult to draw a line between them (another consequence of Incarnation, I suppose)

Maybe its a case not of the 'parameters' of nature, but our perceptions of nature. These may or may not include scientific theories. So to a tribal people deep in the Amazon rainforest it may be a 'miracle' that the sun rises every day, while to us it is explained by science.

And even so, despite possessing scientific knowledge we can still be amazed by the fact that the Sun does rise. If not a literal 'miracle' it is still a metaphorical miracle.

If that makes sense.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm a bit uncertain about simply classing anything we can't currently explain as a 'miracle' & attributing it to 'God'. This 'God of the Gaps' approach seems a bit superstitious. Many things our ancestors would have classed as miracles because they couldn't explain them are accepted by us as results of natural processes & I'm sure many things which we now call 'miracles' will go the same way.

In short, its a bit presumtious to say what is within & what is outside 'natural law' when we don't know what the parameters of 'natural law' are. Also, if God is 'within', at the heart of, creation, then the 'Divine' is also the 'natural', so its a bit difficult to draw a line between them (another consequence of Incarnation, I suppose)

Hmmm... so I'm being presumptuous? ...... again?!? Whereas it's true that certain things that were deemed miraculous in past ages are now understood as being governed by known natural laws, that can't be said for all the possibilities that fall within the parameters of "a miracle operating in such a way as to function outside the parameters of natural law". Some instances will necessarily always fall outside natural laws because they're supernatural. There is matter (that which is classed under physical law), psyche or soul (that which is classed under psychological principles), and spirit (that which is classed under spiritual law). This probably clarified nothing for you, but it makes perfect sense to me.

[Elu Ancalime]

It's an unfortunate expression. "God in the Machine." I suppose it probably originated during the enlightenment era?

While the concept might be used long before, i believe it was Shakespearan.

So if anything, it's more like "Homosapiens ex Deum".... or something like that.....

Well, thats how it is supposed to appear, because at the end of a book a/the/whatever God really did come down and end the conflict, the term would be unnessecary because it is literal.

By definition, a miracle should have such a low probability of occurance that you can only shug your shoulders and say, "I have no explanation as the event is contrary to every other thing that I observe."

But that still means it is possible. It is just phsycologically dissmissed and up to that point, physically impossible. But because its never happened before dosn't make it impossible. So I agree with you.

But I agree with you in regard to the Eagles not functioning as "miraculous", by either definition.

Well this might be where theres a No1 and a No2 in the dictionary. Surely it wasnt: "WHOA! Eagles can fly and carry hobbits! Thats impossible!"

So instead of it being physically, its the circumstance.

See the Hand of God? Don't think so. As lmp kids Formendacil, technically, in an Eru-constructed universe, everything is wrought by Eru's hands, even Melkor and his subsequent deeds. But I think that when we talk about D E M/ HoG, we mean a specific intervention of the divine that tips the scales, miraculously, in a 'good' way. The eagles show up so that Gandalf can rescue the hobbits, but if they were purely the HoG, then they could have went to Mount Doom without Gandalf's prompting. Maybe Eru's hands via Manw? make the eagles available, but again, the eagles themselves aren't D E M.

Once again, I think the idea is not meant to be direct and literal. The idea of the DEM is that it is allegorical and representational. HoG, however, sounds like the direct and literal term.
________
Herbal vaporizers

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Hmmm... so I'm being presumptuous? ...... again?!? Whereas it's true that certain things that were deemed miraculous in past ages are now understood as being governed by known natural laws, that can't be said for all the possibilities that fall within the parameters of "a miracle operating in such a way as to function outside the parameters of natural law". Some instances will necessarily always fall outside natural laws because they're supernatural. There is matter (that which is classed under physical law), psyche or soul (that which is classed under psychological principles), and spirit (that which is classed under spiritual law). This probably clarified nothing for you, but it makes perfect sense to me.

But you're still defining 'miracles' as things which are inexplicable in terms of natural law, when we haven't actually set the parameters of natural law. Where, exactly, are you setting the dividing line between natural & supernatural - & what's your justification for setting it there as opposed to elsewhere?

Now, if you were saying that the fact that there is something rather than nothing is a 'miracle', that the sun shines on the grass, & every blade is both similar to & unique from every other, that there are sunsets & mountains, that I can experience all of those things - that all those things are 'miracles' (even the fact that there are natural laws which apply in every part of the Universe) I'd struggle to argue with the point, but to say that 'X' can't be explained by current scientific thinking, therefore it (& it alone) is a 'miracle' seems a bit limiting. The whole thing is a miracle, not just the bits we can't explain - what you're calling a 'miracle' I'd just call inexplicable.

[alatar]

Note that if you're looking for a coherent cogent post, you might want to look elsewhere, and this author is not responsible for any collateral neurulogical damage as your brain screams 'Enough!' You've been warned.

The eagles are not "the hand of God," which is another way of saying D E M. In Arda we see the eagles attack Morgoth, and keep a watch on his doings (lot of help that was to the Elves ), and they helped Turgon keep Gondolin hidden for a time. Later we have the eagles assist Thorin's party, and they also take part in the Battle of Five Armies. We have Gwaihir rescue Gandalf from both Orthanc and Zirakzigil, and throughout LotR there's times when an eagle is noted to be circling about.

Lastly, the eagles assist in the rescue of Frodo and Sam, at the end of all things, when the two hobbits are surely doomed.

