On not using

This week we read "The Council of Elrond," wherein the doom of Middle Earth is decided.  How will the Ring be dealt with?  Boromir suggests using it to defeat Sauron, but Elrond corrects him.

"Alas, no," said Elrond.  "We cannot use the Ruling Ring...
The very desire of it corrupts the heart.  Consider Saruman.
If any of the Wise should with this Ring overthrow the Lord
of Mordor, using his own arts, he would then set himself
on Sauron's throne, and yet another Dark Lord would appear...
As long as it is in the world it will be a danger even to the Wise."

"Why does Elrond specifically point out the Wise?"
"Wise has a specific definition, as we have discussed.  To know how to use.  Elrond is saying even those who could know how to use it cannot use it safely."
"So the Ring cannot be used safely, even by those whose life work is defined by knowing how to do things."
"Not only that, but its pursuit is danger.  Even the Ring as an idea leads to corruption."
"But how can we pursue knowledge, if some ideas lead to corruption?"
"You could learn an idea without necessarily implementing it."
"Then why learn it?"
"To know is an inherent good.  But also, to be able to recognize it in the future.  You may not use it, but others may.  Further, one should learn boundaries calmly before one presses against them in action.  Especially in the field of knowledge.  Punishing another for a bad idea makes the punisher an ideologue - for better or for worse.  Punishing yourself for a bad idea is self-restraint.  You may determine routes that are open to you, and then choose not to use them."
"What is the benefit of not using?"
"Some tools are corrupting, of the cause and the self.  Rape, intimidation, indiscriminate violence, shame, the violation of rights, censorship, unfounded accusations, etc.  All of these may get you closer to your goal, but it also diminishes the righteousness of your goal."
"But what if the alternative is your enemies use these things?"
"Our text makes clear this is still not allowable.  Sauron would use the Ring, but the free peoples may not.  If they do, they will be no different than Sauron"
"Not quite.  It does not say they would become him.  It says if they should sit on his throne another Dark Lord would appear.  It need not be them.  Any rule gained by dark arts will be doomed.  Perhaps the Wise, so desparate to hold onto their own power, will indeed become the Dark Lord.  But as likely another would say 'Who is this Wise one, who uses tools they forbid to others?' and start a revolution.  We must not set up our own destruction so easily."
"Rape and violation of rights are obviously evil.  What else may we be tempted to do that we should not?"
"They are not some secret weapon we will accidentally use.  What is evil is usually evidently so."
"Then why even write an ethical blog, if it is so easy?"
"What is acceptable and what is good and what is best are harder questions to answer.  These we interest ourselves in, for there is sometimes room for disagreement.  But what is bad?  And certainly what is evil?  These things are not difficult to know."
"Then why do so many pursue them?"
"Many people do not.  In fact, many people just don't care enough to stop it.  But those who do evil will justify it by the greater good.  Or claim that the accused evils didn't actually happen.  Few revel in the evil."
"Why does anyone do it?"
"Power is the easiest answer.  A need for justice  If you have power you can bend the world to your will - to enforce whatever justice you believe the world is lacking.  If you look around and see evil deeds, is it so unreasonable to think 'If I need to commit some evil deeds to stop other evil deeds, so be it.'  Transacationally, 5 evil deeds to stop future evil deeds makes sense.  But ethics cannot be balanced on a scale so easily.  Some prices cannot be paid, no matter the outcome.  The means poison the ends."
"We've learned before that power is the problem."
"We obviously should be wary when others try to amass power.  Even if they promise to use it for good, eventually they will do something with which we will disagree.  It is simply inevitable two minds will not be identical.  But we should also be wary when we are amassing power."
"But what if we are right?"
"By needing to amass power to enact our ways, we prove the lie.  When you need to compel obediance you instead have submission, and submission necessarily creates resentment.  This resentment weakens the foundation of whatever you are building.  Whether it is a new world, a new workplace culture, a new friendship, or a new home, you must resisit the quick poison.  Some tools are never worth using."
"So then how can we enact our ways?"
"There are two ways to create justice in this world - to force it or inspire it.  We can inspire through persuasion and compromise.  By finding allies to aid us.  That's the strength of the Free Peoples - the whole idea of the Fellowship.  We cannot do it alone and we cannot do it by force.  If we do, even our success will be a failure."

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 5% to this post's final version.

On stupidity

This week we read "Many Meetings," in which Frodo has arrived safely in Rivendell and, well, meets a broadening cast of characters. Elrond, Arwen, Glóin from Bilbo's adventure - oh and Bilbo, himself, is there, too.

So is Gandalf, with whom Frodo speaks first.  Frodo mentions surprise Strider has been as helpful as he has, given what he traditionally thought of what the Shire generally call "Big People."

