How did Sauron do it...

Out of the depths of a discussion of the mental abilities of the One
Ring arose (again <GG>) the discussion of how to properly describe
that quality which the One Ring may or may not have . . .

In message <news:cncOi.409074$p7.128074@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spamgard.DeleteThis@blueyonder.co.uk> spoke these
staves:
>
> "Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown.DeleteThis@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>> That's the problem -- you seem to be using "will" as a synonym
>> for mental capabilities, and in my view they are quite different
>> things.

I am definitely strongly influenced by having read loads on 'Free
Will' this year in the preparations for my article I'm using the
word to refer to that special quality of the mind, about which it can
be sensibly discussed whether it is free or unfree. It is not the
same as the simple sense of 'desire' or 'purpose', which is the sense
in which the Ringwraiths had none save Sauron's own.

For the sense in which I intend it, I like the definition you get on
OneLook: 'the capability of conscious choice and decision and
intention'

The defining criteria, to me, is a capacity for meta-awareness -- a
'willing' differs from simple choosing in that the mind making the
'willing' has the ability to be aware of actually making a choice and
to consider both before and after the actual choice the process of
choosing.

An ant can make choices, naturally, but I don't attribute to it the
ability of being aware of making these choices, nor of giving thought
to the process of making the choices.

This is related, in my mind, to the ability for abstract motives,
'vengeance', 'the greater good', loyalty to an idea (as opposed to an
individual or group) -- things like that. It is not the same, but I
think that a will (in the sense described above) is a prerequisite
for this higher-level behaviour because you need to be aware of
making choices before you can subjugate your bodily (or 'hard-wired')
needs, which is also necessary in order to have and pursue abstract
motives.

> The will of something? I suppose the meaning of the word 'will'
> depends on what you are talking about.

There's differences, obviously, but I think that it's possible to
isolate a core quality that we can describe as the 'will', and
handling the rest with adjectives

> The will of Denethor is different from the will of the Ring, for
> example.

Certainly -- I'd put the freedom at the top of the list: Denethor
was, despite his faults, free-willed. There'd be other differences as
well, of course.

> But I can understand why it might be thought that the Ring has a
> will, but I wouldn't think of it as being a _human_ will. More an
> animal will (or instinct), or less than that, even.

I honestly don't think that that is sufficient to explain the
behaviour of the Ring -- not without a /lot/ of antropomorphisms just
for literary effect.

The descriptions of the Ring includes attributions to it of abstract
motives (e.g. vengeance) that are not possible without at least a
higher order animal (i.e. no ants). These will have to be explained,
and it simply isn't satisfactory to me to explain them as merely
being included because it sounds nice -- it is far to common and
deliberate for that. I would consider them as antropomorphic
approximations to a magical reality -- the closest analogue that the
Hobbits (and readers) would be able to understand and relate to.

> Many natural phenomenon have been ascribed to divine wills before
> there were scientific explanations, so this sort of confusion
> isn't that surprising.

That's a bit different, isn't it? I don't think it has been common
for natural phenomena to be attributed with possessing themselves a
'will'.

> Maybe in the case of the Ring, any will is merely a "sense of
> purpose".

Not in the sense of merely having a purpose -- even ants have a
purpose which they blindly pursue, but the Ring gives the impression
of being aware of its own purpose -- again a question (to me) of a
meta-awareness.

> But you can't talk about other inanimate objects having wills.
> Even the 'magical' objects like Narsil, the Arkenstone, Glamdring,
> Sting, and so on. The three rings held by the Elf Lords: Narya,
> Nenya and Vilya - no wills there, except those of the bearers.

I agree.

The Silmarils and Túrin's sword (and the shaped stones in Eregion)
are other objexts which are described in terms that imply their
having a will.

> The One Ring does seem different to these. But that might merely
> have been Tolkien trying to create an effect. Not Tolkien trying
> to suggest that anything more should be read into it.

Why not?

I agree that we can, obviously, not ultimately rule out anything, but
it seems deeply unsatisfactory to me to assume merely that Tolkien
made all these allusions merely to achieve an effect that had
absolutely no basis in the 'reality' of Middle-earth. Obviously he
also wanted to make an effect, and I don't think anyone argues that
the antropomorphisms should be read so literally as to suggest that
the Ring had a mind that was equivalent to that of a human mind, but
it seems to me just as obviously wrong to suggest that there is
absolutely nothing to the antropomorphisms (other than literary
effect).