See the Hand of God? Don't think so. As lmp kids Formendacil, technically, in an Eru-constructed universe, everything is wrought by Eru's hands, even Melkor and his subsequent deeds. But I think that when we talk about D E M/ HoG, we mean a specific intervention of the divine that tips the scales, miraculously, in a 'good' way. The eagles show up so that Gandalf can rescue the hobbits, but if they were purely the HoG, then they could have went to Mount Doom without Gandalf's prompting. Maybe Eru's hands via Manwë make the eagles available, but again, the eagles themselves aren't D E M.

Is the appearance of the eagles in the examples above so out of the ordinary that the average reader can see the HoG? Having done some looking for God's fingerprints myself, I'm always reminded that I have to rule out other, more mundane, explanations for the squiggly lines before tagging the event as a 'miracle.' By definition, a miracle should have such a low probability of occurance that you can only shug your shoulders and say, "I have no explanation as the event is contrary to every other thing that I observe." In books, when done poorly, the author will simply pull something out of nowhere just to finish off a plot, and the reader is dumbfounded as the fix is completely unnatural in an artificial way. You get the feeling that the author has either written him/herself into a corner, is lazy and tired of the story, and so cuts through the Gordian plot with a suddenly-found chainsaw that drops from the air, then burns the loose ends with a flamethrower.

When done well, the reader isn't quite sure if he/she sees the fingerprints or not.

But back to a point. Does the D E M always result in good, or a eucatastrophe? An obvious HoG moment is the drowning of Numenor. It's not even subtle, as I think that the text states that Manwë lays down his authority and says to Eru, "have at 'em." The Gift is taken back, and many die. The link provided in a post above has that Mablung is D E M in regards to Turin and Nienor Níniel, and I think that D E M is definitely not eucatastrophic.

Just some thoughts.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by alatar

Is the appearance of the eagles in the examples above so out of the ordinary that the average reader can see the HoG?... By definition, a miracle should have such a low probability of occurance that you can only shug your shoulders and say, "I have no explanation as the event is contrary to every other thing that I observe." In books, when done poorly, the author will simply pull something out of nowhere just to finish off a plot, and the reader is dumbfounded as the fix is completely unnatural in an artificial way. You get the feeling that the author has either written him/herself into a corner, is lazy and tired of the story, and so cuts through the Gordian plot with a suddenly-found chainsaw that drops from the air, then burns the loose ends with a flamethrower.

Excellent point. This reminds me of something slightly different to HoG or DEM and that is Coincedence. There's an author (and policitcal animal / jailbird / charity fundraiser) called Jeffrey Archer here in England. I disagree with about 99.99 % of what he says, but once, long ago in the mists of time, he stated that Coincedences may happen in real life, but they NEVER work in Fiction, and are an easy 'get out' for the author.

[JennyHallu]

My take on the Eagles were that they were to enhance our understanding of Frodo's state of mind. The task is over, and he's reached a point of physical and emotional exhaustion he's managed to stave off all this time. He sees the Eagles through a haze of unreality, he's confused as to what story he's in. We are almost given the impression that the Eagles are a hallucination, and are delighted and surprised when we find Frodo and Sam are still alive at the beginning of the next. They needed a miracle, and they got one.

Perhaps it's a Deus Ex Machina on purpose. As it has been previously defined, an Act of God. That doesn't necessarily imply any weakness on the part of the author, but a story in which God is very real.

As for Coincidence, I fear I must disagree with Jeffrey Archer there. If he is so unreliable most of the time, Essex, he is probably unreliable all of the time. Half of Shakespeare is reliant on coincidence...A Comedy of Errors (an entire genre!) is entirely dependent upon coincidence for plot and resolution.

[Elu Ancalime]

Celuien, I agree with you about SpM's nudge on Bombadil. Probably the best example.

Well, In a Middle-Earth sense of view(and especially one of the WIse) the Eagles might not be surprised. Elves in general seem to not be surprised by anything, and in the Third Age at least, they have seen it all, so they dont seem to get really excited. So, the Eagles taking Frodo and Sam may not be unlooked for Elrond and the boys back home. And although Gollum himself may not be DEM, his action might be considered literary-speaking.

When using a DEM, it is to end the conflict and save the Good from their impending loss to Evil. So really, redemption may be a theme, since the Good have suffered so long while they resisted Evil. So, Gollum didnt mean to destroy the Ring, but it is kind of a Trade-off for (between the hobbits and Gollum in this case) Frodo's compassion. Smeagol may not have been able to rid himself of the Ring and Gollum, but for Frodo in a way giving him a short experiance of good, Gollum also saved Frodo from turning into what Gollum did. In this way, Gollum's action (even though in the end he succumbed to evil) is saving Frodo from what he couldnt save himself from. This can be like a Christ view, but more equal. Gollum sacrifices himself (and he dosnt know or feel it, but) and that takes the Ring out of play, but only because Gollum put himself on the lowest level and betrayed Frodo. I think Frodo, when his finger was seperated, then was actually free from his 'fit', even though the Ring would not be destroyed for moments later. So Then maybe for a plit second, Frodo might have realized what Smeagol went through, and then again, pity, and the fact his was hurtin', stoped him from puttin an end to Gollum. So Gollum is like the man that has been enamoured in evil, and when the good man tries to fix him, that good man falls. But the first evil man takes all the evil and frees the good man, who endured evil in a Job-Like way, until the very end, but was saved.

Um, does that make any sense?

................................
________
MFLB