On working together

This week we read "The Black Gate is Closed.  In this chapter, Gollum has brought the Hobbits to the Black Gate.  But not only is it physically closed, as the title suggests, it is well-guarded.

Frodo announces his intent to enter through the gate, which sends Gollum into a frenzy.  Frodo insists that he must enter Mordor, and Gollum says he knows another way, which would be safer, if Frodo is really committed to what Gollum often reminds him is a dangerous plan.

To all appearances Gollum was genuinely distressed and
anxious to help Frodo.  But Sam, remembering the overheard
debate, found it hard to believe that the long submerged Smeagol
had come out on top... Sam's guess was that the Smeagol and Gollum
halves (or what in his own mind he called Slinker and Stinker) had made a
truce and a temporary alliance: neither wanted the Enemy to the get the
Ring; both wished to keep Frodo from capture, and under their eye.

(A bit of context: Previously Sam had awoken during the night and he overheard Gollum having an argument with himself.  He heard him say "She" can help him get back the Ring.  He concludes Gollum has an ally he intends to lead them to.)

Smeagol and Gollum both want the Ring back.  Their disagreement is largely about whether to kill Frodo for it.  They have sworn to serve the master of the Precious - they never once swear to serve Frodo by name.   A loophole has been found!  If they can take the Ring then they can still be loyal to the oath.  But Smeagol would still rather not kill Frodo if he can avoid it.

But they definitely absolutely agree Sauron should not get back the Ring, and that Frodo should remain in their company.  Both of these objectives serve their common goal of getting back the Ring.  This makes Sam very suspicious of even the kinder Smeagol.

What can we make of this partnership?  Sam's suspicion is justified - but that doesn't mean this partnership is wholly bad. 

I've tried to keep away from politics this year, as leading an ethical life is much more than politics.  But this seems like the right time to break the seal, as it were, and delve in.

My wife, Sam, and I do not agree on everything.  We have different preferences, as well as practical disagreements, like how to organize the living room.  We also have political disagreements.  If I have such disagreements with someone whom I love and speak to every day, I should expect to have disagreements with others.  I should especially expect to have disagreements with politicians whom I don't know personally.

A politician I vote for (or even one I don't) is supposed to be my representative in the government.  I don't have the time or inclination to understand the details of every single policy, and even the ones I care about... well I have a limited bandwidth.  So I try to reach out to those elected to represent me.  This is a new practice of mine.  I want to my preferred views known to those who represent me.  We all should - how else will they know?

And I don't just mean nationally, but state and locally, too.  In fact, I find I more regularly get a real response from local politicians.

But my power as a single voter is small.  I should find others to cooperate with.  Let's take prescription drugs - I think there should be a cap on those costs.  If I meet a Republican who also thinks that, I can work with him on this topic.  A Trump supporter at the capitol on January 6th?  As long as this time she'll use legitimate means, yes!  A communist who thinks all medication should be freely provided by the state according to the people's needs?  If they're willing to accept the baby steps of lower costs on their path to zero cost, sure!

Now I can go to that politician and say "Hey, I have a group of people who think X, and are willing to vote on it.  Will you do what it takes to earn our vote?"  Maybe we grow to 100.  Maybe we become a political action committee and run ads, urging voters to prioritize this issue and getting on the politician's radar that way.

We may have divergent views on many other things.  Demanding perfect alignment on everything to agitate for change on one thing dooms us to failure quickly.  We may be suspicious of each other - the Communist is right to worry we abandon them on their long-term plans.  The Trump supporter may worry this policy win will advantage Biden.  I may worry the law will pass but not come into effect later, when we possibly have a Republican president who can take credit.  We may have a temporary alliance, but to focus on the temporary nature obscures the real alliance between us.  The one permanent bond in my life I've committed to is to Sam (My wife, not the hobbit - though they are both gardeners) .  That doesn't mean I should scoff at other potential opportunities for cooperation.  Life is fleeting.  We can't let temporal limits stop us from making gains where we can.  Everything is a limited time offer, technically.

Sam (the hobbit), unwittingly, is also part of this temporary alliance. Sam also doesn't want Frodo captured or for Sauron to take back the Ring.  He'll have to be careful to offload their cooperation when they try to go their own direction, but it's doubtless their help will be valuable to him.  It's true that Frodo's plan to approach the Black Gate is doomed to failure, and it is not Sam who knows of an alternative way in.

Sam has the benefit of despair.  In our lives, we can imagine a perfect candidate and be reasonably hopefully they'll appear.  Sam's situation is so much worse that he doesn't have time for such dreams.  He has to take what he can.

I think we'd benefit from that reality-check, too.  A perfect candidate may one day appear.  Will they appear by this upcoming November?  Doubtful.  But potholes don't get fixed on their own.  That's something a wide contingent of voters probably want fixed.  Organizing a bloc of voters who demand re-pavement as a local priority is easier than many other priorities I can think of.

While we've been discussing politics here, I've still made a conscious effort to avoid national politics, for as Big Deal as that is, we live in a country with layers of elected officials.  Whoever gets elected to the White House isn't going to affect whether the park you live near is properly cared for, or if the public transit improves.  National issues matter, of course, but we can affect local ones much more.  And if we don't, someone else will.  So get heard and get organized.

If you're looking for a great book on this topic which I just finished reading and highly recommend, check out Politics is for Power by Eitan Hersh.  If you're interested, I got some extra copies I'd be happy to lend out.  Or check your local library.

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.

On death

This week we read "The Passage of the Marshes," which details Frodo and Sam's growing partnership with Gollum.  He has lead them out of Emyn Muil, and now guides them through dangerous marshland.

But beyond the regular dangers of a marshland - namely sinking beneath the weeds and water - these marshes hold another risk, which Sam discovers when he looks beneath the surface of the water.

‘There are dead things, dead faces in the water,’ he said with horror. ‘Dead faces!’...
‘Yes, yes,’ said Gollum. ‘All dead, all rotten. Elves and Men and Orcs.
The Dead Marshes. There was a great battle long ago, yes, so they told him when
Smeagol was young, when I was young before the Precious came. It was a great battle.
Tall Men with long swords, and terrible Elves, and Orcses shrieking. They fought on
the plain for days and months at the Black Gates. But the Marshes have grown since
then, swallowed up the graves; always creeping, creeping.’
‘But that is an age and more ago,’ said Sam. ‘The Dead can’t be
really there! Is it some devilry hatched in the Dark Land?’
‘Who knows? Smeagol doesn’t know,’ answered Gollum. ‘You cannot reach them, you
cannot touch them. We tried once, yes, precious. I tried once; but you cannot reach them.
Only shapes to see, perhaps, not to touch. No precious! All dead.’

It's an interesting observation that Middle Earth experiences evil, or at least something unsettling, that may not be the work of Sauron.  Certainly, Sam assumes he must be behind it, but we know that isn't necessarily true.

So why do these dead remain?  It seems obvious they were left on the field to rot - swallowed up by the fens.  But why would the Elves and Men allow that?  Impossible to know.

There are a few spirits in Middle Earth we meet throughout our text.  The Nazgul, the oathbreakers of Dunharrow whom Aragorn summons, and the Barrow-wights.  The first two suffer from unfinished business.  The Nazgûl are bound to the Ring, and the Dead Army are bound to their oath.  The Barrow-wights's reason for being is much less clear.  The text mentions "Barrow-wights walked in the hollow places with a clink of rings on cold fingers, and gold chains in the wind," (although when the hobbits are captured by the Barrow-wights they appear suddenly and silently).  The Barrow-wights are, in some ways, tied to their material wealth.  But what about these spirits?

We don't get any information about them beyond this chapter.  They end up being just one of many references that make Middle Earth feel very, very large - but perhaps full only of loose ends and incomplete ideas.  There may be some explanation in the appendices, but for these write-ups I always try to stay to the main text.  I could never properly refer to all of Tolkien's writing without much more time, which I don't have.  I also, frankly, don't think have much interest.  I find Middle Earth lore, largely, dull.

Death is inevitable.  Would it be better to return as a spirit, or to go onward?  Our text makes it clear that remaining behind is bad.  None of these spirits are doing good in the world, or are happy about remaining.  While we might plausibly argue the Nazgûl could be happy about serving their master in perpetuity, I think within the text that is impossible.  Orcs can experience joy, though their laughter is generally harsh and their smiles vicious.  The Nazgûl are associated with despair.  They don't serve Sauron out of loyalty or love.

Death is inevitable, but the Ring thwarts death.  Gollum and Bilbo both live unnaturally long.  Gollum's life becomes one of suffering and loyalty without love - this is true before he loses the Ring.  We see Bilbo occasionally give into the Ring's temptation, and know in those moments he is not overwhelmed with joy.  While Frodo doesn't have the Ring long enough to impact his lifespan, it does suck the joy out of his life.  He experiences very little on his journey - and even after it is gone.

