Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

[DOOMSLAYER127]

I already agree with all of this even though my 'agree' doesn't matter here though but hey again and again fully agreed . You cooked well chef Tyranno.

 

[Tyranno223]

I already agree with all of this even though my 'agree' doesn't matter here though but hey again and again fully agreed . You cooked well chef Tyranno.

No offense, but most of Pein's contentions so far have already been quite elegantly rebutted against in the actual blog (which is again the only thing bolded in the OP), and even further in this thread. Is the delay for Pein's response still in effect? Personally, I do not see this going anywhere it has not already gone.

There is still also the drafts for the pages to be done and the cosmology page to be made from the blog + relevant additions. Though whether the thread needs to be open for that is to the discretion of staff.

Regarding Peins' contentions, ultimately staff are the ones who decide that. But overall, grace has already passed and Eru's tier 0 is already accepted. For the High 1-A+ Ainur, we were only really waiting on Pein's response. Ultima or Ant or someone can give their opinion as to how legitimate it is to judge it. Grace already passed if they find the contention illegitimate. On my end, I've made my opinion and frustrations with Pein very clear, although I admit that the language I used was overly condescending due to... imbibing, it doesn't change that I'm currently very annoyed with them, in regards to this thread at least.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Since my time on this wiki has taught me not to argue with people who are dogmatic in their views, as that will just lead to a circle of argument, hence I will not continue that circle. So no need for any argument or post
The main scan for the High 1=A+ was gotten from letter 153, so if that falls apart there is no High 1-A+. So will be copying and pasting the entire letter here, it is at most a 10 to 15mins read, or lesser for fast readers.
The staffs may decide maybe Tolkien was referring to himself as a writer or to the sub-creators in this work as the Op has claimed. The letter contains all the needed context. @DarkDragonMedeus @Ultima_Reality

153 To Peter Hastings (draft)
[Peter Hastings, manager of the Newman Bookshop (a Catholic bookshop in Oxford), wrote expressing enthusiasm for The Lord of the Rings, but asked if Tolkien had not 'over-stepped the mark in metaphysical matters'. He gave several examples: first, 'Treebeard's statement that the Dark Lord created the Trolls and the Orcs'. Hastings suggested that evil was incapable of creating anything, and argued that even if it could create, its creatures 'could not have a tendency to good, even a very small one'; whereas, he argued, one of the Trolls in The Hobbit, William, does have a feeling of pity for Bilbo. He also cited the description of Bombadil by Goldberry: 'He is.' Hastings said that this seemed to imply that Bombadil was God. Hastings was most of all concerned with the reincarnation of the Elves, which Tolkien had mentioned to him in a conversation. He wrote of this: 'God has not used that device in any of the creations of which we have knowledge, and it seems to me to be stepping beyond the position of a sub-creator to produce it as an actual working thing, because a sub-creator, when dealing with the relations between creator and created, should use those channels which he knows the creator to have used already..... "The Ring" is so good that it is a pity to deprive it of its reality by over-stepping the bounds of a writer's job.' He also asked if the reincarnation of the Elves did not produce practical problems: 'What happens to the descendants of a human and an elf who marry?' And, on another matter, he asked how Sauron, given his extreme evil, could 'keep the co-operation of the elves' until the time when the Rings of Power were forged.]

Tolkien's reply

September 1954
Dear Mr. Hastings,

Thank you very much for your long letter. I am sorry that I have not the time to answer it as fully as it deserves. You have at any rate paid me the compliment of taking me seriously, though I cannot avoid wondering whether it is not "too seriously," or in the wrong directions. The tale is, after all, in the ultimate analysis, a tale, a piece of literature, intended to have literary effect, and not real history. That the device adopted—giving its setting a historical air or feeling and an illusion of three dimensions—is successful seems shown by the fact that several correspondents have treated it in the same way, according to their different points of interest or knowledge. They treat it as if it were a report of 'real' times and places, which my ignorance or carelessness had misrepresented in some places or failed to describe properly in others. Its economics, science, artifacts, religion, and philosophy are defective, or at least sketchy.

I have, of course, already considered all the points that you raise. But to present my reflections to you (in another form) would take a book. Any kind of real answer to your more profound queries must at least wait till you have more in hand, such as Volume III, not to mention the more mythical histories of the Cosmogony, First, and Second Ages. Since the whole matter from beginning to end is mainly concerned with the relation of Creation to making and sub-creation (and subsidiarily with the related matter of 'mortality'), it must be clear that references to these things are not casual, but fundamental. They may well be fundamentally "wrong" from the point of view of Reality (external reality), but they cannot be wrong inside this imaginary world since that is how it is made.

We differ entirely about the nature of the relation of sub-creation to Creation. I would have said that liberation "from the channels the creator is known to have used already" is the fundamental function of sub-creation—a tribute to the infinity of His potential variety, one of the ways in which it is exhibited, as I stated in the Essay. I am not a metaphysician, but I would have thought it a curious metaphysic—there is not one but many, indeed potentially innumerable ones—that declared the channels known (in such a finite corner as we have any inkling of) to have been used are the only possible ones or efficacious, or possibly acceptable to and by Him!

"Reincarnation" may be bad theology (that surely, rather than metaphysics) as applied to Humanity; and my legendarium, especially the "Downfall of Númenor," which lies immediately behind The Lord of the Rings, is based on my view: that Men are essentially mortal and must not try to become "immortal" in the flesh. But I do not see how even in the Primary World any theologian or philosopher, unless very much better informed about the relation of spirit and body than I believe anyone to be, could deny the possibility of reincarnation as a mode of existence prescribed for certain kinds of rational incarnate creatures.

I suppose that the chief difficulties I have involved myself in are scientific and biological, which worry me as much as the theological and metaphysical (though you do not seem to mind them as much). Elves and Men are evidently, in biological terms, one race, or they could not breed and produce fertile offspring, even as a rare event: there are two cases only in my legends of such unions, and they are merged in the descendants of Eärendil. But since some have held that the rate of longevity is a biological characteristic within limits of variation, you could not have Elves, in a sense "immortal"—not eternal, but not dying by "old age"—and Men mortal, more or less as they now seem to be in the Primary World, and yet sufficiently akin.

I might answer that this "biology" is only a theory, and that modern "gerontology," or whatever they call it, finds "aging" rather more mysterious and less clearly inevitable in bodies of human structure. But I should actually answer: I do not care. This is a biological dictum in my imaginary world. It is only an incompletely imagined world, a rudimentary "secondary"; but if it pleased the Creator to give it (in a corrected form) Reality on any plane, then you would just have to enter it and begin studying its different biology, that is all.


But as it is—though it seems to have grown out of hand, so that parts seem (to me) rather revealed through me than by me—its purpose is still largely literary (and, if you don’t boggle at the term, didactic). Elves and Men are represented as biologically akin in this 'history' because Elves are certain aspects of Men and their talents and desires, incarnated in my little world. They have certain freedoms and powers we should like to have, and the beauty, peril, and sorrow of the possession of these things is exhibited in them.

Sauron was, of course, not "evil" in origin. He was a "spirit" corrupted by the Prime Dark Lord (the Prime sub-creative Rebel), Morgoth. He was given an opportunity of repentance when Morgoth was overcome but could not face the humiliation of recantation and suing for pardon. So, his temporary turn to good and "benevolence" ended in a greater relapse, until he became the main representative of Evil of later ages. At the beginning of the Second Age, he was still beautiful to look at or could still assume a beautiful visible shape—and was not indeed wholly evil, not unless all "reformers" who want to hurry up with "reconstruction" and "reorganization" are wholly evil, even before pride and the lust to exert their will eat them up.

The particular branch of the High-Elves concerned, the Noldor or Loremasters, were always on the side of "science and technology," as we should call it. They wanted to have the knowledge that Sauron genuinely had, and those of Eregion refused the warnings of Gil-galad and Elrond. The particular "desire" of the Eregion Elves—an "allegory," if you like, of a love of machinery and technical devices—is also symbolized by their special friendship with the Dwarves of Moria.

