Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

[Ellbekarym]

Welp, I did try to move this conversation, but that was rejected by Ellbekarym. I'll keep my responses short. Apologies to Pein and Seed.

In fact I had given in and started writing a reply. But that's fine, I prefer it; even if in a way you've proved me wrong, since one of the reasons I don't like private discussions of this kind is that speakers tend to be much less measured in their speech, yet you're much more aggressive here than in private.

? That doesn't make you case any stronger. It's still 1 vs multiple.


Ditto. What other fuel?

I spent my previous post saying that I wasn't using that quote as a decisive argument. I know it's vexing to realize that what you've presented as an argument is actually a counter-argument, but my own argument is more to say that all the phrases you invoke to justify reality/fiction are misinterpreted. But again we're discussing 1-A here so before you accuse me of being off-topic let's move on.

Then let me repeat myself until you get the issue with using this as a rebuttal.

To Tolkien, only God is infinite. Even the Ainur in Ea can be considered infinite by 3-D standards, and theoretical Low 2-C Ainur (if 1-A for example was removed and if High 1-A+ were rejected) would be infinite to 3-D too. To Tolkien, only God, aka omnipotence, aka Tier 0, is infinite. This is a nothing burger.

I'm copy-pasting what I'd started to write: (note that your answer is off-topic: the point is to say that Tolkien's sentence implies (it's a trivial truth) that authors have finite minds, so they can't conceive of all possible worlds. Obviously, they are always limited in the eyes of God):

4) Finitude. Indeed, Tolkien's sentence simply states the obvious: authors have finite minds and can therefore only conceive of a small minority of possible worlds. But he's not just saying that beings aren't God, he's saying that beings can't conceive of everything. The sentence is simple: human authors can write whatever they want, within the limits of their intelligence and imagination. It's obvious and simple. It seems to me that this is the first thing I've said in this whole thread: it's a banality, with no particular metaphysical significance. I can write whatever I want. But I can't want to write everything - in particular, I can't write about every possible world. Similarly, it's not true that “sub-creators”, real or imaginary, are High 1-A+ in general, and that Ainur are High 1-A+ in particular.

1. Insulting to 98% of the people of this thread. Great.

No. Saying that people haven't understood isn't insulting to them, especially since several people's comments have proved it.

Seriously, you may not use harsh language, but the attitude is just rotten.

That's far more disparaging than anything I've come to say.

I may say stuff such as you're using regarding you argument is "nonsense" (and you were literally bringing up fanfiction for that one),

You have every right to do so.

but saying stuff like I make Tolkien look "insane",

Indeed, I don't think Tolkien thought many of the things you've attributed to him.

calling arguments "sophistry",

Now that's rich. It was a fair response to the person who first accused me of being a sophist.

In the metaphysical framework that is being used by I and Ultima, the primary reality of the writers (again, not literally real real world, but real world for the metaphysics) is the primary reality of the Ainur.

Here there is no fake real world. The real world is the real world. When we talk about Tolkien's philosophical opinions, we're talking about the real world. There is not fiction where the Valar reside, a false real world where Tolkien's metaphysics applies and where angels similar to the Valar reside, and a real real world where it no longer applies and where there is none of that. I think you imagine that metaphysics is fiction on principle. But it isn't.

A collapse here is nonsensical as a result. Not to mention that Ea is limited to just Time and Space. There is nothing that constitutes it being the 4-D scope (for now).

No. The Ainur, though no more real than Ea, are outside ordinary time before they descend into it. The number of dimensions in which the Ainur move and reality/fiction are two different things. But we're still on the simple 1-A. Don't accuse me of being off-topic.

Hmm? Omniscience as a point for High 1-A+? What? The Ainur specifically are not omniscient, that is a sole trait of the Creator. None of the knowledge arguments are made based on them being omniscient.

I copy-paste:

2) By omniscience I mean knowing all possible worlds. According to your argument, the Ainur must know them to be High-1-A+ authors. But the obvious limits to their knowledge mean they can't create every possible story. By limits to their knowledge I mean both everything they don't know collectively and everything they don't know individually. The fact that they can't know certain things because Eru forbids it doesn't change a thing (not to mention your strange argument suggesting that they can decide to know), some of the worlds they don't know are obviously possible worlds, since they'll happen in the future and their own free will will contribute to one of it.

