Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

[Tyranno223]

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

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

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

 

[Livinmeme]

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

 

[Tyranno223]

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

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

 

[Ellbekarym]

We can break this down simply

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

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

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

Regarding the quotes on primary/secondary reality:

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

As for the quotes on Time:

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

As for the quote about “higher beings”:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

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

vsbattles.com

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

 

[Tyranno223]

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

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

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

 

[Lordhesperus]

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

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

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

Also a few loose ends.

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

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

As well as that he allowed Appealing to Ridicule.

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

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

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

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

not only but also equivocation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Tyranno223]

As well as that he allowed Appealing to Ridicule.

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

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

 

[Ellbekarym]

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

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

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

As well as that he allowed Appealing to Ridicule.

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

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

not only but also equivocation.

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

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

 

[Eseseso]

Can't this already be applied?

 

[Lordhesperus]

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



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


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

equates your thesis into an oversimplified formula: (Valar exist = they are more powerful than Tolkien") which doesn't undoubtedly follow logically. Just because an author believes in the existence of beings doesn't Directly make those beings more powerful than the author. I am not trying to accuse you of not analyzing anything. There are just things here that I disagree with what you said. You assume that I am engaging in a sophism (a form of deceptive reasoning), and instead of addressing the substance of my argument you attack my reasoning, not the argument itself. Can you clarify what you mean by 'sophism' in the context of our discussion?

I see you are making the dubious parallel between two different types of "reality" - the reality of our world versus the reality within fiction. You are trying to equate how Eru, doing something "real" within a fictional universe, would work in the same way as God doing something real in our actual world. If Eru created the Valar and Arda, how do you reconcile the idea of them being "real" with the notion that Tolkien himself was aware he was writing fiction?

When says to me: If you don't understand, you ask for clarification you don't a priori accuse others of sophistry


You shifting the burden from you (the one making claims) to Me to seek clarification rather than accepting responsibility to make your arguments clear. + tries to reframe the discussion by saying "The debate is more about the point above" rather than addressing the specific fallacies pointed out.

 

[Tyranno223]

equates your thesis into an oversimplified formula: (Valar exist = they are more powerful than Tolkien") which doesn't undoubtedly follow logically. Just because an author believes in the existence of beings doesn't Directly make those beings more powerful than the author. I am not trying to accuse you of not analyzing anything. There are just things here that I disagree with what you said. You assume that I am engaging in a sophism (a form of deceptive reasoning), and instead of addressing the substance of my argument you attack my reasoning, not the argument itself. Can you clarify what you mean by 'sophism' in the context of our discussion?

I see you are making the dubious parallel between two different types of "reality" - the reality of our world versus the reality within fiction. You are trying to equate how Eru, doing something "real" within a fictional universe, would work in the same way as God doing something real in our actual world. If Eru created the Valar and Arda, how do you reconcile the idea of them being "real" with the notion that Tolkien himself was aware he was writing fiction?

When says to me: If you don't understand, you ask for clarification you don't a priori accuse others of sophistry


You shifting the burden from you (the one making claims) to Me to seek clarification rather than accepting responsibility to make your arguments clear. + tries to reframe the discussion by saying "The debate is more about the point above" rather than addressing the specific fallacies pointed out.

To quote Pein, there's no use trying "to argue with people who are dogmatic in their views, as that will just lead to a circle of argument". I think this applies well to Ellbekarym.

Best to just wait for Ultima at this point. There's no use discussing with someone who claims our arguments are sophistry and insane. There's no debate to be had.

Edit: I am beginning to think a cosmology page is unnecessary at this stage since everything will be more or less explained in pages so I'll be shelving that. Just the page drafts will be uploaded for staff evaluation before asking this thread to be closed once Ultima comes in.

 

[Lordhesperus]

To quote Pein, there's no use trying "to argue with people who are dogmatic in their views, as that will just lead to a circle of argument". I think this applies well to Ellbekarym.

Best to just wait for Ultima at this point. There's no use discussing with someone who claims our arguments are sophistry and insane. There's no debate to be had.

Edit: I am beginning to think a cosmology page is unnecessary at this stage since everything will be more or less explained in pages so I'll be shelving that. Just the page drafts will be uploaded for staff evaluation before asking this thread to be closed once Ultima comes in.

Edit: I agree. Ellbekarym makes the Argument circular when he claims that "the Valar are 1-A+ in fiction because in reality they are more powerful than Tolkien, he is essentially using the conclusions to prove the details - he admits circular reasoning.

 

[Tyranno223]

I agree Ellbekarym makes the Argument circular when he claims that "the Valar are 1-A+ in fiction because in reality they are more powerful than Tolkien, he is essentially using the conclusions to prove the details - this is called circular reasoning.

It's not even part of the argument anyway.

All sub-creators of the Primary reality are considered equal in power (as in the power levels kind), with the differentiation in might being more a result of limitations in knowledge and certainty. Something Ultima was fine with when I talked to them in conversations. The language I used in the blog for that part is out of date.

