Fantasy Morality

[Inziladun]

Interesting stuff, Dakêsîntrah.

Just so it's clear, you may wish to cite the other sources of these quotes, in addition to the one you did note from the Alford essay.

This and this.

It's always been a problem, Tumhalad, for orthodoxy to logically explain an omnipotent god of the Universe that also allows suffering and evil in the same token.

Once again, it isn't that suffering is "allowed". Many misfortunes, Túrin's certainly among them, were caused by, or at least were enhanced by individual exercise of free will.

As to the age-old argument of "why do good things happen to bad people", well, think of it this way. If life were all sunshine and roses, what meaning would faith have? It's quite easy to be reverent and good when things are going well; quite different when things are falling to bits around one.

Let's look at Tuor again. He was born an orphan, raised in the wild by fugitive Elves; a hard life. As a boy he was captured by the Easterlings and made a slave. He was able to escape after three years. He watched the signs and was led to Vinyamar. There, met by an incarnate Ulmo, he agreed to take up Ulmo's errand.

What ultimately set Tuor apart from his cousin was humbleness, and a realization that his own feelings and desires were not the basis on which all his decisions should be made. Tuor, like Frodo later, possessed the instinctive knowledge that there were things above him that he had to do, regardless of whether he himself would be rewarded or even would understand what was happening. Faith.

[Galadriel55]

Just a side note:

If "God" creates the world and all creatures in it so that the creatures can use their mind and free will, he has to give them an opportunity to make choices. If there is only good, there is no choice. If creatures cannot make their own decisions, what is the use of free will and mind? And if there's no mind or free will, it's as if the creatures are lumps of stone that cannot do anything on its own (hehe, like Aule's stone dwarves and what Eru said about them). It's like a puppet show. Doesn't the world lose all its beauty that way?

You need evil to create a difference, a choice.


Just imagined a really weird thing: this "God" sitting up there watching us discuss him and compare him to Eru!

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Now, to continue with the topic at hand: Tumhalad contends that "God" (Eru, Tolkien's world) is an inconsistent god as he does not exercise clear omnipotent sovereignty in the Children of Hurin compared to the Creation narrative at the beginning of the Silmarillion.

That is a very good point.

Firstly, while the conversation may have veered in this direction, tumhalad's original contention, and the one he has made in multiple threads, is actually that Children of Hurin presents a "moral universe" outside the rest of Tolkien's work, that it is in fact "athiestic", and that it is written as a "counterpoint" to the "providential" Lord of the Rings. Which is not the same thing– in fact, I should say the "contradiction" applies to the whole Legendarium. That has been my contention and that of various other people.

Secondly, you seem to have misunderstand Mnemo's point about the Book of Job– which I thought pretty clear myself but there you go– you're certainly quite right that people interpret things differently!

Thirdly, look, Dakêsîntrah– would you mind being a little more concise and on-topic in your comments in future, please? So much of what you've said here, though interesting in itself, is about as far OT as you could get. As just one example, while this–

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Turin "listens" to his sword, because it comes from the highest metal. Tolkien devotes quite a few words to Anglachel/Gurthang in his accounts of Túrin. The made characteristics we learn is that the weapon was made of iron that came from a fallen star. This material could cleave all iron ore from Middle-earth.

may be somewhat relevant, I cannot for the life of me see why it needs to be backed up with this–

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Star-Fire or the nectar of the gods has a prominent role in Ancient Near Eastern cosmomyth.

In strict terms, the original Star Fire was the lunar essence of the Goddess, but even in an everyday mundane environment, menstruum contains the most valuable endocrinal secretions, particularly those of the pineal and pituitary glands. The brain's pineal gland in particular was directly associated with the Tree of Life, for this tiny gland was said to secrete the very essence of active longevity, referred to as soma - or as the Greeks called it, ambrosia.

In mystic circles, the menstrual flow-er (she who flows) has long been the designated flower, and is represented as a lily or a lotus. Indeed, the definition 'flow-er' is the very root of the modern word flower. In ancient Sumer, the key females of the royal succession were all venerated as lilies, having such names as Lili, Luluwa, Lilith, Lilutu and Lillette.