"I thought, well, that they were just big,
and rather stupid: kind and stupid like Butterbur;
or stupid and wicked like Bill Ferny."

"Is it for people to be kind and stupid or wicked and stupid?"
"Surely kind and stupid - if you must be stupid, at least be kind."
"Kindness requires sense.  As in all things which are worth pursuing, it requires one to avoid the easy path.  Is it even possible to be kind and yet also stupid?"
"Kindness can simply mean staying out of the way.  Let those around you do what they want.  It takes no effort to just let people be."
"But what if those people are doing ill?  You must know how to respond."
"Is it so hard to stand up to evil-doers?"
"There are many of them, so we must say yes.  Few people, if they have the means, go hungry."
"But what of those without?"
"No, I mean hunger is something which we can say "it takes no effort" to be fed, because that is easy.  If you don't have the means, your hunger is not related to your physical inability to feed yourself."
"And yet some cannot feed themselves."
"And those we would call dependent - children or the sick or the elderly.  It's not a common problem for common people, as evil is."
"Perhaps we should define our terms.  What is stupid, first?"
"The term "stupidity" generally refers to a lack of intelligence, understanding, or the ability to learn and apply knowledge. It is often used to describe actions, behaviors, or decisions that appear unwise, irrational, or lacking in common sense"
"The inability to learn is particularly damning.  Frodo is not just saying they lack intelligence or understanding, but that even their capacity for growth is doubted."
"It is standard in the Shire to call those who do foolish things cracked - as if they are somehow broken, and not merely lacking."
"So Frodo's damnation is a cultural understanding of stupidity, not just his own, so we shouldn't hold him solely responsible for its harshness"
"Then let us move on.  What is kindness?"
"Kindness refers to the quality of being friendly, generous, considerate, and compassionate towards others. It involves treating people with warmth, empathy, and respect, often without expecting anything in return." "So the focus is on the other." "One can also be friendly and compassionate and respectful to oneself." "But without expecting anything in return?" "Why not?" "If someone does something for me, I will want to return the favor." "I would also." "But if I do something to myself, I know I will want to return the favor." "But you've already done yourself a favor." "So I cannot expect nothing in return, as I've already recieved something." "What is the essence of kindness, the action or the tone?" "I think the answer is on the word 'expecting'. We may wish or hope for reciprocation, but a kind person is not generous on the condition of recieving something. So I can be kind to myself, given the primary goal is not a future reciept." "Even if it is tertiary, such a goal collides with kindness. It is without expecting anything in return, not without expecting much in return." "And there is the word often. So one can sometimes expect something in return." "Kindness conditionally given is not such." "Metaphysically, yes. But actually, who cares? A kind word is a kind word, despite the motivation." "I am unconvinced." "Then, kindly, I will not push you. We are not the same people, some disagreement is expected." "Fair enough. These conversations would be worth less if we did agree all the time. OK, what is wickedness?" "In a moral sense, "wicked" describes something or someone characterized by evil or malevolence. It implies a deliberate intention to harm, deceive, or act in a morally wrong way." "Well that's not helpful, for we need to define evil and malevolence." "Do we?" "Sort of, otherwise anyone who grabs those terms can say such and such is wicked. Generosity to others is more self-evident."* "OK, so let's settle for the second sentence. Deliberate intent to harm and deceive." "In a morally wrong way!! We are not saying violence is necessarily wicked." "Indeed, not. Though we'll want to be very careful in saying when violence is justified - or necessary. Surely violence is never kindness." "Was ending the Nazi regime not kind?" "Not to them! And kind doesn't seem like the right word anyway. The First Gulf War protected Kuwaiti independence. I don't think anyone, including them, would define that conflict as kind. Kind is an opposite of wicked, but it is not the tool with which to oppose it." "Back to our source. Using our definitions we have Frodo saying "I thought some were generous and compassionate and giving to others without expecting much in return and have a lack of understanding and intellignece and some were intentionally harmful when it was not justified and have a lack of understanding and intelligence." "Boy, that's a mouthful!" "Well, we are no Creative Wizards here." "So which is better?" "Kind and stupid, as we had said." "Oh, I was going to say the opposite, having seen it laid out like that." "But kindness trumps wickedness - obviously, yes?' "But we are assuming the kindness works. If one is kind but stupid they may be kind in what that are unhelpful. They may donate to organizations that are not in need. They may be unable to understand certain kinds of suffering and harm. Their kindness may be only for those who are like them. This is not the kindness I wish to see in the world." "But rather one who is wicked and stupid?" "One who deliberately does harm without understanding is more easily addressed. The above is a fool - whom we should pity. A wicked and stupid person is more obviously a problem. A world full of stupid and wicked people will spur that world to action." "If we are to have wicked people in the world let us hope they are stupid. Stupid and kind may fill us with pity and may not do much help in the world, but we can also ignore them, not pushing them to grow. We can grow complacent, confusing their harmlessness for virtue. And while it would be better for you or me to be kind and stupid for the sake of the world, stupid and wicked is better because it minimizes wicked results. If I must choose to make all stupid people kind or all wicked people stupid, then the latter!" "There is another angle we have yet to discuss." "We've gone on long enough already!" "This will be quick. Frodo describes Butterbur as kind and stupid, but Bill Ferny as stupid and wicked. Why have the order of the adjectives change?" "Because kindness is seen first, before one's stupidity is seen." "And we do not notice wickedness so much?" "We do, but we will excuse it. We will instead assume stupidity - that this person doesn't understand or has made a mistake or that it is we are who the ignorant ones. Calling someone wicked is a morally heavy burden, one that we will avoid whenever possible. When we call someone wicked, it should be because all other explanations have been tried and found lacking. Similarly, we should be wary of those who claim to know evil quickly and often. It isn't only that they are likely wrong, but a sign that they lack empathy - that rather than attempt to understand another's point of view, or accept that some people are indeed stupid. Stupidity is more easily addressed than wickedness, though less heroic. Instead, these would rather simply announce them as evil, evil must be confronted and destroyed. It is for that very reason we must be extremely careful about who and what we call evil, and only after great pains to avoid it. We must be hesitant to be righteous and eager to be understanding. We should not prioritize our own desire for heroism over quieter solutions."

