The halls of mandos and elvish "free will"

[JenFramp]

One thing that it seems that we overlook is the fact that the Elves are living their lives according to the designs of Ilùvatar. Because remember, the gift of the Elves is immortality but that of men is an unknown frontier called "Death" and the freedom of will from Ilùvatar’s design. Does this "free will" actually taint the Elves who come in contact with it?

We can assume that Fëanor’s act was not so much pride, but, the pride that Ilùvatar required through his thought and design. Does this make Fëanor blamless for his actions? We also observe that anytime one of the Eldar become enamoured with the Edain, they often lose eternal life or soon thereafter find residence in the Halls of Mandos.

With this post, I only try to reveal a few unorganized thoughts that often occupy my deepest questions concerning the Children of Ilùvatar. Please respond with your thoughts, similar or differing.

you are right in some way or another. It makes me wonder though...why men? If Illuvatar knew that they woul be come somewhat like Morgoth why give them that precious gift? It's so weird!

[JenFramp]

Yes that definitly makes me wonder too!! Freewill is a very interesting concept when thought deeply about..and its taken for granted

[burrahobbit]

Does this "free will" actually taint the Elves who come in contact with it?

Quite the other way around. Men that have much to do with Elves become caught up in the grips of fate.

[piosenniel]

We also observe that anytime one of the Eldar become enamoured with the Edain, they often lose eternal life or soon thereafter find residence in the Halls of Mandos.

There were three, and possibly a fourth union of Man and Elf. Tuor and Idril, Beren and Luthien, Aragorn and Arwen, and one which occured in the house of Dol Amroth (Mithrellas, by name). Not all the Elves chose to be mortal.

As for the Halls of Mandos - the fea of the elf is summoned there for a time, then re-embodied by the Valar in the restored former body.

HoME XII: "[The] last discussion of Elvish reincarnation refers [...] to the 'restoration' or 'reconstitution' of the former body by the Valar..."

[Aiwendil]

I have a hard time believing that the actions of Feanor were predestined; it certainly doesn't seem to fit well with what I know of Christian theology. In Judeo-Christian myth, the fall in Eden is justified by saying that humans have free will; otherwise you have an omnipotent, good God creating a situation that will inevitably result in evil. Without free will it just doesn't work.

I can think of two possible explanations:

1. Elves actually do have free will of a sort. Like humans, they can choose what actions to take, and thereby choose whether to be good or evil. The difference is that the free will of the Elves operates within a certain set of limitations called Fate. So there are certain things that an Elf cannot/will not do, because he or she is fated not to, but among the other possible actions he or she has free will.

2. Elves do not have free will, but the fall of Feanor is a consequence of the fall of Melkor (who does have free will), not the direct wish of Iluvatar.

I think it's likely that these are both true to some extent.

[burrahobbit]

And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite.

[Aiwendil]

Burrahobbit: Good point. I don't see any way to fit in that quote with my item 2 above. For that matter, I don't see any way of reconciling it with Judeo-Christian theology. Surely there couldn't have been a fall without free will of some kind? Perhaps it's a matter of interpretation - maybe Iluvatar means that, because Melkor's free will has its source in Iluvatar, it will prove to be the case that, no matter what Melkor chooses to do with his free will, it will further the cause of good.

Incidentally, I've just been reading Verlyn Flieger's Splintered Light, a fascinating look at Tolkien's theory of fantasy and the way in which he put it into practice. Flieger notes the problem of the possible Elvish lack of free will and suggests that perhaps Elvish free will takes this form: Elves have free will with respect to their internal nature, but not with respect to their external actions. I find this wholly unsatisfactory - surely one's actions proceed from one's nature.

[Selmo]

The idea of "fate" (or predestination), in literature or in life, has always troubled me. I've thought about it a great deal, so here are the musings an elderly hobbit:

All Elves, Men and other rational beings have complete freedom of choice, limited only by their intellectual ability and the constraints place upon them by the society in which thasy live.

Fate is an illusion that seems to be widely accepted by the Elves and by many men, based on two things: an unwillingness to accept the blame for their own actions when events go badly wrong and the fact that the Doom of Mandos and other prophesies have been fulfilled. God (Iluvatar) is apparently aware of everything that each individual will do and has let some of this information leak to the Valar in the Great Music.

