On doom

This week we read "The Bridge of Khazad-dûm," in which the Fellowship realizes Moria is indeed a place of great danger, and they escape but not unscathed.  Near the beginning, while still at Balin's tomb, Gandalf finds a book of records.  The italicized are in the original.

‘It is grim reading,’ he said. ‘I fear their end was cruel. Listen!...´We cannot get out.
The end comes, and then drums, drums in the deep. I wonder what that means.
The last thing written is in a trailing scrawl of elf-letters:
they are coming. There is nothing more.’ Gandalf paused and stood in silent thought...
Then there came an echoing blast: a great horn was blown in the hall,
and answering horns and harsh cries were heard further off.
There was a hurrying sound of many feet.

‘They are coming!’ cried Legolas. ‘We cannot get out,’ said Gimli.
‘Trapped!’ cried Gandalf. ‘Why did I delay? Here we are, caught,
just as they were before. But I was not here then.'

"Which is worse, that they are coming, or that they cannot get out?"
"A train hurtling towards you, or the ropes tying you down?"
"Put it that way: The train.  The train is what's going to kill you.  Without it you could enjoy an afternoon tied down."
"But if you are tied down the train can come at any time.  You are a victim of the wait - even if the train never comes.  Especially if the train never comes."
"So you would rather be confronted with evil than not?"
"If I know it lurks, I should confront it.  If I wait, it may grow stronger."
"The dwarves were trapped.  The drums increased their dread.  By the time the battle came to them their hope had already been defeated."
"What if what's coming is death.  We are alive.  Death is coming and we cannot get out.  Facing down death, always lurking, is impossible.  In any case, it is not evil."
"Dying early is not preferrable.  It is better, since we cannot get out, to decorate where we are doomed to wait."
"So sometimes we must confront, and sometimes we must enjoy the wait?"
"Evil we should confront.  But not everything inevitable need be dreaded or rushed."
"Why is the phrase flipped later?  Legolas says they are coming, and Gimli say they cannot get out."
"The realization is different.  The dwarves of Balin were sieged.  They were trapped long before their demise.  Here, the orcs attack before anyone realizes they are trapped.  Though it's worth pointing out they were not trapped."
"They had Gandalf, and Balin did not."
"Gandalf can hold off the enemy, but he does not undo a trap.  The orcs come from the West door, but the East door is available throughout the attack."
"So why does Gimli say they cannot get out?"
"He is so surprised by the turn of events he misses what is obvious."
"And he has heard the script.  They are coming, we cannot get out.  His mind fills in the rest, even though it is out of order.  Balin's dwarves say it because it is true.  But it is flipped after because it is false."
"When do we fail to see the script has been flipped, or at least does not fit?"
"Gimli would embrace a death in Moria, by Balin's tomb.  He does not dread death, but he does rush it, if it can give him glory."
"We fail to see the script has flipped when the outcome is one we desire.  So eager we are to have a predicted future we fail to see when the prediction is false."
"Or work to make it so.  Gimli is not trapped, but if he died then it is true that he cannot get out."
"If we seek truth and make it so, is that not laudable?  To make the world what we want?"
"Depends on what we want.  Gimli, we know, survives the whole War of the Ring.  It would not have been preferable for him to die in Moria."
"I find it interesting Legolas and Gandalf cry their responses, but Gimli merely says it.  What does this mean to you?"
"That Legolas and Gandalf are in a panic, and they are not sure what to do, or even what yet is happening, other than it is bad.  But Gimli, in this place of great death, has an agenda set.  He will die here."
"This would suggest we should worry about those who, in moments of panic, remain calm.  But should we embrace those who panic, who are likely to lead us astray?"
"Better to panic with the masses, who will soon see reason when it calms, than listen to the one who resists the panic; whose plans are helped along by a panicking event.  Gandalf's worries are soon put aside in favor of determination, and Legolas also does not remain panicked.  But Gimli shows no fear whatsoever.  We should fear the one who never hesitates.  The one who calmly proclaims doom, or who relishes it."

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 0% to this post's final version.

