The Middle of What?

[davem]

Originally Posted by skip spence

The world at a stage where people had no knowledge of what was beyond the sea, where the familiar lands are just (presumably) small parts of an otherwise vast and unchartered world of unknown size and orgin. No wonder people came up with strange myths and stories.

But why a 'different stage of imagination', rather than, say, a 'different stage of knowledge', or a 'different stage of understanding'?

Tolkien seems to be implying that rather than see the world, what we do is imagine it.. So, our ancestors 'imagined' the world in the way they did not out of 'ignorance' of the facts about it, but because they were at a particular stage of imagination. Yet, if we are talking about 'stages' that implies that they would have seen the world that way whatever 'facts' they had known about it.

And would Tolkien have considered that stage of the imagination higher, or lower, than our own?

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by davem

But why a 'different stage of imagination', rather than, say, a 'different stage of knowledge', or a 'different stage of understanding'?

Tolkien seems to be implying that rather than see the world, what we do is imagine it.. So, our ancestors 'imagined' the world in the way they did not out of 'ignorance' of the facts about it, but because they were at a particular stage of imagination. Yet, if we are talking about 'stages' that implies that they would have seen the world that way whatever 'facts' they had known about it.

And would Tolkien have considered that stage of the imagination higher, or lower, than our own?

The two concepts are interconnected, aren't they?

In our ancient history, men knew very little of the world but must still have wondered as to why they were there in the first place and marvelled at the natural phenomena they witnessed. With very little sure knowledge, a curious mind must fill out the blanks with imagination. It's easy to see how bolts of lightning and earthquakes could be interpreted as the works of wrathful gods.

The earth was seen as flat for a very long time. It would have been impossible to imagine a round earth at that time: why, people on the underside would surely fall off. Then, eventually, as more and more observations were contrary to the flat earth theory, it had to be corrected, which opened up the imagination to new mysteries.

In these days, the earth and most everything on it is studied and well understood. Science has plausable theories on everything from the orgin of life on earth to the very first moments of time and existence. Only extremely ignorant westerners could imagine the bolts of lightning as thown by wrathful gods riding flying steeds across the skies or that the world was created by a bearded god sitting on a cloud some 6000 years ago.

I would say that different 'stages of knowledge' precede different 'stages of imagination'; yet the opposite could also be close to the truth. Knowledge can restrict imagination but is probably not possible without it either. We imagine what we don't know. Some leave it at that, others go out to learn the truth.

The imagination of Tolkien was close to escapism I would say. And most fans of his probably agree that it can be nice sometimes to flee the drudgery of everyday life into a magical world of elves and dragons. The greatest quality of Tolkiens works is how realistic he made his illusion, making it much easier to immerse one self into it.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Eálá Earendel engla beorhtast

To which decades later Tolkien returned:

Aiya Earendil elenion ancalima!

Hail Earendil brightest of stars!

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I would say that different 'stages of knowledge' precede different 'stages of imagination'; yet the opposite could also be close to the truth. Knowledge can restrict imagination but is probably not possible without it either. We imagine what we don't know. Some leave it at that, others go out to learn the truth.

Just don't give me all this stuff to jump on!

We're getting scaringly philosophical in here...

Okay I'll just make a few comments on this: "We imagine what we don't know. Some leave it at that, others go out to learn the truth."

Up to the 19th century people thought that imagination was a faculty of mind that was able to separate those impressions that in fact belonged together and to join together different parts of things that were separate. Therefore a unicorn was just a human mind's application of a horned beast to a horse or a centaur the compilement of a human "upper body" tied to a horse's hind. Both were parts of earlier experiences so there was nothing new in there. Just splitting and adding from previous experiences.

In the end this was a theological question of whether a human mind could come forwards creating something there wasn't before - already Nicolas Cusanus thought in the 15th century that the humans were able to come up with new things as there were spikes and stalks in nature but only humans could produce a fork adding these two things up. But the general opinion was and were for a long time that all humans could do was to imitate the works of nature (powered by a God) and thus imagination was just dissecting or bringing together of things already existant in the God's creation perceived by men.

With the advent of romanticism there then emerged the idea of humans as all powerful creratures (hinted in the humanism of Pico della Mirandolla and other 15th century "humanists"). The added feature in the 19th century was the break from the past were the human geniuses were given the gift of actually creating something new or more real than the world around us from their individual psyche (or whatever). And you thought Freud invented the unconscious? No he didn't. It was the talk of the town already with the 19th century idealistic-romantic philosophers who aligned themselves with the artists (like Blake & fellows).