How can God's knowledge of our future actions be compatable with free-will and choice?
We know that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent but to answere my question, he must also be omnitemporal. God is not limited to our linear experience of time but exists at all times similtaneously. God knows how each of us will live out our lives, not because he controls us, but because he has seen how each of us has used our free-will. God does not fore-see the future, he sees it.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Selmo, those are very good thoughts, and you have expressed them well. I especially like the word 'omnitemporal'! I don't recall ever having heard it before - did you coin it?

[Selmo]

Estelyn,

When I posted my thoughts on this subject on another Tolkien site, I coined the word omnichronant.
Another poster commented that omnitemporal sounded better, so I adopted that word.

I can find niether omnichronant or omnitemporal in any dictionary that I've tried.

[Rimbaud]

When you say Eru 'sees' the future, you point to a deity that is 'omniprescient' not, as in your terms, 'omnitemporal'. If that deity were the latter, there would be no future, or indeed past (for that deity), there would simply be an infinite present. All events would be. In that argument, given that from a theistic viewpoint, that deity is the Creator-absolute, all events do not stem from that deity, strictly, but rather that deity is all events. The deity encompasses all. So, what a mortal may perceive as evil, does not even have its root within the deity but is an inherent part of the deity itself. *

This does not fit comfortably with Tolkien's belief-construct.

*Indeed, it is worth noting that time, or more importantly, the passage of time, is an artificial construct, since each and every event is unique. There is no yesterday - indeed, for all that it matters, there well have never been one. To expect a tomorrow is to trust blindly in something that has been created simply for the purposes of enslaving the human mind (see the dawn of agricultre for details).

Therefore if there is no time - be it simply a mass-hallucination, to use contemporary nomenclature like confetti - there is no conflict between deity and progression.


However, Tolkien (in his literature) is fond of the device of Fate. Fate necessitates (in my mind at present, although I would be willing to absorb counter-argument) the actual (not perceived) existence of linear time. I would argue therefore that the deity within Ea as Tolkien perceived (oops, described [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ) it was not 'omnitemporal' but rather, omniprescient; seeing all events that are and may be but not present within them.

** I apologise for the closeness in appearance of 'omniprescient' and 'omnipresent'; they are distinct, of course.

[Mister Underhill]

I’ve been following this discussion with interest. The role of Fate in Middle-earth ranged over similar territory a while back; you may find it interesting to peruse.

I’m not sure I follow your logic in the omnitemporal/omniprescient distinction, Rimb.

...that deity is all events. The deity encompasses all. So, what a mortal may perceive as evil, does not even have its root within the deity but is an inherent part of the deity itself.

Could you elaborate further here?

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[Rimbaud]

My argument, such as it is, has as its root the need to distinguish between a deity that perceives the future - a quality I would label, inefficiently, omniprescience - and a deity that defies any thought of linear time and exists in an endless now. Selmo said: "God is not limited to our linear experience of time but exists at all times simultaneously". If this were true, then the moment of creation is as endless as all other moments - all events are for that deity. I am struggling to explain myself. If the deity is not simply 'setting the wheels in motion' but is existent at all times simultaneously then events do not stem from the actions of that deity but rather form partof that deity at any given 'time'.

I'll put it another way.

And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite.

The Music of the Ainur and the above quote both lead to a perception of linear time. Observe "uttermost source". The epic of Middle-Earth has as its foundation, the belief in the ultimate Happy Ending. Melkor's discordant song is therefore a part of the path to that conclusion. If Eru existed in an 'omnitemporal' sense, that ending would not be such, for Eru would be existent at its moment just as truly as Eru is existent still at the moment before Eru started the song - and at any other moment.

So, in the omnitemporal argument, Eru exists simultaneously at both times of 'good' and at times of 'bad'. The latter is not needed to progress to the ultimate good, but is an inherent part of the overall whole, as perceived by Eru.

Since, it seems clear that Tolkien's desire was to make the point that the discordant themes (and the subsequent evil and evil actiobs/events) were necessary to reach the final Good, I would argue that Eru was written as an omniprescient deity not an omnitemporal one.

[Nar]

Rimbaud:

then events do not stem from the actions of that deity but rather form part of that deity at any given 'time'.

I do not believe that this follows from 'omnitemporal.' Can't Eru be present in all time without being the immediate cause and mover of every event specifically? Does 'God is there when it happened' inevitably mean 'God did it'? (circumstantial evidence! wouldn't convict a d o g --reverse if neccessary) Oops, I mean Eru. Outside of time but perceiving all of it like a ribbon (or an umbrella if there was a big bang) is another option.