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 20% to this post's final version.

*As someone who is Pro-Israel, I am both concerned how easily it was for me to find a link calling Zionism evil and also grateful how difficult it was for me to find a link calling Palestinians evil.  I am glad to see my side is being more careful in the deployment of that sort of language.

On expectations

This week we read "Flight to the Ford."  Frodo has been stabbed by a Black Rider and is fading in a number of ways.  But today we're going to talk about somebody who, depsite all that's happening, is beginning to thrive.

In the last few days the poor beast had improved wonderfully... Bill Ferny's treatment must have been
very hard for the journey in the wild to seem so much better than its former life...
Bill Ferny's poor old pony was developing an unexpected talent for picking
out a path, and for sparing its riders as many jolts as possible

"Well what did they expect?"
"You are in medea res, friend!  What are you talking about?"

"The pony has an unexpected talent.  Which talent did they expect?"
"I think they expected none."
"Why would they set the bar so low?"
"Because he was coming Bill Ferny was not a good owner.  Strider worried he may not be in good health."
"So?  Anyone can be talented."
"Well, also recall they are running for their lives.  They weren't think-"
"All the more reason to hope for talented companions!"
"All the more perilous to depend on hope."
"As we have seen, we must hope at all times."
"Realistically, they expected the pony to help carry the baggage.  Anything else is a bonus."
"So we expect less from the disadvantaged?"
"Let's take that seriously for a moment - because we do it all the time.  Let's remove it from disadvantaged populations and move it to specific people.  If someone struggles to get out of bed, when they arrive at Thanksgiving people will be hesitant to tell them their tie is crooked and shirt is stained.  They are glad they are there and criticism will only discourage them."
"And perhaps they'll leave."
"Lower expectations let that person enjoy an achievment according to their capacities."
"Lower expectations tell others if you do less, eventually, that will be OK."
"But others also see this person to struggle to get out of bed - and they will not envy that price."
"What if some do?"
"Meh - ethics are the art of making the harder choice, as we say.  We can't speak for those who purposefully choose what is easy."
"Is it easy to not get out of bed?"
"That's not what I meant and you know it.  It is easy to see someone get an advantage and say "I want that, too."  Let's move on.  Bill Ferny's pony has a talent.  It is unexpected.  We've been assuming Frodo and friends didn't expect it.  What if the pony didn't?"
"The pony?"
"Bill has spent so long held down by Bill Ferny he hasn't been able to reach his potential.  Whatever Bill's treatment of his pony may have been we can assume he used the pony only for his own advantage."
"So do our heroes."
"Out in the wild he is given a greater degree of autonomy.  He must remain with them, but in return he is fed and cared for.  And as he remains with them they discover - as does the pony himself - this talent.  He is not instructed 'put this hoof there, now this hoof there,' but rather given a goal and freedom to achieve it.  In this way he can find his talent."
"Even though they doubted he'd be much help at all beyond baggage."
"We could say he doubted he'd be much help.  But now instead of along for the ride he is an active contributor to the party.  And it is always better to contribute than to only exist.  Contribution gives one purpose and energy, and a drive to find out what other unexpected skills they might have.  We must always push someone to go beyond.  And if something inhibits their autonomy - be it Bill Ferny or a health problem - it is incumbent upon us to free them from those things.  Without those barriers they may well thrive on their own - they won't need a push when they aren't being pulled back.  And while an antagonist can hold them back, just as easily can friends by not expecting much."
"When we come across an unexpected talent of a friend, or within us, we should not marvel at its reveal, but rather wonder at all the other boons that lay hidden within, waiting for an opportunity to shine."

