Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

[Tyranno223]

I mean we are going in circles at this point. The mods accepted the revisions. I think the thread should be closed.

We are pretty much just waiting on Ultima's re-evaluation of the High 1-A+ stuff. I will request the thread to be closed once that is done and initial responses dealt with since the page drafts are done. We can re-open or make a new thread for the cosmology draft to be evaluated too. Truth be told, I'm getting a bit exhausted.

Just had to get that last post out since the insanity and "putting words" into Tolkien's mouth stuff was frustrating me.

 

[Livinmeme]

Tier 0 was already accepted, this thread should be closed. And any other stuff should be dealt in another thread.

 

[Tyranno223]

Tier 0 was already accepted, this thread should be closed. And any other stuff should be dealt in another thread.

It's a Tier 0 and High 1-A+ thread, the other half still needs to be dealt with. Ultima said they'll have a look this weekend and we can then hopefully wrap this up.

 

[Ellbekarym]

We can break this down simply

1. Creator made it real = the Music is given life with the Flame Imperishable.
2. that is, gave it the secondary reality, subordinate to his own, which we call primary reality = Eä is a secondary reality, subordinate to the primary reality
3. and so in that hierarchy on the same plane with themselves = and so the primary reality is on the same plane with themselves. Why? Because A - they are created beings of the primary plane. B - they are beyond time and space and all its boundaries with Eä's scope halting at such concepts. C - because it contradicts all statements of the Ainur being outside Eä entirely.

In fact, this point is fundamentally not on trial here. This was accepted long ago and needs a separate revision thread if you wish to challenge this one.

Yes, I do put it “on trial”, at least the way you interpret it. But I don't deny that the Ainur and Timeless Hall are superior in some aspects to Ea (and therefore more powerful, in some aspects, outside of Ea), I deny that there is a reality/fiction relationship between the two.

Regarding the quotes on primary/secondary reality:

I don't deny that Tolkien used these concepts, I deny that in this context there is a reality/fiction relationship between the two. Ea was created second, with the help of those who were made first. That's all there is to it. The quote on Sauron engrossed goes in my sense.

As for the quotes on Time:

I don't deny that time flows differently in the Timeless Halls (note that the quotes don't at all suggest that the Ainur transcend time in general) and that once bound to Ea this limits their ability to see the future (and note that this ability even in the Timeless Halls is far from absolute, there's a lot they don't know about Ea's future, including the arrival of men and elves), I deny that there's a reality/fiction relationship between the two.

As for the quote about “higher beings”:

I don't deny that the Valar are the most powerful beings created by Eru, I deny that there is a reality/fiction relationship with them and the others. The fact that he says “created” and not “sub-created” is of no consequence, there must be plenty of instances where he uses “created” to describe men, elves, dwarves or Arda.

This is about Tolkien's metaphysics, not whether or not he literally believed they existed.

Once again, there is a profound misunderstanding here. Tolkien's “metaphysics” are Tolkien's opinions. If in Tolkien's metaphysics God exists, then this means that Tolkien believes that God exists for real (which is correct). Your whole thesis consists of applying Tolkien's philosophical opinions to his work in order to deduce this and that. You can't say “in Tolkien's metaphysics God exists both in fiction and outside fiction” and then say “who cares if Tolkien thinks God exists both in fiction and outside fiction”. If your argument implies that elves must exist (God = Eru, so God actually created elves) then the question we need to ask is “Does Tolkien believe this?”. Because if not, it follows that this is not his metaphysics.

"To this he added a footnote: Since 'mortality' is thus represented as a special gift of God to the Second Race of the Children (the Eruhini, the Children of the One God) and not a punishment for a Fall, you may call that 'bad theology'. So it may be, in the primary world, but it is an imagination capable of elucidating truth, and a legitimate basis of legend" - Morgoth's Ring: [The 'Tale of Adanel']

"May I say that all this is 'mythical', and not any kind of new religion or vision. As far as I know it is merely an imaginative invention, to express, in the only way I can, some of my (dim) apprehensions of the world... Theologically (if the term is not too grandiose) I imagine the picture to be less dissonant from what some (including myself) believe to be the truth. But since I have deliberately written a tale, which is built on or out of certain 'religious' ideas, but is not an allegory of them (or anything else),and does not mention them overtly, still less preach them, I will not now depart from that mode, and venture on theological disquisition for which I am not fitted." - Letter 211

He simply says that there are theological truths in his work. This is true. It's inconsequential. In his work, God exists. In reality, for Tolkien, God exists: so it's a theological truth. But that's all. Me too, if I write a book in which God exists, Tolkien will say “there are theological truths in that book”. It remains “merely an imaginative invention”.

Where Tolkien considers the existences of subcreational worlds alongside our own. You are doing his own work a disservice by ignoring the intricacies of his own displayed beliefs.

That's right. His subcreational work is a fiction in relation to the world and the angels of the real world. But Arda is not fiction in relation to the Valar, who are the angels of fiction.