The quotes about 'utmost end', we must remember, are Eru speaking to the Melkor and those Ainur about to enter Arda: beings about to enter time within the flow. The perspective of linear time might not be Eru's own, but taken up by Eru for clear communication with the Ainur. We aren't privy to Eru's musings independent of more limited beings. Eru might view the end of a theme like the hem of a dress-- seeing it whole, beginning to end. Omniprescient would be viewing the dress on a hanger, Omnitemporal would be wearing the dress. Uh, oh. Going to stop now, before I'm hit by a lightning bolt.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[Aiwendil]

I do not believe that this follows from 'omnitemporal.' Can't Eru be present in all time without being the immediate cause and mover of every event specifically?

Technically speaking, even a temporally linear God like that in Judeo-Christian theology would be 'present in all time'. That would merely mean that he/she/it exists from the beginning of the universe to the end of the universe. Elves are present through all time from their awakening to the end of the world. Humans are present in all time from birth to death.

The real question is whether a particular god is somehow beyond the unidirectionality of our time, superceding our strange macroscopic causality. As he is depicted in The Silmarillion, Eru is definitely not like this.

[Selmo]

It seems that I am in the presence some mighty loremasters.

Thank you for your thoughts everyone.
This old hobbot will have to retire to his hole and think about this for an Age or two.

[HerenIstarion]

to Rimbaud

Rimbaud, me thinks you make a mistake in putting Eru inside time. Selmo had excellent points, which are shared by your humble servant. But remember, there are several references to Eru’s halls, and always they are described as “timeless”, thing “before time”. From your posts I had an impression you have a mental picture of “omnitemporal” Eru as “stratched” along the timeline. But in fact He’s “outside” it. I can suggest you another mental picture of a man looking upon a rope stratched on the table. Both, table(space) and rope(time), are made by man(God), but man is not bound to be inside each. The picture is lame for if any ant (human, elf) was to move along the rope, it would imply some passage of time by itself. But if there was no time for a man (God)(and there, in fact, is no) than he would be able to see an ant (human, elf) at any given moment of it’s progress along the rope (time). Neither it means that watching ant crawling along the line is somehow influencing it’s progress, i e predestining it. Yet, if talking about fate and free will, add to the your mental picture two more elements – lumps of sugar and drops of orange juice, placed by man (God) simultaneously along the rope (time). Now imagine ant (human, elf) having moral code – eating sugar is sinful, drinking juice is righteous. That placement gives you fate. Suppose red ants (elves) and black ants (humans) have different conditions crawling along the same rope. For the red ones there is fate – sugar and juice placed along the way. Black ones simply don’t sense those, or sense them only if travelling in company of red ones. Red ants’ (elves) free will is expressed in the choice – eat sugar, and therefore sin, or abstinate from it and be righteous. Red ants are unable to leave the rope, black ones are free to stray. Here it is, free will, “omnitemporalness” of God and fate.

I hope I’m not too confusing. I don’t remember direct quote, but C.S.Lewis once answered to the similar question thus: “Surely, watching somebody doing something is not causing him do it?” As an addition, neither event itself.

for further reference see above mentioned

The Role of Fate in Middle Earth

[Selmo]

Of course God(Eru/Iluvatar) is "outside " time.

Einstein tells us that time,space, matter and energy are all inter-related. There was no time before the physical universe of energy and matter came into being.

God (Eru/Iluvatar) existed before the physical universe, so he existed before time and is, therefore, independant of time.

[mark12_30]

Rimbaud,

A delicious topic.

You said:

If this were true, then the moment of creation is as endless as all other moments - all events are for that deity.

I would agree with this. (To me it is one of the deep mysteries.)

If the deity is not simply 'setting the wheels in motion' but is existent at all times simultaneously then events do not stem from the actions of that deity but rather form partof that deity at any given 'time'.