You're confusing having several possibilities with realizing several possibilities. I can read any book (within the limits of my intelligence), I can't read every book.

 

[Tyranno223]

In fact I had given in and started writing a reply.

Oh really? We can move there, it's honestly preferable. I thought you'd decided against it given your two blunt responses pretty much rejecting private discussion.

But that's fine, I prefer it; even if in a way you've proved me wrong, since one of the reasons I don't like private discussions of this kind is that speakers tend to be much less measured in their speech, yet you're much more aggressive here than in private.

Was it all that different? I pretty much stated the same things here just more words. Heck, I thought bluntly saying "? Are you trying to clog the thread?" was kinda on the ruder end.

I don't see why an attitude change would even be an issue? If I end up saying something rule violating in either public or private just report me, simple as.

I spent my previous post saying that I wasn't using that quote as a decisive argument. I know it's vexing to realize that what you've presented as an argument is actually a counter-argument, but my own argument is more to say that all the phrases you invoke to justify reality/fiction are misinterpreted. But again we're discussing 1-A here so before you accuse me of being off-topic let's move on.

I'm responding to that one since it's the one that's been brought up the most recently? The way you type is so bitter, don't assume things.

I'm copy-pasting what I'd started to write: (note that your answer is off-topic: the point is to say that Tolkien's sentence implies (it's a trivial truth) that authors have finite minds, so they can't conceive of all possible worlds. Obviously, they are always limited in the eyes of God):

4) Finitude. Indeed, Tolkien's sentence simply states the obvious: authors have finite minds and can therefore only conceive of a small minority of possible worlds. But he's not just saying that beings aren't God, he's saying that beings can't conceive of everything. The sentence is simple: human authors can write whatever they want, within the limits of their intelligence and imagination. It's obvious and simple.

We don't necessarily disagree here, but we go about it differently. Yes, writers are finite, but that is in comparison to a tier 0, that doesn't mean anything substantial.

Well duh, in the literal literal real world, they are just human writers. But from the metaphysical position, they have nigh-limitless creative ability. That's what's relevant here.

It seems to me that this is the first thing I've said in this whole thread: it's a banality, with no particular metaphysical significance. I can write whatever I want. But I can't want to write everything - in particular, I can't write about every possible world. Similarly, it's not true that “sub-creators”, real or imaginary, are High 1-A+ in general, and that Ainur are High 1-A+ in particular.

From the literal High 1-A+ standpoint, being able to write anything you want from the perspective of viewing a Low 2-C existence is 1-A to High 1-A+ at minumum.

The alternative is we downgrade the verse to 10-B and the Legendarium to Tier 11 by collapsing R>F with the metaphysics present.

No. Saying that people haven't understood isn't insulting to them, especially since several people's comments have proved it.

Well I was discussing Ultima for example so the inclusion would presumably include them who I've been discussing with for a while. That plus all the staff and the others. Really, the whole "holier than thou" attitude is why I said yours was rotten.

This doesn't mean you're a rotten person, I don't know you and I'm sure you're great, but for the thread, you've been consistently condescending with this position.

That's far more disparaging than anything I've come to say.

Ditto.

Indeed, I don't think Tolkien thought many of the things you've attributed to him.

Then just put it like that. Insanity is a heinous accusation, thank you very much.

Now that's rich. It was a fair response to the person who first accused me of being a sophist.

Was it? If so, then I apologise for that one. Sorry, it's been days since that convo.

Here there is no fake real world. The real world is the real world. When we talk about Tolkien's philosophical opinions, we're talking about the real world. There is not fiction where the Valar reside, a false real world where Tolkien's metaphysics applies and where angels similar to the Valar reside, and a real real world where it no longer applies and where there is none of that. I think you imagine that metaphysics is fiction on principle. But it isn't.

Then dispute the metaphysics that have already been accepted during the Tier 0 part.

No. The Ainur, though no more real than Ea, are outside ordinary time before they descend into it. The number of dimensions in which the Ainur move and reality/fiction are two different things. But we're still on the simple 1-A. Don't accuse me of being off-topic.

Tbh, the 1-A discussion in general is entirely off-topic, so I'd be to blame there too.