I should regard them as no more wicked or foolish (but in much the same peril) as Catholics engaged in certain kinds of physical research (e.g., those producing, if only as by-products, poisonous gases and explosives). These are things not necessarily evil but, given the nature and motives of the economic masters who provide all the means for their work, are pretty certain to serve evil ends. For which they will not necessarily be to blame, even if aware of them.

As for other points, I think I agree about the "creation by evil." But you are more free with the word "creation" than I am. Treebeard does not say that the Dark Lord "created" Trolls and Orcs. He says he "made" them in counterfeit of certain creatures pre-existing. To me, there is a wide gulf between the two statements, so wide that Treebeard’s statement could (in my world) have possibly been true. It is not true actually of the Orcs, who are fundamentally a race of "rational incarnate" creatures, though horribly corrupted, if no more so than many Men to be met today. Treebeard is a character in my story, not me; and though he has a great memory and some earthy wisdom, he is not one of the Wise and there is quite a lot he does not know or understand.


He does not know what "wizards" are or whence they came (though I do, even if exercising my sub-creator's right, I have thought it best in this Tale to leave the question a "mystery," not without pointers to the solution). Suffering and experience (and possibly the Ring itself) gave Frodo more insight; and you will read in Chapter 1 of Book VI the words to Sam: "The Shadow that bred them can only mock, it cannot make real new things of its own. I don't think it gave life to the Orcs; it only ruined them and twisted them." In the legends of the Elder Days, it is suggested that the Diabolus subjugated and corrupted some of the earliest Elves before they had ever heard of the "gods," let alone of God.

I am not sure about Trolls. I think they are mere "counterfeits," and hence (though here I am, of course, only using elements of old barbarous myth-making that had no "aware" metaphysic) they return to mere stone images when not in the dark. But there are other sorts of Trolls besides these rather ridiculous, if brutal, Stone-trolls, for which other origins are suggested. Of course (since inevitably my world is highly imperfect even on its own plane nor made wholly coherent—our Real World does not appear to be wholly coherent either; and I am actually not myself convinced that, though in every world on every plane all must ultimately be under the Will of God, even in ours there are not some "tolerated" sub-creational counterfeits!), when you make Trolls speak you are giving them a power that in our world (probably) connotes the possession of a "soul."

But I do not agree (if you admit that fairy-story element) that my trolls show any sign of "good," strictly and unsentimentally viewed. I do not say William felt pity—a word to me of moral and imaginative worth. It is the Pity of Bilbo and later Frodo that ultimately allows the Quest to be achieved. I do not think he showed Pity. I might not (if The Hobbit had been more carefully written and my world so much thought about 20 years ago) have used the expression "poor little blighter," just as I should not have called the troll William. But I discerned no pity even then, and put in a plain caveat. Pity must restrain one from doing something immediately desirable and seemingly advantageous. There is no more "pity" here than in a beast of prey yawning or lazily patting a creature it could eat but does not want to since it is not hungry. Or indeed, than there is in many of men's actions, whose real roots are in satiety, sloth, or a purely non-moral natural softness, though they may dignify them by "pity's" name.


As for Tom Bombadil, I really do think you are being too serious, besides missing the point. (Again, the words used are by Goldberry and Tom, not me as a commentator). You rather remind me of a Protestant relation who objected to the (modern) Catholic habit of calling priests Father because the name Father belonged only to the First Person, citing last Sunday’s Epistle—inappositely since that says ex quo. Lots of other characters are called Master; and if "in time" Tom was primeval, he was Eldest in Time. But Goldberry and Tom are referring to the mystery of names. See and ponder Tom's words in Vol. I p. 142.

You may be able to conceive of your unique relation to the Creator without a name—can you? For in such a relation, pronouns become proper nouns. But as soon as you are in a world of other finites with a similar, if unique and different, relation to Prime Being, who are you? Frodo has asked not "what is Tom Bombadil" but "Who is he?" We and he no doubt often laxly confuse the questions. Goldberry gives what I think is the correct answer. We need not go into the sublimities of "I am that am," which is quite different from "he is." She adds, as a concession, a statement of part of the "what." He is master in a peculiar way: he has no fear and no desire of possession or domination at all. He merely knows and understands about such things as concern him in his natural little realm. He hardly even judges and, as far as can be seen, makes no effort to reform or remove even the Willow.

I don’t think Tom needs philosophizing about and is not improved by it. But many have found him an odd or indeed discordant ingredient. In historical fact, I put him in because I had already "invented" him independently (he first appeared in the Oxford Magazine) and wanted an "adventure" on the way. But I kept him in, and as he was, because he represents certain things otherwise left out. I do not mean him to be an allegory—or I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name—but "allegory" is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions. He is then an "allegory" or an exemplar, a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature because they are "other" and wholly independent of the inquiring mind—a spirit coeval with the rational mind and entirely unconcerned with "doing" anything with the knowledge. Zoology and Botany, not Cattle-breeding or Agriculture. Even the Elves hardly show this; they are primarily artists.

Also, T.B. exhibits another point in his attitude to the Ring and its failure to affect him. You must concentrate on some part, probably relatively small, of the World (Universe), whether to tell a tale, however long, or to learn anything, however fundamental. Therefore, much will from that "point of view" be left out, distorted on the circumference, or seem a discordant oddity. The power of the Ring over all concerned, even the Wizards or Emissaries, is not a delusion—but it is not the whole picture, even of the then state and content of that part of the Universe.


I have already dealt with the biological difficulty of Elf-Human marriage. It occurs, of course, in "fairy-story" and folklore, though not all cases have the same notions behind them. But I have made it far more exceptional. I do not see that "reincarnation" affects the resulting problems at all. But "immortality" (in my world only within the limited longevity of the Earth) does, of course, as many fairy-stories perceive.

In the primary story of Lúthien and Beren, Lúthien is allowed, as an absolute exception, to divest herself of "immortality" and become "mortal"—but when Beren is slain by the Wolf-warden of the Gates of Hell, Lúthien obtains a brief respite in which they both return to Middle-earth "alive," though not mingling with other people: a kind of Orpheus-legend in reverse, but one of Pity, not of Inexorability. Túor weds Idril, the daughter of Turgon, King of Gondolin; and "it is supposed" (not stated) that he, as a unique exception, receives the Elvish limited "immortality"—an exception either way. Eärendil is Túor's son and father of Elros (First King of Númenor) and Elrond, their mother being Elwing, daughter of Dior, son of Beren and Lúthien. So the problem of the Half-elven becomes united in one line. The view is that the Half-elven have a power of (irrevocable) choice, which may be delayed but not permanently, as to which kin's fate they will share. Elros chose to be a King and "longaevus" but mortal, so all his descendants are mortal, and of a specially noble race, but with dwindling longevity. Thus Aragorn (who, however, has a greater lifespan than his contemporaries—double, though not the original Númenórean treble, that of Men). Elrond chose to be among the Elves. His children—with a renewed Elvish strain, since their mother was Celebrían, daughter of Galadriel—have to make their choices. Arwen is not a "reincarnation" of Lúthien (that, in the view of this mythical history, would be impossible, since Lúthien has died like a mortal and left the world of time) but a descendant very like her in looks, character, and fate. When she weds Aragorn (whose love-story, elsewhere recounted, is not here central and only occasionally referred to), she "makes the choice of Lúthien," so the grief at her parting from Elrond is specially poignant. Elrond passes Over Sea. The end of his sons, Elladan and Elrohir, is not told: they delay their choice and remain for a while.

As for "whose authority decides these things?" The immediate "authorities" are the Valar (the Powers or Authorities): the "gods." But they are only created spirits—of high angelic order, we should say, with their attendant lesser angels—reverend, therefore, but not worshipful. And though potently "sub-creative" and resident on Earth to which they are bound by love, having assisted in its making and ordering, they cannot by their own will alter any fundamental provision. They called upon the One in the crisis of the rebellion of Númenor—when the Númenóreans attempted to take the Undying Land by force of a great armada in their lust for corporal immortality—which necessitated a catastrophic change in the shape of Earth. Immortality and Mortality, being the special gifts of God to the Eruhini (in whose conception and creation the Valar had no part at all), must be assumed as unalterable. The cases of Lúthien (and Túor) and the position of their descendants were a direct act of God. The entering into Men of the Elven-strain is indeed represented as part of a Divine Plan for the ennoblement of the Human Race, from the beginning destined to replace the Elves.