I would disagree with, or at least question, this. The scriptures (which anchor me, I hope this does not offend you) say that In Him we ( and all of creation) live and move and have our being. It does not say that all creation is part of him. In a sense, he is a container-- one who sustains what he contains, and is capable of guiding what he sustains, but at times (most of the time) chooses to watch, and wait to be invited to participate in the sequence of events. Yes, all events ARE for him. Simultaneously, he waits for us to ask him to join us.
This is certainly a paradox, and yet it is one of the most important paradoxes that I know, for it makes Free Will mean something, and it makes God the Ultimate Gentleman, forcing himself on no one.
So often when injustice occurs, we hear the cry, "Where is God?" My answer would be, "Waiting to be invited. He will not, and does not, presume, though infinite power be at his mighty fingertips."
He is the only being who is incorrupted by absolute power.

Now-- having said all that-- I have also learned more from Tolkien in this sense about the wonder of the incarnation. It's no wonder that Tolkien describes the Incarnation as the eucatastrophe of the Old Convenant. The mystery of the Incarnation is that suddenly, the second person of the Trinity, who was outside time, for whom all events ARE, suddenly stepped inside of time and became subject to it, was conceived as an embryo, born as an infant, subjected to mortality and death, and resurrection. The second person of the Trinity, now, in the form of the Messiah, is subject to time.

Like Tolkien, I am amazed.

Grace and peace, --Helen

[Rimbaud]

I'm glad nobody was offended by my poorly explained posts of yesterday. My original intent was merely to question Eru as 'seeing' the future; surely, if he was omnitemporal he would be there, instantaneously aware. 'Seeing' for me suggests some time-lag between event and perception.

I did touch upon a secondary point, which thanks to the more concise and structured replies of you all, I feel able to elaborate upon, yet more succintly, if that is not oxymoronic.

In particular, thank you to Heren Istarion who gave me a nice metaphor to work with. My secondary point, or certainly what it has metamorphosised into, is to study that rope that HI describes so ably.

I agree with the clarifications of Selmo's point. Tolkien understood and wanted the deity within ME to be extra-time. (This was one of the bases for my quibble with omnitemporality, but I see now that it depends on your perspective). So, as the deity watches the ants navigate the juice and sugar of life, he see all points of the 'journey' at once. Tolkien (and I would presume, most if not all of the posters on this thread) would see the deity as Good, and therefore Creation as Good - and that Time, if there is such a thing, will culminate in an Ultimate Good. However, if that deity is present at all points of the rope of time then the final picture is not the end of the rope but the rope as a whole. I mean to say, that there is no culmination if the deity is present at every point in that (however artificial) Time-span. There is simply the Whole, the Now, which encompasses every nanometre of the rope. So, (and here comes the rhetoric) if the Ultimate Good is not the End of the rope, but the Whole, evil events and actions do not constitute merely a necessary part of the Journey to the Ultimate Good - but are a part of the Ultimate Good itself. Thus, the Ultimate Good is not, well...Ultimately Good.

I think this is what I had intended to say yesterday; I confused myself when, in my mind I saw the deity and the Universe as one and the same.

[Nar]

Lovely responses! Very stimulating. Aiwendil:

Technically speaking, even a temporally linear God like that in Judeo-Christian theology would be 'present in all time'. That would merely mean that he/she/it exists from the beginning of the universe to the end of the universe. Elves are present through all time from their awakening to the end of the world. Humans are present in all time from birth to death.

Very true. Humans or Elves are present in time with consciousness and existence recopied and updated for each successive moment, aware of previous copies as the 'self in the past' but not aware of future copies, 'self in the future'. I imagine a 'godlike' perspective as one consciousness experiencing all moments: many moments mapped to one self. Imagining that consciousness outside of the series of moments, viewing them as a whole is certainly easier than imagining that consciousness inside them all at one time. I take it that's what you meant, Selmo. I like your 'omnitemporal' term.

Take HerenIstarion's excellent 'rope analogy': suppose the man(God) coils the rope, ants, juice, sugar and all, so that he can hold all of it loosely in his arms: the ants can't tell if the timerope is straight or coiled, for they know only that there is another millimeter ahead of them, but the man(God) has intimate access to all of the rope at once. That's sort of what I meant by being in all of time at once as opposed to outside perceiving all of time at once.
Aiwendil:

The real question is whether a particular god is somehow beyond the unidirectionality of our time, superceding our strange macroscopic causality. As he is depicted in The Silmarillion, Eru is definitely not like this.

The depiction of Eru's interactions with the Ainur at the beginning is linear and supports your point about Eru. However, the playing of the music representing all of Arda and events in Arda before (or as) the creation is enacted suggests a different relation between Eru and those Ainur who remained outside and Arda's time.

