Fantasy Morality

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Morthoron, the Kalevala is quite fascinating indeed.

However, are you aware of how many parallels I can glean from other ancient texts regarding "life-blood?"

Now when...and et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam...

A sword may "speak" to Turin, not in the anthropomorphic sense, but, as an extension of his flaming spirit (Curufinwë), it is the innate "conscience" - just as your conscience does not "speak" to you anthropomorphically, it is that sense of instinct which is godlike, because everything subsists into the One, as the balance between Chaos and Order, boundary and limitlessness. The Creation narrative of the Ages. Therefore, Eru does "speak" to Turin via the divine energy within the blade. The blade is a product of the "theme" - the divine energy that sustains the cyclical balance - a product of chaos, the meteorite, providentially shaped by Eöl, the Dark.

Occam's razor, Dakêsîntrah, Occam's razor. Rather than bludgeon us with reams of addled arcana and mythopoeic minutiae, Tolkien, as a linguist, would tell you in the most basic terms that "life-blood" is an anglicized translation of a kenning transcribed by Lönnrot while it was sung (usually in duet with the singers alternating verses). The measured beats of the singing was enhanced in the Kalevala by it distinct alliteration and occasional kennings, separate but not unlike the Skaldic tradition. For instance, the Sampo, the mill that miraculously grinds out wealth, has a kenning "kirjokansi" (that is, "bright-covered" or "multi-colored").

In the case of his own text, Tolkien removes the kenning, and once again he rains on your hypothetical parade:

"Hail Gurthang! No lord or loyalty dost thou know, save the hand that wieldeth thee. From no blood wilt thou shrink. Wilt thou therefore take Túrin Turambar, wilt thou slay me swiftly?"

And from the blade rang a cold voice in answer: "Yes, I will drink thy blood gladly, that so I may forget the blood of Beleg my master, and the blood of Brandir slain unjustly. I will slay thee swiftly."

To think that Eru (or whatever Mother Goddess nonsensical addenda you wish to extrapolate) would say "I will drink thy blood gladly" is preposterous, and Turin rightly denotes the bloodthirsty nature of Gurthang, which was said to sing as it slew its victims. There is no divinity in the action, nor in the faithlessness of the sword -- a faithlessness emphasized several times in the story.

P.S. Besides, as Tolkien was an ardent Catholic, and since this whole long-winded and indulgent thread hinges on his religious beliefs in one way or another, then God (or his literary pseudo-counterpart, Eru), would not condone a suicide and certainly not facilitate the act through a weapon of sin. Even in a fantasy, it makes no sense.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

However, are you aware of how many parallels I can glean from other ancient texts regarding "life-blood?" etc.

Look, I'm afraid you're doing it again. "Let me list every possible symbolic, mythological and pseudo-scientific conjectural association with such-and-such that I know of," is all very well as an exercise, but it's largely irrelevant when it comes to making a point in an argument. It is not enough to state that someone, somewhere, has linked meteoric iron with the life-blood of the gods, or whatever it is you're getting at here– what you need to show is a.) that Tolkien was making this association and b.) that he intended by this to show that Turin's sword spoke with the "voice" (actual or not, as you please) of Eru.

After six posts and over 9,000 words (literally, not just as an internet meme), you have not done this.

EDIT:X'd with Alatar and Bêthberry.

[Dakêsîntrah]

Galadriel55,

I am sorry if I have confused you about putting Curufinwë in the parentheses. Spirit of Fire is a titular name; I was applying this metaphorically to Turin's personality.

Morthoron,

Occam's Razor? You do know the principle lacks divine fiat in the realm of scientific endeavor, right?
Believe me, I have considered starting from a succinct hypothesis and afterwards, theory, but there's this thing about working your way down from a sand-house roof.

Sand-house rooves collapse easily, but everyone likes to gather at the flat-top roof for tea parties and basking in the sun!

Everyone is reluctant to leave the sand-clad roof and join the couple new neighbors who sit in their stone-house with a stone floor foundation.

For the sake of Morthoron and most mainstream scholarship's obsession with Occam's Razor, the 14th century man of simplicity - I have used a parable.

Those who quit sipping tea on the sand-house may find a stone-house, but they must first leave the sand-house to get there. It takes quite a lot to come down from your presuppositions.

But those with a comprehensive theory must present comprehensive evidence. I believe I have done this so far. Now, the threads must get thinner and thinner as I round out my workable theory.

And of course its nice to know that "life-blood" is an anglicized translation of a kenning transcribed by Lönnrot while it was sung..."

But somehow you seem to miss the far more ancient texts which already mention "life-blood" - The Sumerian, Akkadian, and Egyptian texts all predate Tolkien's Norsemen, and your pal alatar's implied bias of Scandinavian supremacy:

"In contrast, in Tolkien's world characters can look back as things were actually better in the past. Their ancestors were stronger, smarter, better."

Yes, as time passed, humans progressed in knowledge; but with knowledge came more opportunity for corruption.