Whether ghosts exist or not is beyond my scope.  Certainly dying with unfinished business is unfair, because now someone else must finish it - or deal with the consequences.  Being bound to the material world too much has obvious ethical problems, too.  If ethics is doing the harder thing, giving up physical things is usually the more ethical choice.

Our text is teaching us to be wary of people and ideas that promise for immortality.  The Elves, we know, pay a price for theirs.  Death is inevitable, and attempts to circumvent it would have consequences beyond which we can prepare for.  Death is inevitable, so plan for it.  Include others in your business as much as possible, so when you do go the unfinished business at least isn't suddenly hoisted on others.  You don't have to carry it all, and you shouldn't anyway.  People are more willing to help than maybe you realize - they perhaps want to help.  When you die, they're going to have to help.  You ought to let them help while you're around, so that you can see their skills for yourself, offer assistance as appropriate, and then, when you go, you'll be more confident the work will continue to be done - and you'll have made some human connections along the way.

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 opposites?

Hello everyone, and welcome back to our regular format, which is simply easier for me to do.  It's hard writing a conversation between two disembodied voices - who knew!

Anyway, this week we begin book four, which reconnects us with Sam and Frodo.  Having fled from the rest of the company, they must push on towards Mordor.  But they also know they are being tracked by Gollum, who wants the Ring back.

The chapter is called "The Taming of Smeagol," and it is not long before he indeed finds them.  They see him, too, climbing down a cliff towards them.

Sam restrained himself, though his fingers
were twitching. His eyes, filled with anger and disgust,
were fixed on the wretched creature...

Gollum falls from the rocks he is climbing and Sam takes the opportunity to pounce on him.  Even caught unawares like this Gollum is a fierce foe.  Frodo has to intervene, Sting unsheathed and at Gollum's neck.  They have captured him!

But he soon tries to escape.  They stop him, and determine they must tie him up.  Sam goes to retrieve his Elvish rope.

‘And where were you off to in the cold hard lands,
Mr. Gollum?’ [Sam] growled. ‘We wonders, aye, we wonders. To find some of
your orc-friends, I warrant. You nasty treacherous creature. It’s round your
neck this rope ought to go, and a tight noose too.’
Gollum lay quiet and tried no further tricks.
He did not answer Sam, but gave him a swift venomous look.

Sam and Gollum are very different characters.  Sam is selfless and dedicated to Frodo.  Gollum is deceitful and selfish, unless loyalty to the Ring counts.  I don't think it should, because it's probably not a willing loyalty.

But the hatred they are capable of is similar, as is the purpose behind their stares.  Sam stares at Gollum when he is out of reach, and Gollum stares at Sam when he cannot hurt him.  But they both want to harm the other, and they are both worried one will kill the other.  Sam has already proven the point.  It is he who lunges first at a defenseless Gollum, as he fell from the rocks.  Sam is not looking for an honorable duel.

Gollum, we know, will spend the rest of this book biding his time, waiting for the hobbits to be vulnerable enough for him to attack.  He will not hesitate when that time comes, nor fret over his unfair advantage.

But stares from afar can be interpreted both as "I am making a plan to strike when able" and "I am powerless to do anything else."  When you can strike, you don't glare at your enemy as if you can shoot lasers from your eyes.  You don't imagine all the wonderful ways you'll overcome them, you just do it even if it's a bit messy, imprecise, or uncertain.  Similarly, when someone suggests grand plans to do something, it might be that they are really planning on completing those plans.  But the plans might also be expressing a sense of powerlessness.  Unable to know where to begin, they just imagine the situation they want.

I have a friend who relatively recently moved to Alaska as preparation for climate change.  I'm not really sure this will help him as he imagines.  I don't think its counter-productive, either.  But it's an awfully grand gesture which will feel good.  I don't mean that dismissively - it is fine to pursue things that feel good.  If he is as powerless in the face of climate change as I think he is (as an individual), then this is at least something to combat that feeling.  "I did what I could," even what he did wasn't helpful.

When we see ourselves imagining grand changes we're not actually empowered to do, we should catch ourselves and ask why.  It can be fun, or cathartic, but it's not empowering.  It's fine to do things fun and cathartic, but we shouldn't fool ourselves about the direct usefulness.

When we hear others, or ourselves, presenting One Weird Tricks we should stop listening.  Frustration is a powerful emotion, but thinking the world will be solved if just everyone listened doesn't take into account the realities of this world.  One solution won't work for everyone, and trying to push such a thing will just increase your frustration, etc etc.  Or it does work and now you're a tyrant, and that's Bad.  Obviously, none of us have the ability to become tyrant of the world, but it is possible to do so within our family, friends, workplace, etc.  We should watch ourselves within the realms we can actually amass power.

Sam and Gollum both get the opportunity to act on their fantasies.  Both fail miserably.  What works, for Frodo and for Aragorn and company (And, at least almost, for Gollum), is to take problems one step at a time, keeping an ultimate goal in mind.  Frodo believes Gollum may be a necessary ally for some of their journey.  If Sam kills him and then they starve in Emyn Muil, what then?  For Gollum, killing Sam would just alienate Frodo from him further, thus making it harder for him to get the Ring from him.

"We're not so different, you and I," Sam and Gollum might say to each other.  But in this way the Creative Wizard shows such glares are never productive, whether pursued in service of a friend or the self.  Powerlessness is not a strength, and imagining success is not a strategy.

As an aside, I've always found it peculiar Gollum dies at Mt Doom by losing his footing and just... falling.  He isn't described as a character prone to those kinds of accidents.  And yet the first time he enters our narrative as a real character, that's exactly what happens.  Sam doesn't heckle him.  Gollum doesn't see the hobbits and is startled.  He just loses his footing.  I hadn't ever noticed this before.

In this case he survives, but next time won't be so lucky.  I don't know what lesson to draw from this but intend to pay more attention to descriptions of Gollum's climbing ability.  Maybe it isn't as strong as I think it is...

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, because I wrote it all on Saturday.  I hope in the future to use it more in this format, but we shall see.

On evil

(As I announced elsewhere, after this week I'll go back to my previous format.  Writing in this style is stressful.  But then, sue to an issue with my schedule, I didn't even begin this final dialogue post until 9:23 PM on Sunday.  To be honest, I just wanna get it over with.  My bedtime is 10:30.  I hope to be done at 10.  And 3...2...1...)

This week we read "Palantír," the final chapter in our third book. In it, Pippin looks into the Palantír that was recovered from Orthanc, with terrible consequences. Well, maybe not so terrible. The Palantír, a seeing stone, connects with another one in Mordor. It's how Saruman and Sauron communicated - and how Saruman fell to temptation. So Pippin gets connected to Sauron, who immediately thinks this is the hobbit bearing the Ring. Gandalf points out this is very good for Frodo - not only does Sauron not think Frodo is trying to destroy it, he now thinks the Ring is in Orthanc, and must be retrieved from there.

The group is later talking about this turn of fortune.

‘At last we know the link between Isengard
and Mordor, and how it worked. Much is explained.’  [said Aragorn]

Strange powers have our enemies, and strange weaknesses!’ said Theoden. ‘But
it has long been said: oft evil will shall evil mar.’