Helen:

God the Ultimate Gentleman, forcing himself on no one.

I like that.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[HerenIstarion]

by Rimbaud
evil events and actions do not constitute merely a necessary part of the Journey to the Ultimate Good - but are a part of the Ultimate Good itself. Thus, the Ultimate Good is not, well...Ultimately Good

Well, I think you mix up the created item – rope (time), with the creator – man (God). When I was saying God’s outside time, I intended to underline this also. The time is not part of the God as much as the rope I weave is not part of me. It’s my creaton, thing I made. It is even held in christian theology that God has no need to create. So that is the ants on the rope that go wrong, not man looking upon them. There is a journey from the beginning to the end only from ant’s point of view. And that is an essential part of ants nature that theycan go wrong. The whole point of the rope and the journey is this. Otherwise, if they can’t they are not creatures of the free will, but mere automata. And the sinfulness of particular man is not making God less Good, it only shows man is wicked.

What I think you all seem to be missing is that J.R.R. Tolkein was a devout Roman Catholic. He drew very direct allegories from his own religion to the world of LotR. So, in doing so, he has effectively adressed the questions in his own religion during his writings through a different point of view. The Christian religion doesn't specify exactly what happens to a soul after Death, but that God (eru) has provided someplace for the soul. This can be directly applied to LotR.

[HerenIstarion]

Welcome to the Barrow-Downs, Thorondor

What we've been trying to find out in this thread, is, to an extent, limited by the sub-created world of Middle-Earth. The issue we were after was not to find relation between Tolkien's Catholicism and what happens in ME, but to find only the latter - i.e., what happens inside the [sub]world, not what particular beliefs affected Tolkien in [sub]creating this particular form of afterlife for elves or men inside his own [sub]created world

I do not intend to say you have no point there. What I'm driving at is, that though somehow touching the issue you raised, this particular thread does not deal with it directly

You may find it interesting (and more relevant) to take a look at the following discussions:

Tolkien, Lewis and Theology by InklingElf
LoTR - A spiritual Allegory? by Ardwenna
Tolkien and Philosophy by Hookbill the Goomba
10 Commandements for Middle Earth by Aerandir Carnesir

Side-touch on the issue may be found in Evil Things by Nirvana II, on the pages 2 and 3 of that latter thread, and in Acceptance of Mythology by Snowdog

Enjoy reading and posting

[Elladan and Elrohir]

It is certainly false that the Christian religion is ambiguous as to what happens after death. As a Christian, I can assure you that the Bible gives details in many places as to what happens after death.

Here are some verses that may be relevant (I'll leave you to look them up on your own if you wish):

Hebrews 9:27
Revelation 20:11-15
Luke 16:19-31

There are many others, but those are some basic ones. Basically, when you die, if you are a Christian you will go to heaven, which is described indepth in Revelation 21. If you are not a Christian you will go to hell, which is described in Luke 16:19-31.

It is, in fact, more complicated than this, but that's basically it.

This thread is very interesting to me, as you might imagine since I am a Christian. I have been reading an awesome novel by Ted Dekker called "Blink" that deals with some of these same issues of free will.

One of the main things I think we need to remember is that if there is a God, then as somebody once said (I think C.S. Lewis), we can no more comprehend Him than an earthworm can comprehend a man. When we try to understand Him in human terms (without using the Bible), we're doing a great exercise in futility.

Obviously, this discussion is not about God per se (God as described by Tolkien as Eru), but I think it has bearing on it. I HOPE it does, anyway; I hate to ramble on and miss the point, and I've done it before!

Finally, I love the new word "omnitemporal." Kudos to Selmo!

[Osse]

Yes, quite...
Anyways, I think this has been somewhat hijacked- what happens to the Men of ME after death? Who knows? Whether Tolkien meant to leave it as a parody of his own religion or not is not the issue - the issue is that Tolkien deliberately wrote it as being completely ambiguous - the way is unclear, and fear arises from that uncertainty. To me, it was purely a cunning root from which much of the plot or perceived plot of the books can be derived - many of the faults seen in the race of Men derive from this fear of death, from the uncertainty regarding the Doom of Men. The great catastrophe's often occur through a particular tribe or race becoming either too enamored in the afterlife or trying to avoid it completely - falling into building grander houses for the death than for the living or striving for immortality. Numenor is a fine example of this - a race declines through their fear (played like a harp by Sauron of course) of what lay beyond the fringes of their waking world. Whether Tolkien was using this as a parody for his own beliefs or not matters little - it is applicable to all cultures, religions and walks of life. It was a cunning literary device that one can relate to - it makes the culture of Man in ME akin to our own, after all, we are meant to be one and the same and helps us relate to them much more than the Elves - they are less aloof. This is one of the major ploys that helps us to relate to them and I'd say, (apart from the race meant to be us) the most important!