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 0% to this post's final version.

On focus

 This week we read "A Knife in the Dark." Having evaded the Nazgûl Strider leads the hobbits out of Bree and into the wilderness.  Bill Ferny, who has been spying for the Black Riders, is waiting on the road for them and and taunts them as they pass him.

"Morning, Longshanks!' he said.  "Off early?  Found some friends at last?"  Strider nodded, but he did not answer.
"Morning, my little friends!" he said to the others.  "I suppose you know who you've taken up with?
That's Stick-at-naught Strider, that is!  Though I've heard other names not so pretty.
Watch out tonight!  And you, Sammie, don't go ill-treating my poor old pony!  Pah!"  He spat again.
Sam turned quickly.  "And you, Ferny," he said, "put your ugly face out of sight, or it will get hurt."
With a sudden flick, quick as lightning, an apple left his hand and hit Bill
square on the nose. He ducked too late, and curses came from behind
the hedge.  "Waste of a good apple," said Sam regretfully, and strode on.

"Is stick-at-naught even an insult?  Why is it so wrong to stop at nothing?"
"Because we should all have limits.  If the only way to get what you want is through coercion, maybe reconsider."
"Oh, you heard that phrase differently than I.  I heard it as "no obstacle will get in my way."  That someone who stops at nothing is dependable and resourceful."
"But some resources should not be touched.  Take the Ring itself, for example."
"Touché.  Just because it is doable doesn't mean it's...do-a-good."
"Like that joke."
"I tried, it didn't work, I learned.  That's another good use of resources."
"A sadder "I came, I saw, I conquered.""
"And yet what did Caesar reap?"
"So Bill Ferny is saying Aragorn is reckless, and that anyone is disposable in whatever quest he takes up."
"And then he takes issue with Sam, urging him to treat his "poor old pony" well, but why is this pony poor to begin with?  He mishandles him, then throws responsibility onto someone else."
"But Sam won't have it.  He shouts back and throws an apple at him."
"Score one for Sam!"
"But then he regrets it.  That apple had other uses."
"So does he regret the loss of the apple, or the violence?"
"The loss of the apple, according to the text.  He is outside on the road - he could have easily found a rock or a stick to throw, but he threw an apple.  It is a waste of a resource better used for feeding."
"So Sam is also a stick-at-naught.  Rather than take a moment to find something more appropriate for throwing he reacts immediately and uses what he has."
"And he loses an apple in the process.'
'A costly lesson, given they don't know how long they will be on the road."
"Yes, he doesn't throw an apple while at an orchard.  It's a precious resource."
"What's to be learned from this?"
"Waste is unethical in the first place - and waste is worsened by scarcity.  You can waste an apple at an orchard, but you feel the results in the desert.  So while throwing an apple is problematic anywhere, it is worse here."
"But rocks and sticks are strewn all over the road."
"Plus it doesn't really matter where they are - throw one at Ferny and that rock is just strewn somewhere else on the road.  Zero waste."
"Except Sam's energy to throw - energy that could be conserved."
"Are we going to criticize a in-the-moment response?"
"Yes!  That's the problem with throwing the apple.  But why throw anything anyway?  Look at Aragorn, he gave no answer."
"He nodded.  That uses energy, however little."
"Yes - to ignore Ferny could have been seen as an escalation - or a cause for him to escalate his insults.  Aragorn lets Ferny know he has been heard, but devotes no more resources against him.  He doesn't matter."
"But Sam is not throwing an apple because Ferny insulted him, but because he insulted the pony."
"He also questioned Sam's ability to care for the pony."
"No - he said don't "ill-treat".  That suggests an intention to wrong the pony, which Sam won't do.  I think he's mad because he denigrates the pony."
"I think Sam's response doesn't even have to do with what Ferny says.  He's annoyed he's there at all. He calls him ugly."
"Kind of a low blow from a hero, yes?"
"I think ugly here is a more meaningful term.  Indeed, we don't really get a description of Bill Ferny's face, other than it is swarthy like the rest of him.  And he's been previously called a sneery fellow, but that's obvious from his interactions here.  He isn't very nice."
"Isn't he?  He says good morning.  The plain meaning of his words are helpful - if Aragorn is a "stop at nothing" as we've discussed the Hobbits should know this.  Sam should take care of the pony."
"That's naive - he's obviously taunting them and egging them on.  Looking at the plain meaning of his words is an obfuscation; one which empowers the Enemy to "just ask questions".
"But how will we learn if we're unable to ask questions?"
"You need to pay attention to the person's tone and approach - a lot of things that are hard to quantify - to determine if they are being serious."
"Doesn't that empower people who don't want to answer questions to claim the questioner's tone and approach, etc, are unserious."
"Yes - and it would be unethical to obfuscate in that direction, too!"
"I think we should always be willing to answer questions, and if the questioner is unserious their game will be unmasked by their refusal to accept our answers.  But if we have truth on our side, we should not fear questions.  And if we do not, we should welcome questions to bring us closer to truth.  And if they aren't accepting our true answers we can stop talking to them."
"So Bill Ferny is asking questions but not to search for truth, but to push his own agenda.  That's the ugliness Sam refers to.  He has no time for such ugliness."
"But he says his face is ugly, and he will hurt his face if he doesn't hide it.  Then he throws an apple at his face.  Ferny may be stirring trouble, unseriously questioning the group, but Sam is the one lobbing insults - and apples.  I think he means ugly in a literal way."
"Sam has a lot to learn from Aragorn, then.  Aragorn, after all, knows how to find food in the wild.  For him, it is like an orchard.  And yet he not only resists violence, but even words."
"So Aragorn is not a stick-at-naught."
"Not in this regard, anyway."
"Or else Aragorn did not let Ferny distract him from the Quest.  He did not let Ferny's insults get to him."
"So Sam must learn either to be more focused on the Quest, for he has too little stick-at-naught, or he must learn to restrain himself from certain courses of action, the excesses of stick-at-naught,"
"Excellent."