I mean, I may be right out here, but it really looks to me as if you've simply posted an entire essay on "Echoes of Ancient Near Eastern Mythology in Tolkien's Work", or something like that, in the middle of a topic to which it's only marginally relevant, if at all. I really think this should be given its own thread, where we can actually discuss some of this without the risk of being savaged by arboreal rodents.

Perhaps we could start with the question of how it is that the Sumerians based their symbolism on a pun in a language that had yet to exist at the time?

I look forward to it!

[Dakêsîntrah]

My apologies, Mnemosyne, for disregarding your name. I think I had a moment of "fast" typing, wherein I glossed over the specific "who-said-what."

Now, the example of Job: I am simply stating that since your personified "Satan" is out of the equation, and therefore it is one of God's good guys judging Job, testing him ,if you will, then it may be even harder to put God in an exonerated stance. One is forced to come up with another workable hypothesis, notwithstanding taking in regard the Hebrew grammar.

No, when you think of 'God" in an anthropomorphic sense, this limits his All-Power, and the moment God either 1) gives up his "omnipresent" being for anthropomorphism or 2) temporarily withdraws at least one of his attributes, he ceases to be the "Supreme" ontological being. In the ancient world, function/relationship determined existence, not the modern structure/origins.

Therefore, Galadriel55, it must be insisted that we drop our modern preconceptions of structural creation. In all of the ancient texts, man did not necessarily describe "creation from nothing" thereby assuming universe origins. That was not what was important to them.

In the book of Genesis, it is not describing a creation ex nihilo. Why? The primordial waters of chaos already existed. It is not "water" in the literal sense, it is a metaphysical term for the Void; that which is Orderly Chaos, or that which has no boundaries. Once you ascribe physicality, we have boundaries, limits. How is it to describe God? It is rather better to be silent, implies Dionysius the Areopagite. For in Silence you cannot negate God by describing him as Love, Holy, Good, or any other attribute the human mind attributes in limited form. God is not Love, Holy or Good. He (even 'He' is negation) is Not That Which Is, a universal paradox; because the paradox is precisely the Mechanism by which Ages are Not Which Once Was.

I'm not sure why there is a need to hang on to the notion of 'free will.' As Eru, the One is that which is between the two extremes of chaos and order, then you are a product of His limitation, Which Is Not Limitation? Why? Because That Which Is Not Limitation is negation, the other cosmic balance. All things with limitation (physicality) dissolve into One. It's the cyclical process of Nature.

Inziladun, thank you for pointing out those references I forgot to cite! Still, it is good to cite your own articles you produce! However, it is indeed interesting stuff to engage in, isn't it I was hoping it would prod someone to study further for the sources. It lets me know someone is active in pursuit of truth!

Now, respectively, I think you missed my point about "allowable suffering." Regardless of whether suffering is allowed or not, the point is maintained that had God let suffering perpetuate, or even much more so that he actually does not allow suffering, neither can withstand it, he is still the author of it. He is the author, the root of evil, for simply being the only uncreated One. Even if evil (suffering as the result in most cases) was inactive (that is, not fully consumated in real time) it was still conceived as a static thing of the Mechanism. Evil, I contend, is simply the gaping hole of primordial Chaos, that did indeed exist at each successive Creation catastrophe that brought about new Ages. Good can only really be defined as something which has limits or boundaries (see above for my explanation of physicality as boundaries) - indeed, "definition" is a bounded term. Something can only be defined by separating a physicality with another.


Bethberry, good question about the Buddhists. Buddhists ought not to be religionists. Buddhism was not established by Guatama as a religion but as a philosophy. In other words, ethical standards to live by. When religion comes in it is always pervaded by propaganda (propaganda, ironically was a term invented by the Church to spread about its dogma) which in itself is coerced in a fashionable manner by dogma. Therefore, your Buddhists that worship Buddha as a god are practicing coercive dogma, which is false. Not all Buddhists follow this, however, which is "good."

[Dakêsîntrah]

Nerwen,

I understand completely tumhalad's interpretation regarding a seemingly contradictory moral universe in COH in comparison to other Tolkien works. And in that, I am disagreeing with him, offering another solution that seems to be far more tenable. It is a working solution, so bear with me, or else I encourage you to bear yourself the time to look more in depth at what I have to say.