Are there any "bounds to a writer's job" except those imposed by his own finiteness? No bounds but the laws of contradiction, I should think. But, of course, humility and an awareness of peril is required. A writer may be basically "benevolent" according to his lights (as I hope I am) and yet not be "beneficent" owing to error and stupidity. I would claim, if I did not think it presumptuous in one so ill-instructed, to have as one object the elucidation of truth and the encouragement of good morals in this real world by the ancient device of exemplifying them in unfamiliar embodiments that may tend to "bring them home." But, of course, I may be in error (at some or all points): my truths may not be true, or they may be distorted, and the mirror I have made may be dim and cracked. But I should need to be fully convinced that anything I have "feigned" is actually harmful, per se, and not merely because misunderstood, before I should recant or rewrite anything.

Great harm can be done, of course, by this potent mode of "myth"—especially willfully. The right to "freedom" of the sub-creator is no guarantee among fallen men that it will not be used as wickedly as is Free Will. I am comforted by the fact that some, more pious and learned than I, have found nothing harmful in this Tale or its feignings as a "myth."


To conclude: having mentioned Free Will, I might say that in my myth I have used 'subcreation' in a special way (not the same as 'subcreation' as a term in criticism of art, though I tried to show allegorically how that might come to be taken up into Creation in some plane in my 'purgatorial' story Leaf by Niggle (Dublin Review, 1945)) to make visible and physical the effects of Sin or misused Free Will by Men.

Free Will is derivative and is only operative within provided circumstances. But in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides: i.e., when it is 'against His Will,' as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view. He does not stop or make 'unreal' sinful acts and their consequences. So, in this myth, it is 'feigned' (legitimately whether that is a feature of the real world or not) that He gave special 'sub-creative' powers to certain of His highest created beings. That is a guarantee that what they devised and made should be given the reality of Creation—of course, within limits, and of course subject to certain commands or prohibitions.

But if they 'fell,' as the Diabolus Morgoth did, and started making things 'for himself, to be their Lord,' these would then 'be,' even if Morgoth broke the supreme ban against making other 'rational' creatures like Elves or Men. They would at least 'be' real physical realities in the physical world, however evil they might prove, even 'mocking' the Children of God. They would be Morgoth's greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad. (I nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad,' but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making—necessary to their actual existence—even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good.)

But whether they could have 'souls' or 'spirits' seems a different question. Since in my myth, at any rate, I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits—things of an equal order, if not an equal power, to the Valar—as a possible 'delegation,' I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them. That God would 'tolerate' that seems no worse theology than the toleration of the calculated dehumanizing of Men by tyrants that goes on today. There might be other 'makings' all the same, which were more like puppets filled (only at a distance) with their maker's mind and will or ant-like, operating under the direction of a queen-centre.

Now (you will reasonably say) I am taking myself even more seriously than you did, and making a great song and oration about a good tale, which admittedly owes its similitude to mere craft. It is so. But the things I have scribbled about arise, in some form or another, from all writing (or art) that is not careful to dwell within the walls of 'observed fact.'

And that is the entire letter.

I guess no one needs to do anything aside, wait for Ultima to read the letter and determine the context.
Mine: Tolkien was referring to himself as a writer and how his writings do not need to be seen as overtly theological.
OP" Tolkien is referring to sub-creators in general.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

Uh Pein you do remember you can't tag Staff Members right ?

 

[PrinceofPein]

Uh Pein you do remember you can't tag Staff Members right ?

I am not tagging them to call them but rather signify the post is meant for them
@Antvasima will tag them when he sees the thread

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

Since my time on this wiki has taught me not to argue with people who are dogmatic in their views, as that will just lead to a circle of argument, hence I will not continue that circle. So no need for any argument or post

Bruh, speaking facts. I barely have any comments because I don't engage in such things, and yeah, they truly have lots of time.rather use that time to enjoy myself

 

[Tyranno223]

Since my time on this wiki has taught me not to argue with people who are dogmatic in their views

Pein, my issue with your posts here have been very clear. I feel like I'm bashing my head against a brick wall here.

I do not have an issue with you opposing the thread, I have an issue with you repeatedly not reading the material of the thread thrice. This is a serious issue when you're trying to be providing criticism! Please stop acting as if I do not have legitimate reason to be upset with your actions here.

That being said, I do agree going in a circle is of no value, so I'll leave it at my previous post.

For the record, Ultima has access to the Letters as well and has posted material from them seperately. They were the one to point out the line about sub-creators originally.

 

[Tyranno223]

Bruh, speaking facts. I barely have any comments because I don't engage in such things, and yeah, they truly have lots of time.rather use that time to enjoy myself

Depends on situation, but fairs. For my part, I'm just focusing on this on the side since I quite like reading and writing.

 

[Lordhesperus]

Tyranno223 interprets Tolkien's letters and writings in the context of subcreation and the literary framework that Tolkien created. and Tolkien's concept of sub-creation is fundamental to understanding cosmology.

While Pein claims/asserts that the validity of High 1-A+ hinges solely on Letter 153. I want to emphasize here, Tolkien’s concept of sub-creation should be viewed in the context of his entire body of work, not just a single letter.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Of course sub-creation should be viewed through his entire work, which I have no issue with. "Sub-creators as writers have no limit" is the only part I have issue with, since like my earlier claim, Tolkien was referring solely to himself as a writer.

 

[Tyranno223]

Tolkien was referring solely to himself as a writer.

Fundamentally it comes down to this point really. It depends on whether or not you accept the position of "writers", the sub-creators of stories, as valid existences in the Metaphysics of Tolkien. At this point I think most points are laid down (heated as it unfortunately got on my end), so it ultimately comes down to re-evaluation before anything else.

 

[Ellbekarym]

I'm coming in late but I agree with Pein on the Ainur. Is the debate still open or can I go back to slumber?

 

[Tyranno223]

I'm coming in late but I agree with Pein on the Ainur. Is the debate still open or can I go back to slumber?

Mostly just waiting on Ultima and co for a double check.

 

[Ellbekarym]

Mostly just waiting on Ultima and co for a double check.

I mean, do my arguments have any value or are the die already cast?

 

[Tyranno223]

I mean, do my arguments have any value or are the die already cast?

It's an open forum, I don't think there's any reason not to make a post so long as it hasn't already been dealt with or is irrelevant.

If you're that concerned just message me or something so I can have a look. But I doubt there's a need.

 

[Ellbekarym]

In this case, here my opinion. The “powers of authors” are abusively extended to the Ainur. Here's why:

Here, it seems to me, is the structure of the argument:

1) The real God (Jesus) created the world (primary reality).
2) In this world, the real world, there are beings (sub-creators) who can invent worlds (secondary reality). These sub-creators are limited in their process only by their intellect and by logic.
3) In one of these sub- creations (LotR) there is a fictional God (Eru) who is a stand-in for the real God, so this God is Tier 0 in this fictional universe, just as God is Tier 0 in reality.
4) This God (Eru) creates the Timeless Halls (fictional primary reality) in which the Ainur (fictional sub-creators) are located. As a result, these Ainur are limited in their creation only by their understanding and logic, as Tolkien is in the real world, so they are Tier Hight-1A+.
5) These Ainur create Ea (fictional secondary reality).

Point 2) is a triviality. Everyone agrees that anyone can write whatever they want, within the limits of their understanding.

Point 3) is dubious. It's true that Eru is a projection of God, but it's tendentious to say that he's identical to God. Tolkien doesn't claim that God actually created the elves and dwarves, he simply says that he could have done so (that it's a “possible channel”). But in fact he didn't, and the God creating the elves is not the God not creating them. Having said that, this comment isn't important since I intend to focus mainly on the Ainur, not Eru.
(To be clear: the only “one and same” God with Eru is the one who actually does everything that's done in LotR. But God, if he exists, didn't do it and Tolkien doesn't claim so).

4), the main one.