On responding

This week we read "A Journey In The Dark."  Having failed to cross the Caradhras mountains Gandalf says the Fellowship has only one choice: to enter the caverns of Moria under the mountains.  It is possible they will find friendly hosts to welcome them - dwarves mine these mountains.  But it's also possible they are deserted, or overrun by orcs.  They also might simply get lost.  Gandalf says that while he has passed through Moria before, that was a long time ago and he did so coming from the other direction.  Hearing all this bad news,  Pippin and Sam say they don't want to go.

‘Of course not!’ said Gandalf. ‘Who would? But the question is:
who will follow me, if I lead you there?’
‘I will,’ said Gimli eagerly.
‘I will,’ said Aragorn heavily....
‘I will not go,’ said Boromir; ‘not unless the vote of the
whole Company is against me. What do Legolas and the little folk say?
The Ring-bearer’s voice surely should be heard?’
‘I do not wish to go to Moria,’ said Legolas.
The hobbits said nothing. Sam looked at Frodo. At last Frodo spoke.
‘I do not wish to go,’ he said; ‘but neither do I wish to refuse the advice of Gandalf.

"Here we have five kinds of responses.  The eager one, the somber one, the one that will not obstruct, the one that does not answer, and the one that accepts complexity."
"Which one is best?"
"None.  All of have their place.  Of the eager, it is easy to find:  To respond eagerly makes one the best kind of companion, if one is also eager.  Gimli likes the underground, and wants to share it with the others."
"And when is eager not preferred?"
"When we are somber, we will also want a somber response.  At those times eagerness may irritate, not delight, us."
"The soldiers who go to war for glory will clash with their companions who have gone for duty, even if they all agree on the enemy."
"Motivations matter."
"The one that will not obstruct is what most of us use most of the time, hopefully.  Pursuing not ideology, but camaraderie.  They do not prioritze their own preferences."
"Is such a response not compromising their principles?"
"Not if their principle is teamwork and inclusion.  Boromir also solicits Legolas and the hobbits for their answer.  He wants more voices, not quick agreement."
"Why did you describe Legolas' response as 'the one that does not answer'?  He clearly doesn't want to go.
"But the actual question was who will follow Gandalf into Moria.  Legolas doesn't want to go to Moria.  By his evasion, however, we understand that he will if Gandalf leads.  His is like Aragorn's in this way.  However, his is an evasive answer.  He doesn't embrace his fate, but merely accepts it."
"And Frodo's?  The 'one that accepts complexity'?"
"Frodo takes both Aragorn and Legolas' response and forces them together, though there is a contradiction within.  He does not want to go to Moria, but he will if Gandalf leads."
"Since he said "I will take the Ring, though I do not know the way," he must do this.  He must go where he is led."
"He could abandon the Quest, as we know he does at the end.  But the responsibility has grown on him.  Or perhaps he has risen to meet it."
"Frodo has grown a lot since we first met him.  He seems to be beginning to understand that not only is walking into danger inevitable for his Quest it is in fact the only path.  Frodo will have to learn to not recoil from danger - danger is the very thing which will help him reach his ultimate goal, to be rid of the Ring.  The safer his path, the further from success he is."
"So we have our responses, which we may give and recieve at different times.  Eagerness, when we are excited to share; Somber, when we know we must share; Inclusive, when we involve others before us; Evasive, when absence indicates truth; and complex, when holding values or feelings which are in tension with each other."
"Complex is clearly the highest form of response."
"But not always suitable.  If your friend is eager, and you are also eager, why bring in complication?"
"We should push our friends."
"But we don't always have to."
"I thought ethics was doing the harder thing."
"Huh - good point.  But clearly there's ethical value in sharing enthusiasm with your friend."
"But that is easy."
"But that doesn't mean its right.  Ethics is choosing the harder thing, but just because something is harder doesn't mean it's ethical.  The way to be ethical with a child is different than with an adult and that's different if that adult is a stranger or a close family friend."
"So which is best?"
"As I said, all have their place."
"How can we know when to use each?"
"That is beyond for us to say.  Human life is too complex.  It is enough for us to draw these distinctions out, such that others can take this conversation into their own lives."
"We've overlooked a response type.  There are really six."
"Which did we miss?"
"The easiest one to skip, though it is very important to listen to: Silence.  'The hobbits said nothing.'  They can't even voice a decision."
"Oh, and I now see a seventh response!"
"Seven?"
"'Sam looked at Frodo.'  We can appeal to others for leadership, or some other support."
"The seven responses.  Let us list them:

• The eager one
• the somber one
• the one that will not obstruct
• the evasive one
• the silent one
• the one that looks to others
• The one that embraces complexity."