"Tolkien removes the kenning, and once again he rains on your hypothetical parade:"

Really? Seemingly throughout all my "addled arcana and mythopoeic minutiae" you have missed my explanation of the occultic ritual of drinking blood. Your quotes of Gurthang support my hypothesis in this instance quite well.
There are tons of ancient texts and depictions of victims who are massacred as the main centre of ritual sacrifice. Shall I present them to you? Here I must tend to resist the complex of evidence and give you simple. Hmm, I never did tend to like Hobbits as simple-folk. Totally oblivious to ruin and rebirth. It's a good thing Frodo learned to "just leave" for the "Undying Lands," that of complex immortality...

Nevertheless, the blade of Turin corresponds quite well, I think, as a divine medium of sacrifice, that made of meteorite, just as altars/temples of sacrifice were made of the same substance in some cases.

And again, Morthoron, you fancy to have Eru speaking anthropomorphically. The "speaking" is the functional/relational action of the sword that defines it; therefore, it "speaks." It has a spirit of its own. And "spirit" ought to be justly defined as that which is simply action defined by function/relation. And who might be the sword relating to in which it is thoroughly defined? Turin Turambar.

Gurthang is in many ways, the object of the tribal deities who consumate or manifest the Name of Eru, the Hidden One in physical locality; and blood sacrifices to them mirror the cosmic interplay that is Eru.

Tolkien was aware of the distinction between the Biblical Hidden YHWH and the manifest tribal god El Elyon.

Bethberry, if you make the claim that something isn't logical, please be logical and offer supplementary evidence for it. If we wish to talk about grammar, then so be it. But Morthoron would like you to apply Occam's Razor first, please.

The "Church" example was intended to be a separate illustration from Buddhism. But tell me, what do you have in Buddhism that are the near equivalent of "churches?" (Without going back to the Anglo-Saxon etymology of "God" and "church").

"(If we can't agree on first principles, then there's little chance for understanding.)"

That's a logical fallacy. Why? Because your presuppositions are the root cause of your first, or second principles, and so on.

"Buddhists do not worship the Buddha, and so they cannot have this coercive practice."

As I have said before, "faith" is only a byproduct of religion when dogma seeps through. So, who do Buddhists put their "faith" in?

Let me see if your can counter the paradox of faith and reason.

"...in post #63 you claim that "modern linguistics" defines myth assynonymous with lies, but this is incorrect..."

Incorrect assumption. I was referring to modern field of linguistics studying the grammar, morphology and phonology in ancient myth texts with the aim of discerning meaning and consistency between historical text and archaeomythology.

Furthermore, cosmomythology rarely involved practical pursuits in meaning.

"I have no clue what the first sentence here means."

I'm trying to help you.

"Haven't you just tried to argue that religion is propaganda?"

You are confused again. I am not bashing religion; only when it is filtered through coercive "faith" systems. True religio-myth is based upon experience via reason.

"...use rituals whereas philosophies do not."

You must have missed the etymology of the word "ritual." Philosophies are founded upon reason based on experience.

Nerwen,

It is hard for one to really talk to someone who: claims someone is spouting out "pseudo-scientific conjectural association" - when in fact the one with this hasty conclusion, I dare say, has barely ventured into thoroughly testing the claims. Your reply is too soon, judging by this standard.

"...what you need to show is a.) that Tolkien was making this association..."

Do you honestly even care why 1) Tolkien even dared to associate Gurthang with meteorite? And 2) the multiple associations with blood sacrifice to the blade? I would suggest doing an extensive study of ancient near eastern cosmic ritual with fallen meteorite. Hey, and you even have the Islamic Ka'aba Meccans to speak about their "Black Stone"!

Best Regards

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

and your pal alatar's implied bias of Scandinavian supremacy:

Huh? And I didn't even know Morthoron was in reality Pallando.

Yes, as time passed, humans progressed in knowledge; but with knowledge came more opportunity for corruption.

Sure. My point is that when you are moving back into prehistory, please do not forget to consider anthropology and biology.

There are tons of ancient texts and depictions of victims who are massacred as the main centre of ritual sacrifice. Shall I present them to you? Here I must tend to resist the complex of evidence and give you simple. Hmm, I never did tend to like Hobbits as simple-folk. Totally oblivious to ruin and rebirth. It's a good thing Frodo learned to "just leave" for the "Undying Lands," that of complex immortality...

Also note that some instances of 'blood sacrifices' are one tribe slandering another.

[Morthoron]

Occam's razor snips the gristle...

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

[....Snip....]Really? Seemingly throughout all my "addled arcana and mythopoeic minutiae" you have missed my explanation of the occultic ritual of drinking blood. Your quotes of Gurthang support my hypothesis in this instance quite well.

I don't believe I "missed the explanation"; rather, I ignored the superfluity and got to the point. You implied it was Eru's voice speaking through the divine metal of the blade. I proved quite conclusively how that could not be the case. And in a much more succinct manner.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

[...snip...]And again, Morthoron, you fancy to have Eru speaking anthropomorphically. The "speaking" is the functional/relational action of the sword that defines it; therefore, it "speaks." It has a spirit of its own. And "spirit" ought to be justly defined as that which is simply action defined by function/relation. And who might be the sword relating to in which it is thoroughly defined? Turin Turambar.

