Nebulous "It" and Absolutes

[Dininziliel]

LMP:

Sorry, but I must take exception to God "stacking the deck".

I was trying to state this idea in the form of others’ perception—aka “popular opinion” of a great many people. While I understand its logic, it is not a precept or perception under which I operate.

LMP:

Maybe this is just a matter of semantics, but it appears that you're saying that suffering is a choice based on the perspective of the one experiencing pain.

I realize it sounds cold and heartless, but . . . yes. Again, I refer any reader to Viktor Frankl’s Will to Meaning. Or the Baghavadgita. Or Lao Tzu. I do not say pain is not suffered; I am saying that attachment to suffering is a state of mind—“The world is a veil of tears” approach (or "Life is a ____, and then you die"). It is a perception of choice once we are aware of it; it carries its own ripple effects in the mind and soul whether or not we are ever aware of it. I intensely prefer not to suffer pain nor have to do the struggle dance of surrender-acceptance to get to the point where pain & suffering are transformed, but it is a great comfort and source of the peace that passes understanding to know (from experience) that they can be transformed, and are neither ultimate nor final.

LMP:

I think davem is asking the right kind of question here. "Made different" seems to imply: transformed in such a way that the pain suffered no longer has power over Frodo - or me.

I still don’t get the difference—I consider us all to be in agreement on this. “Made different” does indeed mean transformation so that the nature, and thus, influence, of an experience is changed.

LMP:

Hate and anger are just masks to hide fear.

One of the many reasons LotR speaks to me so strongly is the way Tolkien presents the illusions and presentations of fear. An excellent example is the Ringwraiths. Their power over others depends upon the fear of those who depend upon their physical senses to apprehend reality. Gandalf, Aragorn, and the Elves do not fear the Nazgul.

LMP:

No, I think enhanced perception enables free will, which is too often enslaved by fear. I am saying that there are many times when we don't have free will because our wills are overcome by fear and its masks, hate and anger. Boromir is about as good an example of this, in Lorien, as anyone.

Enslaved is not synonymous w/lack of choice. Being overcome does not negate what Is. We are created w/free will, and no perception or circumstance can change that. Conscious & willful, or unconscious and resisted, succumbing to fear is understandable and, of course (thank God), completely forgivable on a perpetual and constant basis. I think Boromir also exemplified this just before he died in Aragorn’s arms. (This might make a good thread topic!)

LMP:

There's a difference between knowing answers to ALL my questions, and knowing answers to the MOST PRESSING questions that confound living, such as what to do with unjust suffering; by whatever means of enhanced perception.

The point I want to make about this is that there has to be a Very Good Reason why humankind cannot come to consensus agreement about the answers to these very questions. We've had the answers given to us throughout history, yet we still seek the answers—why? Again, I think Tolkien did a genius job at illustrating the answer to that one (and we're still debating that answer! )

LMP:

Sure, we see others generally as they are, but we always carry a bit of ourselves into them. Don't you think?

I think we see as we perceive. Hmm, I just now figured out that I'm always thinking how I need to look for the creator/Love in others, but I've never considered looking for it in the same way in regard to myself. Thanks!!!

LMP:

But isn't there a difference between believing there's a separation, and causing one? Maybe I'm understanding the word "separation" differently than you, din. Am I right in understanding that you're re not talking about mere separateness, but a dis-integration that should not be there? How did it get into Frodo? Was it there from the start? Or did it occur from the incessant power of the Ring

We cannot cause a separation from God except by believing the illusion of its possibility. “Dis-integration” is a wonderful way to express this, only it can’t “should not be there” because it can’t be there. [Din's head spins a bit.] Re Frodo: Tolkien’s descriptions of hobbits & religion/spirituality seems to speak against this notion being in Frodo from the start. If I understand Tolkien correctly, hobbits saw themselves as natural creatures intrinsically & irrevocably connected to a creational power greater than themselves. I think, and hope, Tolkien would agree, that Frodo’s belief in his separation from God was completely the doing (undoing?) of the Ring--if for no other reason than Frodo's believing he had power to make things be as he desired.