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about less than nothing to this post's final version, as it gave me an incorrect defintion of the phrase "stick-at-naught."  It said it meant indecisive, when numerous other sources say it means the opposite.  Check your sources, folks!

On assumptions

And now we're all caught up!

This week (Nov 11) we have a double-portion, reading "At the Sign of the Prancing Pony" and "Strider."  Having escaped the Old Forest and arrived in Bree, a town where hobbits and humans live in harmony, the hobbits find lodging at the Prancing Pony, an inn Tom Bombadil recommended.  There, they meet Aragorn, who is at first introduced to them as strider.  He knows much more about Frodo's quest than they expect anybody to know.  He is also as keen on helping keep it a secret.  While speaking to Frodo, they notice Pippin is loudly telling the inn patrons stories about Shire, specifically Bilbo's last birthday when he disappeared.

Frodo was annoyed.  It was a harmless enough tale for most of the local hobbits, no doubt;
just a funny story about those funny people away beyond the river; but some
(old Butterbur [the inn-keeper], for instance) knew a thing or two, and had probably heard
rumours long ago about Bilbo's vanishing.  It would bring the name of Baggins to
their minds, especially if therehad been inquiries in Bree after that time.

Frodo fidgeted, wondering what to do.  Pippin was evidently much enjoying the attention he
was getting, and had become quite forgetful of their danger.  Frodo had a sudden fear that in his
present mood he might even mention the Ring; and that might well be disastrous.

'You had better do something quick!' whispered Strider in his ear.

Frodo then joins Pippin in front of the crowd, quickly changing the topic by thanking everybody for their hospitality.  One of the Bree hobbits calls for a song and Frodo obliges.  It goes quite well.  The text even tells us: "It was now Frodo's turn to feel pleased with himself."  He feels so pleased, in fact, that when the song mentions jumping Frodo leaps off the table he'd been standing on and crashes into a tray.  Somehow in the tumult, the Ring ends up on Frodo's finger, and he disappears.  So much for keeping secrets!