‘That many times is seen,’ said Gandalf

"Why is it so that evil will shall evil mar?"
"Evil is inherently selfish.  It seeks to hoard the profit.  The Free Peoples cooperate.  The destruction of the Ring will benefit them all.  Well, perhaps not the Elves."
"So though Isengard and Mordor were linked, only one could ever have the Ring."
"It is, of course, the One Ring."
"Is that what makes it evil, perhaps?  That it, by its nature, cannot be shared?  Cooperation with the Ring is not possible.  Only patronage, or dependency."
"If evil is inherently selfish, is being selfish inherently evil?"
"Evil may be a strong word for all situations.  But we should promote selflessness or selfishness whenever we can."
"Can being selfless ever be evil?"
"That seems unlikely, unless one is only feigning selflessness - but then one is not being selfless."
"The Elves, then, are the most selfless of the races, then.  The destruction of the Ring will further their downfall - but they know this is better than the alternative."
"It is wisdom to see two bad alternatives and, rather than despair at the situation, to embrace the better one."
"Except that the eucatastrophe suggests always delaying.  Good could just be around the corner."
"Or more evil."
"The evil Theoden speaks of is not the same.  Saruman's evil, wanting the Ring for himself, and Sauron's evil, also wanting the Ring for himself."
"Sure sounds the same."
"Well, right, but we said preciously it's not possible for both of them to get it.  One evil will shall mar another evil.  They cannot both win."
"How can we use this?  To ensure multiple evils, so we need not fight them alone?"
"One schoolyard bully surely has more power than two put together.  Their struggle for domination would distract them from the actual domination."
"But we cannot empower evil - even to fight it!  One bully must fall, and then the other has dominion."
"We could empower dozen, to ensure each is far from total dominion."
"To disempower evil we multiply it??"
"Destroying evil is the ideal, of course.  If we cannot, then we should seek to manage it.  Evil marring evil is better than evil marring innocent."
"It is as Theoden says - strange!"
"There is another use for this teaching.  When deciding if you are good or if you are evil, determine what happens if you win.  Will the many benefit, or will you?  Will your partners grow equally, or will their dependence on you deepen?  If you are serving another, is this because they will empower the many, or are you hoping to get a favorable payoff from them?  It may not be evil, exactly, but if all you're doing is rearranging the distribution of power, rather than undermining the power itself, you may not be doing good."
"There is yet another teaching from here.  Those who selflessly embrace their own demise, as the Elves do.  Do they do so gracefully, or do they do so hoping to reap a reward for their selflessness?"
"Then it is not selfless."
"Exactly.  If one wishes to be a martyr, we cannot always stop them.  But if one wishes to be a martyr and profit off of it - this is not a trait of the Free Peoples.  The Elves embrace their end, though perhaps with reluctance.  Theoden learns to embrace the evil days he has inherited.  Sam, and especially Frodo, will embrace the hopelessness and the costs of the Task.  It is Saruman, and Gollum, and Denethor who will rage madly against it - who will claim their sacrifices have not been compensated, their genius not recognized.  Watch out for those people, who claim payment nobody feels is owed.  It is the responsibility of each to give what they can, and to request what they believe is fairness in return.  If the agreement is not acknowledged, that is injustice.  But to freely give, and then demand a price later - that is a greater injustice."
*Ding!  10:02*
"Aah, we come to the end."
"It has been good talking to you, my friend."
"And you as well.  Join me by the river?"
"Where we can discuss ethics?"
"That, and so much more."

The two interlocutors leave their house of study, take off their shoes, and sit with their feet in the cool river.  Reaching into their pockets, they take out a cake of lembas bread, unwrap the leaves around it, and make a toast.

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.  But returning to my old format, I hope to use it much more.  It's not very good for this kind of writing at all.

This note is a reminder to myself to add some links.  Given the time crunch I'd given myself for the day of, I didn't bother.  But there are a few references worth making.

On laughter

This week we read "The Voice of Saruman."  Gandalf and company confront Saruman at Orthanc, and we get to see Saruman's much hinted at magic - specifically the charming magic of his voice.  He speaks to Theoden and then to Gandalf, trying to persuade not only them (to agree with him) but also to those around them (so that if they disagree, they'll be alienated by the others).  Saruman gives a long speech to Gandalf, inviting him up so they can plan "to heal the disorders of the world."

So great was the power that Saruman exerted in this last effort that none that stood
within hearing were unmoved. But now the spell was wholly different.

They heard the gentle remonstrance of a kindly king with an erring

but much-loved minister. But they were shut out, listening at a door to words
not meant for them: ill-mannered children or stupid servants overhearing the elusive

discourse of their elders, and wondering how it would affect their lot.
Of loftier mould these two were made: reverend and wise.

It was inevitable that they should make alliance. Gandalf would ascend into the tower,
to discuss deep things beyond their comprehension in the high chambers of Orthanc.

The door would be closed, and they would be left outside, dismissed to await 

allotted work or punishment. Even in the mind of Theoden the thought took shape, 

like a shadow of doubt: ‘He will betray us; he will go – we shall be lost.’

Then Gandalf laughed. The fantasy vanished like a puff of smoke.

"Why is this laughter so powerful?"
"All laughter is powerful, because it breaks control.  Control requires seriousness.  Laughter is associated with freedom - freedom to have fun and to play to take chances, to make mistakes, to get messy."
"Can you control with laughter?"
"I don't think that's possible.  If the person in control laughs, that would signal you have a lot of freedom - even if you have a serious goal.  And if the person in control who laughs sees what you did and stops laughing - you've either achieved something great or made a grave mistake."
"So great leaders do not laugh?"
"No!  Great leaders, we would hope, laugh regularly.  But great leaders inspire - they do not control."
"How can we know the difference?"
"Great leaders will point to a destination and say "Let us get there."  They may consider certain methods off-limits but generally will be open to suggestion.  Controllers already have a plan.  More than that, they are committed to it, and want people only as tools - not as people."
"How can we counter those who seek control?"
"Resistance can come in many forms.  But laughter is the best."
"Why do you say so?"
"If you fight back through more deliberate means people may wonder if it is because you seek to be the one in control.  They'll do a whole cost-benefit analysis of the current situation, and decide what is best for them on that basis.  And as people want different things, a movement may scatter before it properly begins.  But people naturally wish to laugh.  Laughter is contagious.  Laughter is disruptive.  Laughter can be faked, but less successfully than faked good-will. It is even more difficult to control it."
"So laughter is best because it's only use is freedom."
"Correct.  The means and the ends must both be justified - and freedom is the most just cause of all."
"Not justice?"
"With freedom, you are able to pursue it.  And if others will not, you are free to attempt to persuade them."
"What if they won't listen?"
"Sounds like you want control, and if that's the route you take it will be perilous.  You will have to rule by fear, and quash all hints of laughter.  Your tyranny will rule over you, as well, as your subjects will always be looking for weakness."
"Laughter will break all chains."
"The freedom to laugh is a precious one.  Beware of those who try attempt to proscribe it.  Be as Gandalf, and laugh whenever the emperor has no clothes, not only for your own good, but for the benefit of others, as well.
"What about cruel laughter?"
"Our text regularly tells of different kind of laughter:  'Merry' and 'soft,' but also 'grim,' 'harsh,' 'chilling,' 'deadly,' and 'wild howls of laughter.'  Laughter which is not described, we should assume, is genuine and good.  As readers, it is hard not to smile along in those latter instances.  So if one sees cruel laughter, it is the cruelty which must be dealt with - not the laughter."
"All tools can be turned to evil."
"The right response, then, is to wrest the tools from evildoers.  We do not have to destroy them."
"The tools or the evildoers?"
"The tools is what I meant.  They can be turned to good.  As for the evildoers....  I hope the same can be said for them, too.

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 integrity

This week is another double portion, where we read "The Road to Isengard" & "Flotsam and Jetsam."  In these chapters, Gandalf and Theoden and everyone else goes to Isengard to confront Saruman, now that his whole army is defeated.  As they enter Isengard, they reunite with Merry and Pippin, and the party splits up - Theoden and Gandalf go on while the Hunters and the Hobbits sat and chat.

In the first chapter, Gandalf announces he is going to Isengard.  Theoden worries they don't have the strength to take it, but Gandalf assures him he has already been defeated and that they "go to a parley, not to a fight."

‘I wish to speak with Saruman, as soon as may be now,’ said Gandalf,
‘and since he has done you great injury, it would be fitting
if you were there. But how soon and how swiftly will you ride?’

"Why does Gandalf say it is fitting?"
"Because Saruman should face the one he has hurt.  Partly to see the results of his actions, and partly so that, if there is an apology, it can go to the aggrieved, and not simply into the ether."
"I find another reason.  So if he does not apologize, Theoden can see it."
"Theoden gets closure either way."
"And nuance.  Does Saruman seem ashamed, but unable to yet apologize?  Is he still proud, and has not yet processed his defeat?  Is he defiant, aware of his loss and yet still spiteful.  Theoden going allows him to witness first hand."
"But why does Gandalf say fitting, and not something more positive, such as just or right?"
"Because the confrontation of the perpetrator by the aggrieved does not necessarily lead to justice."
"But the confrontation of the perpetrator by the aggrieved IS justice, no matter what happens next.  The aggrieved has the initiative, to say what they wish."
"Whatever they wish?"
"The means and the ends must both be justified*, so yes one could say something that makes them the perpetrator of a new grievance.  But that is an error they must be free to make.  One that we know Theoden will not make."
"Wait, so if the confrontation is justice, why does Gandalf merely say fitting?"
"Oh, I guess we completely flubbed the question.  Gandalf is, I think, concerned with the destruction of Sauron.  Saruman is a distraction.  Whether the interaction is just or not, Sauron remains.  It's not really his priority."
"So Gandalf doesn't care about getting justice on the way?"
"Our tradition teaches Gandalf is not a model leader.  Gandalf's motivation here, then, may be to shame Saruman, or to see how he reacts when Theoden, of all people, witness his defeat.  Maybe he hopes, in his rage, he will do something he can use.  But whether out of spite or for real gain, we cannot say."
"And Gandalf is right, though it is Wormtongue who acts in rage - and likely not as a result of Theoden's presence."
"So Gandalf is not right."
"Aah, right.  Well, what can we learn despite this?"