And honestly, the argument that the Ainur aren't of the primary plane (which isn't even a topic of debate for this thread and somehow the less troublesome thing next to fricking hypothetical "Super Valar" and usage of "Dagor Dagorath" of all things) is ridiculous when it is blatantly stated they are. But I'm feeding into the whole back and forth at this point so I'll stop.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

It's not even part of the argument anyway.

All sub-creators of the Primary reality are considered equal in power (as in the power levels kind), with the differentiation in might being more a result of limitations in knowledge and certainty. Something Ultima was fine with when I talked to them in conversations. The language I used in the blog for that part is out of date.

And honestly, the argument that the Ainur aren't of the primary plane (which isn't even a topic of debate for this thread and somehow the less troublesome thing next to fricking hypothetical "Super Valar" and usage of "Dagor Dagorath" of all things) is ridiculous when it is blatantly stated they are. But I'm feeding into the whole back and forth at this point so I'll stop.

You can kind of compare and contrast with Real Life Authors/Writers. All of them are equal in theory, capable of making the exact same fictional universes, but some may be limited by their knowledge and levels of imagination/creativity. Hopefully that isn't a completely off comparison.

 

[Tyranno223]

You can kind of compare and contrast with Real Life Authors/Writers. All of them are equal in theory, capable of making the exact same fictional universes, but some may be limited by their knowledge and levels of imagination/creativity. Hopefully that isn't a completely off comparison.

Nah, it's a fair, even downright good comparison.

 

[Ellbekarym]

equates your thesis into an oversimplified formula: (Valar exist = they are more powerful than Tolkien")

Edit: I agree. Ellbekarym makes the Argument circular when he claims that "the Valar are 1-A+ in fiction because in reality they are more powerful than Tolkien, he is essentially using the conclusions to prove the details - he admits circular reasoning.

I don't know what else to say. Tyranno's whole argument rests on this. It's his argument. The Valar correspond to the angels of the real world, so they're stronger than Tolkien. It's obvious that if the Valar exist they're stronger than Tolkien, just as it's obvious that Superman is stronger than me if he exists. It's not a simplification.

(Or in any case, as powerful as he is in relation to his fiction - as real characters. It all boils down to the same thing).

and instead of addressing the substance of my argument you attack my reasoning, not the argument itself.

You have no argument. You came out of nowhere crying “muh sophism”.

Can you clarify what you mean by 'sophism' in the context of our discussion?

I'm making disparaging remarks about the opposite thesis -> I haven't formulated an argument against the opposing thesis. That's your sophism.

I see you are making the dubious parallel between two different types of "reality" - the reality of our world versus the reality within fiction. You are trying to equate how Eru, doing something "real" within a fictional universe, would work in the same way as God doing something real in our actual world.

On the contrary, I separate them. I'm saying precisely that they shouldn't be treated in the same way, that there's a difference between the two - that's all I've been saying for several pages now.

If Eru created the Valar and Arda, how do you reconcile the idea of them being "real" with the notion that Tolkien himself was aware he was writing fiction?

Because they're real in fiction, but fiction itself isn't real. Superman exists in fiction involving Superman, not in real life. Do you even know what fiction is?

You shifting the burden from you (the one making claims) to Me to seek clarification rather than accepting responsibility to make your arguments clear.

My point is clear. I'm just repeating myself.

+ tries to reframe the discussion by saying "The debate is more about the point above" rather than addressing the specific fallacies pointed out.

It's unbelievable. It's Tyranno who wants this to be off-topic. I'm perfectly happy to challenge R>F. I've answered your alleged “fallacies”.

To quote Pein, there's no use trying "to argue with people who are dogmatic in their views, as that will just lead to a circle of argument". I think this applies well to Ellbekarym.

You're taking the words right out of my mouth.

 

[Tyranno223]

I don't know what else to say. Tyranno's whole argument rests on this. It's his argument. The Valar correspond to the angels of the real world, so they're stronger than Tolkien. It's obvious that if the Valar exist they're stronger than Tolkien, just as it's obvious that Superman is stronger than me if he exists. It's not a simplification.

Mate, the very fact you wrote this shows you don't get what my argument is about.

Yes they are "real angels", but they are only "feigned" interpretations of "real angels" and are not considered "stronger" than Tolkien.

 

[Ellbekarym]

Mate, the very fact you wrote this shows you don't get what my argument is about.

Yes they are "real angels", but they are only "feigned" interpretations of "real angels" and are not considered "stronger" than Tolkien.

No. You yourself admitted that this was the case in your second answer and you've never disputed the point until now.

 

[Tyranno223]

No. You yourself admitted that this was the case in your second answer and you've never disputed the point until now.

? https://vsbattles.com/threads/tolkien-tier-high-1-a-and-0-proposal.171747/post-6860690

I specifically dispute the notion of them being "stronger" than Tolkien in a power level sense. I have linked this twice on this page alone.

 

[Ellbekarym]

? https://vsbattles.com/threads/tolkien-tier-high-1-a-and-0-proposal.171747/post-6860690

I specifically dispute the notion of them being "stronger" than Tolkien in a power level sense. I have linked this twice on this page alone.