"Who is at fault for this disaster?"
"The Ring, of course.  It wants to be found."
"Does not Frodo deserve some blame, for he is the one who got swept up in the song and leaps from the table."
"Surely Frodo deserves some blame - he tries to help but makes things worse."
"But Strider is the one who urged him on."
"Is Strider to blame?  Maybe the inn patrons?  Why not blame Gandalf, for entrusting such a heavy burden to Frodo?  Frodo must be liable for his own actions."
"The inn patrons had no idea the One Ring was in that very room with them.  We can't hold them responsible except in the vaugest of terms, in that everyone should always strive to avoid harm.  But what is harm?  Frodo is evidently uninjured.  How are they to know the very one they spoke to had the One Ring in his possession?  While they played a part we can't hold them responsible for harms not just unintended but unimagined."
"Gandalf is also not to blame.  What other choice did he have?  It could not remain in the Shire, Bilbo isn't mature enough, and Gandalf himself dares not bear it.  Even if we say Frodo was not a good choice, can we come up with a better choice?  Indeed we should instead commend Gandalf for makinghe difficult discision to do anything, rather than do nothing and pretend that was noble."
"There's still Strider."
"How can Strider be to blame?  He only just met Frodo."
"Exactly!  So why does he encourage him to do something?  Unlike the inn patrons he knows the burden Frodo carries.  What he does not know is Frodo's capacities.  Strider, having a fearful reputation in those parts, could have strode over to the group and slammed his fist on the table, demanding quiet.  It would have interrupted the story and focused all attention on him.  Because of his rugged appearance Pippin may have remembered the dangers of their quest and so if anyone tried to get the rest of the story out he could have made something else up."
"So why doesn't he do this?  To test Frodo?"
"No, he understands the stakes are too high.  Bill Ferny is among the patrons, whom Strider already believes is working for the Enemy."
"So he holds some responsibility, too."
"He does.  Let's take this from another angle.  How could he have better advised Frodo?"
"He could have been more specific.  He could have said 'Get your friend to stop talking.'  Instead he merely encourages him to do something, and quick.  Ultimately the problem is Frodo forgets why he made himself the center of attention."
"Oh, you're right."
"Well of course!"
"No, no.  I mean, yes.  But Strider says he should do something quick.  We haven't touched on that yet."
"The danger is near, a quick response is necessary."
"Frodo's quick response causes much more harm.  He interrupts Pippin awkwardly, then gets pressed into singing a song, and then decides to enact part of the song.  We can see the threads of a panicked mind.  If only I keep doing something!  Only a good response is necessary."
"So Strider's error is telling him to be quick?"
"Well, what if being quick that is also Strider's error.  He is too quick to trust Frodo's instincts.  As we saw last week Frodo is just beginning to understand how to respond to dangerous threats.  Strider has spent a longer time with such responsibility, and he has spent a lot of time with Gandalf, who also is thus practiced.  Strider may have assumed Gandalf chose Frodo because he was particularly responsible, not because he was the best choice available."
"Strider's error was trusting Gandalf too much?"
"Yes - another error attributable to quickness.  He didn't ask Gandalf about Frodo, but made an assumption based on Gandalf's past decisions.  But had he asked, surely Gandalf would have told him Frodo was, while the best choice available and perhaps would have argued he was a good choice, that he still needed much guidance and help.  When we make assumptions..."
"I know, I know - you make an ass out of you and me."
"But you also tell stories about others before they have a chance to tell them themselves.  And by drawing your attention to what you assume, you are more likely to notice it."
"How can one overcome their assumptions?"
"By asking questions, and being curious."
"We must be open to being wrong."
"That's a negative framing - most people don't like to be wrong.  We're more likely to say "I have found the exception!" than "My assumption was wrong."  We should be curious instead.  The world is wide and complex, and how awesome is it we can learn about it?  If you make a wrong assumption, you could miss out on a friend or a business opportunity or something else.  If you're going to tell stories about others before you meet them, why are you meeting them?  Instead of deciding you know the answers already, ask questions and find connections to yourself.  No one is impressed by a know-it-all, but they may be impressed by your wide range of experience.  At the least you're less likely to stumble, as our heroes did here."

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 10% to this post's final version.

On limits

Still catching up from wedding/honeymoon, but this time only 1 week behind!

For November 4th we read "Fog on the Barrow-downs."  In it, Frodo and friends leave Tom Bombadil's house, but soon get trapped by a Barrow-wight.  Tom has to come and save them.  But before he can, Frodo - the only one who has remained conscious - despairs:

He thought he had come to the end of his adenture, and

a terrible end, but the thought hardened him.  He

found himself stiffening, as if for a final spring.

The text goes on to tell us the wight's skeletal hand is crawling toward a sword near the bodies of Sam, Merry, and Pippin.  Then:

[Frodo] wondered if he put on the Ring, whether the Barrow-wight would miss him,

and he might find a way out.  He thought of himself running free over the grass,
grieving for Merry and Sam and Pippin, but free and alive himself.
Gandalf would admit that there had been nothing else he could do.

But the courage that had been awakened in him was now too strong.
He could not leave his friends so easily.