"When harm is done, while we may confront the perpetrator, we should bring the aggrieved along, if they wish it."
"However, as Gandalf correctly states, we should not let them delay us long.  An apology to the ether is better than none at all.  An apology to the aggrieved is good, but an apology soon after the event is better."
"Why is that?"
"Time is unstoppable and will drown everything.  As time chugs along a distance grows, lessening the hurt, the memory of it, and the urgency of repair (because the repair, if delayed, may come from other sources).  However, within the aggrieved, that distance can be prevented, or perhaps returned to.  One can move on from a past wrong, but then when confronted with the perpetrator, recall those bad feelings."
"A quick apology also allows for less strategy.  An apology after a weekend of thought may have more meaning, but it may also have a strategic element.  If I apologize, then X.  But an apology of the moment has less of that.  True, it may have less sincerity behind it, but if someone apologizes for a wrong and is lying, well now they have two wrongs to atone for.  As we said before, it is an error they are free to make."
"An immediate apology, not meant, is obviously better than a later apology which is meant.  What about a later apology or no apology."
"Later."
"But if the confrontation happens and there is no apology, then-"
"Great!  How wonderful a way to keep one's integrity.  I was not sorry when I did not apologize.  With time, I became sorry and apologized.  You can trust me to be honest, even if we disagree on what I ought to do."
"Saurman does not apologize."
"Saruman never apologizes, nor does Wormtongue.  They do keep their integrity, but without goodness integrity isn't worth much.  Honesty is the best policy, but does not necessarily make good policy.  It's good to know who is against you, but that doesn't mean it is good to have opponents.  If we allow others the grace to stand firm, even by letting them say what we disagree with, we can take their agreements, if they ever come, with more authority.  They have not been cowed.  And if we suspect it is a strategically minded agreement or apology, how wonderful their strategy requires our goodwill.  They may seek to trick us, but we can show them our goodwill is worth more in the long run rather than as a quick oil for the wheels of evil."



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.

*I have repeated this a lot, but surprisingly cannot find the first post in which I argued it.  I'll keep looking, but it's an interesting issue to have run into...

On just desserts

This week we read Helm's Deep, a chapter which always confounds me a little, as I was introduced to Lord of the Rings through the movies.  And as wonderful as they are, I think the biggest change is in their handling of this battle.  The Battle of Helm's Deep takes up somewhere between a third and a whole half of the second movie.  In our text it only takes up one chapter.

It's also different because, in the books, it's mostly a running battle.  The Rohirrim and the Orcs arrive nearly at the same time.  The men secure a gate or a wall and the Orcs again and again overrun them, causing a retreat.

When there is nowhere else to retreat, Theoden decides he'd rather die fighting than hiding.  As his men ride into battle, accompanied by the great horn of the Helm's Deep, Gandalf also arrives with Erkenbrand, a Rohirrim warrior who'd been cut off from everyone else (along with his forces).  In addition to this, we are told, "The land had changed.  Where before the green dale had lain, its grassy slopes lapping the ever-mounting hills, there now a forest loomed."  The text describes the Orcs' response to this turn of events:

The hosts of Isengard roared, swaying this way and that, turning from fear to fear.
Again the horn sounded from the tower.
Down through the breach of the Dike charged the king’s company.
Down from the hills leaped Erkenbrand, lord of Westfold.
Down leaped Shadowfax, like a deer that runs surefooted in the mountains.
The White Rider was upon them, and the terror of his coming
filled the enemy with madness. The wild men fell on their faces before him.
The Orcs reeled and screamed and cast aside both sword and spear. Like a black smoke
driven by a mounting wind they fled. Wailing they passed under the
waiting shadow of the trees; and from that shadow none ever came again.

"The Orcs were destroyed - we should celebrate!  Who should deserve the honors."
"The King's company, because they did not give up."
"Yes! Though they retreated time and time again, as the situation required, when they had nowhere further to go they attacked.  They did not lose heart.  They were willing to compromise when necessary, but they kept their ultimate goal in mind.  Had they stood firm at the first gate, they may have all been destroyed."
"And how many Orcs did they destroy?"
"According to the text, none."
"And they charged not from strength, but from desperation.  Such foolishness is not ethics.  It is good fortune, only, they did not ride to their death."
"So then who deserves the honors of destroying the Orcs?"
"Erkenbrand, lord of Westfold!  His troops had been skirmishing along the borderlands with the Orcs.  He and his men were able to provide a crucial rearguard action."
"And how many Orcs did they destroy?"
"According to the text, none."
"So then who deserves the honors of destroying the Orcs?"
"Shadowfax, and Gandalf, the White Rider, Mithrandir!  He had found Erkenbrand and led his men to the Deep."
"And how many Orcs did they destroy?"
"According to the next, none; though Gandalf's coming filled the enemy with terror."
"But terror does not kill."
"So then who deserves the honors of destroying the Orcs?"
"Who is left?"
"The trees."
"The trees."
"The trees sat themselves as if they were mere trees.  While Erkenbrand and Theoden and Gandalf may have known no forest usually lived there, the Orcs would not know.  Their ignorance led to their death."
"Why had the forest come?"
"As part of the Ent's attack on Isengard.  They had come to Helm's deep to intervene, if the battle was going ill."
"But it was not."
"And so the trees, unhasty, were content to watch their enemies be destroyed."
"But instead the Orcs ran towards them."
"The Orcs had only seen the trees as you and I know them.  They had never known their violence or grudgeful heart."
"And so the trees deserve the honors of destroying the Orcs."
"The trees, bent on revenge.  The trees, whom the Orcs fled to for cover.  As is a theme of our text, evil destroyed itself.*  The Orcs deserved no less." 
"So do you say the Orcs destroyed themselves?"
"Only in a pitiable way.  They surely are owed no honors for such a result.  So let's give it to the trees, who came to watch a battle but in fact, played a decisive role."
"A poetic end."
"One unworthy of the Bard."

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.

*No, it is not an error I've linked to the same post twice.

On Faithfulness

This week we read "King of the Golden Hall," in which Gandalf and the Hunters go to Edoras and find Theoden... not doing well. It's a chapter rich with passages worth analyzing, so much that I've tagged a few for the future, just to make sure I get to them eventually.

The passage I want to do a dialogue on this year comes towards the end of the chapter. Theoden has been rescued from Grima's clutches and realizes Eomer, whom he had imprisoned after his return from the battle with the Orcs, has acted in the realm's interest all along, even though he did so in defiance of the king's order.

‘I owe much to Eomer,’ ´ said Theoden. ‘Faithful heart may have froward tongue.’

"What is it to be faithful?"
"To serve despite hardship - when it would be easier to turn away."
"So not a fair-weather friend."
"No. Faithfulness is reliability incarnate, a steadfast anchor in the tumultuous seas of uncertainty."
"Is faithfulness friendship?"
"Not always, it could be subservient (or patronage)."
"But it must be friendly."
"Also no.  As we see here.  Sometimes our friends can be faithful to us by joining us on our campaigns, or by cheering us on.  But sometimes we are going astray - a faithful friend will steer us back."
"Or abandon us, as Eomer did?"

"We've already discussed the problems with Eomer's decision, though that was in the context of leadership.  In friendship abandoning a friend in need is not comparable - though it is sometimes required."
"How can faithlessness be required?"
"There are many relationships in which one's faithfulness is exploited.  If one is in a toxic relationship, friendship or romantic or familial, I think it is necessary to break away from the relationship."
"Is this ethics?"
"It is unethical to be the toxic person.  It is ethical to help your friends out of those relationships.  If you are in it, I think it is right to try to get out.  I don't know if ethical is exactly the right word."
"But this is the froward tongue.  To be wilful and disobedient.  The faithful heart, one who loves a toxic person, must display the froward tongue, or else they will be swallowed by the toxicity.  It must be kept at bay - to compromise is to invite eventual dissolution."
"But now we've gotten off topic."
"Have we?  Grima was being toxic to the realm, and he certainly was having a toxic affect on Theoden.  Eomer was right, in your words, to get out."
"That's true."
"Eomer was clear-eyed.  He knew Thoden's values is committed to serve them.  Sometimes this means fighting off Orcs who were encroaching on their land.  But sometimes this means disobeying bad orders.  “It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends.”"
"Our friends and loved ones can be wrong.  Not in a political sense, but in the sense of their own good.  An alcoholic friend needs an intervention, not a wingman, though they will resent you for the former."
"But we must always be careful when doing things for someone else's own good."
"Indeed, we've discussed that in some cases action is ethically required however, it is as important to ensure such a decision is not wrongfully justified."
"We, too, can be wrong.  We should strive to keep our relations' best interest at heart, acting in them even at risk of our standing in their eyes.  And we should seek to surround ourselves with those willing to do the same.  Faithfulness must be to values, not to people.  People are too fickle to deserve it."
"So we should be willing to desert our relations if they lose their values?"
"No!  We should try to guide them back to those values.  But if they refuse, then yes.  If you follow a person, they may lead you astray.  If you follow a value, you may still go astray, but it is not the value's fault.  Values should be the north star of a life, and with it we can guide not just ourselves but also our relations.  If they will go with us - and of course our values will not be exactly the same as others - then they are worth having in our lives.  If they will go a worse course, at some point we must separate from them, or else we will separate from everyone else.  Do not lose the whole flock for the wandering sheep and all that."
"So we do not desert them, but they desert us?"
"That phrasing will comfort us, but ultimately we did leave them somewhere on the road.  But our ethics must be realistic, and I think it is uncommon for those we've associated with to change so suddenly and dramatically that we must do something like that.  Generally, such change is gradual.  It is also mutual.  They have found some other guide in the night sky.  We have deserted each other."
"But we still should try to keep them on the path."
"We must.  And even be open to the possibility that they are right, and we are wrong.  But even then, if we do join them, it is to follow values - not them.  And if we do, we must doo what we can to bring others with us."
"Our heart must be faithful to values, but our tongue must be froward to those who deviate."
"And throughout it all, we must allow a little doubt, and always find time for self-reflection."

