How did Sauron do it...

"Dirk Thierbach" <dthierbach.TakeThisOut@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote


> I think it also makes communication easier if one marks wild speculations
> clearly as such (then people like me won't be tempted to take them
> seriously).


"I was trying to imagine how it might be so, and obviously some of it is a
bit speculative to say the least"
 >> Stay informed about: How did Sauron do it... 

"teepee" <nomail DeleteThis @nomail.com> wrote

>> This is addressed (not resolved) in
>> http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q3-Saruman
>> You might have something to add.

It also occurs that there was a crude level of communication between the
holders of the Three. Galadriel knew they fellowship was coming. She knew
Gandalf was not dead.

If Saruman had held Gandalf's ring, or taken it off Gandalf, or killed him,
he might have thought the other two would know immediately. That would have
cost him the element of suprise.
 >> Stay informed about: How did Sauron do it... 

"Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message" <me.RemoveThis@privacy.net> wrote

> So when the One was destroyed, it fried the Three, and
> Sauron, distraught at the prospect of having to run a paper
> office forevermore, died from sheer stress!

Burn the blasphemer!
 >> Stay informed about: How did Sauron do it... 

Hey, I thought of a good analogy. It probably falls flat
on its face in some way too, but you can tell me how.

It's as if Sauron taught Celebrimbor how to make computers
and operating systems, but Sauron designed them with hidden BDs
(back doors). Sauron worked the BD into his design so cleverly
that even when Celebrimbor designed the Three, he put in the BD
unbeknownst even to him.

When Sauron made the One, it immediately accessed the BD of
all the other computers and made them zombies. The first thing
he got the zombies to do was to capture the souls of the owners
and make the owners zombies of the computers. But the holders
of the Three shut down their systems before that could happen.

He then took the Nine from the Nazgul. That way, he could
control the Nazgul without even using the One, since they were
already zombies of the Nine. He tried to do the same with the
Seven.

Sauron also designed and programmed a lot of software for
the One, and changed his business practices so that he couldn't
function normally without the One. When he lost the One, he had
to go back to paper processes.

When Gollum, then Bilbo, then Frodo got a hold of the One,
they couldn't access all the higher-level functionality of it
because the operating system was too hard to use. (Must have
been something like Unix!) They could use it for a few simple
things that any high-powered computer could be used for, but not
for controlling the Three, for making minions do their bidding,
or anything like that.

The One had reprogrammed the Three so much that their
owners couldn't take out all the hooks without crashing the
system entirely. They knew that when the One was destroyed, it
would automatically use the BD to reformat the Three's hard
drives, but they couldn't do anything about that.

So when the One was destroyed, it fried the Three, and
Sauron, distraught at the prospect of having to run a paper
office forevermore, died from sheer stress!

--Jamie. (efil4dreN)
andrews .uwo } Merge these two lines to obtain my e-mail address.
@csd .ca } (Unsolicited "bulk" e-mail costs everyone.)
 >> Stay informed about: How did Sauron do it... 

teepee <nomail.DeleteThis@nomail.com> wrote:

> It also occurs that there was a crude level of communication between the
> holders of the Three.

This form of communication is called "Osanwe-Kenta", and is not
connected with the Three Rings. Tolkien wrote a well-known essay about
it. It's described directly in LotR, from the point of view of an
observer looking at Celeborn, Galadriel, Elrong and Gandalf:

If any wanderer had chanced to pass, little would he have seen or heard,
and it would have seemed to him only that he saw grey figures, carved
in stone, memorials of forgotten things now lost in unpeopled lands. For
they did not move or speak with mouth, looking from mind to mind; and only
their shining eyes stirred and kindled as their thoughts went to and fro.

- Dirk
 >> Stay informed about: How did Sauron do it... 

Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:49:36 -0500 from Bill O'Meally
<omeallymd DeleteThis @wise.rr.com>:
> Sean wrote:
> > Bill O'Meally wrote:
> >
> >> The Ring did not have conscousness.
> >
> > But it seemed to have qualities associated with consciousness;
> > a will, a sense of purpose; an objective to be achieved; even
> > (in a limited way) the means to attain it:
>
> A magnet attracted to iron seems to have a sense of purpose as well.
> Does it have intelligence?

You're not serious, I assume. A magnet does not seem to me to have a
sense of purpose, any more than a leaf does when it falls from a tree
to the ground.

Or have you been reading this page:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
"Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent
Falling' Theory"

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
 >> Stay informed about: How did Sauron do it... 

In message <news:5midf3Fdq978U1@mid.individual.net> me.RemoveThis@privacy.net
(Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message) spoke these
staves:
>
> Hey, I thought of a good analogy. It probably falls flat
> on its face in some way too, but you can tell me how.

<snip>

> So when the One was destroyed, it fried the Three, and
> Sauron, distraught at the prospect of having to run a paper
> office forevermore, died from sheer stress!

Heh heh! Nice one!

If I were to find an objection (as you invite to <GG>), it would be
related to the portrayal of the dependency of the Three, the Seven and
the Nine upon the One as a back-door -- it seems to me to go deeper
than that, and once Sauron had made the One these other Rings really
depended on the One; their powers could only exist while the One
lasted.