Ummm...no, Dak, I don't "fancy to have Eru speaking anthropomorphically" -- as a matter of fact, I don't believe Eru spoke at all. The Elves of that time could imbue their spirit into an item, and so could a Maia such as Sauron; hence, the Silmarils and the One Ring had a semblance of life (not actual life), just as Anglachel/Gurthang had in its cold blade the spirit of Eol, dark and full of malice. Melian sees that right off. She doesn't say "Hey, that's Eru's benevolent aura eminating from that ebon blade". No, Melian the Maia, who would certainly know Eru on an interpersonal level, says explicitly:

"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."

No Eru. No divinely wrought blade. Tolkien removes such inferences from the Kalevala altogether. Tolkien certainly wouldn't condone suicide, an act of desperation and a mortal sin in Catholicism, and he certainly wouldn't have Eru acting as the instrument of suicide.

All the rest of your lengthy exposition is mere conjecture on your part. Unless you can quote Tolkien directly in that regard, it remains "addled arcana and mythopoeic minutiae".

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Bethberry, if you make the claim that something isn't logical, please be logical and offer supplementary evidence for it. If we wish to talk about grammar, then so be it. But Morthoron would like you to apply Occam's Razor first, please.

Simplicity, particularly in a forum discussion, is divine, Dak. When one starts meandering down lengthy corridors of obscure research and starts typing thesis papers for a cultural anthropology class, one loses the reader and the gist of the entire discussion.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Dak

Galadriel55,

I am sorry if I have confused you about putting Curufinwë in the parentheses. Spirit of Fire is a titular name; I was applying this metaphorically to Turin's personality.

F.Y.I.,"Curufinwë" does not mean "Spirit of Fire" at all. It is Fëanor's other name: "Curu (skill, skilful) + Finwë (his father's name).

Originally Posted by Dak

Nerwen,

It is hard for one to really talk to someone who: claims someone is spouting out "pseudo-scientific conjectural association" - when in fact the one with this hasty conclusion, I dare say, has barely ventured into thoroughly testing the claims. Your reply is too soon, judging by this standard.

By "pseudoscientific" I refer to what is to be found at the other end of those links you provided. If you object to the expression, I will change it to "quasi-scientific". That stuff is very, ah, let us say, alternative. Not to mention quite un-testable, at least in the case of the neo-Velikovskyan astronomy links. To be fair, I suppose it might be at least theoretically possible– although the evidence has certainly eluded mainstream science– to prove that the ancient Egyptians were really nuclear physicists. It might also be possible to test some of the claims made for "Etherium", "Aulterra", and the other interesting collections of pills in jars that are being sold at the end of your third link (although it seems the FDA has not seen fit to do so as yet).

Originally Posted by Dak

Do you honestly even care why 1) Tolkien even dared to associate Gurthang with meteorite? And 2) the multiple associations with blood sacrifice to the blade? I would suggest doing an extensive study of ancient near eastern cosmic ritual with fallen meteorite. Hey, and you even have the Islamic Ka'aba Meccans to speak about their "Black Stone"!

And I would suggest you provide reasonable proof that J.R.R. Tolkien, the author of the text in question, intended these associations– including your latest with the Ka'aba, of all things! I have asked you for this several times now. Unless you can do this, no piece of folklore you invoke can logically support your claim in any way whatever.

Look, Dak, as with tumhalad before you, you're just saying the same thing over and over– while– wilfully or not I couldn't say– misinterpreting or just plain ignoring the points made by others. It is getting more than a little tiresome, and I am at a loss as to what you're trying to accomplish.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Simplicity, particularly in a forum discussion, is divine

Morth, you don't suppose that Occam's razor is doing any sacrificial blood-letting, do you? Dare one suggest that the razor might be of meteorite origin?

Originally Posted by alatar

My point is that when you are moving back into prehistory, please do not forget to consider anthropology and biology.

Yes, and please do not make claims about religion and mythology that are Euro-centric.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I would suggest you provide reasonable proof that J.R.R. Tolkien, the author of the text in question, intended these associations

That's probably an erroneous presupposition getting in the way of first principles, Nerwen. This Cryptic Aura has been warned about hers and so she's going off to meditate upon them.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

But tell me, what do you have in Buddhism that are the near equivalent of "churches?" (Without going back to the Anglo-Saxon etymology of "God" and "church").

I don't have anything in Buddhism as I've never contributed to any of its texts or oral traditions.

You know folks, I hesitate to say this, but this thread looks like it is turning into another canonical discussion.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

You know folks, I hesitate to say this, but this thread looks like it is turning into another canonical discussion.

Not so much canon as cannon, as in fodder.

[Mnemosyne]

'There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

~Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

'There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

~Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
-- Inigo Montoya