"Sounds difficult!"
"As always, ethics is choosing the harder way."

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 war - and worse...

This week we read "The White Rider."  The Three Hunters enter Fangorn following the tracks of the Hobbits.  But then they meet the White Rider - whom they initially think is Saruman but is, of course, Gandalf.  Gandalf tells them the Hobbits are safe, and that there is something else they must do:

You must go to Edoras and seek out Théoden in his hall.

For you are needed. The light of Andu´ril must now be uncovered in

the battle for which it has so long waited.

There is war in Rohan, and worse evil: it goes ill with Théoden.’

"Worse than war?"
"What can be worse than war?"
"War can lead lasting marks on generations, can destroy nations, and ruins landscapes."
"But there are some wars, we know, that are just."
"Still, war is awful.  Even a just war is traumatic."
"So what can Gandalf mean?"
"I think what he means is that Theoden will not stir.  He will avoid the just war."
"Is it so bad to avoid a just war, if war is so awful?"
"War is a tool.  We must only use it when necessary.  However, when it is necessary, perhaps we must use it.  Few great evils are overthrown by love and understanding."
"Theoden's pacifism will not prevent suffering at the hands of Saruman.  He abdicates his responsibility over his people."
"Suffering can exist without war.  Peace is no panacea."
"So Theoden must be stirred.  Eomer's righteous campaign is worse than not enough - it is counter-productive, as it splits the people and undermines Theoden's authority."
"Even before the first blow is landed, the Rohirrim split into factions."
"This is the worse evil - not to go to war, but to lose community over a disagreement.  Eomer is right, the Rohirrim cannot stand idly by.  But without Theoden's support, it will not be enough.  Gandalf wants the Hunters to reunite the divided Rohirrim.
"Therefore, if we want to do what is right, we should avoid the path of Eomer - taking those who will come with us on a separate, righteous, campaign.  We must do the harder work of politicking.  We must not let the urgency of the situation cause us to break our community."
"But Gandalf says it goes ill with Theoden, not Eomer."
"Eomer has right on his side, and to persuade him would be to push him to embrace wrong.  Instead it is Theoden who must be pulled out of his complacency.  Eomer's err is in his response, not his position."
"So whenever we see a splinter group, we must go to the center and say 'Join the extreme!'?"
"Hmm. I guess not every time.  Sometimes the splinter group is wrong in position, too.  As we have said, the means and the ends must each be justified.
"So if they are right, and yet driven by frustration to break apart, we should not join them.  We also should not try to temper them.  Nor mediate between them both.  If we want to support them, we must go to the center and push them towards the direction.  Perhaps it will not work.  But what will certainly not work is letting the center die the death of a thousand cuts, as different priorities decide to go off on their own rather than remain together.  They may not get what they want and then, with no other guiding principles, they become listless, or more extreme in their requests.  Or they do get what they want, and then they decide they don't need the center at all.  But we only fight for principles to support people.  On their own, principles are worthless.  Remaining in community lets us remain people-driven, not ideology driven."

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 Orcs

This week is another double-portion.  We read "The Uruk-Hai" and "Treebeard."  In the first chapter we see how Merry and Pippin survive their capture of the Orcs, and how they escape into Fangorn forest.  In the next chapter we meet Treebeard, who helps Merry and Pippin after finding them in Fangorn.  Throughout this chapter we learn a lot about Orcs, which will be the focus on today's discussion.  The first two excerpts are from "The Uruk-Hai."

An Orc stooped over [Pippin], and flung him some bread and a strip of raw dried flesh.
He ate the stale grey bread hungrily, but not the meat.
He was famished but not yet so famished as to eat flesh flung to him by
an Orc, the flesh of he dared not guess what creature.

And then, later

‘Maggots!’ jeered the Isengarders [as they run past the Orcs of Mordor]. ‘You’re cooked.
The Whiteskins will catch you and eat you. They’re coming!’

And then, in our second chapter, Treebeard says:

But Trolls are only counterfeits, made by the Enemy in the

Great Darkness, in mockery of Ents, as Orcs were of Elves. 

"Why has the Creative Wizard made villains who were so clearly awful?  It's hard to have much sympathy for Orcs."
"Why must we sympathize with Orcs at all?"
"It makes a story more interesting, I think, to have two reasonable sides.  But in these chapters Merry and Pippin are just victims to cruelty, though they endure surprisingly well."
"The Orcs are not-Elves.  They were not created to do anything."
"But even the Elves, as we are aware, are an imperfect race."
"But one is of course worse."
"Absolutely."
"I wonder if Orcs are meant as a reminder of the existence of evil.  There's a lot in our text to examine of the Free Peoples, as we have seen over the years.  Good people may disagree about what to do, but there is a certain point beyond all can say: This is evil."
"What is that line here?"
"In this text, they nourish themselves in unwholesome ways, and they see themselves in all others.  And because they somehow know they are evil, they must resist those who are like them."
"Somehow?"
"I don't know how else to explain it.  But the Orcs eat whatever - thus they think the Rohirrim will eat them, too.  There is no persuasion and no points of view to examine - it is purely a power struggle, and the defeated one will be vanquished.  They know, or at least believe, no persuasion is possible."
"So we should beware those who say such things?"
"Those who claim righteousness are to be cautioned against.  And those who believe their enemies will stoop to any level will, themselves, justify any such stooping.  But the means and ends must both be justified on their own.  There are no evil races in our world comparable to Orcs (and beware anyone who says otherwise), but there are evil ideologies.  But, as they depend on belief, we should always first seek to undermine the ideology before we decide our only choice is destruction of the people.  They must be given a choice."
"I have found a way to sympathize with Orcs, I think."
"Go on."
"Orcs are like our 'useful idiots.'  They were created as mockery of Elves, but had no choice in that process.  So while they are altogether evil, they are not exactly at fault.  They must be destroyed, but deserve some pity.  Similarly, a useful idiot spouts terrible ideas, and maybe commits terrible deeds, and while they have more agency than the orcs do, they deserve some pity."
"Why should we pity those who bring suffering into the world?  Even if all of Hitler's underlings were  just following orders, those orders led to many deaths."
"We should pity them because they are acting as we may have acted in that situation.  If there was such a race on Earth as evil as Hitler considered the Jews, their destruction could be called for.  That's a reach, I understand.  Let me take a better example:  January 6th occured because many Americans believed the election process had been undermined, that the rightfully elected candidate was denied.  That latter half of that sentence is wrong, but if one believes the election process has been undermined, how should one respond?"
"Lawsuits.  Redistricting.  Protest.  There is all manner of better response."
"But if you think the courts are bias, if you think redistricting is all political, if you think protests will do nothing (there had been protests for weeks before January 6th)?  If there really were some kind of deep-state, as they believed, storming by force may have been the right option.  There are some cases, when faced with evil, when extreme options are justified."
"I litereally just said I JUST SAID that the means and the ends must both be justified on their own."
"Would you let democracy die because you refuse to spill any blood at all?   Would you condemn the lives of millions in your nation to tyranny for the sake of one life? We believe in ethics, and that is choosing the harder way. Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right. Rules were meant to be broken, when the time calls for it.  The difficulty is knowing when that time is."
"Who makes that decision?"
"No one, I think.  When the time comes, it will be apparant.  If you plan and plot it, you're just scheming."
"Is it unethical to plan?"
"It is unethical to make a plan which justifies something usually off-limits, yes."
"So sometimes - maybe - extraordinary means are justified.  But we usually should value persuasion over destruction."
"Of course."
"Useful idiots, at least many of them, want to do what is right.  But they are so wrong.  We don't necessarily need to persuade them to our side of a given argument, but we do need to persuade them to our side of the line separating good and evil.  Potential wasted is heartbreaking, and we should strive to help those who so obviously want to make a positive impact on the world.   "
"Who doesn't want to make a positive impact on the world?"
"Exactly.  Exactly.  However, not everyone is reachable.  Maybe some people do want to watch the world burn.  We shouldn't waste our time on those truly who are lost, not to spite them but because we should seek out those who will listen.  We must save as many as possible.  Maybe we will learn some people - not races, but individual people - are like Orcs: Beyond saving.  But those discoveries will be rare, and they will merely illuminate for us where to focus our attention."