"I cannot see more.  It would be fitting to have nine, for our nine companions."
"It is fitting nonetheless.  Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone.  This is where the Fellowship goes next."
"A journey in the dark, indeed!"

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 15% to this post's final version.  However it also defined 'intricate' like this: "Intricacy" refers to the quality or state of being intricate, complex, or detailed with many interconnected and elaborate parts. It implies a high degree of complexity or intricateness, often involving a web of finely detailed elements that together contribute to the overall complexity of a system, design, or concept.

On pushing

This week we read "The Ring goes South."  The Fellowship heads out and immediately runs into a (snow)heap of trouble.  But the quote we're going to highlight happens before all that.  As they leave Rivendell Boromir takes his horn out:

Putting it to his lips he blew a blast, and the echoes leapt from rock to rock,
and all that heard that voice in Rivendell sprang to their feet.
"Slow should you be to wind that horn again, Boromir," said Elrond,
"Until you stand once more on the borders of your land, and dire need is on you."
"Maybe," said Boromir, "But always I have let my horn cry at setting forth, and though
thereafter we may walk in the shadows, I will not go forth as a thief in the night."

"Now here is a man of principle! He will not let the enemy change his routine."
"But we know, in the end, that is exactly what happens."
"Our tradition generally holds Boromir in high esteem, though. How, if he falls?"
"Many of us would fall to the temptation of the Ring, as we fall regularly to lesser temptations."
"Do we hold Frodo, or Aragorn, on a pedastal then?"
"No more than they deserve. We strive to be like them, but it is the likes of Boromir and Sam who we can hope to mirror."
"But should we not always strive for more?"
"Yes, but tempered with reality. Our moral reach should always exceed grasp, but that does not mean we should spite what we can achieve. A perfect world would be best - but a better world is still worth the effort."
"Does Boromir here make Middle Earth better?"
"Boromir is a man who believes Mordor is evil and that it must be held back by force. In most cases, he is right. Sauron's negotiations are to stall and misdirect. Those who deal with the Dark Lord are decieved. Sauron must be fought. However, fighting will never defeat him. To destroy The One Ring, secrecy is required."
"Such as a thief."
"Ever does the Ring inspire thievery."
So Boromir blasts his horn so he will not be as a thief, whom he seems lesser. He will not let the Enemy reduce him so - or injure his principles."
"But he will also not let the Enemy injure his pride, or reduce himself in the pursuit of succees."
"Self-conception can become a prison."
"It would be easier for Boromir to begin his journey without his horn, because that's safer. We must commend him for blowing it. But it is also easier for Boromir to blow his horn because it's what he's always done. We must not commend people simply for their habits"
"How do we know we hold to our principles because they are right and how do we know we hold to them only out of habit?"
"This brings us back to rooted wisdom. Here, Boromir's horn is that wisdom. Is it wise, or rooted?"
"This is the same question only asked differently!"
"Answers are less important than good questions. Boromir refuses to be seen as a thief. When he seeks to take the Ring from Frodo he continues to insist he is not one."
"And yet he 'seeks to take' the Ring."
"But Boromir is no thief, or at least will always refuse to believe the charge. Bilbo was comfortable embracing the title - his ego was less. For Boromir, thieves are bad, thieves take things, and he is good. If he is taking something, he thinks his goodness outweighs the deed, and the taking becomes good, rather than he becomes bad."
"We must judge people by their actions."
"But Frodo and Sam are like 'thieves in the night.' It is because of their secrecy and deception they reach Mount Doom. Betrayal, even, is what destroys the Ring."
"There is a time and a place for thievery, then?"
"Perhaps it is not enough to judge people by their actions, but by their options."
"Why by their options and not by their motivations?  Do they hold to their principles because they are right, or because they are tradition?"
"Why not by their outcomes?"
"No.  It should be motivations.  Giving a gift may be kindness or it may be bribery.  The breadth of one's options may be beyond their control.  And outcomes allow us to justify the success of a fluke, or ignore whatever terrible cost has been paid.  But motivations let us know what is in the heart."
"But we cannot mind read.  Umm, or heart read."
"Yes.  That is the trouble.  But we can read our own.  At least in our own life, and in those with whom we can converse honestly, we can determine motivations.  And if we learn it was for tradition instead of righteousness we can take the opportunity to re-examine."
"But hold on.  We say doing ethics is doing the harder thing."
"Yes."
"But if someone is so developed they do the harder thing out of habit, is that not something to strive for?  Is it less ethical because it has become automatic?"
"It is no less good - however it does become less worthy.  That person should acknowledge their success and then push themselves to find the next thing which is hard for them.  Do you donate regularly to causes?  Then volunteer your time, next.  Our grasp should always exceed our reach, and our reach should continue to extend."
"We should strive not to grasp, but to reach."
"The ethical life is not measured by who we help, or on what we achieve, but on what we push ourselves to do that we did not do yesterday."