So the sentence: "We imagine what we don't know" only comes possible in the latter part of the 19th century and even then it has work to do to gain universal appeal. Now Tolkien surely was cognizant of this discussion...

The latter part then... "Some leave it at that, others go out to learn the truth".

The question of the meaning of the word 'truth' is one of the hardest ones. Truth comparing to what, reality itself (which is it outside human classifications - which is unprovable, or which is made by men whereafter we argue in a circle?), anyone's opinion, feeling of certainty, emotional tiedness, religious belief?

There's no easy answer here...

But was Tolkien going for the "correspondency theory" of truth, meaning that our language and the world just somehow share the same structures making our sentences able to say things in truth / express them correctly - even if our language today has possibly lost some of the key things the generations before us knew as some people say? Or is this just easy escapism in confronting the real world (whatever it is but the one that keeps disappointing us) which denies the past values?

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Up to the 19th century people thought that imagination was a faculty of mind that was able to separate those impressions that in fact belonged together and to join together different parts of things that were separate. Therefore a unicorn was just a human mind's application of a horned beast to a horse or a centaur the compilement of a human "upper body" tied to a horse's hind. Both were parts of earlier experiences so there was nothing new in there. Just splitting and adding from previous experiences.

In the end this was a theological question of whether a human mind could come forwards creating something there wasn't before - already Nicolas Cusanus thought in the 15th century that the humans were able to come up with new things as there were spikes and stalks in nature but only humans could produce a fork adding these two things up. But the general opinion was and were for a long time that all humans could do was to imitate the works of nature (powered by a God) and thus imagination was just dissecting or bringing together of things already existant in the God's creation perceived by men.

With the advent of romanticism there then emerged the idea of humans as all powerful creratures (hinted in the humanism of Pico della Mirandolla and other 15th century "humanists"). The added feature in the 19th century was the break from the past were the human geniuses were given the gift of actually creating something new or more real than the world around us from their individual psyche (or whatever). And you thought Freud invented the unconscious? No he didn't. It was the talk of the town already with the 19th century idealistic-romantic philosophers who aligned themselves with the artists (like Blake & fellows).

The imagination of man has been and continue to be crippled by religious dogmas.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

The question of the meaning of the word 'truth' is one of the hardest ones. Truth comparing to what, reality itself (which is it outside human classifications - which is unprovable, or which is made by men whereafter we argue in a circle?), anyone's opinion, feeling of certainty, emotional tiedness, religious belief?

Don't even go there, mate! Much indeed is shades of gray but not all is relative either

[Guinevere]

Tolkien answered the question about the word "Middle-earth" in several letters to readers and publishers

from letter #165
"Middle-earth", by the way, is not a name of a never-never land without relation to the world we live in. It is just a use of Middle English middel-erde (or erthe),altered from Old English Middangeard: the name for the inhabited lands of Men "between the seas". And though I have not attempted to relate the shape of the mountains and land-masses to what geologists may say or surmise about the nearer past, imaginatively this "history" is supposed to take place in a period of the actual Old World of this planet.

from letter #183:
I am historically minded. Middle-earth is not an imaginary world. The name is the modern form (appearing in the 13th century and still in use) of midden-erd> middel-erd, an ancient name for the abiding place of Men, the objectively real world, in use specifically opposed to imaginary worlds (as Fairyland) or unseen worlds (as Heaven or Hell). The theatre of my tale is this earth, the one in which we now live, but the historical period is imaginary. The essentials of that abiding place are all there (at any rate for inhabitants of N.W. Europe), so naturally it feels familiar, even if a little glorified by the enchantment of distance in time.

from letter #211
I have, I suppose, constructed an imaginary time, but kept my feet on my own mother earth for place. I prefer that to the contemporary mode of seeking remote globes in "space". However curious, they are alien, and not lovable with the love of blood-kin.
Middle-earth is not my own invention. It is a modernization or alteration of an old word for the inhabited world of Men: middle because thought of vaguely as set amidst the encircling Seas and (in the northern imagination ) between the ice of the North and the fire of the South.

The "'different stage of imagination" I read as "imaginary historical period"

[alatar]

So are we saying that 'Middle Earth' is middle because it is betwixt fire and ice, sea and shining sea? When was it established that there was a sea to the far east? Or did everyone just take Aulë's word for it? Was it one large continent like Eurasia?

I would conclude then that, like some of our own ancient stories, Arda too once was a flat table-like surface which then later became a globe. Did Tolkien create it this way to resonate further with our histories?