I mean heck, there's a reason I wasted time in my life writing this whole piece.

Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

I'll make one more addition (for this part) in that, as understood by Tolkien, Sub-creation is something that is inherently interconnected. Verlyn Flieger put this quite eloquently in that "light, emanating from the Creator, is, in her view, splintered and passed on through every author's works...

vsbattles.com

And that's why I read it. But apparently it was useless since you told me it was already out of date.

 

[Tyranno223]

And that's why I read it. But apparently it was useless since you told me it was already out of date.

This is a brickwall situation so we do genuinely need to end this back and forth because we cannot agree. However, I again will say that the R>F thing is not on trial here. What can be on trial is the equating of primary worlds and such (although if a 1-A thread were to be done for example, it would need re-evaluation).

That being said, parts of the blog are out of date, yes, but not everything. I didn't even link the blog, I linked a part of the thread on page 2.

 

[Lordhesperus]

JRR Tolkien was explaining that while The Lord of the Rings is set in a pre-Christian era, he conceived Middle-earth as existing within our own world's monotheistic framework, with one supreme God (Eru Ilúvatar in his mythology) as the creator. he says The book is about the world that God created – the actual world of this planet," he's indicating that Middle-earth is meant to be our own Earth in an imagined ancient past, not a completely separate fantasy world.

I smell something here, that Ellbekarym has allowed false dichotomy. He seems to present the debate as if there are only two positions: either Tolkien believed he was a High 1-A+ being or he did not. This oversimplifies the discussion and ignores the nuances of Tolkien's metaphysics and the interpretation of his work as literature:

Unfortunately you write much faster than I do and I can't keep up (English is not my native language) and I'll stop here, at least if no one else has any comments.

Also a few loose ends.

1) You're not responding to my arguments. My argument is about the asymmetry between the two situations, and you haven't said anything to that effect.
2) “It's not reality, it's metaphysics”. That's irrelevant. Metaphysics is real, it's a discipline of philosophy. If I say “God exists” it's a metaphysical statement that has truth value. You use Tolkien's supposed “metaphysics” to justify your tiering, you can't run away saying “oh that's not reality” when I point out its contradictions and especially the fact that Tolkien certainly doesn't believe in it himself. “I am not making an argument that Tolkien could literally conceive of a possible world right now (if he was alive) and that it would suddenly exist.” No, but you're making an argument based on what Tolkien believed. Tolkien himself didn't believe that he could conceive of anything. I find it staggering that this point has to be made: if you showed me that Tolkien thought he was a Hight 1-A+ being himself, your thesis would be valid even though Tolkien is wrong to think he is High 1-A. We don't care about reality, we want to know what Tolkien believes. Tolkien doesn't believe that he is omniscient, so he doesn't believe that the Valar are omniscient under the pretext that they too are sub-creators. The same goes for everything else.
3) “You don't understand Tier 0” No: I maintain that limiting Valar to not being able to do X or Y is contigent to their nature. There's nothing to stop Eru from creating an uber-valar tomorrow that can kill other Valar (indeed, Eru will allow a human to kill Melkor). So killing a Valar is not an absolute impossibility, and for the rest, the argument is valid. The fact that Eru imposed the limitation doesn't change anything, since he could have done otherwise (and will, in this case).
4) “Primary Reality”/“Real World”: my point is that the two are not identical and that you're wrong to confuse the two. Look at my table (which I guess is true since you didn't dispute it). One can be the other, but not always.
5) “You are confused. I was referring to the limit of knowledge in that particular case.” No, Melkor isn't free to choose to know more than he does, the same goes for the other Valar.
6) “Irrelevant. Theoreticals and hypotheticals do not matter here and you are bringing in stuff that isn't even an issue.”
This whole discussion is about “theoreticals and hypotheticals”. You state your thesis on Tolkien, I state mine, we argue. This the point of the wiki.
7)“Tier 0's define what is and is not in a verse. If a Tier 0 decides X is impossible, it is no longer possible on any level of reality for a verse.”
This has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.
8)“The primary plane is on the same plane with themselves.” You can turn the sentence every which way, it doesn't work.

At the end, I've discussed just about everything. Anyway, I want my username under the “Disagree” category so the world knows I'm not complicit in the infamy afoot.

As well as that he allowed Appealing to Ridicule.

By calling the hogwash thesis" and suggesting that it would be the funniest wank on the site, using ridicule instead of providing substantive criticism. This make fun the validity of the opposing view through ridicule rather than through reasoned analysis:

However, you're right about one thing: if your central argument is indeed “Tolkien thinks Manwë exists, therefore Manwë is 1-A+” then everything I've said is way off-topic.

But unlike you, I don't think people have realized the reality of this thesis, and I even find it hard to believe that you're actually defending it. We're on a reality-fiction loop: the character is stronger than the author, who is stronger than the fiction. To repeat myself, the argument is: Tolkien thinks the Valar are real, so the Valar are stronger than Tolkien, who is (almost) omnipotent, so they are. I can't believe anyone would go along with this completely hogwash thesis.