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.  I tried to ask it to help me come up with a title and it was no use at all.

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.

On eucatastrophe

I got married last weekend, so I've missed posting the past two weeks.  Totally worth it, but time to play some catch-up!

This week we read The Old Forest, following Frodo and his friends finally leave the Shire.  But the Old Forest is dangerous.  The trees have had a history of attacking the Shire, and the hobbits have needed to defend themselves with fire.  There's bad blood between them.

Once very deep into the first the hobbits suddenly feel very tired.  Sam suspects something and is able to resist, but the other three fall asleep.  While asleep, Merry and Pippin get sucked into a large willow tree's trunk, which closes again around them.  Frodo collapses into a brook, and Sam has to save him from drowning.  Afterwards, Sam points to Merry and Pippin's feet sticking out of the willow tree.  Frodo responds:

"What a foul thing to happen!  cried Frodo wildly.
Why did we ever come into this dreadful Forest?
I wish we were all back at Crickhollow!"

And after some futile efforts to free them...

But Frodo, without any clear idea of why he did so,
or what he hoped for, ran along the path crying help! help! help!

As it happens, Tom Bombadil is in the area, and responds to their cries for help.

"Frodo sure has lost his resolve quickly."
"How silly his pronouncements of 'what must be done' seem now.  How foolish he must feel - his will thwarted not by Black Riders but by trees."
"Sam does not regret coming though.  In fact, his purpose may have been proven by this bad turn of events.  When Frodo and the others are in danger he does not flee, as Frodo does."
"It is easier to protect friends nearby than complete a Task that is out there."
"This is not the only time in our text that friendship and a Task collide."
"Do go on."
"This parallels the incident at Mount Doom quite nicely.  There, Frodo gives up the Quest.  There, Sam's friendship endures.  There, all hope is lost.   And there an unlikely source saves the day."
"Getting one's finger bitten off is hardly a cause for celebration."
"When the alternative is certain capture by Nazgûl?  Small price to pay."
"So the Ring overpowers Frodo in the end.  Are the trees as powerful as the Ring?"
"Frodo is not nearly as hardened as he becomes - they do not need to be so powerful."
"And yet here the Creative Wizard sets up the structure for his climax.  Frodo gives up his senses.   Even hope fails.  But good prevails.
"It is eucatastrophic."
"And those are not the only two eucatastrophes of our text.  Helm's Deep is rescued from defeat by Erkenbrand's last-minute return*.  Gandalf's defeat at the hand's of the Witch King is interrupted by the ride of the Rohirrim.  The battle of Pellenor Fields is turned by the arrival of the army of the dead.  And then there's Saruman's death."
"But eucatastrophes are difficult to predict, and dangerous to depend on.  What ethics can be borne of "sometimes things just work out"?""
"To keep holding on."
"Hope is not a strategy."
"But perserverance is.  Nothing happens in a vacuum.  While one toils at a Task the world continues to turn.  That turning may make things easier or may make them harder."
"So then perseverance may not be a good strategy at all, if delay will only increase the Task's difficulty."
"This is true.  If you can finish a task, you ought to.  Delaying your own victory is gratuitous, revealing you don't want the prize but merely to relish in its taking - or to be seen taking it.  But if failure seems imminent, hold on.  If defeat is coming at you, delay.  Eucatastrophes are not a strategy, but they are possible.  Instead of running around shouting Frodo could have buried his face in the grass.  Instead he makes a ruckus, and eventually this got Tom's attention.  Helm's Deep held off the Uruk-Hai for 3 days.  Gandalf stands his ground.  The Rohirrim at Pellenor Fields fought fiercely as long as they were able.  Surrender is the surest defeat."