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 responsibility

This week we read "The Riders of Rohan."  The Three Hunters have entered Rohan, in pursuit of Merry and Pippin.  However, they are unable to catch them.  They eventually run into a retinue of riders (of Rohan), led by Eomer, who claim they found the Orcs on their land and killed them all.  They say there were no others with them, though they have never heard of a Hobbit and they believe Halflings to be only children's tales.  In any event, there were no survivors among the Orcs.

Ah, I forgot to mention their meeting began contentiously.  The Hunters say they came to Rohan through Lothlorien and were given gifts by Galadriel.  Eomer becomes extremely suspicious.  Instead of thinking that they were given gifts by Galadriel, who obviously opposes Mordor, as a sign of potential friendship, he wonders if they were armed by her to be "net-weavers and sorcerers."  All three of them take offense to that chracterization.

Anyway, given Eomer's certainty whoever Aragorn and company are trying to rescue are dead, he encourages them to join him on the hunt for more tresspassing orcs:

'There is work for the Sword to do. Yes, and we could find a use for
Gimli’s axe and the bow of Legolas, if they will pardon my rash
words concerning the Lady of the Wood. I spoke only as
do all men in my land, and I would gladly learn better.’

"What a man is he, to admit he may be wrong."
"Too many in our times are so self-sure."
"Doubt is ethical.  If you are right, your beliefs will survive.  If you are wrong, they should not.  We should all doubt."
"Well that's easy."
"Is it?"
"Yes.  I mean, it is easier to never doubt, but to push ourselves to entertain doubts and questions is not a large task."
"And yet many never do."
"I'm not interested in tearing down others.  I think they do, and we say they don't, because we expect their doubt to lead them to us.  They don't come to our side, thus we say they have no doubts.  Doubts could lead to a refinement, rather than a change of beliefs.  Or perhaps a third option, yet unseen.  Doubt is good, but we cannot compel others.  Thus, we can only encourage others to doubt, and do it ourselves, not to force doubt on others."
"So then that's the whole lesson?  Doubts are good?"
"No - Eomer says something else better worth examining: that he believes this as everyone else in his land does."
"Is culture-wide ignorance an excuse?"
"No, but it is a reason.  It is hard to go against the grain."
"And yet ethics demands we do the harder thing."
"Yes - if we are the one then we should go against the grain.  But we should judge others differently."
"Leniently?"
"No!  Eomer has shown an openness to changing his mind.  How might we change the minds of everyone in Rohan?"
"By having similar encounters - where others can share their experience that the Elves of Lothlorien are to be embraced, or at least not feared."
"So we go from house to house convincing the people?"
"If we must."
"That takes a lot of time, and many may not be so open-mided?"
"Nobody said it would be easy."
"But it doesn't have to be that hard.  We're fighting a culture of suspicion!  Even if we are able to persuade many, they only need to hear "Your parents were wary of them," and doubt will creep in."
"Doubt which they will, if they are ethical, consider seriously."
"Doubt undermines doubt?"
"Too much can be dangerous.  Whether you know Truth is a question worth asking - whether there is Truth is risky to explore.
"So our person-to-person persuasion will only be temporary.  We must instill a larger change.  How do we do this?"
"I'm unsure we even should.  Mass persuasion of others is beyond our mission.  And probably unethical anyway, as we said before.  We cannot compel."
"So what's the ethical thing?  To know the limits of persuasion?"
"No.  I mean, yes, knowing one's limits is good.  But I want to point out that Eomer is not alone in his ignorance.  His culture is ignorant.  Holding him responsible would be unethical."
"So we should excuse ignorance when one's culture breeds it?"
"No, but we should dismiss thoughts of retribution.  People believe what their people believe.  We should not hold children responsible for what their teachers tell them, and we should not hold teachers responsible for what the parents demand, and we should not hold parents responsible for what they think society needs their children to know.  And what they think society needs them to know may be wrong.  What they teach their children at age 10 will probably be outdated by the time they are 25.  That's not even a matter of being unethical, just wrong."
"So nobody is responsible?"
"Society is, to an extent.  But changing, and certainly punishing, societies is hard.  If society has a wrong view, it's unfair to punish one or two people.  That's just scapegoating, and encouraging others to hide their beliefs, not change them."
"But societies don't just exist - they are made of people.  We've got to reach the people.  But I agree it is wrong to 'punish one or two people,' as if pulled out of a hat.  But some people drive society more than others.  We should find the leaders and punish them.  Best to persuade them to change their minds, but punishing is the next best if the wrong belief is bad enough."
"But that only drives the bad beliefs underground."
"It is an imperfect solution.  But if the accepted belief of the Rohirrim becomes the Elves of Lorien are friendly, and an underground sect believe they are evil, that is obviously better than the converse.  And it is then the responsibility of the whole to slowly turn the minds of the underground, before they have been suppressed so thoroughly they explode.  Societies cannot be democracies in that way, not on the concept of good and evil.  If 40% of people believe something is evil, that 60% think its good isn't a stable solution.  The persuasion must be ongoing.  At some point those with the bad views can be held responsible for the effort they take in hanging onto them -"
"What is a bad view?"
"That something is evil when good, or vice versa."
"How can we know what is evil and what is good?  We've said often we must be careful of those labels."
"So we let society fall apart?"
"That's very apocalyptic of you!  So people have different ideas on what is good and what is evil - is that so bad?"
"I would assume so.  If some think abortion is murder, and others think preventing abortion reduces certain humans to unwilling birthing factories, how can these beliefs co-exist?"
"The issue, I actually think, is the certainty upon each side.  Again, doubt is the key.  Examination of one's belief is the key."
"But we already said the lesson here must be more than "Let a little doubt in.""
"Maybe we were wrong.  We've tied ourselves up in a knot here, and I'm not even sure where to begin untying it."
"I think the lesson here is that Eomer is wrong, but Eomer is not at fault for his wrong view.  Thus, when we find someone acting wrongly, however we mean, we must determine whether they were following their conscience or their education, and our response should change accordingly."
"And I think the lesson here is certainty is the enemy.  By accepting he may be wrong, Eomer shows us how to respond to new information.  Even if he never truly loves Lorien, that he approaches this situation with curiosity rather than bravado makes him a worthy role-model.  He accepts responsibility for his beliefs, even if he had no choice in them in the first place."
"Two lessons, and yet I remain unsatisfied."
"There's always next week..."

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 a new age

I am a bit late, but no fear!  This week we begin The Two Towers, whose first chapter is "The Departure of Boromir."  It would be interesting one year to do an analysis of the chapter titles, since Boromir departs not once in this chapter but twice.  Once when he dies and once again when Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas place him in a boat and send him on the river, since they have no time for a proper burial and a pyre would likely be ruined by the Orcs and Uruk-hai who remain in the area.  This week we'll focus on that decision, though it's more a jumping off point.

‘Then let us lay him in a boat with his weapons, and the weapons of his vanquished foes,’ said Aragorn.
‘We will send him to the Falls of Rauros and give him to Anduin.
The River of Gondor will take care at least that no evil creature dishonours his bones.’