That said, it would be the funniest wank on the site.

not only but also equivocation.

Ellbekarym uses the term "real" in different contexts without clarifying the distinction. He shifts between discussing the reality of Eru's creation (which he argues is actualized) and the fictional status of characters like Legolas, creating confusion about the meaning of "real:

It is Mandos who prophesies the end of Morgoth. Christopher Tolkien's edition simply deletes the prophecy and says that Mandos does not pronounce himself on the end of time. This is not contradicted (and certainly not directly contradicted) by any of the canon, and it is certain that, whatever Morgoth's fate, there will be an end of days for Tolkien.

As for the crux of my argument, I'll repeat it here:

1) Eru has actualized Arda, which is not pure fiction for the Ainur, unlike Tolkien's works are fiction for us. If tomorrow God decides to make Legolas real, Legolas is no longer fiction for us (so no R>F). Tyranno's reflection just above would imply that there is no ontological difference between the two: a Legolas that exists as fiction versus a Legolas that actually exists would be equally quasi-unreal secondary realities. But this is clearly not the case.

The quote that Tyranno invokes is very ill-timed because, as far as I'm concerned, I read it as saying that the Ainur have the same degree of reality as Ea: Sauron becomes “engrossed” with Ea, because when Eru made it, Ea become as real as them.

2) For Tolkien, Eru represents God but is not literally God, just as if I write a story with Albert Einstein, it's not literally Albert Einstein, even though he represents him. Tolkien knows he's writing fiction, so please don't think he's crazy.

The second quote obviously refers to Tolkien's universe and not to our world: there is no “embodiment of the One” in Ea, only the Valar can access Eru. Once again, we're putting words in Tolkien's mouth.

 

[Tyranno223]

As well as that he allowed Appealing to Ridicule.

By calling the hogwash thesis" and suggesting that it would be the funniest wank on the site, using ridicule instead of providing substantive criticism. This make fun the validity of the opposing view through ridicule rather than through reasoned analysis:

In particular this part and the suggestions that my arguments suggest Tolkien is "insane" are very unpleasant.

 

[Ellbekarym]

JRR Tolkien was explaining that while The Lord of the Rings is set in a pre-Christian era, he conceived Middle-earth as existing within our own world's monotheistic framework, with one supreme God (Eru Ilúvatar in his mythology) as the creator. he says The book is about the world that God created – the actual world of this planet," he's indicating that Middle-earth is meant to be our own Earth in an imagined ancient past, not a completely separate fantasy world.

I smell something here, that Ellbekarym has allowed false dichotomy. He seems to present the debate as if there are only two positions: either Tolkien believed he was a High 1-A+ being or he did not. This oversimplifies the discussion and ignores the nuances of Tolkien's metaphysics and the interpretation of his work as literature.

No. Tolkien 1-A+ was just one example. You're invoking “metaphysical nuances” that don't exist. The thesis is: Tolkien thinks the Valar exist, so they are more powerful than he, the author, with regard to the fiction in which they exist. This thesis is adorned with ancillary discussion, but it is itself very simple. In this case, Tolkien isn't 1-A+, it's the Valar who are 1-A+ in fiction because in reality they are more than Tolkien.

As well as that he allowed Appealing to Ridicule.

By calling the hogwash thesis" and suggesting that it would be the funniest wank on the site, using ridicule instead of providing substantive criticism. This make fun the validity of the opposing view through ridicule rather than through reasoned analysis:

I've posted long posts and you accuse me of not analyzing. That's a lie. Yes, I think it's ridiculous and I've explained why. It's you who's making a sophism by suggesting that denigration implies the absence of argumentation. I stand by everything I said about the thesis and all my arguments.

not only but also equivocation.

Ellbekarym uses the term "real" in different contexts without clarifying the distinction. He shifts between discussing the reality of Eru's creation (which he argues is actualized) and the fictional status of characters like Legolas, creating confusion about the meaning of "real:

If you don't understand, you ask for clarification, you don't a priori accuse others of sophistry. But it's surprising that there should be any confusion here, as things are so simple. There are two contexts, the real context (our world) and the fictional context (Tolkien's world). In our world, Legolas isn't real, so there's a reality/fiction relationship between us and Legolas. But God, if he exists, could make him real. In this case, no more reality/fiction, Legolas is as real as we are. In Tolkien's context, God (Eru) created the Valar. They are real. Before Arda was created, when it was a hypothesis, it was of course fictional. The question is: did Eru actualize Arda so that it would be as real as the Valar; that is, just as Legolas would be as real as us if he were actualized? I would argue yes. It's said that it's off-topic, which is convenient, but so be it. The two meanings of the term real are, of course, the reality of fiction and the reality within fiction. It is the opposing thesis that seeks to abolish the distinction. So the debate is about the point above.