"As a counter-example, the Witch-King is gratuitous in victory.  He enters Gondor and faces off with Gandalf.  He says "Do you not know Death when you see it?"  His sword ignites in flames.  But suddenly, the Rohirrim announce their arrival with their warhorns.  The Witch-King leaves to deal with the new threat.  But he appears to have Gandalf at his mercy - or at least he thinks he does.  Why not dispatch with Gandalf first, before he can recover?  He simply gloats, confident victory is his whenever he wishes it.  It doesn't occur to him someone else may rob him of it."
"Is holding on ethical?  Isn't that the imperative of all life?  If ethics is doing the harder thing, how can our recommendation be to just do what the body does anyway?"
"The body wants to endure simply to endure.  What we are recommending is to endure and remain loyal to the Task.  It is not to survive and remember the Task.  It is to survive, to speak and rally others to the Task - or to give other elements of the Task time to catch up.  The Task may be appointed to you, but you need not do it alone.  In fact, it is probably akin to the gloating we were speaking of earlier to believe you, alone, can do it."
"So: Hope is not a strategy, but perseverance is.  Don't just hope things go your way.  But as you hang on, look for new opportunities.  As the world turns, seek out new options.  When the world gets hard hold on and keep your eyes open.  Eucatasrophes come in many forms, and we should not depend on them, but they will not happen without our attention.  Helm's Deep, the Rohirrim at Pellenor field, and Gandalf are saved by reinforcements.  They came later than expected - but they came."
"Well, hold on.  This doesn't align with THE eucatasrophe of the text.  Gollum, was thought to be dead, and he certainly is not their reinforcements.  And when he was noticed nobody let him bite the Ring off Frodo's fingers.  Nor did anybody expect Grima to turn."
"This is a good point."
"How can you reconcile?"
"An inherent property of good is cooperation.  The free peoples are brought together by common cause, but only as much as they wish.  Sauron's side is compelled by his will, but he shares rule with no one.  The Ring gives people the hope they may overthrow him, necessarily leading to conflict.  Therefore, when facing evil, if you are able to delay, even with no clear plan, you allow for their petty squabbles to surface."
"Yes!  That is what happened in both cases.  Saruman taunts Grima one too many times, and he kills him.  Gollum and Sauron both seek the Ring, but separately.  The Nazgûl would have turned it over to him, but not Gollum.  But it still doesn't explain Gollum's fall.  I can't justify anyone waiting around for a foe to simply misstep."
"Me neither."
*Silence*
"Pipeweed?"
"Please."

*Edited 3/10.  I'd wrongly said Eomer returned to Helm's deep, not Erkenbrand.

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 I was rushing.

On dangers

 I got married this past weekend, so I've missed posting the past two weeks.  Totally worth it, but time to play some catch-up!

In this week's chapter, A Conspiracy Unmasked, Frodo is about to reveal his true purpose, to leave the Shire, to his friends (except Sam, who already knows).  As he does this, though, his friends reveal they already know, and they will not allow him to leave them.  Our text tells us...

"But I must go," said Frodo.  It cannot be helped, dear friends.
It is wretched for us all, but it is no use your trying to keep me.
Since you have guessed so much, please help me and do not hinder me!"
"You do not understand! said Pippin.  "You must go - and therefore we must, too."