"What part of Middle Earth history is the Lord of the Rings telling."
"The end of the Third Age."
"The end of the Elves."
"And the rise of Men."
"What will change in Middle Earth when Men dominate what Elves once did?"
"Elves understand what is perfect.  They see all imperfections and resent them.  But Men live in those imperfections, and are content to manage them."
"And so we see it here.  Where the Elves believe Orcs coming through a river lessens the river, Men understand this is not so.  Water washes, and while it  may not wash completely, it washes nonetheless, and we should appreciate that.  Boromir's bones could be found by orcs, and we know the river will be, but that doesn't diminish the righteousness and protection of the ceremony for Boromir."
"Because Men tolerate imperfection, does Middle Earth become worse?"
"From the point of view of the Elves."
"From whose point of view will Middle Earth become better?"
"Probably everybody else.  Men can make mistakes and should be forgiven if they repent.  Elves can't."
"They also don't.  Or at least we don't have examples of Elves making mistakes in our text."
"But the Creative Wizard came up with a few in other texts.  Fëanor and Celebrimbor, who started so much trouble.  Eöl and Maeglin, with their family difficulties.  But you are right they do not repent.  Fëanor made the Silmarils, and led the rebellion against the Valar.  He died without recovering the Silmarils, and of course doesn't reverse the rebellion.  Celebrimbor made the Rings of Power, and while he valiantly resists torture at the end of his life by Sauron who was looking for the Rings, he does not repent.  Eöl, who tried to keep his family isolated from the world, is killed by his son Maeglin before repenting.  As for Maeglin, on top of such patricide, he tells Morgoth how to find the city of Gondolin in return for a chance to marry Idril, his cousin, a marriage which was forbidden under Elven law."
"So we have stories of Elves failing.  But none of Elves repenting."
"All of those stories are old.  We can imagine the culture among the Elves that has developed by this time.  All failure leads to only destruction.  There is no tradition of returning to the fold, or repairing what had been broken.  It is perfection or naught."
"They are too stringent and demanding.  You must walk the path, but there are no guardrails at the edges or nets over the edge.  Dwarves and Hobbits and Men cannot live this way."
"An age of Men will allow more to prosper.  Those who falter are not damned."
"Though it is called the Age of Men, it is really for all, in that way.  Men may rule, but their rule will be more understanding of everybody else.  Not judgemental, as the Elves."
"They're Jews!"
"Excuse me?"
"The Elves.  They are like Jews.  Not modern Jews, but in the way they were seen by early Christians."
"What in the Shire are you talking about?  Tolkien refused all claims of allegory."
"Surely not *all*, since the other quote in that reference is that his work is 'Religious and Catholic'"
"Well, that doesn't make it allegory."
"Sure, but.  Well, listen.  The Elves are separate.  They are Chosen.  The Elves are meant to be the light to all the others, guiding them from their own folly.  They are ancient.  Their law is unforgiving.  Their fallen heroes remain fallen.  Accuracy aside, this is how we'd expect a Catholic as the Creative Wizard to understand the Jews in the time of Jesus.  Like in Middle Earth here, back then (in, may I add, the Middle East) was the beginning of a new era."
"So Sauron is Caesar?"
"No, the allegory definitely doesn't go that far.  But if Men are better rulers of Middle Earth because they embrace redemption and will work fairly with all races, there is certainly a basic Christian understanding of things there as oppose to the old particularism of Judaism, which the Elves represent.  The point is, Elves think when orcs go through a river they foul it up - Men understand the river will win out, even if they agree it would be better the Orcs not go there at all.  The intent behind sending Boromir down the river supercedes the chance it could eventually maybe possibly lead to something undesirable.'  A pot whose kasher has been violated no longer needs to be destroyed or buried."
"What about us?"
"We should embrace the Age of Men, of sin and return (and sin again).  To demand perfection is to invite failure and resentment.  The Elves may be admirable, but they are not role models."
"How can we admire but not follow?"
"As we can admire a painting or sculpture or wonderful piece of music.  We can appreciate, we can know there is a higher level, and perhaps sometimes hope for such perfection in our life.  But we cannot live our life that way.  It will only bring us grief, and we will approach the end of our lives as the Elves, thinking only of where we failed and how the world will deteriorate.  But the humility of forgiveness will allow us to pass peacefully.  The world is not withering away, and we with it, but rather full of cycles of life, rising and falling, and though ours may fall, those we leave behind still have great heights to see."
"The ethics of dying well?"
"If we all must die - if our age must end - why not try to do it well?"

  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 30% to this post's final version.  It was a surprisingly good resource for the Elven lore!

Ontology

This week we finish the first volume of our text.  I think it'd be neat to have some kind of tradition for the end of each volume, but I don't have one in mind.  Something for me to consider for next time...

This chapter, given it ends the volume called "The Fellowship of the Ring," is fittingly called "The Breaking of the Fellowship."  Finally, they must decide whether to go East, directly to Mordor, or South, to Minas Tirith first.  Frodo asks for some time to consider and wanders the wilderness.  Boromir goes after him and, after finding him, they have this exchange:

Suddenly Boromir came and sat beside him. ‘Are you sure that you do not suffer needlessly?’
he said. ‘I wish to help you. You need counsel in your hard choice. Will you not take mine?’
‘I think I know already what counsel you would give, Boromir,’ said Frodo.
And it would seem like wisdom but for the warning of my heart.’
‘Warning? Warning against what?’ said Boromir sharply.
‘Against delay. Against the way that seems easier. Against
refusal of the burden that is laid on me...'

"We have come to it!"
"To what?"
"The core of what we do!"
"What do we do?"
"Now we see that the Creative Wizard would indeed look well upon us."
"Can you explain yourself?"
"Frodo's very heart warns him against the way that seems easier.  We repeatedly discuss that ethics is doing the harder thing.  And here is our hero, agreeing!"
"Funny it comes at the end of this volume though?"
"Because Frodo needed to learn it - although it isn't like he had begun the story as one who takes the easy route.  In any event, we have two more volumes for him to enact this."
"And he'll need it!  He will always have the chance to turn away from the Quest, as well as other emotional pulls.  But Frodo will remain firm."
"Until the end."
"Until the end.  Teaching us, maybe, that none are perfect."
"Perfection is not the goal  Rather teaching us, I think, that we cannot do it alone.  We should do the harder thing, but we need not do it alone."
"Is it unethical to remain apart from one's community?"
"Ethics, apart from the community, are less useful.  Being kind to the Earth, or to remain self-disciplined, are noble things, but ethics is not about nobility's sake.  We must do the right thing for others."
"We are not good just for ouselves?"
"Serving the self is the easiest of paths.  If it is for our benefit, fine - but we must also find benefit for others.  Otherwise ethics is just a word to justify what we already wanted - and pursuing what we wanted is easy."
"Can we say it is unethical to be apart from your community because doing the harder thing requires the support of others, and thus being alone sets one up for failure."
"That is a curious argument.  But again, if you are alone, how impactful can your lack of ethics be?"
"Unless one is a hermit, it is possible to be lonely but not distant from those you could hurt.  You could view yourself as the only one with enough sense to take a stand.  Your distance from others justifies misdeeds."
"So while others may challenge and frustrate us, again, we see being with others is the harder way.  Acting against what you call evil is easy.  Finding common ground, compromise, and including others is hard."
"Determining if your opponent is evil or just different is hard."
"Yes.  Earlier, you had said earlier Frodo will encounter various emotional pulls.  Why did you specify emotional?"
"Emotions can lead us astray.  Doing as our emotions command - or maybe guide is a better word? - is always easy."
"So it is more ethical to be robots?"
"There's no reason for such a caricature.  Emotions are natural and inevitable.  To deny is also unethical."
"So it is unethical to follow emotions and to resist them?"
"I said not resist, but deny.  It's very easy to follow emotions, of course.  Next to that, denying them any purchase is easier.  What's harder is to find the balance - to keep the door open and yet prevent being overwhelmed.  Being responsibly emotional, this is the harder choice."
"So again, the harder choice is the medium between the extremes."
"It is harder to balance than to fall.  Balance requires constant correction and management.  Once you fall, it is easy to go deeper and deeper.  It is hard to stop your fall."
"Especially alone."
"The breaking of the Fellowship.  Our characters become alone."
"Yet not quite.  The hunters stay together.  Merry and Pippin remain together.  Sam finds Frodo as he tries to sneak away.  The paths will be harder now, the group being spread out, but only those who act alone will find destruction: Boromir.  Denethor.  The Witch King.  It may seem easier to strike out alone, as Frodo does try to do.  But we must go with others if we are to do what is right."
"Good point!  Even Frodo tries to go alone, which is easier than going together."
"It reminds us to regularly reflect on our own actions to ensure we are doing right, and to challenge our friends - especially when they are fervant.  Frodo meant to go alone to protect his friends, which is noble.  But it is easy, if painful, to be a martyr.  It is harder to go there and come back again."

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 obsession

 This week we read another double portion, " Farewell to Lorien" and "The Great River."  The fellowship, ahem, leave Lothlorien and go down the Anduin, ahem, river.  It's all very clear, you see.

One reason to read this (or any) text again and again is what you notice only on repeat reads.  This week I'll be highlighting two passages for discussion, one from this chapter and one from an earlier chapter, Many Meetings.  The context of the first is that the Fellowship have reached a waterfall, and must haul the the boats out of the water and walk them down a path until they reach the bottom of the falls, where they will put them back into the river.

The goods were taken out of the boats and brought to the top of the bank,
where there was a level space. Then the boats were drawn out of the water and
carried up They were far less heavy than any had expected.

Of what tree growing in the Elvish country they were made not even Legolas knew;

but the wood was tough and yet strangely light. Merry and Pippin alone could
carry their boat with ease along the flat.

We've discussed Elven magic before, but there's a curious parallel between these boats and Frodo's coat of mithril, which saved his life only a few chapters ago.  Here is how it is introduced to us when Bilbo first shows it to Frodo:  

‘Also there is this!’ said Bilbo, bringing out a parcel which seemed to be rather heavy for its size.
He unwound several folds of old cloth, and held up a small shirt of mail.
It was close-woven of many rings, as supple almost as linen, cold as ice, and harder than steel...

‘It’s a pretty thing, isn’t it?’ said Bilbo, moving it in the light... You hardly feel any weight when you put it on.’