"In the most basic interpretation of LotR’s cosmology, this is at minimum an R>F difference between the Secondary and the Primary. Indeed, not even the descent of the Ainur into Eä is an issue as they specifically have to bind their existence to this secondary level and become reduced"

The reasoning here is to tell us that Ea is to the Ainur what The Lord of the Rings is to Tolkien. But the difference is obvious.
Firstly, in the real-world framework, we are the primary reality, whereas in Tolkien's framework, Ea is the secondary reality. If we were to apply 1:1 Tolkien's schema to our world, Heaven would be the primary reality and this world would be a secondary reality. But this is not the case: in Tolkien's perspective, there is no reality/fiction difference between the world, heaven and hell. The primary/secondary difference is, according to Tolkien, between the work of the Creator (who made Heaven as well as the World) and the work of creatures who explore what could be but isn't.
Tolkien doesn't have the freedom to incarnate himself in his world. Why not? Because it's a fiction, not a reality, and it's because it's a fiction that he's all-powerful with regard to it. The fact that the Ainur can incarnate themselves in Ea shows that the ontological difference between Ea and themselves is much weaker than between Tolkien and his work. If Tolkien wanted to “incarnate” himself in his work, he'd write a self-insert, but the Ainur don't create self-inserts in Ea - they go there themselves. They do not continue to exist outside Ea. The Ainur of Ea are not avatars of meta-Ainur existing in the Timeless Halls.
Tolkien says they've linked their power to Ea, that's all. The only legitimate person to have a reality/fiction relationship with Ea is Eru (and even then).
Besides, there's implicit here the dubious philosophical premise that the ontologically weaker wins: if God, in the real world, wanted to project Tolkien into Arda, would we say that he transformed Tolkien into a fictional character? No, we'd say he'd actualized Arda. (To be clear: we're told that there's a reality/fiction relationship between the Halls and Ea, and that consequently the Ainur choosing Ea have passed from reality to fiction (from their point of view); but it's more coherent to imagine that if a real being can entirely pass into a “fiction” without leaving anything of itself in the “real” then it's because the fiction wasn't a fiction in the first place).

"As residents of the Primary Reality, as already noted, they maintain the same distinction between themselves and any creation of any Writer or Author as between reality and myth."

The key point is that they do not remain resident in Primary Reality yet remain themselves, Ainur incarnated do not maintain this distinction. So either we're saying that the Ainur technically died when they entered Ea (they cease to exist in the primary reality, which the only real one from their view), then were resurrected by Eru at the end of time. Or we're saying that the distinction between the Ainur and Ea isn't that great.

"As the highest created beings, they would surpass Sub-creators of the primary reality, aka writers."

I don't understand this sentence. Who are the “sub-creators of the primary reality” other than the Ainur themselves? In Tolkien's fictional primary reality, the only authors are the Ainur. I hope this isn't a reference to the real authors of the real world, is it?

Beyond the fact that it is highly doubtful that the Ainur have a reality/fiction relationship with Arda, the blog author erroneously denies the subsequent limitations of these.

"Limits upon sub creators such as the "únat, a thing impossible to be or to be done" that are "...a perpetual reminder of the existence of Eru and His invincibility" and hence not a significant mark against them"

It's gratuitous. If God exists, all the laws of nature are “perpetual reminders of the existence of God and His invincibility”. This does not mean that these laws are not “significant marks” for beings.

"Sub-creators are capable of creating all possible stories under Eru without limits (other than their own finite nature compared to Eru)"

Here, “finite nature” is erroneously equated with simply being a creature. But Tolkien is obviously talking about the particular limits of each creature: an author can create anything he imagines ; Tolkien can create anything he imagines, not what he can't conceive.

"The limitation can be taken to instead refer to the rules of Eru (not impossibilities) meaning they could theoretically go beyond their roles."

Confusion between what God forbids in the moral sense (you must not) and what God forbids in the metaphysical sense (you cannot). God doesn't want beings to do evil, they can disobey. God doesn't want the Ainur to die, they really can't die (except by his action). The author invokes the fact that Melkor can cause chaos and disorder to deduce that they can free themselves from all limitations, including knowing what they don't know, by a simple effort of will. This makes no sense.
(After reading the whole letter, it turns out that Tolkien is talking about free-will here: God gives the Devil the possibility to do evil, under certain conditions.)

We might mention anecdotally two limitations of the Ainurs (before their descent):

Ainurs cannot create other souls. It is Eru who creates elves, men and (in part) dwarves :

"But whether they could have 'souls' or 'spirits' seems a different question; and since in my myth at any rate I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits, things of an equal order if not an equal power to the Valar, as a possible 'delegation', I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them."

(It was mentioned in one reply that the “Valar can't create anything”. No, the Valar can create many things, they just can't create everything, especially not souls).

It is God who gives reality to “sub-creation” (and remember : God (Eru) actualized Arda in Tolkien's work, but he didn't actualize Tolkien's work in reality).

"It is only (as yet) an incompletely imagined world, a rudimentary 'secondary'; but if it pleased the Creator to give it (in a corrected form) Reality on any plane"

Here Tolkien is saying that the biological imperfections of his world are not so important, because it's fiction. If his world were to really exist, then God (the sole creator) would take care of making what needs to work work. Note in particular the “any plane”.

"the Creator made it real (that is, gave it the secondary reality, subordinate to his own, which we call primary reality, and so in that hierarchy on the same plane with themselves)"

I'm not sure I understand this last sentence since it implies that the Ainur belong to “secondary reality”: “in that hierarchy on the same plane with themselves”. In any case, Tolkien seems to be putting Ea and the Ainur on the same ontological plane.

It should be noted, incidentally, that in the page on Reality/Fiction interaction, the fact of existing only within fiction (rightly) discalifies transcendence. Here, the case is a little more difficult, since the Valar exist before Ea, then enter it, but they enter it completely. And, setting Eru aside, we can imagine a situation where all the Valar enter Arda, making the latter the only reality.

Conclusion: the “first/secondary reality” relation in the work (Ea, the world in relation to Heaven) is very different from the “first/secundary reality” relation that is the work (a series of writings in relation to the world). What's more, the Valar, even before creation, are not unlimited.

PS:

The blog author is wrong here:

"To return to the extract from Letter 153, all writers create as per the “channels” provided by God, they can only operate as per what the Creator has already used, but within this framework they are utterly unbound except for the laws of contradiction. They cannot perform contradictory actions (as a form of logical omnipotence on a lower scale)"

Whereas Tolkien explicitly states (“I should have said that liberation ‘from the channels the creator is known to have used already’ is the fundamental function of ‘sub-creation’”) that the author is free to explore the channels that God has not used. It is Hastings, on the other hand, who wants to limit himself to the known works of God.

 

[Tyranno223]

Point 2) is a triviality. Everyone agrees that anyone can write whatever they want, within the limits of their understanding.

Indeed.

Point 3) is dubious. It's true that Eru is a projection of God, but it's tendentious to say that he's identical to God. Tolkien doesn't claim that God actually created the elves and dwarves, he simply says that he could have done so (that it's a “possible channel”). But in fact he didn't, and the God creating the elves is not the God not creating them. Having said that, this comment isn't important since I intend to focus mainly on the Ainur, not Eru.
(To be clear: the only “one and same” God with Eru is the one who actually does everything that's done in LotR. But God, if he exists, didn't do it and Tolkien doesn't claim so).

Projection is incorrect, there is no stand in and the reason for Tier 0 (from this part of the argument) is not that Eru is standing in for another Tier 0 being. For all intents and purposes, Eru is God. Eru's indivisibility from God is accepted. Regardless, Eru is regarded as the "Author of the Story",

4), the main one.


The reasoning here is to tell us that Ea is to the Ainur what The Lord of the Rings is to Tolkien. But the difference is obvious.
Firstly, in the real-world framework, we are the primary reality, whereas in Tolkien's framework, Ea is the secondary reality. If we were to apply 1:1 Tolkien's schema to our world, Heaven would be the primary reality and this world would be a secondary reality. But this is not the case: in Tolkien's perspective, there is no reality/fiction difference between the world, heaven and hell. The primary/secondary difference is, according to Tolkien, between the work of the Creator (who made Heaven as well as the World) and the work of creatures who explore what could be but isn't.