"Why must Frodo go?"
"Because destroying the One Ring is very important.  It must be done.  Whether Frodo survives is not as important."
"The Ring must be destroyed.  But must Frodo go, given the dangers?"
"Who else could do it?"
"If the world is such only Frodo can save it, is Frodo obligated to carry the burden?"
"If Frodo can save it, he must possess the sense of responsibility required, too.  If he does not have that sense of responsibility, he could not save the world."
"Why be responsible, then, if your only reward is more work?"
"Joy is fleeting.  All delight and pleasure washes away in the night, blown away by the dawn.  What remains is what is built, which requires work."
"Are you saying all joy is meaningless?"
"No!  But joy is fleeting.  If joy so easily escapes we must find a constant source to replenish us.  Your responsibilities must bring you joy, or at least the fruits of your work.  Tragedy is inevitable.  Lives will end, loves will leave, bottles will empty.  When that happens, what use is joy?  If you aren't building, then when tragedy strikes you will have nothing to lean on."
"What does Frodo build by going?"
"A chance at a better world."
"Why must the others go?"
"Because their friend should not go alone."
"He is not going alone - Sam is already joining him."
"And should Merry and Pippin be denied?"
"Is Frodo not allowed to deny them, in order to protect them from danger?"
"Who compels them to join?"
"No one else - only themselves.  They possess the sense of responsibility over their friend."
"But destroying the One Ring is very important.  It must be done.  Whether Frodo survives is not as important."
"It is to them.  If Frodo goes and saves the world but dies their joy will be lessended.  Not only will they have not built something with their work, they will feel his absence - instead of nothing they will have worse: a hole.  Pippin and Merry, to this point, have embodied frivolity, all singing and joking.  But they realize without their friends - both Sam and Frodo - they will have lost something important to their lives, something they had not realized they had had.  To drink to the health with different strangers every night might seem wordly but the connections you make with them can only be so strong.  Better to drink and dance with a small few, over and over again.  To pile joys upon joys, so when tragedy strikes it is easier to recall, because you have so many to recall.  You can see what is built: this corner reminds me of the time... I recall making this piece... I forgot about that until I saw...  It is a source of depth and dependability - it becomes the constant source.  Those who seek joy without it will fail.
"Is Frodo right to want to keep his friends home and safe, or are his friends right to want to remain with him?"
"They are right, for danger is inevitable.  Better to face it with friends."

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 carrying

Switching back to the old format because I'm already a day late and the idea of this post has been bouncing around in my head in my voice for the past few days and I don't want to translate it into dialogue form.

This week is our first double portion and we read two chapters, "Three's Company" and "A Shortcut to Mushrooms."  In it we follow Frodo and Sam - now joined by Pippin - as they begin the journey to Frodo's new home in Crickhollow, in the east of the Shire.  We, as well as Frodo and Sam, know this is just a cover story.

The journey is a few days, and the three hobbits make it with packs on their back.  As they begin, Frodo complains about the weight.  He says,

"I pity snails, and all that carry their homes on their back."

Usually when discussing ethics it's best to focus on treatment of other people.  There's an argument that we, as autonomous human beings, can treat ourselves however we like.  No one should force me to go on a 5 mile run, but if someone else wants to push themselves to do that then who are we to judge?  Everyone should do what works for them.

On the other hand, just because someone does something doesn't mean it works for them; addiction is the most obvious example.  When can we intervene, even to the detriment of their autonomy?  When should we say "It is a greater good to stop you than it is to let you be free?"  After all, for ourselves, we'd say the bar is extremely high.  We wouldn't want to be stopped.

So while genereally these write-ups are meant as ethics for how we treat others, this one wll be about ourselves.  I think it will branch out to how we treat others, but I'm not certain.  Well, let's go!

I've been very busy the past few months.  I've been wedding planning (along with my fiancee and our parents) and we've bought a condo.  I've also been promoted to management at my job, a position which requires a lot more energy than my previous position.  A lot of people depend on me and I don't want to let them down.  As always, I worry I've Peter Principled myself, though that's not the point here.