"Is Frodo a coward?"
"No!  He considers leaving his friends, but he does not."
"Why would it be cowardly to leave his friends?"
"Because his friends need him!"
"His friends are important, yes, but if he fails the Quest all will fall to darkness, anyway.  Had he fled in order to complete the Quest, he would not have been a coward.  Maybe cold-hearted ("There was nothing to else he could do"), but not a coward."
"Indeed, there is something he could do, and he did it."
"It's curious to me Frodo's imagination attributes the line to Gandalf.  Even in his own mind he could not absolve himself - he needed someone else to do it."
"That is cowardice - to think he was forced to do it.  Agency is a burden. It is easier to pretend you don't have a choice."
"So Frodo is a coward after all?"
"He would have been, had he abandoned his friends and pretended he had no choice.  But he did not do that.  He resisted."
"But even his resistance is not from him: "The thought hardened him", "he found himself stiffening," "the courage that had been awakened", "He could not leave his friends".  Frodo is the subject of forces beyond his control.  Indeed, he appears to still have no choice.  Why does the Creative Wizard use such passive language to describe our hero?"
"We know Frodo grows into a hero.  But he does not begin as one.  He has been guided so far by others - Bilbo, Gandalf, Gildor, Merry, Tom.  To have him suddenly take up responsibility on his own would be unbelievable.  He needs more time for growth."
"And this is where it begins for him.  Gandalf had said something deep in Hobbits makes them courageous and dependable.  This desperate situation makes Frodo find that hobbit courage - or allows that courage to find him.  Just two chapters ago Frodo lost his wits because of a troublesome willow-tree.  Now he is facing a malevolent spirit.  Somehow this worse danger brings out the best in him."
"As it can be for all of us.  You can't find your limits unless you are pushed beyond them, and you can't expand them unless you challenge them."
"How can we push our limits?"
"Come on - That's an easy question."
"Then answer it!"
"Find the limit of what you've done and surpass it.  But how something can be done is actually less important than why."
"But we need to know how."
"Surely, but I bet you know how to do many things you don't do."
"Well, of course."
"Why don't you do them?"
"Why do I need to do something just because I know how?"
"So then knowing how is not enough.  Why you need to do something is more important.  And if you have a good why, you can easily find the how - or at least a good starting place of a how.  Frodo wants to protect his friends."
"Frodo has experiences courage.  He thought he was at the end and refused to face it quietly.  He may not yet know how best to employ it (Remember Tom ultimately still has to save them), and while here it siezes him, eventually he will be able to feel that courage rising and sieze it himself, using it to his own ends."
"The text calls it courage, but perhaps it should be revulsion."
"What do you mean?"
"Frodo doesn't act particularly brave.  The way he attacks the wight is a bit manic - and ineffectual.  Frodo doesn't get courage, he gets fed up.  Similarly, some we may find we have an unexpected viceral reaction to injustice in the world.  A wrong we cannot stomach, cannot ignore: A peer bullied for being different; Management exploiting workers; Workers cutting corners; A friend in an abusive relationship; Recognizing we are in an abusive relationship;  An animal being mistreated."
"Aah yes - like Frodo at first we are siezed by righteousness, that something must be done.  But what?"
"We may not know, and like Frodo we may fail the test, and call upon others.  Or do nothing, too shocked at the depravity.  Perhaps shocked at our own reaction.  Some limits, when pushed, push back."
"Is this failure?"
"It is - but it is not cowardice.  The experience will harden us and clarify things about ourselves we did not yet know.  Next time we will do better, and the next time, and the next time.  We may make mistakes, but we will improve."
"But Frodo fails, in the end.  He gives up the Quest inside Mount Doom.  Cowardly or not, he could not do it."
"But that is not Frodo's test here.  It is: Can I surrender my friends?  The answer is: not if I can help it. Frodo is in the end overwhelmed by the Ring, but he never directly forsakes his friends.  Here, he stumbles on how to do it - but he knows that he must, and that drives him to do better next time."
"Frodo Baggins: Not as useless as he once was."
"A fitting subtitle for all of our birthdays as long as we are on this Earth."

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 0% to this post's final version.  Mostly because, being behind, I'm in a rush.

On roots

Now on honeymoon so that comes first, but making posts as I'm able.  I won't be back on track until at least 11/25.

I will edit this post to add links as I usually have later - right now I just want to get this out there.

This week's portion is actually from last week (10.28) but I'm behind because I just got married and am now on my honemoon.  Life comes first.  That's not just for me - that's an ethical lesson for you, too, why not?  Put your life first when possible, especially when the competition is a blog.

This time we're discussing  "In the House of Tom Bombadil."  Tom's a strange character we met before and have discussed in the past.  This time we're going to look at the meaning behind some of his word choices:

"Tom's words laid bare the hearts of trees and their thoughts, which were often dark and strange,

and filled with a hatred of things that go free upon the earth, gnawing, biting, breaking,  hacking,

burning: destroyers and usurpers.  It was  not called the Old Forst without reason, for it was indeed

ancient, a survivor of vast forgotten woods, and in it there lived yet, ageing no quicker than the

hills, the fathers of the fathers of trees, remembering times whern they were lords.  The countless

years had filled them with pride and rooted wisdom, and with malice.