I don't know what you mean by “power level sense”, but you say they're stronger in relation to fiction.

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.

I ask you specifically if that's the case, and you say you're surprised I didn't figure it out sooner. It's cheeky to say “you don't understand my point” when you've confirmed to me that it is.

But that's ultimately irrelevant. My argument clearly shows the difference between Tokien/his work and Ainur/Arda - whatever justification is used.

 

[Tyranno223]

I ask you specifically if that's the case, and you say you're surprised I didn't figure it out sooner. It's cheeky to say “you don't understand my point” when you've confirmed to me that you do.

My responses to you there are regarding the division from the Ainur to the Sub-creators of the Primary Reality. I am disagreeing with you there. They aren't somehow "stronger" in that area.

But that's ultimately irrelevant. My argument clearly shows the difference between Tokien/his work and Ainur/Arda - whatever justification is used.

And I am genuinely confused about this point given that there is literally one instance which might say that the Secondary Reality is = to the Ainur in origin when actualised, but can equally mean they are of the Primary Reality.

In contrast, we have multiple statements of the Ainur being of the Primary Reality and being Creations, not Sub-creations, who are beyond Eä. Something which is limited only to Space and Time with no higher dimensions (as of now).

They are "feigned" "real angels" who are meant to be Tolkien's interpretation of real angels just as he interprets Sub-creators as the creators of an infinity of possible secondary worlds. And not being able to create a primary world is no limit, that is a right reserved to the resident Tier 0 as an impossibility for anything else, making it not a limit that is an issue to High 1-A+ (and you'll have to dispute Ultima about that one, not me).

Edit: At this point, we might as well move this to conversations since we're just cluttering up the thread. I really should listen to my own advice.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

Why are you all still doing this back and forth ? We should just wait for Ultima before he is delayed even further by having to read all of this.

 

[Tyranno223]

Why are you all still doing this back and forth ? We should just wait for Ultima before he is delayed even further by having to read all of this.

Yeah, you're right. I really should listen to my own words.

 

[Ellbekarym]

Why are you all still doing this back and forth ? We should just wait for Ultima before he is delayed even further by having to read all of this.

To reply to what Tyranno has just said would be tantamount to repeating everything I've said (apart from the fact that he claims I'm badly formulating his thesis, whereas I've been using this formulation for days and he hasn't found anything wrong with it). But it was Lordhesperus who attacked me and to whom I am responding.

EDIT: Indeed, “to conversations”. Below Tyranno lies head-on. I formulated his reasoning several times in this way, never said anything against it and even confirmed it, reading the thread allows one to realize it. Really, there's nothing more to say.

 

[Tyranno223]

SNIP

To conversations. We're cluttering the thread badly.

Edit: What do you mean? I have continuously found your formulation erroneous and wrong, I have constantly disagreed with you since my first response and found you exhausting due to your usage of ridiculous stuff like the fanfic hypotheticals of "Super Valar". I have not once thought your formulation to be reflective of what I am arguing. Regardless. To conversations.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Why are you all still doing this back and forth ? We should just wait for Ultima before he is delayed even further by having to read all of this.

Bit too late for that, innit.

Regardless: I'll go through all this now. Expect a review post soon enough.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

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

This argument is pretty reductive. Arguing that Tolkien's metaphysics are applicable to the cosmology of the Legendarium isn't the same as saying that Eru is numerically the same as the God that Tolkien believed exists IRL. It just means that Tolkien has a personal system in which his understanding of the world is gathered, and this system is then directly applied to the Legendarium, up to and including particular terminology relevant to this discussion (e.g. "Sub-creator"). Here, there was an attempt to reduce this interconnection to something on the level of "Tolkien believes God exists and writes about God in his work," but it's very plain that it goes deeper than this.

So the bottom line is that everything Tolkien says of God in the context of his personal metaphysics is also true of God (Eru) in the Legendarium, but that doesn't mean the argument results in Eru and other things in LoTR existing IRL. That's a non-sequitur.

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).

This is a pretty interesting argument. Basically arguing that, when Eä exists as only the Music of the Ainur, it isn't real at all, and it only becomes real (As in, the actual Eä, the universe) when Eru endows it with the Flame But when Eä becomes real, is precisely when it comes to be on the same level as the Ainur, based on this:

"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, and so in that hierarchy on the same plane with themselves) they desired to enter into it, from the beginning of its 'realization'."
– Letter 200

It does, at prima facie, seem to saying that the Ainur live in the secondary reality, Eru in the primary, and Eä is a story/vision that is given secondary reality on par with the Ainur's by the Flame Imperishable. But Tyranno's already pointed out that the Ainur being of the primary reality is already accepted, and they are stated to be from "the primary creation," so I'll leave that alone. It's not a topic of discussion for this thread.