Regards,

Ossë

[Mithalwen]

I found this in a dictionary of Quotations thought it is from the Silmarillion and I think it is very interesting

"He (Eru) willed that the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and find no rest therein; but they should have a virtue to shape their life amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur, which is a fate to all things else"

So men have more free will than Elves .....

[HerenIstarion]

He (Eru) willed that the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and find no rest therein; but they should have a virtue to shape their life amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur, which is a fate to all things else"

Once, in similar discussion (Evil Things) here I answered the quote with the following analogy:

...the world is like train moving on rails, with elves having tickets on to the terminal station while Men keep jumping out of windows now and again. (Or, in more civilized mental picture, having tickets on to intermediary stations). Music is rails.

Or, to elaborate a point just a tiny bit - the free will is expressed by ability of choice, but the choice of elves is contained inside the 'train', whilst men leave it after short journey.

'All things else' of the quote determines the fate of the things of Arda, and includes animals and plants, as they do not have fëar, theirs being the mode of existence made up of matter entirely, and as matter is finite, so are they. Elves are included in 'all things else' as their fëar are bound with the world and doomed to remain there (though there is a hope for elves after the 'end of the world' too, see continuation of the discussion in the same thread)

I know, I think in analogies

Black ants, red ants...

[davem]

Well, H-I had a long discussion (which I think we were the only ones reading by the end of it )n the Evil Things thread. I have to wonder about my learned friend's comment though:

Originally Posted by H-I

'All things else' of the quote determines the fate of the things of Arda, and includes animals and plants, as they do not have fëar, theirs being the mode of existence made up of matter entirely, and as matter is finite, so are they.

As I'm not sure it squares with the following:

The lncarnates have by the nature of sama the same faculties; but their perception is dimmed by the hroa, for their fea is united to their hroa and its normal procedure is through the hroa, which is in itself part of Ea, without thought. Osanwe Kenta

If animal's 'mode of existence' is 'made up of matter entirely' then they would not have the capacity to think - & we know that some do - Shadowfax clearly thinks & understands language...

(There's also a particular fox - of course he could be one of the Maiar I suppose )

[HerenIstarion]

Well, any exeption just underlines the rules, I reckon

For one, I may not be a good judge of animals and their fate in afterlife, being myself a human

For two, in ME, the latter version of what Huan was may be brought in to my add - animal raised by Valar to have ability of speech, but still no fëa

For three, I always had a feeling that hröa≠body and fëa≠mind, or if it does, equality is not precise, it is approximate. As in Christian theology, spirit≠soul, though the terms in layman's mouth may be interchangeable

For four, does the thought of the quote mean any thought? For surely, to move about, animals must have nervous systems, brains, and, therefore, some processes resembling thinking process of a human. But I suppose by thought the abstract thought is meant

But the stress of my previous post should have been more gravely put on fëar, rather than on matter - though in original plan the union of fëar and hröar was to be eternal, the taint brought into the matter --> hröar by Melkor/Morgoth brought about the need of redemption, and Arda Remade. Hence - all matter as it is now should be destroyed and remade. + Fall of Men (partially caused by effect tainted matter had on fëar of men, for the two affect each other)

But we've been through this before, haven't we?

PS And I do remember the fox which saw three hobbits sleeping under the three. Just don't ask.

[davem]

Originally Posted by H-I

PS And I do remember the fox which saw three hobbits sleeping under the three. Just don't ask.

Maybe it was 'a fox that wasn't there'

......I'm sure Child, at least, will get that one........

[Tinuviel of Denton]

Well, I certainly don't get it. I'd rather like to know where the idea comes from; is there a thread I can read?

(Oh, and?

By davem
Well, H-I had a long discussion (which I think we were the only ones reading by the end of it )

I read the entire thing and enjoyed it immensely, though I was probably late coming along and wouldn't have anything interesting to add to the discussion...)