None of this is relevant as they are not discussed in Tolkien's worldview. It is supposable Hell and Heaven exists in his ideas, even downright likely, but they are not given any proper presence within the scope of his metaphysics.

Regardless, it is not the Timeless Halls that are by themselves all that relevant. On their own, they are Tier 1-A. But it is because they are considered on the same level as the Primary Reality/"Real World" that makes it relevant.

Tolkien doesn't have the freedom to incarnate himself in his world. Why not? Because it's a fiction, not a reality, and it's because it's a fiction that he's all-powerful with regard to it. The fact that the Ainur can incarnate themselves in Ea shows that the ontological difference between Ea and themselves is much weaker than between Tolkien and his work. If Tolkien wanted to “incarnate” himself in his work, he'd write a self-insert, but the Ainur don't create self-inserts in Ea - they go there themselves. They do not continue to exist outside Ea. The Ainur of Ea are not avatars of meta-Ainur existing in the Timeless Halls.

None of this is exactly up for dispute here, it's been accepted since Low 1-C upgrades. A downgrade in this area is the topic of another thread. That being said,

They are incarnated by the merit of Eru. They cannot descend into Eä without being fundamentally bound to it and limited. For R>F distinctions, this is fine as they fundamentally have been reduced.

The Valar having entered Arda, and being therein confined within its life, must also suffer (while therein and being as it were its spirit, as the fëa is to the hröa of the Incarnate) its slow ageing - The Nature of Middle-Earth: Part One, IV TIME SCALES

All that was past they could fully perceive; but being now in Time the future they could only perceive or explore in so far as its design was made clear to them in the Music - Morgoth's Ring: PART FIVE. Text XI

Thus it came to pass that of the Ainur some abode still with Ilúvatar beyond the confines of the World; but others, and among them many of the greatest and most fair, took the leave of Ilúvatar and descended into it. But this condition Ilúvatar made, or it is the necessity of their love, that their power should thenceforward be contained and bounded in the World, to be within it for ever, until it is complete, so that they are its life and it is theirs. - Silmarillion: AINULINDALË

This isn't an issue for R>F.

I don't understand this sentence. Who are the “sub-creators of the primary reality” other than the Ainur themselves? In Tolkien's fictional primary reality, the only authors are the Ainur. I hope this isn't a reference to the real authors of the real world, is it?

It is. This has been a thing throughout the entire thread. But this statement in and of itself isn't entirely accurate anymore given change in opinion. Sub-creators of the Primary Reality not being different in a way that matters persay (in a power sense).

Beyond the fact that it is highly doubtful that the Ainur have a reality/fiction relationship with Arda, the blog author erroneously denies the subsequent limitations of these.


It's gratuitous. If God exists, all the laws of nature are “perpetual reminders of the existence of God and His invincibility”. This does not mean that these laws are not “significant marks” for beings.

It does, Eru's literal maintaining of these Laws as a Tier 0 being means that bypassing them is not possible in any possible world. They are impossibilities.

Here, “finite nature” is erroneously equated with simply being a creature. But Tolkien is obviously talking about the particular limits of each creature: an author can create anything he imagines ; Tolkien can create anything he imagines, not what he can't conceive.

No it isn't. The language here is saying they are finite in comparison to God. Being finite is itself a limit of contradiction as a finite being possessing infinite (in the Legendarium context) ability to create is a contradiction.

Confusion between what God forbids in the moral sense (you must not) and what God forbids in the metaphysical sense (you cannot). God doesn't want beings to do evil, they can disobey. God doesn't want the Ainur to die, they really can't die (except by his action). The author invokes the fact that Melkor can cause chaos and disorder to deduce that they can free themselves from all limitations, including knowing what they don't know, by a simple effort of will. This makes no sense.
(After reading the whole letter, it turns out that Tolkien is talking about free-will here: God gives the Devil the possibility to do evil, under certain conditions.)

There is no confusion. I was literally writing that a "limit" here was in reference to the moral sense of "you must not", hence why the Valar act according to Eru's Axani.

We might mention anecdotally two limitations of the Ainurs (before their descent):

Ainurs cannot create other souls. It is Eru who creates elves, men and (in part) dwarves :


(It was mentioned in one reply that the “Valar can't create anything”. No, the Valar can create many things, they just can't create everything, especially not souls).

It is God who gives reality to “sub-creation” (and remember : God (Eru) actualized Arda in Tolkien's work, but he didn't actualize Tolkien's work in reality).

Irrelevant, but true. It's impossible in any possible world of Tolkien for anything but God to "Create".

Here Tolkien is saying that the biological imperfections of his world are not so important, because it's fiction. If his world were to really exist, then God (the sole creator) would take care of making what needs to work work. Note in particular the “any plane”.

Well duh. Fictions are secondary worlds. All secondary worlds are fiction compared to the Primary.

I'm not sure I understand this last sentence since it implies that the Ainur belong to “secondary reality”: “in that hierarchy on the same plane with themselves”. In any case, Tolkien seems to be putting Ea and the Ainur on the same ontological plane.

Incorrect. The secondary is given life while the Ainur belong the primary. Though the language here is rather confusing.

"Those who became most involved in this work of An, as it was in the first instance, became so engrossed with it, that when the Creator made it real (that is, gave it the secondary reality, subordinate to his own, which we call primary reality..."
The primary reality of God. Aka the real world/The Creation.

and so in that hierarchy on the same plane with themselves)...."

The primary reality is what the Ainur are equal to. It's sort of a set of expansions on the primary reality.

primary reality

1. Creator's reality
2. We call it the primary reality
3. In the hierarchy it is the same plane with themselves.

Regardless, the notion of the Ainur being of the secondary reality in origin is ridiculous considering they are explicitly of the primary.

It should be noted, incidentally, that in the page on Reality/Fiction interaction, the fact of existing only within fiction (rightly) discalifies transcendence. Here, the case is a little more difficult, since the Valar exist before Ea, then enter it, but they enter it completely. And, setting Eru aside, we can imagine a situation where all the Valar enter Arda, making the latter the only reality.

Conclusion: the “first/secondary reality” relation in the work (Ea, the world in relation to Heaven) is very different from the “first/secundary reality” relation that is the work (a series of writings in relation to the world). What's more, the Valar, even before creation, are not unlimited.

Impossible unless they remove their transcendence by X methodology. This is performed. The Ainur in Eä have fundamentally lost their R>F. No amount of addition or subtraction of a quantitative nature allows this, it is by merit of Eru and their willing descent. This is allowed.

"They were allowed to do so, and the great among them became the equivalent of the 'gods' of traditional mythologies; but a condition was that they would remain 'in it' until the Story was finished." - Letter 200

PS:

The blog author is wrong here:

Whereas Tolkien explicitly states (“I should have said that liberation ‘from the channels the creator is known to have used already’ is the fundamental function of ‘sub-creation’”) that the author is free to explore the channels that God has not used. It is Hastings, on the other hand, who wants to limit himself to the known works of God.

No?

"We differ entirely about the nature of the relation of sub-creation to Creation. I should have said that liberation 'from the channels the creator is known to have used already' is the fundamental function of 'sub-creation', a tribute to the infinity of His potential variety, one of the ways in which indeed it is exhibited, as indeed I said in the Essay. I am not a metaphysician; but I should have thought it a curious metaphysic – there is not one but many, indeed potentially innumerable ones that declared the channels known (in such a finite comer as we have any inkling of) to have been used, are the only possible ones, or efficacious, or possibly acceptable to and by Him! 'Reincarnation' may be bad theology (that surely, rather than metaphysics) as as applied to Humanity; and my legendarium, especially the 'Downfall of Númenor' which lies immediately behind The Lord of the Rings, is based on my view: that Men are essentially mortal and must not try to become 'immortal' in the flesh.† But I do not see how even in the Primary World any theologian or philosopher, unless very much better informed about the relation of spirit and body than I believe anyone to be, could deny the possibility of re-incarnation as a mode of existence, prescribed for certain kinds of rational incarnate creatures."

Tolkien was stating that we cannot limit ourselves to the known works of God, yes, but he was also stating the known works are the ones God is only "known" to have "used already". He is supposing that God has used them in other possible worlds and other possible incarnate beings.