So: Let's grant that the Ainur exist in the primary reality, and that when the Ainulindale is given existence by Eru, it becomes a secondary reality relative to themselves. Looking at it now, I think a problem for them being High 1-A+ would come into play here: It's been clarified that, as far as can be ascertained, knowledge is the definer of power for the Ainur. Yet, if their knowledge is their power at that level, them being High 1-A+ would pretty much necessitate that their knowledge exhausts everything that Eru can create, which doesn't seem correct.

For that matter, the Star Maker was brought up as an example of a character who has the raw capacity but not the knowledge to make all possible worlds, but that case is different precisely because, in there, power and knowledge are distinct. Here, they're being argued to be identical. So there's not much of a comparison.

Otherwise: The reason for why the statement about writers having no limits save the laws of contradiction is applied to the Ainur is that the Ainur are from "The Primary Reality," which is also what Tolkien terms the real world in which writers like himself live. Now, Tolkien and etc. don't actually exist in the Legendarium, so the argument seems to be moreso that Tolkien considers the Ainur to be functionally of the same nature as writers are in his understanding of the world, and as such the statements about the latter are applicable to the former.

Compounded with the issue of the Ainur's knowledge, I'm admittedly not as sold on this line of reasoning. Mostly because it's missing a link: There is a gap between "The Ainur live in a primary reality to which Eä is secondaries" and "Therefore they have the same abilities as writers." This gap as it stands seems to be filled with "Tolkien uses the term "primary reality" to talk about both where the Ainur are from and the real world," but I do struggle to see how that's adequate justification at all. In Eru's case, at least it's talking about the exact same thing (i.e. God considered as the wellspring of all possible stories and worlds), which isn't the case with the Ainur/Writers comparison.

So, I'm neutral on High 1-A+ Ainur as it stands, since I'd like more information to collapse my stance towards agreeing or disagreeing.

(This is only for the Ainur, by the way. Obviously, I think Eru is still perfectly fine at 0)

 

[Tyranno223]

This argument is pretty reductive. Arguing that Tolkien's metaphysics are applicable to the cosmology of the Legendarium isn't the same as saying that Eru is numerically the same as the God that Tolkien believed exists IRL. It just means that Tolkien has a personal system in which his understanding of the world is gathered, and this system is then directly applied to the Legendarium, up to and including particular terminology relevant to this discussion (e.g. "Sub-creator"). Here, there was an attempt to reduce this interconnection to something on the level of "Tolkien believes God exists and writes about God in his work," but it's very plain that it goes deeper than this.

So the bottom line is that everything Tolkien says of God in the context of his personal metaphysics is also true of God (Eru) in the Legendarium, but that doesn't mean the argument results in Eru and other things in LoTR existing IRL. That's a non-sequitur.

Before anything, thank you very much for this part. It was frustrating to deal with that reductivist argument in particular.

This is a pretty interesting argument. Basically arguing that, when Eä exists as only the Music of the Ainur, it isn't real at all, and it only becomes real (As in, the actual Eä, the universe) when Eru endows it with the Flame But when Eä becomes real, is precisely when it comes to be on the same level as the Ainur, based on this:

"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, and so in that hierarchy on the same plane with themselves) they desired to enter into it, from the beginning of its 'realization'."
– Letter 200

It does, at prima facie, seem to saying that the Ainur live in the secondary reality, Eru in the primary, and Eä is a story/vision that is given secondary reality on par with the Ainur's by the Flame Imperishable. But Tyranno's already pointed out that the Ainur being of the primary reality is already accepted, and they are stated to be from "the primary creation," so I'll leave that alone. It's not a topic of discussion for this thread.

So: Let's grant that the Ainur exist in the primary reality, and that when the Ainulindale is given existence by Eru, it becomes a secondary reality relative to themselves. Looking at it now, I think a problem for them being High 1-A+ would come into play here: It's been clarified that, as far as can be ascertained, knowledge is the definer of power for the Ainur. Yet, if their knowledge is their power at that level, them being High 1-A+ would pretty much necessitate that their knowledge exhausts everything that Eru can create, which doesn't seem correct.

For that matter, the Star Maker was brought up as an example of a character who has the raw capacity but not the knowledge to make all possible worlds, but that case is different precisely because, in there, power and knowledge are distinct. Here, they're being argued to be identical. So there's not much of a comparison.

Otherwise: The reason for why the statement about writers having no limits save the laws of contradiction is applied to the Ainur is that the Ainur are from "The Primary Reality," which is also what Tolkien terms the real world in which writers like himself live. Now, Tolkien and etc. don't actually exist in the Legendarium, so the argument seems to be moreso that Tolkien considers the Ainur to be functionally of the same nature as writers are in his understanding of the world, and as such the statements about the latter are applicable to the former.

Compounded with the issue of the Ainur's knowledge, I'm admittedly not as sold on this line of reasoning. Mostly because it's missing a link: There is a gap between "The Ainur live in a primary reality to which Eä is secondaries" and "Therefore they have the same abilities as writers." This gap as it stands seems to be filled with "Tolkien uses the term "primary reality" to talk about both where the Ainur are from and the real world," but I do struggle to see how that's adequate justification at all. In Eru's case, at least it's talking about the exact same thing (i.e. God considered as the wellspring of all possible stories and worlds), which isn't the case with the Ainur/Writers comparison.