2) By omniscience I mean knowing all possible worlds. According to your argument, the Ainur must know them to be High-1-A+ authors. But the obvious limits to their knowledge mean they can't create every possible story. By limits to their knowledge I mean both everything they don't know collectively and everything they don't know individually. The fact that they can't know certain things because Eru forbids it doesn't change a thing (not to mention your strange argument suggesting that they can decide to know), some of the worlds they don't know are obviously possible worlds, since they'll happen in the future and their own free will will contribute to one of it.

That is not omniscience. Not collectively knowing every possible world does not = possessing the power to make every possible world. The Star-maker's first key still works as an example here

• Which is still fine, the thing that is disputed by Ultima here was that if the Ainur derived power from knowledge, their limited knowledge makes them disqualified.

Omniscience is not and has never been necessary since the beginning of this thread. If it was, I would certainly have been informed by Ultima a while back.

But yeah, if you want to move to private, that would be far more preferable since we're on page 6 now.

Tbh, at this stage, while I'm still up for arguing for High 1-A+, I'd be down for a "possibly" or something along those lines at this point.

 

[Ellbekarym]

We don't necessarily disagree here, but we go about it differently. Yes, writers are finite, but that is in comparison to a tier 0, that doesn't mean anything substantial.

It's the very point of the disagreement. It's the same one you had with Pein apparavant. What I'm saying is that when Tolkien says that authors are limited by their own finitude, he means that he can't have Féanor and Fingolfin discussing the American elections of 2024 because he (Tolkien) doesn't know it. He can't write that, because it's beyond his knowledge. Nor can he get them to demonstrate Golbach's conjecture, for that is beyond his intelligence.

Well duh, in the literal literal real world, they are just human writers. But from the metaphysical position, they have nigh-limitless creative ability. That's what's relevant here.

This is really repetition. I don't think, in the “metaphysical position” (which is that of the real world btw) Tolkien has unlimited creative capacity. Cf above.

From the literal High 1-A+ standpoint, being able to write anything you want from the perspective of viewing a Low 2-C existence is 1-A to High 1-A+ at minumum.

Precisely, I deny that they can create anything. To create, they have to know what they're going to create. They don't know everything that is possible.

The alternative is we downgrade the verse to 10-B and the Legendarium to Tier 11.

No ? The alternative is that they're 1-A at best, 1-C or similar if you take my word for it.

Well I was discussing Ultima for example so the inclusion would presumably include them who I've been discussing with for a while. That plus all the staff and the others. Really, the whole "holier than thou" attitude is why I said yours was rotten.

I don't doubt that Ultima gets it. I doubt many listed under the “agreement” category have understood. But that's not important, since it's Ultima who decides.

Was it? If so, then I apologise for that one. Sorry, it's been days since that convo.

I didn't accuse you of sophistry and you didn't accuse me of sophistry. That was with Lordofhesperus.

Then dispute the metaphysics that have already been accepted during the Tier 0 part.

I've done that on several occasions. You told me not to because it was off-topic.

That is not omniscience. Not collectively knowing every possible world does not = possessing the power to make every possible world. The Star-maker's first key still works as an example here

• Which is still fine, the thing that is disputed by Ultima here was that if the Ainur derived power from knowledge, their limited knowledge makes them disqualified.

Omniscience is not and has never been necessary since the beginning of this thread. If it was, I would certainly have been informed by Ultima a while back.

This is what I'm saying. Having limited knowledge (of possible worlds) = not being omniscient (with regard to possible worlds). I don't see the contradiction. I'm saying that they don't have knowledge of all possible worlds and that they can't create them all (regardless of whether we say it's only Eru who creates or not).

Truly, Ultima said he needed more information but I don't see what more can be said. Since the gist of my argument (anti-1-A) is deemed off-topic, I can only repeat that the Ainur are obviously very ignorant of many things and that even if they were really authors of fiction, they could never create more than their understanding allows them to create.

 

[Tyranno223]

Yeah, I think we can stop here now. A little extension to the debate was fine, but cluttering a 6th page much more would be bad. I think we've added enough material.

I'll give a thumbs up for the clarification on the sophistry part, I still very much disagree.

 

[Lordhesperus]

I agree with Pein suggestion. that focusing on our arguments for the staff’s evaluation will help keep the thread organized. Let’s ensure our points are clear and concise for their review.