"Two times now we have learned of things sturdy, but light.  Surely not a coincidence.  What is the lesson?"
"Compare, also, to the Ring.  It is small, but can weigh the bearer down as if it were a stone at times."
"And the Elven cloaks, lightweight and yet their camoflague is able to protect as if it were armor."
"And don't forget lembas bread, which can 'keep a traveller on his feet for a day of long labor,' though it looks like cram."
"So the creative Wizard's position is clear: Things that are good are light, unassuming, and also-"
"Mithril is breath-takingly beautiful, and Bilbo describes it as pretty."
"But it is small, and perhaps to an untrained eye more decorative than protective.  The things which are good do not appear extraordinary."
"Nor does the Ring, though.  It is a gold band, but a simple one."
"Unless put in the fire."
"And mithril reveals its true nature, too, when tested."
"But the Ring has an altogether extraordinary effect upon anyone who sees it.  That they wish to sieze it.  Or it burrows into their mind, claiming their thoughts.  Definitely not unassuming."
"True, the boats and cloaks of the Elves are not so all-consuming of the mind."
"Bilbo simply gives Frodo the coat of mithril."
"So what is the meaning that things which are good are light, can appear unassuming, and yet are also forgettable."
"Heft is an expression of power, and power is bad."
"We recall those things which were difficult, the obstacles we overcame.  But the time that path was straight, or the wall had already been broken by others, these things we do not remember.  We recall struggles and victories for inches more than the movement of miles."
"Things that are surprisingly light may seem extraordinary in the moment, but then it becomes accepted.  We resist bad until it is defeated - or we are.  Good things are accepted until they become expected."
"And then their absence is seen as an obstacle."
"So forgetfulness is a key part of what is good here.  Elvish boats and bread doesn't sour one on the regular stuff."
"We'll have to keep an eye out for any sort of regret of that sort in the rest of the text."
"Yes, indeed."
"But the Ring infests one's mind.  Once you have it you gotta have more.  Gollum is the obvious example.  And Boromir, once he considers using the Ring, cannot fully shake his desire.  Denethor, having striven with Sauron in the Palantír, cannot shake the feeling of defeat he experienced.  Even Bilbo and Frodo, in the end, cannot remain in Middle Earth having borne the ring."
"But Sam can."
"That's true.  Something else for us to keep an eye on - how is his experience with the burden described to justify his easier release.  Or is it just that it was short, and the Ring was destroyed very soon after."
"So according to our text, memory can be an enemy."
"I think it's better to say obsession.  Remembering isn't a problem- the characters make pledges all the time for future action.  But to obsess over something, especially in a needless way, such as wanting lembas when one has sourdough, or elven boats where there is a bridge, that could cause problems."
"Such as what?"
"Such as ingratitude, or a lack of awareness.  The world could always be better, but there's a time for striving and a time for enjoying.  Imagining you could be celebrating thanksgiivng with two turkeys instead of one is only going to get in the way of your celebrating."
"Well, imagining it would be fine - but the inability to put that idea away would be the problem."
"Of course."
"So is it unethical to obsess?"
"While obsessing may seem the harder path - if you are not obsessed it can be hard to imagine it easy to be so hyperfocused - the harder path, to the obsessed, is letting go.  And given the problems that can come from obsession, it makes one's life better to drop it, if only because now you have less problems.  And if your life is better you are more free to make life better for others.  Obsession sacrifices your autonomy."
"Aah!  This I like better.  Obsession is not unethical because it is one thing nor because it is ever that one thing only.  Obsession is unethical because it is a mode of choicelessness.  It cannot be said we did the right thing if we could not choose to do the wrong thing."
"So do we say 'avoid those that are obsessed, they are unethical?'"
"No!  The obsessed are not unethical, but obsession, itself, is.  If you feel it pulling at you, or see it pulling at another, it is your duty to weaken it.  Similarly, when you support others, you should not make them dependent upon you.  Share your gifts to lift them up, not to dominate them.  So that when the world turns and you two inevitably part they don't experience your absence as some extreme lacking.  People should be dependable, but not dependant."

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 love and understanding

This week we read "The Mirror of Galadriel."  Early in the chapter, before the titular event, Galadriel addresses the Fellowship, and the topic of Gandalf's fall comes up.  There is some muttering from others about how Moria was a Dwarven realm, and Gimli appears to take personal responsibility for the Fellowship going there.  Galadriel then says,

"Dark is the water of Kheled-zâram, and cold are the springs of Kibil-nâla,
and fair were the many-pillared halls of Khazad-dûm"... She looked upon Gimli, who sat
glowering and sad, and she smiled.  And the Dwarf, hearing the names given in his own ancient
tongue, looked up and met her eyes; and it seemed to him that he looked into the heart of an enemy
and saw there love and understanding.  Wonder came into his face, and then he smiled in answer.

"How beautiful is reconciliation - to bury a hatchet once held dearly!"
"But why did 'it seemed to him', only?"
"Because Galadriel was never his enemy."
"But surely the Elves, whom she leads, were.  It was only last chapter they wanted to bind his eyes so he wouldn't see the way to Lothlorien!  Does Galadriel have a responsibility for that enmity?"
"How responsible can leaders be for their people?"
"What a question is that!  How can they be leaders if they are not responsible for their people?  What else is leadership?!"
"Aah, good point.  So maybe that is not what 'seemed' means here.  Maybe it was just to convey his experience - he seemed to look into the heart of the enemy.  But then, all at once, he realized she wasn't one.  He saw something else."
"More that he heard something.  Galadriel spoke his people's words in a stirring tongue.  He looked up and locked eyes with an enemy, expecting maybe mockery, or cultural superiority - the specialty of the Elves - but instead saw love and understanding."
"What do we mean by these words?"
"Love is to accept as one is, and to hope for future growth.  Understanding is a willingness to listen, and maybe to change one's mind."
"I can understand an opposing argument and not agree with it."
"But you will never agree with an opposing argument you do not understand."
"Fair point.  So what does it mean Gimli saw these things in Galadriel?"
"Galadriel doesn't wish Gimli any wrong.  She accepts he is a dwarf and looks forward to him becoming an Elf-friend.  She will also listen to his stories, and maybe change her perspective on the history of Elf-Dwarf relationships."
"So should we, when we find an enemy.  We should try to love and understand them."
"It is not so easy!"
"Ethics is making the harder choice."
"Yes, but it is not as easy as deciding to do so.  Galadriel has shown Gimli she values his point of view by speaking dwarven words.  Surely these places have Elven names, too.  But she doesn't refer to them in that way.  This opens the bridge between them.  It's what causes Gimli to look at her in the first place.  But whether she built the bridge to mock him or welcome him, that wasn't yet clear."
"So she could have spoken those words and revelaed herself as the enemy he believed her to be."
"Correct.  Using a language he understands to show it is different than her own."
"So how some may refer to a non-binary person as 'they' to show they are an ally, but others may do so in a mocking tone."
"Language is more than just the words we speak."
"What's the lesson here - to speak genuinely and kindly?"
"No - that's too much a matter of motivation.  Plus you say we should try to love and understand an enemy when we come across then, but there are times when it is right to rebuke and even shame.  But we must always be open, as Gimli was, to reconciliation.  To the idea our opponents may be genuine, or that our ideas of them are outdated.  It is comfortable, and therefore easy, to assume ancient enmity will always endure.  Changing minds is difficult, least of all our own."
"I can change my mind whenever I want to!  I will never change my mind.  See?  I just did it!""
"But what about when it counts?  What about when it means disagreeing with friends, or feeling like you are (or being seen as) compromising your values?"
"But then I may lose the love and understanding of those friends."
"Then you never had it if it depended on alignment with an ideology!  That is love and understanding of an ideal, not a person!  The world is complicated and people are more than their ideas - even ideas important to them.  We all compromise on our beliefs at some point, or at least we should.  A life well lived is not one of unshaken belief, or solidly laid-out arguments."
"So when we find love and understanding in the heart of one who seemed an enemy, we should not reject it, but be open to it?"
"Yes - we should even reciprocate the love and understanding.  That is the harder choice.  There is comfort in designating your enemy as eternal and just alienating them, but you do your cause no good."
"And of our friends?"
"If we find those around us, those who are friends and family, are dedicated to something besides love and understanding, be wary.  Seek a new group, or at least another group, to spend time with."
"Why did you specify friends and family?  Why not everyone?"
"Because co-workers, fellows in clubs and activism, in these people there is some goal bringing everyone together besides love and understanding.  Love and understanding can also be present, and there are ways better and worse ways to prioritize The Goal over love and understanding, but one should be cautious about using a job or a hobby or an ideal as a way of making friends, or finding a family.  Friendship requires, and family's are expected to, dedicate themselves to each person involved.  When we look into the eyes of a friend or family with whom we are in deep disagreement we should still find that love and understanding."

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 XX% to this post's final version.