So, I'm neutral on High 1-A+ Ainur as it stands, since I'd like more information to collapse my stance towards agreeing or disagreeing.

(This is only for the Ainur, by the way. Obviously, I think Eru is still perfectly fine at 0)

The chief connecting chain I use is the Letter regarding the "limts" of the sub-creators itself. Letter 153.

"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 : sc. 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 'subcreative' 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.)"

Now, the Ainur are described as the "highest created beings" (created beings being another instance of their existence as Primary things as they are not sub-created beings) and possessing "special" subcreative power in comparison to other beings. This would of course include the Sub-creators of the Primary Reality. Now the latter part of the letter deals in the sub-created world of Eä (and indeed, the origin of orcs and other such things is a topic of debate within the Tolkien community, but it is made very clear that the Ainur cannot create life like Eru can), but the former part does briefly discuss the "fall" which of course happened at the Music. But neither part is too relevant compared to the discussion of what Tolkien means by sub-creators here.

The chief hallmark here is that:

1. The Ainur's role as "special" sub-creators is that, unlike say writers, they are given the gift of "certainty" and this is not a form of sub-creation that is distinguished from Tolkien's kind, with Tolkien using artistic sub-creation as an example of when he refers to a different kind from that of literal creation.
2. As such, they are considered beings who have sub-creative gifts of "certainty" from God and are described as possessing a similar sort of sub-creative power as Tolkien, with Tolkien clarifying when he discusses a different type of sub-creation.
3. As their only difference to writers is that very certainty, they should be comparable as sub-creators.

For now, this is my immediate addressing of the matter.

Edit: The same type of guarantee from Eru is also present here, albeit the Ainur are aware of it while writers only assume it.

Edit 2: While knowledge is a "limit" of sorts to the Ainur, I do not consider it a limit on capability so much as a limit on imagination? For example, when Morgoth's song overcomes the music of other Ainur, none are harmed, not even those nearest to him. Furthermore, all the actual capabilities of the Valar appear equal at this stage, as any could have gone the route of Melkor if they had decided to repute Eru's lessons and strike out on their own.

It stands that the Ainur do not so much differ in literal power so much as knowledge at this stage, with said knowledge being the grounds upon which they are compared.

Edit 3:

I will note that the grammar of Letter 200
"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, and so in that hierarchy on the same plane with themselves) they desired to enter into it, from the beginning of its 'realization'."

Can be used to argue that the Ainur are from the secondary reality, but it can equally mean.

1. Eru gave the the Music existence as the secondary reality.
2. This reality is subordinate to Eru's reality
3. We call Eru's creality the primary reality
4. It is the same plane with the Ainur.

And of course it's a single line vs multiple that imply or assert Ainur as beings of the primary reality.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I'm not following into those specifics as guaranteeing High 1-A+. Seems lackluster to me. I mean its not impossible to see but I don't think that's good enough, to be frank.

 

[Tyranno223]

I'm not following into those specifics as guaranteeing High 1-A+. Seems lackluster to me. I mean its not impossible to see but I don't think that's good enough, to be frank.

It mostly depends on the Sub-creators (aka writers) being High 1-A+ already and the Ainur scaling or not.

Tbh, a "likely" or "possibly" isn't off the books. For example a "At least 1-A, possible High 1-A+" sort of rating.

Edit: And my laptop had to crash when I was editing in a second part to to my response. Ah bugger.

 

[Tyranno223]

To expand on my point on the limits of the Ainur being "knowledge" point that was edited in. To pull an extract from an earlier post

---

Of course, this lack of knowledge isn't restricting beyond say their creativity, they can go beyond their given roles due to their free-wills afterall. Therefore, there isn't a restriction on their ability to influence/create all possible words (having the capacity even if not the knowledge seems acceptable judging by profiles like The Star-Maker).

• "...Melkor knew his will without questioning it; and he knew that Manwë was bound by the commands and injunctions of Eru, and would do this or abstain from that in accordance with them, always, even knowing that Melkor would break them as it suited his purpose." - The Nature of Middle-Earth: Part Two, IX ÓSANWE-KENTA
• "In this Myth the rebellion of created free-will precedes creation of the World (Eä); and Eä has in it, subcreatively introduced, evil, rebellions, discordant elements of its own nature already when the Let it Be was spoken." - Letter 212

Moreover, there isn't a true "power" difference in the "punch harder" way. For example, even at point-blank (relatively speaking on such a higher scale), none of the "lesser" Ainur were harmed by Melkor.

• "But the discord of Melkor rose in uproar and contended with it, and again there was a war of sound more violent than before, until many of the Ainur were dismayed and sang no longer, and Melkor had the mastery..." - The Silmarillion: AINULINDALË

---

By this I was somewhat trying to differentiate the idea of literal power from knowledge. Ainur at this stage of their existence do not have a outright definition to their "might" beyond knowledge, yes. Indeed,this is why Manwë is mightier than say some Maiar.