"Why does the Creative Wizard not just say "destroyers and usurpers"?  Why specify how?"
"We may also ask, why do they specify destroyers and usurpers?  Are not the descriptions of actions enough to garner sympathy?"
"I am not sympathetic!  You and I gnaw and bite and break and hack and burn, and though we may call these things progress, the earth must surely resent it."
"I, too, will admit to the above.  I reject I am a destroyer and usurper.  It is not the correct conclusion to draw.  It is as one who calls a toddler a terror.  Surely children act reckless and out of control, but a to call one a terror says more about the speaker than the child."
"Words should be used to reveal the speaker, even if unintentionally.  The trees cannot see the benefit of progress, and perhaps that is because they do not experience it."
"To them, the free peoples have destroyed what was working and have usurped their domain."
"Usurped is a particularly strong word.  Gnawing, biting, etc are all actions one can regret or wish to avoid.  But usurp necessarily breeds grievance.  The dethroned wishes to retake their crown"
"The trees not only lament their loss of power, but desire to reclaim it."
"Oppose this with the Elves, who see their time as ending and, more-or-less, embrace it.  The time for Men has come."
"Not only will Sauron resist that age.  So will the trees of an age past."
"Which brings us to the final sentence, of rooted wisdom."
"This wisdom has been twisted.  See, it appears between pride and malice."
"Rooted in it, perhaps.  But roots are good, and wisdom is good.  How can these two things, together, make something bad?"
"Roots are good because they make one sturdy, and create a path back to the solid ground.  Without roots, one is unsteady - perhaps seen as unreliable.  Not disloyal, but without loyalty at all.  Roots are dependability. "
"Wisdom is good because, err, well how to describe?"
"Wisdom is to knowledge what a blog is to words."
"What??"
"Knowledge is an accumulation.  A library."
"Another metaphor??"
"And wisdom is the catalogue.  No, not quite."
"Getting lost in the stacks?  A catalogue is just another accumulation."
"But organized."
"But this imaginary library isn't organized?  Just books randomly placed?  Words, too, are organized letters.  Neihd isn't a word."
"It could be."
"But it isn't.  Wisdom isn't a catalogue.  Let's move along."
"Knowledge is knowing things - wisdom is knowing how to use those things."
"You could have said that to start."
"What happened to 'Let's move along'?  This is obviously good because if you know lots of things you need to know how and when to apply that knowledge.  That's why info-dumping can be offputting to some people, because it isn't useful right then."
"So roots give you something to depend on and wisdom helps you use what you know."
"So far so good - but rooted wisdom inhibits wisdom.  You begin to depend on what you know, and you - one may say - catalog what you've done.  And soon your wisdom becomes second-nature and soon that becomes routine.  Y happens, you do X.  That's no longer wisdom then, that's knowledge."
"What is an example of wisdom becoming knowledge?"
"Calendars used to be monumentally complicated and had to be reoriented often to remain correct.  The Gregorian calendar fixed a lot of those issues - now we reorient once every 4 years with an extra day.  It isn't a perfect system, which we know, but for the most part figuring out the date is exceedingly simple, such that it can be hard to explain that people used to live not with merely a different calendar but essentially with none whatsoever.  Like comparing roman numerals to a calculator.  Both use numbers, but aren't compatible with each other."
"So rooted wisdom takes wisdom that has become knowledge and refuses to update it."
"Yes - it continues to claim its insights are still insights, rather than using the evolution of wisdom to knowledge as an opportunity to gather new wisdom."
"However, the world continues to move onward.  Progress is inevitable.  If you hold on like that, pride in your old ways and malice toward the new is inevitable.  You will feel usurped, but really you will be left behind."
"What should be done with those who feel left behind?"
"They must be brought with us - or better: invited.  Even if it means changing the arc of progress to include them.  Otherwise, they will use their agency to undermine progress.  We must help them see not that the new world is destroyers: merely gnawing, biting, breaking,  hacking, burning.  We are gnawing away at old problems, rather than seeing them as unbeatable.  We are biting into new challenges, pushing human limits.  We are breaking traditions that stifle to include more people.  We are hacking away at old restrictions.  We are burning the old ways not for spite, but to forge something new.  Some will resist till the end, but most people want a community and aren't as picky as we think about where it comes from.  If we reach out to them, if we invite them in, we'll have less old forests in our world to worry about, and less need to hope for eucatastrophe to overcome them."

 This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 0% to this post's final version.