Again, my point, respectively, is to say that Tolkien is being entirely consistent in his Legendarium in addition to the COH, specifically, the story of Turin Turambar. It is certainly not "atheistic" when I point out the fact of meteoric objects made into temples or swords were actually mediums of contact with the gods. It negates the whole theory of Turin being isolated in his morality from Eru. Read again, and you may see the connection.

This is the praise I give Tolkien for writing this yet "hidden" ancient theme.

I think this thread provides key alignments with Morality. For Morality is that which umbrellas the whole theme of Creation (that is, Creation defined by catastrophic upheaval under an auroral sky). For instance, if you were to ask an Egyptian priestess to describe Ma'at, she would make it a laughing matter, for it ought to be obvious that Ma'at (law of Morality) is that of Isis, the Judge (satan) of Creation.

The bottom line is that my extended posts were designed to challenge your presuppositions, and then we can get to the meat of the matter.

[Nerwen]

Again, my point, respectively, is to say that Tolkien is being entirely consistent in his Legendarium in addition to the COH, specifically, the story of Turin Turambar. It is certainly not "atheistic" when I point out the fact of meteroic objects made into temples or swords were actually mediums of contact with the gods. It negates the whole theory of Turin being isolated in his morality from Eru. Read again, and you may see the connection.

My point is that you could easily have said this much more clearly in far fewer words, my friend– perhaps more as you did just now. (Besides, the fact that meteorites have often been considered sacred is not exactly news.) I must admit that I am also still confused about what exactly you're trying to say here– that Turin thought the sword spoke to him with the voice of Eru? Really?

In general, I cannot help feeling that your own "presuppositions" (perhaps about the ignorance and bias of everyone else?) have led you to misinterpret or disregard much of what has already been said.

[Nerwen]

I'm sorry if I sound overly-irritatated there, it's just that it is almost impossible to discern whatever points you are trying to make when they're so obscured by a fog of semi-random information. Whether you intend this or not, it really does end up looking like deliberate obfustication.

Okay?

[Dakêsîntrah]

Nerwen,

I concur. I certainly could have said this in fewer words. But unfortunately, many other people require more evidence. I am quite happy to expound upon long lines of text.

Meteorites being sacred is not new, but that's not the point. It is the metaphysical principles that come from such rare phenomena (cosmic catastrophe) that encompasses Morality (that which exists by function/relation).

Respectively, if you would have noticed this occult theme of Tolkien, Turin's sword shall have seemed to drive a chasm between human subjective law by action and divine accommodated law.

Furthermore, who's to say Eru actually speaks anthromorphically? I contend he doesn't. In all other ancient Creation myths, there are narratives where a Creation god "speaks" as if the man was already present as a created (structural/origin theory) being. This is anachronistic if you fall into the mindset of anthropomorphism. Eru "speaks" as he is defined, yet unchanged by the successive cycle of Ages. They are not mere words (Tolkien's parallelism is undeniable). Eru enables his foremost Beings to sing "themes." This is not an anthropomorphic choir. This is a visual look into the Ages of Good (limitation) and the Ages of Evil (Chaos). Ages of Good are met with the growth of boundaries (Elves), while balanced by the destruction of Chaos (Melkor). Both are necessary for the balance of nature and the eventual subsumation of Eru, the One. As Eru says, anything Morgoth does he providentially aides Eru in keeping the balance.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Meteorites being sacred is not new, but that's not the point. It is the metaphysical principles that come from such rare phenomena (cosmic catastrophe) that encompasses Morality (that which exists by function/relation).

Respectively, if you would have noticed this occult theme of Tolkien, Turin's sword shall have seemed to drive a chasm between human subjective law by action and divine accommodated law.

The anthropomorphic blade has nothing to do with Eru. The sword speaks for two reasons:

1) It is a direct lift from the Kalevala, in which the anti-hero, Kullervo, having had an incestuous liasion with his sister (unknowingly of course, just as in CoH) commits suicide. But first he asks his magic blade (given to him by the Finnish thunder god Ukko) to do the deed for him:

Kullerwoinen, wicked wizard,
Grasps the handle of his broadsword,
Asks the blade this simple question:
"Tell me, O my blade of honor,
Dost thou wish to drink my life-blood,
Drink the blood of Kullerwoinen?"