All of the above involves a lot of work.  At work I've been so busy that most of the condo/wedding stuff gets pushed out of my mind.  At first that worried me - I wanted to be thinking about these things all the time.  But my job is so busy that it was unavoidable and I accepted it.  Eventually I began to see it as a good thing.  At work I focus on work.  Nothing about the condo or wedding is on fire - It can all wait until at least the afternoon.  After work, I can work on those other things.  I am fortunate in this regard that my job is quite strict about not working after hours.  Wedding/condo doesn't creep into my work and work doesn't creep into wedding/condo time.

In this way I am not like a snail, carrying everything around with me all at once.  I mean, I am, but I compartmentalize.  Compartmentalizing allows me to focus on certain things at certain times, and that seems to work pretty well for me.  It's certainly less overwhelming.

And when I am less overwhelmed I can both be more productive on each thing and will be more patient with others (and myself).  If I think of all I have to do at once it will be hard to prioritize and difficult to keep my cool when someone asks something of me that I'm not already thinking about - who are they to add to my stress?!  But if I keep work at work and these personal responsibilities at home - and even schedule separate time for wedding planning and condo stuff, to keep THOSE separate - then it's easier for people to know when to approach me about each thing.  And it means when I make time to relax I'm able to focus on that.

So I think compartmentalizing is an important stress-reducing (or at least stress management) strategy, which helps us be kinder to ourself and others.  Being kinder to others is obviously ethical, but being kinder to ourself should not be underestimated.  If being ethical were easy we wouldn't need to write guides for it.  There are few guides for breathing.  And if we need a guide, you need attention and focus to read and remember it - which are difficult to come by if we're stressed.  Kindness to ourselves is necessary if we are to be kind to others.

But also there are those who have a harder compartmentalizing.  Rather than telling them how they should do things, we should try not to take what we may see as overreactions personally, or as failings on their part.  Other people are always fighting a battle we know nothing about.  We can and should advise them about whether they are on the right side, or whether they are fighting the right way, or whether they should be involved at all.  But we don't need to tell them in that moment.  If they are carrying it all on their back at once they may believe all of their responsibilities are tied together.  They may not know how to separate them, or believe it impossible, or they may have forgotten they're carrying it at all and think whatever it is has become part of them, as if they themselves are snails, always destined to carry.  In that moment, kindness and patience is the best we can offer 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 5% to this post's final version, but only because I was too lazy to use a regular thesaurus.

On contempt

This week we read "The Shadow of the Past," in which Gandalf tells Frodo a lot about the Ring and it's history and how it came to him.  As part of this history Gandalf tells Frodo Gollum is "hobbit-kind" (in the Creative Wizard's style, this to say Gollum's race is related to hobbits, not that he is a kind of hobbit).  The text tells us Frodo's reaction, 

"Gollum!" cried Frodo.  "Gollum?  Do you mean that this is the very
Gollum-creature that Bilbo met?  How loathsome!"

"I think it is a sad story," said the wizard, "and it might
have happened to others, even to some hobbits that I have known."
"I can't believe that Gollum was connected with hobbits,
however distantly," said Frodo with some heat.  "What an abominable notion!"