"Knowledge of the Story as it was when composed, before realization, gave them their measure of fore-knowledge; the amount varied very much, from the fairly complete knowledge of the mind of the Creator in this matter possessed by Manwë, the 'Elder King', to that of lesser spirits who might have been interested only in some subsidiary matter (such as trees or birds)." - Letter 200. - emphasis on fairly, Manwë comes as close as possible, no more than that.

But this doesn't seem to be power in the sense of "Goku's kamehameha beats Vegeta's Galick Gun". Ainur at this stage cannot harm one another and can only overcome one another via "knowledge". Melkor overcame lesser Ainur with his discordant music, but no harm was done upon those who were against him despite the great power of the Musics.

Moreover, while knowledge limits what they can "create", it is only because they obey Eru's laws. When Melkor decided to become disobedient, he made something he was not taught, the discourse of Evil. This is in contrast to Manwë who naturally would never go beyond them.
"...Melkor knew his will without questioning it; and he knew that Manwë was bound by the commands and injunctions of Eru, and would do this or abstain from that in accordance with them, always, even knowing that Melkor would break them as it suited his purpose." - The Nature of Middle-Earth: Part Two, IX ÓSANWE-KENTA

Therefore in this sense, knowledge can be used to say X Ainu is "mightier" as they possess more ability to create, but only because they obey Eru. Once Eru is disobeyed, Ainur can go beyond thier knowledge and make whatever they imagine, just like a writer.

It's essentially that the Ainur are assistants to the author until one goes off on their own to become their own author... well not really as Eru cannot be equaled, but there you go.

Edit: This thread has taught me I probably need to get better at wording things.

 

[Ellbekarym]

So the bottom line is that everything Tolkien says of God in the context of his personal metaphysics is also true of God (Eru) in the Legendarium, but that doesn't mean the argument results in Eru and other things in LoTR existing IRL. That's a non-sequitur.

I'm perfectly in agreement with that, since it's an idea I'm attacking. It's more than a non-sequitur, it's not true. Having said that, we're just talking about the Ainur, i.e. angels, not God. And if I also find it doubtful that we can say that everything concerning God concerns Eru (Eru doesn't even seem to be Trinitarian) even less can we say that for angels, of whom Tolkien speaks much less.

This is a pretty interesting argument. Basically arguing that, when Eä exists as only the Music of the Ainur, it isn't real at all, and it only becomes real (As in, the actual Eä, the universe) when Eru endows it with the Flame But when Eä becomes real, is precisely when it comes to be on the same level as the Ainur, based on this:

Yes. This argument challenges 1-A in itself and therefore High 1-A+ a fortiori. But :

It does, at prima facie, seem to saying that the Ainur live in the secondary reality, Eru in the primary, and Eä is a story/vision that is given secondary reality on par with the Ainur's by the Flame Imperishable. But Tyranno's already pointed out that the Ainur being of the primary reality is already accepted, and they are stated to be from "the primary creation," so I'll leave that alone. It's not a topic of discussion for this thread.

I'm not saying that the Ainur aren't in primary reality. I'm saying that the ontological gap between primary/secondary no longer exists as soon as Ea is actualized. The primary/secondary difference simply becomes the difference between God's direct creation and indirect creation, i.e. with the assistance of his creatures.

Otherwise: The reason for why the statement about writers having no limits save the laws of contradiction is applied to the Ainur is that the Ainur are from "The Primary Reality," which is also what Tolkien terms the real world in which writers like himself live. Now, Tolkien and etc. don't actually exist in the Legendarium, so the argument seems to be moreso that Tolkien considers the Ainur to be functionally of the same nature as writers are in his understanding of the world, and as such the statements about the latter are applicable to the former.

The problem being, of course, as I've pointed out several times, that Tolkien never said that writers, except God, were limited only by the law of non-condradiction. They are limited by their intellect and nature, as Tolkien is.

Now, the Ainur are described as the "highest created beings" (created beings being another instance of their existence as Primary things as they are not sub-created beings) and possessing "special" subcreative power in comparison to other beings. This would of course include the Sub-creators of the Primary Reality. Now the latter part of the letter deals in the sub-created world of Eä (and indeed, the origin of orcs and other such things is a topic of debate within the Tolkien community, but it is made very clear that the Ainur cannot create life like Eru can), but the former part does briefly discuss the "fall" which of course happened at the Music. But neither part is too relevant compared to the discussion of what Tolkien means by sub-creators here.

Again confusion between reality and fiction. In the primary reality in-universe, there are no authors other than the Ainur. The “Sub-creators of the Primary Reality” are the Ainur, not the authors of the real world. By “highest created beings” is obviously meant in relation to men, elves and so on.

It mostly depends on the Sub-creators (aka writers) being High 1-A+ already and the Ainur scaling or not.

It's amazing that I've been accused of not understanding or of caricaturing, when it's as clear as day and explicitly repeated. The real authors are High 1-A+. Ainur scale on these authors.