LMP:

But you're still saying that he was at fault for something he couldn't avoid because he was no match for it in the first place. So his "sin", as it were, was to volunteer to do something that everyone knew he couldn't. This choice was made at the Council fo Elrond, and the Elves, Gandalf, and everybody but Boromir, were impressed with Frodo's selflessness. Thus his "sin" is actually self-sacrifice. Since when does one need to repent of self-sacrifice, or am I being perverse?

I think there are mismatches made in attributions here. “At fault” implies Frodo could be blamed for his actions. To me, the notion of blame does not apply. It is the difference between responsibility and blame. A very poor analogy of this would be to explode a firecracker next to a cat sleeping peacefully in a child’s lap. The cat causes the scratches and pain (& suffering—sorry, couldn’t resist) and is responsible for them, but cannot be blamed. The person who lit the firecracker is operating from a very limited perspective and belief/value system—again, not to be “blamed” in the sense of knowing "better"--it isn't possible given his/her limited framework. Nonetheless, he/she is responsible for the action. The consequences of the action carry a responsibility to correct the thinking that caused the action. Thus, it is more a matter of moral debt than adjudged blame. The cat owes no correction because it was acting in total accordance w/its nature; the person owes correction because she/he was not acting in accordance w/his/her nature. Self-sacrifice is a way other too big place to go and I am already waffling & tottering too close to off-threadishness here. At any rate, I do not think Frodo needed to repent—he was already forgiven. Coming to know he was already forgiven was his burden, task, and journey. This is what Aman offered. And it is what I believe LotR leads us to realize for ourselves as well.

[Lotrelf]

I'll read this thread soon. I'm sure it is good.

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by Dininziliel

In spring of 1420, post-Shire scouring, Frodo became ill in early March. In "The Grey Havens" we are told that Farmer Cotton

While it seems obvious that the "it" for which Frodo mourned was the Ring, there is something about those absolute terms, "forever," and "all" that causes my curiosity to nibble at the corners of possible meanings. The Ring may have been destroyed, but weren't some other things also gone forever--innocence, for instance? Was he speaking only of the emptiness in his life, or might he also have been registering the passing of a particular light and joy from ME?

The nature of the Ring has been discussed in eloquent detail, so this is not a thread about the Ring itself.

The question is: what does Tolkien tell us in his various stories, essays, and letters about the loss incurred through great and profound struggles--even when light triumphs over darkness. Is it possible to have the opposite outcome where "all is light and full of joy"?

Yes, this "it" Frodo's talking about is the Ring. As has been said the Ring represented Everything to Frodo, and Frodo had lost it all. The Ring gone left him with scars that never healed. It wasn't just loss of innocence but more than that. Had the Ring been an object that needed to be destroyed and it got destroyed the way it did, it wouldn't have Frodo as much. The thing was that the quest had cost him his very being. Something that could not come back. So, this "it is gone forever, and now all is dark and empty" refers to the loss of something greater than innocence.
There can be no victory without suffering and loss, it is evident. Changes are often disasterous; and are the demand of this universe. So, there HAS TO be someone who gives up their life for us. Boromir, Theoden and Frodo sacrificed their lives for the greater good. Middle-earth won, a new Age came that was free of evil of Sauron. But it cost people a lot. Thousands of people died. How could there be any victory without this sacrifice, suffering and loss? No, there can be no victory without loss. Also Prof. Tolkien says, "Victors can not enjoy victory." The loss is inevitable and unavoidable.

I'd like to address someone here who said Frodo was a "pawn" of Eru, who Eru used to save the world. I disagree. Please someone let me know if I've got him wrong. Frodo being pawn means he had no free will, and having no free will sounds odd to me, and makes Eru and Valar sound sort of petty. The task might have been appointed for Frodo but it was upto him whether he wanted to take the task or not. And he did. That is more than being "pawn".