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

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not
imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They
laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed
at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the
Clown.
- Carl Sagan
 >> Stay informed about: How did Sauron do it... 

JimboCat <103134.3516 DeleteThis @compuserve.com> wrote:

> I would say, however, that it is an insight *both* into Tolkien's
> mind and into the "rules" of Middle Earth -- the one, after all, is
> the source of the other.

Sometimes, but not always. We need of course look at both sides -- the
subcreation as a world with "rules", and Tolkien's work as a reflection
of the author.

> I need to think about this philological aspect of ME some more - it
> seems to me to have great explanatory power with respect to some
> mysteries.

It indeed has. I can only again recommend Shippey's /Road to Middle Earth/.
Shippey is a philologist himself, and he has a lot of interesting things
to say in this respect.

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

In article <Xns99E3CCE843023T.Forch.TakeThisOut@130.133.1.4>,
Troels Forchhammer <Troels.TakeThisOut@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:

> Out of the depths of a discussion of the mental abilities of the One
> Ring arose (again <GG>) the discussion of how to properly describe
> that quality which the One Ring may or may not have . . .
>
> In message <news:cncOi.409074$p7.128074@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spamgard.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.co.uk> spoke these
> staves:

<snip>

> > Many natural phenomenon have been ascribed to divine wills before
> > there were scientific explanations, so this sort of confusion
> > isn't that surprising.
>
> That's a bit different, isn't it? I don't think it has been common
> for natural phenomena to be attributed with possessing themselves a
> 'will'.

Not as such, but that's one of the reasons why they often get
personified as spirits or deities capable of 'willing'. From the
monotheistic end of the religious spectrum, so to speak, sunshine,
storms, volcanoes, and so on tend to be treated as mere agencies of the
divine will, sometimes in effect bearing a message for our edification;
however, from the animistic end they're regarded as independent
entities, often hostile or indifferent to humanity. The relation of the
Egyptian gods, or the Olympian, to natural phenomena would fall
somewhere in the middle.

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

In message
<news:odysseus1479-at-DE068C.14264511112007@news.telus.net>
Odysseus <odysseus1479-at RemoveThis @yahoo-dot.ca> spoke these staves:
>
> In article <Xns99E3CCE843023T.Forch RemoveThis @130.133.1.4>,
> Troels Forchhammer <Troels RemoveThis @ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>

Ascribing natural phenomena to Divine wills

>> That's a bit different, isn't it? I don't think it has been
>> common for natural phenomena to be attributed with possessing
>> themselves a 'will'.
>
> Not as such, but that's one of the reasons why they often get
> personified as spirits or deities capable of 'willing'.

Precisely. The natural phenomena are described as the effect of the
willing of a divine spirit of some kind (gods, spirits, whatever).

Transferring that to the One Ring we'd have two possibilities (at least
-- I could be overlooking the obvious <G>): either the Ring was
associated with a spirit of some kind (not Sauron) -- I think that is
very unlikely that Sauron would have persuaded a lesser spirit to
inhabit his Ring and harness its powers, or everything it did must be
seen as Sauron's willings.

The problem with the latter view is that while there is obviously a
connection, the Ring is also clearly independent of Sauron in important
aspects -- if Sauron willed the Ring to fall off Isildur's finger, then
how come he didn't know where it was? Or the same question for Gollum
loosing it? And, more importantly, how would it even be possible for
someone else to Master the Ring? It is clearly insufficient to see the
Ring as /only/ an extension of Sauron's will. The Rings gives the
impression of being an independent agent working to fulfil Sauron's
will (in this particular respect I think it is similar to the
Ringwraiths, having no will save Sauron's own).

<snip>

> from the animistic end they're regarded as independent entities,
> often hostile or indifferent to humanity.

The four winds come to mind (more so because of the Lament for
Boromir), but are these 'the spirit of the winds' (so that e.g. the
'North Wind' is really the spirit of the north wind) or are they the
winds themselves? (This is not a rhetoric question -- I simply don't
know the answer.)

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

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement.
But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another
profound truth.
- Niels Bohr
 >> Stay informed about: How did Sauron do it... 