 

[Tyranno223]

I'll post this part real quick too.

"The first practical effect of this fact is that the power of a 1-A character cannot be dispersed so much that it reaches into a lower tier. Since there is no conceivable extension of any lower tier that can yield equality to a 1-A structure, neither can there be any subdivision (Even an infinite subdivision) of 1-A that reduces down into such tiers. Unless, of course, this division is somehow non-quantitative in nature (i.e. The results of the division are not actually numerical "chunks" of the character's power); however, this should be made reasonably clear by statements or through background context."

 

[Ellbekarym]

Indeed.


Projection is incorrect, there is no stand in and the reason for Tier 0 (from this part of the argument) is not that Eru is standing in for another Tier 0 being. For all intents and purposes, Eru is God. Eru's indivisibility from God is accepted. Regardless, Eru is regarded as the "Author of the Story",

No, that's obviously not true. Tolkien doesn't believe elves exist. Eru created the elves. Tolkien therefore does not believe that Eru is idendic to God. The identical are indiscernible, Eru and God are discernible therefore different. If I write a historical novel about Albert Einstein, it's obviously a projection of Einstein in my story, not Einsitein, since I don't believe he did what I made him do, even though I believe he could do it.

None of this is relevant as they are not discussed in Tolkien's worldview. It is supposable Hell and Heaven exists in his ideas, even downright likely, but they are not given any proper presence within the scope of his metaphysics.

Of course that's the heart of the matter. Your argument rests on Arda being a “fictional” secondary reality. But it's obvious that for Tolkien our world is a primary reality. Unfortunately, you seem to be making a lot of confusion between the “real world” and “primary reality”. But the two are orthogonal.

As I unterstand it, your system:

We have ---------- Reality ------- Tolkien's work

Creator ------------ God ---------- Eru
|
Primary Reality -- World----------Timeless Halls
|
Sub-creator---------Us--------------Ainur
|
Secondary R.------Fiction----------Ea

You can see the difference. Note by World and Timeless Halls I include all their denizen, it's the (first) Creation in general in the two context.
God does not actualize Tolkien's work in our world as he actualizes Arda in Tolkien's world. The ontological value of Arda in Tolkien's world is not the same as Tolkien's work in our world. In Tolkien's world, Arda is the center of the universe (in the sense of importance), and everything that happens there is of the utmost importance. Tolkien's work is only a work of fiction; if it hadn't existed, the sun would still be turning. You can't treat the relations as if they were the same.
(I'm not saying that Arda in our world is worth less than Arda in Tolkien's work - that would be trivially true but uninteresting - I'm saying that Tolkien's work in our world is worth less - in terms of reality - than Arda in Tolkien's work and consequentially that the relation Ainur/Ea is not comparable with Tolkien/Middle Earth.)

Regardless, it is not the Timeless Halls that are by themselves all that relevant. On their own, they are Tier 1-A. But it is because they are considered on the same level as the Primary Reality/"Real World" that makes it relevant.

Again, I hope you don't mean “Real World” as in our world. Because if you do, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but since Timeless Halls don't exist, they have no level in common with the Real World.

None of this is exactly up for dispute here, it's been accepted since Low 1-C upgrades. A downgrade in this area is the topic of another thread. That being said,

They are incarnated by the merit of Eru. They cannot descend into Eä without being fundamentally bound to it and limited. For R>F distinctions, this is fine as they fundamentally have been reduced.

The Valar having entered Arda, and being therein confined within its life, must also suffer (while therein and being as it were its spirit, as the fëa is to the hröa of the Incarnate) its slow ageing - The Nature of Middle-Earth: Part One, IV TIME SCALES

All that was past they could fully perceive; but being now in Time the future they could only perceive or explore in so far as its design was made clear to them in the Music - Morgoth's Ring: PART FIVE. Text XI

Thus it came to pass that of the Ainur some abode still with Ilúvatar beyond the confines of the World; but others, and among them many of the greatest and most fair, took the leave of Ilúvatar and descended into it. But this condition Ilúvatar made, or it is the necessity of their love, that their power should thenceforward be contained and bounded in the World, to be within it for ever, until it is complete, so that they are its life and it is theirs. - Silmarillion: AINULINDALË

This isn't an issue for R>F.

We agree that the Valar are linked to Ea. But nothing in these quotations, and nothing in general, shows that Ea's relationship with the Valar is one of the scale of the relation between Tolkien and his work. Tolkien himself said it in the letter, it's just fiction.

It is. This has been a thing throughout the entire thread. But this statement in and of itself isn't entirely accurate anymore given change in opinion. Sub-creators of the Primary Reality not being different in a way that matters persay (in a power sense).

No, I must be mistaken, I'm sorry, but in this case what I thought was wrong becomes completely insane. Your reasoning becomes: “Tolkien can invent anything, so he's omnipotent on his fictional world, but his world isn't really fictional since it describes the real, so beings more powerful than him in the real world (angels) are also more powerful than him as a fictional character (Valar) in the fictional world, so these fictional characters are omnipotent”. Please reassure me that I've misunderstood, that you're not doing some crazy fiction-on-reality feedback loop, because in that case we can stop right there. Apart from the blatant logical contradiction, this ultimately ends up denying the very distinction between reality and fiction.

It does, Eru's literal maintaining of these Laws as a Tier 0 being means that bypassing them is not possible in any possible world. They are impossibilities.

That's right. It follows that these beings are limited. You can't say “intrinsically I'm unlimited, but God limits me”, when we're talking about God the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction is pointless since he makes both beings and circumstances.

No it isn't. The language here is saying they are finite in comparison to God. Being finite is itself a limit of contradiction as a finite being possessing infinite (in the Legendarium context) ability to create is a contradiction.

But I deny that they have an infinite creative power. Tolkien explicitly states that the author is limited. It is a mistake to interpret this limitation as the simple fact that he is not God. Tolkien does not believe he is omniscient.

There is no confusion. I was literally writing that a "limit" here was in reference to the moral sense of "you must not", hence why the Valar act according to Eru's Axani.

There is confusion. You make any limit seem like a moral limit. But if you read the letter you'd realize your mistake:

Free Will is derivative and is only operative within provided circumstances. But in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides: i.e., when it is 'against His Will,' as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view. He does not stop or make 'unreal' sinful acts and their consequences. So, in this myth, it is 'feigned' (legitimately whether that is a feature of the real world or not) that He gave special 'sub-creative' powers to certain of His highest created beings. That is a guarantee that what they devised and made should be given the reality of Creation—of course, within limits, and of course subject to certain commands or prohibitions.

It guarantees free will and therefore moral transgression "within limits, and of course subject to certain commands or prohibitions". Again, there are plenty of things a Vala can't do. Kill another Vala. Know what he doesn't know. Create souls. No doubt, depending on their nature, other things.

Irrelevant, but true. It's impossible in any possible world of Tolkien for anything but God to "Create".

This ruins your thesis that the Valars can create any possible world. They cannot create any possible world containing souls (with free will etc.).

Well duh. Fictions are secondary worlds. All secondary worlds are fiction compared to the Primary.

The point is that Tolkien differentiates between an actualized and a non-actualized (by God) secondary world. I'm arguing that actualized worlds are ontologically similar to primary creation (as they are, in fact, primarily created). In other words:

1 - Ea has an actual existence (in-universe). Sub-creations per se do not (as long as they are not actualized by God).
2 - The omnipotence of the author is simply to be able to imagine anything. But imagining is not doing.
3 - The author's transcendence over his fiction is effective only as long as the latter is fiction.
4 - If tomorrow God (the real one) decides to actualize Tolkien's universe, Tolkien will lose his creative power over his universe, since it is no longer fictional.
5 - The Valars have a certain creative power (to the extent of their intellect) as long as Ea does not exist. Once it does, they no longer have it. They don't transcend Ea, whether inside or outside, precisely because Ea is then no longer a fiction.
(I say “certain” because Eru takes an active part in creation: he proposes themes, interrupts when things go wrong, etc. The Valar are not fancy free).

Incorrect. The secondary is given life while the Ainur belong the primary. Though the language here is rather confusing.