• The Ainur's role as "special" sub-creators is that, unlike say writers, they are given the gift of "certainty" and this is not a form of sub-creation that is distinguished from Tolkien's kind, with Tolkien using artistic sub-creation as an example of when he refers to a different kind from that of literal creation.

This special role is simply that Eru will actualize some of the things they have imagined, unlike Tolkien who remains in pure fiction. But they can't imagine everything, and not everything they imagine is created. It would undoubtedly be useful to go back over Ainulindalë in detail, to realize that the Ainur are very far from knowing what they're doing. But that would be tedious.

• As their only difference to writers is that very certainty, they should be comparable as sub-creators.

And the Ainur are no more omniscient than the authors. To add to this, there are many things the Ainur don't know about Ea. They don't know when Men will arrive, when Elves will arrive, what will happen to the ultimate fate of the world, and other things in particular, depending on their nature.
(Unlike Tolkien, who knows all about it.)

But this doesn't seem to be power in the sense of "Goku's kamehameha beats Vegeta's Galick Gun". Ainur at this stage cannot harm one another and can only overcome one another via "knowledge". Melkor overcame lesser Ainur with his discordant music, but no harm was done upon those who were against him despite the great power of the Musics.

I'm not convinced about power = knowledge. The fact that they can't kill each other isn't important. Even after entering Ea, they can't kill each other. One could say that before creation there was nothing, and therefore nothing on which to exercise power, so the only difference was only in potential, i.e. in knowledge. But it's dubious to deduce from this that there is no absolute difference in power.

Moreover, while knowledge limits what they can "create", it is only because they obey Eru's laws. When Melkor decided to become disobedient, he made something he was not taught, the discourse of Evil. This is in contrast to Manwë who naturally would never go beyond them.
"...Melkor knew his will without questioning it; and he knew that Manwë was bound by the commands and injunctions of Eru, and would do this or abstain from that in accordance with them, always, even knowing that Melkor would break them as it suited his purpose." - The Nature of Middle-Earth: Part Two, IX ÓSANWE-KENTA

Therefore in this sense, knowledge can be used to say X Ainu is "mightier" as they possess more ability to create, but only because they obey Eru. Once Eru is disobeyed, Ainur can go beyond thier knowledge and make whatever they imagine, just like a writer.

On the one hand, an author has a limited imagination, like the Ainur. On the other hand, this is not true: the Ainur cannot choose to know what they do not know. A very simple counter-example is Melkor: he rebelled against Eru and no more than the others he knows when Men and Elves will come. Again, it is suggested that because Melkor can transgress moral prohibitions, he can transgress any kind of prohibition. Generally speaking, a being with access to all possible worlds would know all the possible courses of Ea's history, all the possible actions taken by all beings. Such a being would never make a mistake, and would “play” the best possible game perfectly (which doesn't mean he'd win). But Melkor makes plenty of mistakes.

Can be used to argue that the Ainur are from the secondary reality, but it can equally mean.

1. Eru gave the the Music existence as the secondary reality.
2. This reality is subordinate to Eru's reality
3. We call Eru's creality the primary reality
4. It is the same plane with the Ainur.

And of course it's a single line vs multiple that imply or assert Ainur as beings of the primary reality.

Yes, that's a good summary of my opinion. You can call the Ainur primary, because they were created first and helped to make the rest and you can call Ea secondary, because it was created afterwards and in part by those who were made first, but once created they are on the same ontological plane.

 

[Tyranno223]

I'm not saying that the Ainur aren't in primary reality. I'm saying that the ontological gap between primary/secondary no longer exists as soon as Ea is actualized. The primary/secondary difference simply becomes the difference between God's direct creation and indirect creation, i.e. with the assistance of his creatures.

That's a major issue.

Tolkien has made it very explicitly clear that the Primary/Secondary division is between reality and myth/fiction. Moreover, why would it be collapsed over a single quote that can be interpreted in multiple ways?

It's a very weak singular point of contention. A singular potential anti-feat is not enough.

The problem being, of course, as I've pointed out several times, that Tolkien never said that writers, except God, were limited only by the law of non-condradiction. They are limited by their intellect and nature, as Tolkien is.

That's not true. Tolkien does write that writers as limited only by the laws of non-contradiction. The intellect stuff is a matter for the Ainur

Again confusion between reality and fiction. In the primary reality in-universe, there are no authors other than the Ainur. The “Sub-creators of the Primary Reality” are the Ainur, not the authors of the real world. By “highest created beings” is obviously meant in relation to men, elves and so on.

In the metaphysical position, there is the Ainur and those of the "real world". This is the framework Ultima (and I) are working in.

Yes, that's a good summary of my opinion. You can call the Ainur primary, because they were created first and helped to make the rest and you can call Ea secondary, because it was created afterwards and in part by those who were made first, but once created they are on the same ontological plane.

A secondary and primary collapse is, as stated, untenable. You cannot make the primary and secondary equal. That would make writers and such of the secondary reality as well.

And again, there is one quote that may or may not be used in such a way vs multiple that oppose it.