"Troels Forchhammer" <Troels.TakeThisOut@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
> Odysseus <odysseus1479-at.TakeThisOut@yahoo-dot.ca> spoke these staves:

[animism]

>> from the animistic end they're regarded as independent entities,
>> often hostile or indifferent to humanity.
>
> The four winds come to mind (more so because of the Lament for
> Boromir), but are these 'the spirit of the winds' (so that e.g. the
> 'North Wind' is really the spirit of the north wind) or are they the
> winds themselves? (This is not a rhetoric question -- I simply don't
> know the answer.)

The four winds in the lament for Boromir are an _excellent_ example. When I
read the lament, I think of the winds as almost-living entities bearing
news - they are questioned and they are depicted as replying. Listening to
the wind is like looking for patterns and shapes in the clouds on a summer's
day. Some quotes:

"What news from the West, O wandering wind, do you bring to me tonight?
[...] What news from the South, O sighing wind, do you bring to me at eve?
[...] What news from the North, O mighty wind, do you bring to me today?"
(The Departure of Boromir)

While this may all be metaphorical, it is very powerful metaphor. Each wind
replies, and each wind has its own character. Can anyone think of a similar
scene in other writings that may have inspired Tolkien to write this scene?

Finally, compare all this to Aragorn's cry on the plains of the Riddemark:

"What news from the North, Riders of Rohan?" (The Riders of Rohan)

Seems to suggest a common cultural concept of news being borne along the
compass points. Though maybe a better example is the way the news did
eventually reach Faramir of Boromir's death, borne along the waters of a
river:

"Tidings of death have many wings. Night oft brings news to near kindred,
'tis said." (The Window on the West)

Note the reference to "wings". Indeed, it would be, ahem, interesting to
list the cases of natural phenomena being used in a metaphorical sense, and
to speculate how far this veers towards animism.

For example, the Fall of Numenor was presaged by clouds in the shapes of
eagles (representing the Eagles of Manwe), and the Elendili were borne back
to Middle-earth "upon the wings of storm", and when Gandalf arrives at Minas
Tirith, men say that the storm is indeed nigh, and Gandalf replies "I have
ridden on its wings". I know I sometimes exaggerate when I say that there
are "hundreds"of other examples when I come up with ideas for lists like
this, but this time I think it is literally true.

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

Christopher Kreuzer <spamgard RemoveThis @blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Troels Forchhammer" <Troels RemoveThis @ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:

> [animism]

> The four winds in the lament for Boromir are an _excellent_ example. [...]
> While this may all be metaphorical, it is very powerful metaphor.

One significant difference between this example and the "speaking stones"
example we already discussed on the one hand and the Ring, Gurthang and
the Silmarilli on the other hand is that the former are only talked about,
while the latter actually appear in ME. Hence, I would indeed group all
the former under "metaphor". There is no "hard" evidence (inside the
subcreated world) that talking stones and talking winds actually "exist".

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

In message
<news:20071112090003.820.1.NOFFLE@dthierbach.news.arcor.de>
Dirk Thierbach <dthierbach.RemoveThis@usenet.arcornews.de> spoke these staves:
>

The four winds (Lament for Boromir):
> One significant difference between this example and the "speaking
> stones" example we already discussed on the one hand and the Ring,
> Gurthang and the Silmarilli on the other hand is that the former
> are only talked about, while the latter actually appear in ME.

Well, I don't doubt that the stones did appear, or that Legolas was
somehow able to sense that they had been shaped by Elves, but his
claim of hearing them (including any mode of òsanwe as 'hearing')
makes it essentially second-hand. But the same can be said about some
characters whose existence (and ability to speak) we don't doubt for
a moment

> Hence, I would indeed group all the former under "metaphor".

I do think that Legolas sensed something, but with respect to
attributing to the stones both emotions (lament) and a sense of
beauty, I agree completely, as I do also with the four winds
mentioned in the Lament for Boromir.

> There is no "hard" evidence (inside the subcreated world) that
> talking stones and talking winds actually "exist".

Of course you could make a reasonable case that Legolas is less
reliable than Gandalf, but apart from that, there is as much evidence
that the stones of Eregion spoke as there is for Radagast (looking
only at LotR -- I don't have time to find a better example, sorry) --
the testimony of a single first hand witness claiming to have heard
it

I know that this is playing the devil's advocate, and I'm not sure
what to think of Legolas' statement, but I don't think the lament,
with its poetic mode, suggests that the winds in Middle-earth really
can be asked of news -- the winds (or at least some of them) are
/directed/ by Manwë, but they are not in themselves spirits.