"Those who became most involved in this work of An, as it was in the first instance, became so engrossed with it, that when the Creator made it real (that is, gave it the secondary reality, subordinate to his own, which we call primary reality..."
The primary reality of God. Aka the real world/The Creation.

Those who became most involved in this work of An,

Those = Ainur

as it was in the first instance, became so engrossed with it, that when the Creator made it real (that is, gave it the secondary reality,

Here we see the distinction between imagination and actualization of the world.

subordinate to his own, which we call primary reality,

and so in that hierarchy on the same plane with themselves)

On the same level as themselves. Theirs is the Ainur, the level is secondary reality. I don't see how else to read it. At worst, Tolkien makes a mistake, but the "when"/"and so" implies that it is subsequent to the actualization of the world.

Impossible unless they remove their transcendence by X methodology. This is performed. The Ainur in Eä have fundamentally lost their R>F. No amount of addition or subtraction of a quantitative nature allows this, it is by merit of Eru and their willing descent. This is allowed.

"They were allowed to do so, and the great among them became the equivalent of the 'gods' of traditional mythologies; but a condition was that they would remain 'in it' until the Story was finished." - Letter 200

Indeed, that's your thesis. But I've shown the asymmetry between Tolkien's situation with regard to his work and Ea's with regard to the Valar.

 

[Tyranno223]

No, that's obviously not true. Tolkien doesn't believe elves exist. Eru created the elves. Tolkien therefore does not believe that Eru is idendic to God. The identical are indiscernible, Eru and God are discernible therefore different. If I write a historical novel about Albert Einstein, it's obviously a projection of Einstein in my story, not Einsitein, since I don't believe he did what I made him do, even though I believe he could do it.

This isn't quite right, for Tolkien, at least in his writing, there is a singular Creator who stands above all worlds, fictional all real. Now, Tolkien cannot be certain about any of his claims about the actions of this one God, so he often writes that he "feigns" certain things about God and or his highest creations, such as the angels.

This is not a discussion of whether the Legendarium was considered "real" by Tolkien, indeed it was not, but he was of the hope that, if it pleased the Creator, it would act as a tribute to God's infinity (and potentially be given some life as a secondary thing).

Of course that's the heart of the matter. Your argument rests on Arda being a “fictional” secondary reality. But it's obvious that for Tolkien our world is a primary reality. Unfortunately, you seem to be making a lot of confusion between the “real world” and “primary reality”. But the two are orthogonal.

We have Reality Tolkien's work

Creator God Eru
|
Primary Realiy World Timeless Halls
|
Sub-creator Us Ainur
|
Secondary R. Fiction Ea

You can see the difference. Note by World and Timeless Halls I include all their denizen, it's the (first) Creation in general in the two context.
God does not actualize Tolkien's work in our world as he actualizes Arda in Tolkien's world. The ontological value of Arda in Tolkien's world is not the same as Tolkien's work in our world. In Tolkien's world, Arda is the center of the universe (in the sense of importance), and everything that happens there is of the utmost importance. Tolkien's work is only a work of fiction; if it hadn't existed, the sun would still be turning. You can't treat the relations as if they were the same.
(I'm not saying that Arda in our world is worth less than Arda in Tolkien's work - that would be trivially true but uninteresting - I'm saying that Tolkien's work in our world is worth less - in terms of reality - than Arda in Tolkien's work and consiquentialy that the relation beetween Ainur and Ea is not comparable with Tolkien/Middle Earth.)

This isn't quite right, the language used for Primary Reality is used for the Real World.

"But since the author if it is the supreme Artist and the Author of Reality, this one was also made to Be, to be true on the Primary Plane. So that in the Primary Miracle (the Resurrection) and the lesser Christian miracles too though less, you have not only that sudden glimpse of the truth behind the apparent Anankê2 of our world, but a glimpse that is actually a ray of light through the very chinks of the universe about us." - Letter 89 for example. Note, the Primary Plane and Primary Miracle are obviously two different things.

"For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary 'real' world. (I am speaking, of course, of our present situation, not of ancient pagan, pre-Christian days. And I will not repeat what I tried to say in my essay, which you read.)" - Letter 139 for another example.

"But I do not see how even in the Primary World any theologian or philosopher, unless very much better informed about the relation of spirit and body than I believe anyone to be, could deny the possibility of re-incarnation as a mode of existence, prescribed for certain kinds of rational incarnate creatures." - Letter 153

And irregardless of the correlation, the Timeless Halls stands in immense superiority to secondary realities.

By Timeless Hall I mean the place that contains all the primary reality in Tolkien's work. But again, I hope you don't mean “Real World” as in our world. Because if you do, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but since Timeless Halls don't exist, they have no level in common with the Real World.

Well duh, this is a discussion about metaphysics, not necessarily what is genuinely extant in our world.

We agree that the Valar are linked to Ea. But nothing in these quotations, and nothing in general, shows that Ea's relationship with the Valar is one of reality and fiction.

Very well, I need not convince everyone.

No, I must be mistaken, I'm sorry, but in this case what I thought was wrong becomes completely insane. Your reasoning becomes: “Tolkien can invent anything, so he's omnipotent on his fictional world, but his world isn't really fictional since it describes the real, so beings more powerful than him in the real world (angels) are also more powerful than him as a fictional character (Valar) in the fictional world, so these fictional characters are omnipotent”. Please reassure me that I've misunderstood, that you're not doing some crazy fiction-on-reality feedback loop, because in that case we can stop right there. Apart from the blatant logical contradiction, this ultimately ends up denying the very distinction between reality and fiction.

Mate, this is metaphysics, not reality. 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.

Regardless, this has been the thread from page 1 to 2. I'm surprised you just realised it.

That's right. It follows that these beings are limited. You can't say “intrinsically I'm unlimited, but God limits me”, when we're talking about God the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction is pointless since he makes both beings and circumstances.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Tier 0 then. I can't say more.

But I deny that they have an infinite creative power. Tolkien explicitly states that the author is limited. It is a mistake to interpret this limitation as the simple fact that he is not God. Tolkien does not believe he is omniscient.



If there is confusion. You make any limit seem like a moral limit. But if you read the letter you'd realize your mistake:

You are confused. I was referring to the limit of knowledge in that particularly case. In that regard anyway, the blog is outdated.

It guarantees free will and therefore moral transgression "within limits, and of course subject to certain commands or prohibitions".




This ruins your thesis that the Valars can create any possible world. They cannot create any possible world containing souls (with free will etc.).

Again, Tier 0's are what decides what world is "possible". If a tier 0 makes it impossible, by the tiering system it is impossible. This line of argument doesn't work here.

The point is that Tolkien differentiates between an actualized and a non-actualized (by God) secondary world. I'm arguing that actualized worlds are ontologically similar to primary creation (as they are, in fact, primarily created). In other words:

1 - Ea has an actual existence (in-universe). Sub-creations per se do not (as long as they are not actualized by God).
2 - The omnipotence of the author is simply to be able to imagine anything. But imagining is not doing.
3 - The author's transcendence over his fiction is effective only as long as the latter is fiction.
4 - If tomorrow God (the real one) decides to actualize Tolkien's universe, Tolkien will lose his creative power over his universe, since it is no longer fictional.
5 - The Valars can be considered to have a certain creative power (to the extent of their intellect) as long as Ea does not exist. Once it does, they no longer have it. They don't transcend it, whether inside or outside, precisely because Ea is then no longer a fiction.
(I say “certain” because Eru takes an active part in creation: he proposes themes, interrupts when things go wrong, etc. The Valar are not fancy free).

Irrelevant. Theoreticals and hypotheticals do not matter here and you are bringing in stuff that isn't even an issue. 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.

Those who became most involved in this work of An,

Those = Ainur

as it was in the first instance, became so engrossed with it, that when the Creator made it real (that is, gave it the secondary reality,

Here we see the distinction between imagination and actualization of the world.

subordinate to his own, which we call primary reality,

and so in that hierarchy on the same plane with themselves)

On the same level as themselves. Theirs is the Ainur, the level is secondary reality. I don't see how else to read it. At worst, Tolkien makes a mistake, but the “and so” necessarily implies that it is subsequent to the actualization of the world.