Thus his trusty sword makes answer,
Well divining his intentions:
"Why should I not drink thy life-blood,
Blood of guilty Kullerwoinen,
Since I feast upon the worthy,
Drink the life-blood of the righteous?"

and 2) Unlike Kullervo's divinely wrought blade, Anglachel (Gurthang) was smithied by Eol the Dark Elf, who created a masterwork that was imbued with the artist's aura. Not unlike Feanor's Silmarils or Sauron's Ring, Anglachel had the semblance of life, an echo of the artisan who crafted it. Melian saw this at once when she noted to Beleg:

"There is malice in this sword. The dark heart of the smith still dwells in it. It will not love the hand it serves, neither will it abide with you long."

So, Tolkien borrowed the idea from the Kalevala, but removed the divine reference from the sword; although it is forged from meteoric metal, I see no direct inference that Tolkien wished to imply divinity in the blade. The blade was indeed magic, but unlike Kullervo's blade (bestowed by the god Ukko), it was wrought by Eol, who in Elvish subcreative fashion creates a weapon instilled with his own malevolence, pride and ill-will. That the sword could ascertain injustice might just as well be because Eol himself always felt ill-used or wronged.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Bethberry, good question about the Buddhists. Buddhists ought not to be religionists. Buddhism was not established by Guatama as a religion but as a philosophy. In other words, ethical standards to live by.

Not so fast. Not sure that "religionists" is a fair term to use to decribe Buddhists, as they are likely less prone to being zealots than other practitioners of faith. However, there are some generally agreed upon distinctions that can be made between philosophy and religion which allow Buddhism fairly and justly to be called a religion.

Buddhism is based on revelation and faith, while generally philosophy is not, since it is based on rational and logical systemic search for knowledge. It is a way of thinking rather than a way of behaving, although ethics are studied philosophically. Is meditation a way of behaving or of thinking?

Also, religions have rituals and ceremonies for important events of the year and of life. These are both private and communal. (This is something generally regarded as absent in Tolkien's mythology, except for Faramir's men facing west.) Philosophers do not ritualistically cleanse their hands before reading Hegel or pray to Schopenhauer for enlightenment. Buddhism does have an extensive practice of rituals.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Therefore, your Buddhists that worship Buddha as a god are practicing coercive dogma, which is false. Not all Buddhists follow this, however, which is "good."

Note, I do not "own" any Buddhists, as they are people, not material objects. And I did not speak of any Buddhists who worship Buddha. (I said Buddhism raises interesting questions about divinity. ) In fact, I don't know of any Buddhists who worship Buddha as a god, so I have no idea where you got this point about "practicing coercive dogma." As a statement, it's unproven opinion.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Note, I do not "own" any Buddhists, as they are people, not material objects. And I did not speak of any Buddhists who worship Buddha. (I said Buddhism raises interesting questions about divinity. ) In fact, I don't know of any Buddhists who worship Buddha as a god, so I have no idea where you got this point about "practicing coercive dogma." As a statement, it's unproven opinion.

Also, why are these hypothetical Buddha-worshippers assumed to be using force to spread their doctrine? I mean, they might, of course, but I don't see why such a belief, however mistaken, must be automatically "coercive", any more than any other.

[Nerwen]

As for the meteorite business– I must concur with Morthoron: nowhere is there the least hint that Anglachel has, or is regarded as having, divine authority.

Dakêsîntrah, is it possible that you have fallen into the error of assuming that a symbol has the same meaning in all times and any context? Again, your general argument, as far as I can make out, *cough* presupposes that Tolkien was deeply versed in what appears to be some form of hermetic tradition– and I can't help feeling there's a lack of evidence for this.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Dakêsîntrah, is it possible that you have fallen into the error of assuming that a symbol has the same meaning in all times and any context? Again, your general argument, as far as I can make out, *cough* presupposes that Tolkien was deeply versed in what appears to be some form of hermetic tradition– and I can't help feeling there's a lack of evidence for this.

Like the original poster of this thread, I believe Dakêsîntrah has read far too much into the story we're discussing or, rather, wishes to subsume his (or her, I suppose) own prolix agenda into Tolkien's text. In any case, he lost me completely when he started talking about pineal glands and menstrual flow.