One of my main points in all of this would be that though things will
occasionally seem pretty clear-cut on reading, one is very often
bringing all the clarity with oneself. This is a book, after all, and
though it is one for which we have an incredible amount of background
material, it is nevertheless far from all questions that are actually
addressed -- the actual evidence in the book doesn't allow us to
distinguish clearly, even when we think that such a distinction must,
necessarily, be clear. The stones in Eregion and Radagast is one
example, and others are not hard to find, of this -- we know that
there's a difference, but looking at the text (LotR only, in this
case) we cannot actually prove it.

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

If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded
gold, it would be a merrier world.
- Thorin Oakenshield, /The Hobbit/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
 >> Stay informed about: How did Sauron do it... 

Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> In message
> <news:20071112090003.820.1.NOFFLE@dthierbach.news.arcor.de>
> Dirk Thierbach <dthierbach DeleteThis @usenet.arcornews.de> spoke these staves:
>
>
> The four winds (Lament for Boromir):
>
>>One significant difference between this example and the "speaking
>>stones" example we already discussed on the one hand and the Ring,
>>Gurthang and the Silmarilli on the other hand is that the former
>>are only talked about, while the latter actually appear in ME.
>
>
> Well, I don't doubt that the stones did appear, or that Legolas was
> somehow able to sense that they had been shaped by Elves, but his
> claim of hearing them (including any mode of òsanwe as 'hearing')
> makes it essentially second-hand. But the same can be said about some
> characters whose existence (and ability to speak) we don't doubt for
> a moment

Well, I'm probably bringing up stuff talked about before, but there is
the concept in the Bible and taken up in Augustine about the "all
creation groans and travails..." which can be taken as metaphor but that
late antique and medieval Christianity took as literal, hence trees
really do clap their hands. So they have voice of a kind, but not soul
(as many a medieval thinker will tell you), and so do not have "choice"
to act other than according to the laws of nature that God set down.
I'd say this is behind Tolkien's usage in for example the stones
speaking to Legolas--and so does apply to the Ring as well.
 >> Stay informed about: How did Sauron do it... 

Troels Forchhammer <Troels.RemoveThis@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
> Dirk Thierbach <dthierbach.RemoveThis@usenet.arcornews.de> spoke these staves:

> The four winds (Lament for Boromir):
>> One significant difference between this example and the "speaking
>> stones" example we already discussed on the one hand and the Ring,
>> Gurthang and the Silmarilli on the other hand is that the former
>> are only talked about, while the latter actually appear in ME.

> Well, I don't doubt that the stones did appear, or that Legolas was
> somehow able to sense that they had been shaped by Elves, but his
> claim of hearing them (including any mode of òsanwe as 'hearing')
> makes it essentially second-hand.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I introduced "on the one hand" and "on
the other hand" to make the grouping clear, but if that didn't work, let
me repeat:

- The winds and stones are "second-hand": We don't hear them actually
talking. The characters are talking about them as if they were "animated",
but they don't act this out in the subcreated world.

- The Ring, Gurthang and the Silmarilli do have "animated" qualities, and
act those out directly in the subcreated world.

> But the same can be said about some characters whose existence (and
> ability to speak) we don't doubt for a moment

Yes, but one has to keep the "levels" of imagination straight: We're
treating the subcreated world of Tolkien like it was a real world,
and we're trying to find out the "rules" that govern this world. The
stories and fairy-tales people in this world tell don't influence
these "rules", as the fairy-tales of our "real" world don't influence
the rules (physics, etc.) of our world.

> Of course you could make a reasonable case that Legolas is less
> reliable than Gandalf, but apart from that, there is as much evidence
> that the stones of Eregion spoke as there is for Radagast (looking
> only at LotR -- I don't have time to find a better example, sorry) --
> the testimony of a single first hand witness claiming to have heard
> it

Yes, but still it's different. If you're telling me about some person
you met at your workplace, then you're talking about the "real" world,
and I assume it is true (unless you're lying). If you're talking about
the LotR, then I don't assume this to have any impact on the "real"
world.