The primary plane is on the same plane with themselves.

 

[Ellbekarym]

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.

 

[Tyranno223]

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.

No worries, I do type a bit fast tbh.

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.

I just fundamentally disagree with you there. I'm not trying to sidestep your argument here, I'm trying to halt it. I am flat out just disagreeing with you here.

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.

I genuinely don't have much to say here. I am not making an argument based on just belief, I am taking the Letters, notes, books, etc and producing an argument that is formed from what Tolkien has written about his beliefs.

He writes that he believes in an indivisible God that is the same across all things. He writes that he believes sub-creation is an act of tribute to God. He writes that he believes

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).

That is nonsense. Hypothetical nonsense that doesn't even consider the fact that Tolkien calls the Ainur "true immortals". Regardless, this is purely hypothetical so it would never fly here. You can't use an argument like this.

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.

I disputed it by saying nay. It's just flat out incorrect. Not much else to say.

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.

...what? The limit of knowledge provided by Eru to work in. Melkor went beyond his ordained knowledge to pursue his own desires. Regardless, knowledge isn't a relevant limit here either. High 1-A+ are fine with limited knowledge.

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.

No, you cannot bring a theoretical thing such as a nonsensical "Super Vala" that does not fly here.

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.

It does. Literal "impossibilities" are creations of Eru. Impossible things are not a "limit" other than that of contradiction.

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.

Sure, I haven't updated this in a while, but sure.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Oh, Lord, this progressed quite a bit.

I'm free for this weekend, ostensibly, so I'll try to get around to this eventually. No shortage of threads that I should be looking at, so.

 

[Ellbekarym]

And now I'm continuing, even though I said I'd stop.

No worries, I do type a bit fast tbh.


I just fundamentally disagree with you there. I'm not trying to sidestep your argument here, I'm trying to halt it. I am flat out just disagreeing with you here.

I don't doubt it. But my point stands, until proven otherwise.

I genuinely don't have much to say here. I am not making an argument based on just belief, I am taking the Letters, notes, books, etc and producing an argument that is formed from what Tolkien has written about his beliefs.

So you're making an argument based on these beliefs. I don't see why you're denying the obvious. We're always talking about the author's beliefs, whoever they are. And Tolkien wrote that LotR is fiction which, although it may convey theological truths, remains fiction.

He writes that he believes in an indivisible God that is the same across all things. He writes that he believes sub-creation is an act of tribute to God. He writes that he believes

Tolkien does not believe that Eru created elves. He does not believe that there is an Aule who created dwarves. He doesn't believe that what he writes is as authoritative as the Bible or the Catholic Church. He doesn't believe he's a prophet inspired by God to write about God. Your whole argument rests on this point, which you know to be false, you have admitted is false. Tolkien knows and says that what he writes is fiction. Fiction can contain truth (and necessarily does) doesn't change that fact.

That is nonsense. Hypothetical nonsense that doesn't even consider the fact that Tolkien calls the Ainur "true immortals". Regardless, this is purely hypothetical so it would never fly here. You can't use an argument like this.

Melkor will be killed at the end of time. So no. In any case, this argument is ridiculous: if a Tier 0 being forbids teleportation, no one will be able to teleport, but if he lifts the ban it doesn't follow that everyone will acquire the power of teleportation. Ainur can't do a lot of things that are perfectly possible to acquire without questioning Eru's Tier 0.

I disputed it by saying nay. It's just flat out incorrect. Not much else to say.

No argument, no value.

...what? The limit of knowledge provided by Eru to work in. Melkor went beyond his ordained knowledge to pursue his own desires. Regardless, knowledge isn't a relevant limit here either. High 1-A+ are fine with limited knowledge.

No, purely gratuitous interpretation. Melkor doesn't know a lot of things.

No, you cannot bring a theoretical thing such as a nonsensical "Super Vala" that does not fly here.

There are no nonsense. When an omnipotent being is in the equation, it's hard to make nonsense like that.

It does. Literal "impossibilities" are creations of Eru. Impossible things are not a "limit" other than that of contradiction.

Well, no. I'm not even talking about Eru's power, or possibility or impossibility. You just said “nope” and went off-topic.

 

[Ellbekarym]

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.

 

[Tyranno223]

SNIP

Mate, I genuinely cannot with this. I will simply be repeating myself.

Chief of all, you genuinely cannot bring in a hypothetical thing like "Super Valar" or something to a Revision thread as serious point. It doesn't fly here. Please stop that line of argument. Seriously.

That plus please understand that if a Tier 0 makes it so jumping is impossible in a verse, jumping is impossible. Such is literal omnipotence. And no, this doesn't open an avenue for Super Ainur (and Melkor dying in Dagor Dagorath is literally an abandoned draft with no finalised one being made).

This isn't even me trying to defend a LotR position, I am trying to inform you on parts of how the wiki operates.

Regardless, this back and forth needs to stop as we are repeating our points. This is cluttering the thread as a result.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

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.

I think this holier than thou attitude isn't helping you NGL.

I think the weird metafictional arguments involving tolkien used against the proposals are just ???? The point is to just say "Tolkien's personal philosophy is intrinsically part of his works". There is no transcendent Tolkien viewing all of LotR as fiction in the setting.

 

[Tyranno223]

I think this holier than thou attitude isn't helping you NGL.

This isn't a holier than thou thing, I am trying to inform you on parts of how the Wiki function. The usage of hypotheticals on that scale genuinely cannot be used. That plus Tier 0s defining what a Verse logic is.

Edit: I am a blind bat

 

[LegendariumOfLies]

Agree. Tolkien finally gets the respect he deserves.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

This isn't a holier than thou thing, I am trying to tell you on parts of the Wiki. The tier usage of hypotheticals on that scale genuinely cannot be used. That plus Tier 0s defining what a Verse logic is.

i think you mistook me as the guy you're arguing with

 

[Tyranno223]

i think you mistook me as the guy you're arguing with

Oops. Yeah, I'm very tired, sorry MGQ. I really should just go to sleep.

 

[LegendariumOfLies]

Oops. Yeah, I'm very tired, sorry MGQ. I really should just go to sleep.

Gets some Z's bro.

 

[Ellbekarym]

I think this holier than thou attitude isn't helping you NGL.

I think the weird metafictional arguments involving tolkien used against the proposals are just ???? The point is to just say "Tolkien's personal philosophy is intrinsically part of his works". There is no transcendent Tolkien viewing all of LotR as fiction in the setting.

That's his thesis. “Tolkien's personal philosophy is intrinsically part of his works” is the way to hide it behind a platitude. But he didn't deny it. What he's saying is that, fundamentally, for Tolkien, the Valar exist as he described them and so on. The fact that you're wrong about his thesis (because, yes, there is a transcendent Tolkien who regards the rest as fiction; and above him a God and angels who exist both inside and outside of the fiction) shows that I'm right: people don't understand the nature of the argument.

Mate, I genuinely cannot with this. I will simply be repeating myself.

Chief of all, you genuinely cannot bring in a hypothetical thing like "Super Valar" or something to a Revision thread as serious point. It doesn't fly here. Please stop that line of argument. Seriously.

That plus please understand that if a Tier 0 makes it so jumping is impossible in a verse, jumping is impossible. Such is literal omnipotence. And no, this doesn't open an avenue for Super Ainur (and Melkor dying in Dagor Dagorath is literally an abandoned draft with no finalised one being made).

This isn't even me trying to defend a LotR position, I am trying to inform you on parts of how the wiki operates.

Regardless, this back and forth needs to stop as we are repeating our points. This is cluttering the thread as a result.

The Similarilion is a draft in itself. But you can't pretend that Melkor's death is something anecdotal. Even supposing he abandoned the idea (he may have abandoned a particular formulation, but the idea of Melkor's final destruction seems solid) he seriously considered it. You're trying to dismiss a “super Valar” with contempt, but you are no one to declare which arguments are legitimate ; the Valar are themselves “super-maiar”, the latter being equal to High 1-A+ according to your thesis. Anyway it's a detail of the argument, that's not to mention the fact that Valar don't know things and can't create souls.

You didn't understand my point about Tier 0s, but that doesn't matter.