"Why does Frodo exclaim Gollum's name and then ask it?"
"Because Frodo is familiar with Gollum, but not in this context.  Gollum has been some far-away evil of otherkind.  But now he has become something closer.  He shouts at the horror, and then he asks at the closeness."
"But he is not yet sure - his next sentence is to ask Gandalf to confirm he has understood."
"It is not a true question.  His next sentence conveys disgust.  He already knows the answer."
"Why is Frodo disgusted?"
"Frodo has always seen the Shire as something apart.  Bilbo went into the world and found evil, and he brought it back with him in the form of the Ring, but still it remained separate.  Bilbo and the Shire remained good.  To know Gollum, an important villain in Bilbo's story, is of the Shire - or at least related to it - demonstrates the Shire may not be as apart as he believed."
"But why should that matter?  Gandalf tells Frodo of Isildur and of Sauron and of the Rings of Power.  Why is Gollum what disgusts him?  What about that drives him to at last respond "with some heat"?"
"We expect the world to disappoint us, at least in some way.  But our world, whatever that means, is safe.  Isildur is a man, not a hobbit.  The Rings of Power are from ages ago.  Sauron is a distant enemy.  These are all others.  Of course they will fall."
"So Frodo is disgusted at Gollum because he shows the Shire may fall?"
"Exactly."
"Is Frodo right to have such a response?"
"Right and wrong are not the correct frame.  Rather, he cares more because Gollum is closer to him.  Men, powerful rings and Sauron are all the other.  Frodo can ignore them when he wants - as the rest of the Shire often does.  He has contempt for them because they are not like him.  He doesn't bother to understand - they are too different.  Consider the bar talk in the Shire.  No one is worried the outside world is going to crush them - they just complain when the outside ecroaches on their plans. They should be more worried, but they are not.  But an evil within?  That's not possible to ignore.  So Frodo responds more strongly."
"Frodo exclaims Gollum's name first, then asks it?  Why not ask, then exclaim?"
"Because Gollum is not the answer.  All consideration of Gollum leads only to more questions.  As should be the case.  When we find a selfkind which disgusts us it should elicit curiosity, not exclaimed dismissal.  It is disturbing to see someone like us has fallen short because it means we could fall short.  But it is an opportunity to learn.  It is also, perhaps, an opportunity to help.  Gollum, we know, will have moments of growth.  Even though his life ends with evil, he is given opportunities to be less evil in the text and he takes some of them.  Good is not a purity to be protected against all encroachment, but a road we strive to remain on, or return to when we stray."
"Gandalf says it is a sad story, but Frodo disagrees.  Who is right?"
"Gandalf, obviously.  His response is more empathetic, which we should assume is correct."
"But they know the same story.  Why does Gandalf have more empathy?"
"Gandalf has been around longer and has seen and knows more of good people falling short.  He knows it is not fair to pin the blame on Gollum for what was ultimately the Ring's corruption of him."
"So empathy is gained through age?"
"Not exclusively, but there are some perspectives we would not expect children to have."
"What perspective is that?"
"Frodo seems to believe the Shire is distinct from the rest of the world in its capacity to withstand evil.  To learn it is just as susceptible is a hard lesson, and requires to a radical new understanding of the world.  Frodo could, and initially does, hold Gollum in the same contempt as the rest of the world.  Actually in worse contempt, as Gollum's fall chips away at the Shire's separateness.  But Frodo later learns everyone is vulnerable to the Ring.  The Ring does not seek out only the weak, avoiding those it could not corrupt.  The Ring seeks out the weakness of everyone it encounters, and everyone has a weakness, so it can corrupt everyone (maybe not).  But at this moment Frodo seems to believe the Shire, and thus him by extension. has some innate ability to withstand the Ring.  The Shire would have to be defeated by evil - but everyone else can only fail to withstand it.  Notice the subtle shift in responsibility.  But that is wrong.  Similarly, it is childish to believe they would fall for evil but I and my community would never!
"We are all vulnerable."
"And because we are all vulnerable it's better to ask why they fell to evil, and take the opportunity to gird that weakness in oneself.  Gandalf's response is better because he does not blame those for falling to the power of the Ring, just as it would be silly to blame someone for falling to the power of fear.  Even if we believe someone is too easily scared the ultimate fault lies with the thing which scared them.  Even if we can say we would have withstood that fright, there is some level of fright which would overcome us, and it would be extremely arbitrary to say anything below our threshold is to be dismissed, anything above is to be cowered at."
"Gandalf knows we should judge people based on their own threshold."
"No - that leads us to say "Of course they failed, how could we expect them not to?" or "Of course they resisted - why would you worry they wouldn't?"'
"So then what?"
"Gandalf knows that everybody has a threshold, and we should not judge the differences.  Rather when someone falls to evil (or anything which they had tried to resist) we should respond not as if they have failed, but instead that they have been defeated.  Not to wonder how we could have done better but to step into their fray and help them rise back up.  It is never too late."

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.