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

In message
<news:20071113112656.B0C.3.NOFFLE@dthierbach.news.arcor.de>
Dirk Thierbach <dthierbach.TakeThisOut@usenet.arcornews.de> spoke these staves:
>

<snip>

> Yes, that's what I'm saying. I introduced "on the one hand" and
> "on the other hand" to make the grouping clear, but if that didn't
> work, let me repeat:

I am sorry -- I was being a bit silly (or perhaps -- if I can
persuade you to see it in a more favourable light -- merely
'pedantic'): pointing out the obvious exception rather than thinking
I disagreed with your statement.

<snip>

> Yes, but still it's different. If you're telling me about some
> person you met at your workplace, then you're talking about the
> "real" world, and I assume it is true (unless you're lying). If
> you're talking about the LotR, then I don't assume this to have
> any impact on the "real" world.

I do agree that it is different -- my point is merely that the
difference comes from us rather than the actual text. Tolkien
doubtlessly expected his readers to be able to provide the difference
and hence didn't bother to point it out, but the danger, IMO, is that
we cannot always be so certain precisely what 'filter' he expected us
to apply to his text, and hence I think we need to be aware of the
filter -- even when, as in this case, it does seem pretty trivial
what filter to apply.

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

If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded
gold, it would be a merrier world.
- Thorin Oakenshield, /The Hobbit/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
 >> Stay informed about: How did Sauron do it... 

In message <news:kvudnYR5fJ0-e6TanZ2dnUVZ_ualnZ2d@rcn.net>
Larry Swain <giles.DeleteThis@poetic.com> spoke these staves:
>
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>

<snip>

"Only I hear the stones lament them: deep they delved us,
fair they wrought us, high they builded us; but they are
gone."
- Legolas, LotR II,3 'The Ring Goes South'

> Well, I'm probably bringing up stuff talked about before,

It may have been, but I don't remember seeing it, though I found it
quite interesting.

> there is the concept in the Bible and taken up in Augustine about
> the "all creation groans and travails..." which can be taken as
> metaphor but that late antique and medieval Christianity took as
> literal, hence trees really do clap their hands. So they have
> voice of a kind, but not soul (as many a medieval thinker will
> tell you), and so do not have "choice" to act other than according
> to the laws of nature that God set down.

I wonder if it fit with the larger sense of animism in Tolkien's
writings? Actually I'm not really sure whether 'animism' is the correct
word here -- his concept seems to me to fall between the traditional
sense of 'animism' (in which each tree, for instance, is inhabited by a
spirit) and the feeling I get from romanticist science (like e.g. the
discoverer of electromagnetism writing a book titled 'The Spirit of
Nature', "Aanden i Naturen").

Neither picture seems to me to fit Tolkien's descriptions very well,
but I do get the impression that in Tolkien, nature is inhabited by
some level of 'spirits' -- the stones is an obvious example, as is the
talking beasts (the eagles foremost, but also other birds and beast --
mostly in TH), the Ents, Goldberry (if not Tom as well), the suggestive
nature of the Lament for Boromir, and the general importance of land in
connection with national identity.

> I'd say this is behind Tolkien's usage in for example the stones
> speaking to Legolas--

That sound very reasonable -- in particular if you can also fit in the
other examples of an animation of nature into this picture.

I've always (or at least as long as I recall thinking consciously about
it) thought that Tolkien attributed to nature a stronger 'voice' than
what is really compatible to Christian dogma (the Ents and the great
Eagles are, again, the obvious examples). It is very interesting that
this might have been a question only of 'in degree' rather than 'in
kind' as I had hitherto believed.

> and so does apply to the Ring as well.

As I understand your use of 'and so', you suggest an implication --
that the former (that this is behind the quote at the top) implies that
it is also behind the One Ring? If that is what you mean, we might
discuss whether the latter follows (much less follows /necessarily/)
from the former (I don't think it does), but that is possibly of less
interest

I agree, though, that the Ring did /not/ have a soul/spirit nor Free
Will, and I'd be very interested, indeed, in hearing more about the
ideas you refer to. What, for instance, level of consciousness was
assumed in this -- was it parallelled to the human sense of 'voice' as
a means for communicating thoughts and/or emotions?

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

If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded
gold, it would be a merrier world.
- Thorin Oakenshield, /The Hobbit/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
 >> Stay informed about: How did Sauron do it... 

Troels Forchhammer <Troels RemoveThis @thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
> I do agree that it is different -- my point is merely that the
> difference comes from us rather than the actual text.

Yes, of course. But that's part of the game we're playing

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