Staying in the computer system analogy, the other Rings of Power had
been hard-wired to only be able to use the power-supply from the One,
and once the One was shut down, the other Rings also shut down, because
their power-supply failed (no UPS for Elven Rings).

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.
- /Hogfather/ (Terry Pratchett)
 >> Stay informed about: How did Sauron do it... 

On Oct 3, 4:51 pm, "teepee" <nom....DeleteThis@nomail.com> wrote:
> "Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message" <m....DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote
>
> > So when the One was destroyed, it fried the Three, and
> > Sauron, distraught at the prospect of having to run a paper
> > office forevermore, died from sheer stress!
>
> Burn the blasphemer!

i'm reminded of one of the crackpot theories at the tolkien sarcasm
page: one OS to rule them all and in the darkness bind them!
 >> Stay informed about: How did Sauron do it... 

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:35:45 GMT from Troels Forchhammer
<Troels DeleteThis @ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> If I were to find an objection (as you invite to <GG>), it would be
> related to the portrayal of the dependency of the Three, the Seven and
> the Nine upon the One as a back-door -- it seems to me to go deeper
> than that, and once Sauron had made the One these other Rings really
> depended on the One; their powers could only exist while the One
> lasted.

That's what Tolkien said on OtRoPatTA: "but secretly Sauron made One
Ring to rule all the others, and their power was bound up with it, to
be subject wholly to it and to last only so long as it too should
last."

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
 >> Stay informed about: How did Sauron do it... 

teepee (or somebody else of the same name) wrote in message
<47002774$1@newsgate.x-privat.org>:

> In quiet moments I sometimes like thinking about the One Ring, and whether
> Tolkien had given much thought to how it worked. I like to think he did.
>
> How did Sauron bind all the other rings to the One Ring? I can understand
> how he did with those he had a hand in making, but he also did so with the
> Three, which he had no hand in. And how did he contrive that the Three
> lost their power when the One died? And why did the destruction of the One
> destroy Sauron. Fourthly how is it that Sauron can use his power and yet
> not dissipate it as Morgoth did?

It all follows from the laws of quantum mechanics. Destruction of the set of
2N+1 rings immediately breaks the continuity with sets of higher
cardinality so that the set of 2N+3, 2N+5, etc. rings immediately lose
their power. It doesn't matter a who made a particular set of rings, those
rings rely on all sets of rings of lesser number (but greater power), right
down/up to the One, to be *there*.

So there must have been Five Rings somewhere, of which the histories of
Middle-earth are totally silent, otherwise the Seven and the Nine would not
have had any power. Were they made for the Ents?

Or perhaps they are still remembered in song. "On the fifth day of
Christmas..."
--
ξ Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
 >> Stay informed about: How did Sauron do it... 

Stan Brown wrote:
> Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:49:36 -0500 from Bill O'Meally
> <omeallymd.RemoveThis@wise.rr.com>:
>> Sean wrote:
>>> Bill O'Meally wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Ring did not have conscousness.
>>>
>>> But it seemed to have qualities associated with consciousness;
>>> a will, a sense of purpose; an objective to be achieved; even
>>> (in a limited way) the means to attain it:
>>
>> A magnet attracted to iron seems to have a sense of purpose as well.
>> Does it have intelligence?
>
> You're not serious, I assume. A magnet does not seem to me to have a
> sense of purpose, any more than a leaf does when it falls from a tree
> to the ground.
>
> Or have you been reading this page:
> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
> "Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent
> Falling' Theory"

--
Bill
"Wise fool"
Gandalf _The Two Towers_
(The wise will remove "se" to reach me. The foolish will not!)
 >> Stay informed about: How did Sauron do it... 

Stan Brown wrote:

> You're not serious, I assume.

Sure I am. Perhaps you misunderstood my meaning.

A magnet does not seem to me to have a
> sense of purpose, any more than a leaf does when it falls from a tree
> to the ground.

The operative word was "seem". What I was getting at was that the Ring
had no more intelligence in its attraction towards Sauron than a
magnet's attraction to metal.

>
> Or have you been reading this page:
> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
> "Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent
> Falling' Theory"

No, I haven't, but 'The Onion' is always a good read. One of my home
state's better exports -- that and cheese.
--
Bill
"Wise fool"
Gandalf _The Two Towers_
(The wise will remove "se" to reach me. The foolish will not!)
 >> Stay informed about: How did Sauron do it... 

Bill O'Meally wrote:

> The operative word was "seem". What I was getting at was that the Ring
> had no more intelligence in its attraction towards Sauron than a
> magnet's attraction to metal.

Ah, but "Magic rings are - well, magical." And the One showed
considerably more sophistication of strategy than a magnet.

Once I used to play chess against a program called Sargon.
It was extremely aggressive, and really went for the jugular.

A chess-playing friend and I used to team up to play against it.
He was constantly anthropomorphizing the program: "It's up to
something." "It's obviously planning something devious."
"It's trying to lure us into a trap," etc. But it wasn't
really a mind, it was just a rule engine.

SQ
 >> Stay informed about: How did Sauron do it...