 

[PrinceofPein]

You two do not need to reply to one another, just make you argument for the staff and let them evaluate, so that the thread does not get clogged up

 

[Tyranno223]

You two do not need to reply to one another, just make you argument for the staff and let them evaluate, so that the thread does not get clogged up

Fair enough. I suppose this is starting to drag on.

Tbh, I'd rather get this over some time this week since one half is already done, hence why I'm beginning to suggest "possibly" compromises.

 

[Hsharpe]

You two do not need to reply to one another, just make you argument for the staff and let them evaluate, so that the thread does not get clogged up

To be fair, it does help in keeping the thread active and going and thus the more likelihood of it getting noticed by more and more people. But I understand where you’re coming from.

 

[Ellbekarym]

That's a major issue.

Tolkien has made it very explicitly clear that the Primary/Secondary division is between reality and myth/fiction. Moreover, why would it be collapsed over a single quote that can be interpreted in multiple ways?

It's a reality/fiction difference... as long as God doesn't turn fiction into reality. Tolkien himself mentions it in the passage on biology in letter 153: “it's a fictional biology, so it's normal it's imperfect but if God actualizes my world, he will correct its biology” (I'm paraphrasing).

But I don't use this quote as a key proof. Yes, it goes my way, but I'd hold that opinion without and I don't like to rely on non-explicit declarations. I used it because you tried to use it to support your thesis, that's all.

It's a very weak singular point of contention. A singular potential anti-feat is not enough.

A “potential” no, but a “singular” yes if it's good. And I don't think the quotes you provided are feats. But then again, this quote only adds fuel to my fire, nothing more.

That's not true. Tolkien does write that writers as limited only by the laws of non-contradiction. The intellect stuff is a matter for the Ainur

No, it isn't:

Are there any 'bounds to a writer's job' except those imposed by his own finiteness? No bounds, but the laws of contradiction,

Finiteness. Quite frankly, we've already had this conversation almost word for word.

In the metaphysical position, there is the Ainur and those of the "real world". This is the framework Ultima (and I) are working in.

I'll let Ultima speak for himself. The fact is, I doubt that most people who agree with you have really understood your argument.

A secondary and primary collapse is, as stated, untenable. You cannot make the primary and secondary equal. That would make writers and such of the secondary reality as well.

Of course it is. Primary and secondary are not per se equal but they are in particular because Eru has acualized Ea just as, I repeat, Legolas doesn't exist but if God makes him exist he'll be real as much as we are.

And again, there is one quote that may or may not be used in such a way vs multiple that oppose it.

And again, don't act as if my arguments were based on that (and of course I don't agree with your interpretation of the other quotes, I discussed them in my previous posts). I didn't invoke this quote much. In my previous post I mainly argued against Ainur omniscience (i.e. the argument you use to justify 1-A+)

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

So exactly what tier would the True Form Ainur fall under if they don't get High 1-A+ ? (Obvious Eru stays at 0 thanks to how Tolkien describes him, I'm just worried about the Ainur)

 

[Ellbekarym]

So exactly what tier would the True Form Ainur fall under if they don't get High 1-A+ ? (Obvious Eru stays at 0 thanks to how Tolkien describes him, I'm just worried about the Ainur)

I'm also contesting 1-A, but it's likely to be 1-A the way things are going.

 

[Tyranno223]

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.

It's a reality/fiction difference... as long as God doesn't turn fiction into reality. Tolkien himself mentions it in the passage on biology in letter 153: “it's a fictional biology, so it's normal it's imperfect but if God actualizes my world, he will correct its biology” (I'm paraphrasing).

But I don't use this quote as a key proof. Yes, it goes my way, but I'd hold that opinion without and I don't like to rely on non-explicit declarations. I used it because you tried to use it to support your thesis, that's all.

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

A “potential” no, but a “singular” yes if it's good. And I don't think the quotes you provided are feats. But then again, this quote only adds fuel to my fire, nothing more.

Ditto. What other fuel?

No, it isn't:
...
Finiteness. Quite frankly, we've already had this conversation almost word for word.

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 (like literal real life Tolkien this time, not metaphysics Tolkien), only God, aka omnipotence, aka Tier 0, is infinite. This is a nothing burger.

I'll let Ultima speak for himself. The fact is, I doubt that most people who agree with you have really understood your argument.

1. Insulting to 98% of the people of this thread. Great.
2. Read the above response?

Seriously, you may not use harsh language, but the attitude is just rotten. I may say stuff such as you're using regarding you argument is "nonsense" (and you were literally bringing up fanfiction for that one), but saying stuff like I make Tolkien look "insane", calling arguments "sophistry", etc is just down right unpleasant.

Of course it is. Primary and secondary are not per se equal but they are in particular because Eru has acualized Ea just as, I repeat, Legolas doesn't exist but if God makes him exist he'll be real as much as we are.

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.

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).

And again, don't act as if my arguments were based on that (and of course I don't agree with your interpretation of the other quotes, I discussed them in my previous posts). I didn't invoke this quote much. In my previous post I mainly argued against Ainur omniscience (i.e. the argument you use to justify 1-A+)

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.