The One Ring in relation to marriage of the material and spiritual sure provokes *me*! Yes, yes, YES!! But it's a rather late hour again, and I'm sure to discuss this better when rested.
Until then - why do you consider the Ring exceeds the analogy of divorce and stuff? First of all, I'd like to say that my impression is that JRRT indeed had his Adam & Eve Factor in his life. I really can't pronounce myself on this but it makes for a good reason why his religion was a positive to him, and did not seem bleak and binding. What I mean by Adam & Eve Factor is the ultimate connection which transcends material life, and this is representative (and rare in our times) of two people who come from the same energy seed, if you will. If they are married and living out their life together, then material and spiritual are married. There is also the possibility of them not living out their life together, but still being married spiritually (I'm not entering into the discussion on strictly-hetero yet, and there's also a question on whether Eve is the right person, etc...)
Now Sauron, being of the Maiar, had no such Factor, until he "Split" part of himself and put it into the One Ring. But in the mythology, Ilúvatar doesn't accept stuff that infringes on Free Will. So it's not real (remember when he asks Aulë whether he wanted to make Dwarves just to rule over them like puppets...). You could say that he put his "Soul" into the Ring, but it's not supported by the Secret Fire, and so he doesn't recognize it as an independent entity either.
I think the analogy stands, if you consider the spiritual: the Ring is not a "Living" connection - but a "Dead" parallel coincidence.
The partner in any relationship may be treated as an "Object", and especially when applying an outside influence to bind them to oneself: such as religion. I am having my doubts about who really invented religion, the complex relational system to the world, organized as dependence through perceived mediation.
why do you consider the Ring exceeds the analogy of divorce and stuff?
I think your interpretation of 'marriage' (or 'divorce') in this context is much wider than that the article's author had in mind: what you wrote about Sauron splitting off a part of himself, or the Secret Fire, doesn't enter into the concept applied in the essay. That's one reason why I felt that his reading didn't address all the implications. Another is that the Ring provokes fantasies of power and an all-devouring, powerful Oneness that doesn't have much to do with the common notion of marriage, let alone marriage as a sacrament. (Also, this illusory Oneness is contrasted with the Twoness of Frodo and Sam. :)
The analogy is an interesting one, and I find it more useful than Shippey's drug/addiction analogy, but it doesn't quite cover all the facets for me.
LJ played up on me, as this hasn't arrived in my inbox... :-/
I see - the article's author did not imply all those things I did... Now I also see that I didn't mean 'divorce' as a counter to the Catholic sacrament (they ban divorce and so would deem certain things threatening), but perhaps as: the Ring must first 'separate' in order to make 'one' with something else, something that would not have entered into it otherwise. Galadriel states that the Ring makes one alone; however it remains questionable how much and on which levels it succeeds in 'divorcing' Frodo and Sam (it separates Frodo from his Shire memories, etc, it tries to sow mistrust and separates their destinies in the end, but doesn't ever break the bond - and would it try to mould them together in a different type of relationship afterwards, or suggest such? Many things in LotR deal with such an altered reality, in the sense that you have the same elements, but with a differing core, evil mocking good).
Other facets? I can now imagine the article better from how you describe it... I can imagine its limitations in the same sense that it takes several elements and combines them to provide an interpretation, but disregarding (a little bit) the *pre-existing* relationship between those elements. Am I correct?
I'm thinking of taking back what I wrote about Sauron not having such a "Factor" (his own Two-ness) - he might have one; but it is not a Factor visible to us, at least.
Now, quoting something in the discussion above It is in and of itself inherently evil, because Sauron put much of his own evil into it. It imposes its will on others, and actively works to return to Sauron. One can't say that about any drug.
There are unfortunately certain things, 'devices', in our world, which can be traced back to their makers, supposed to lead to such a pre-determined outcome - whilst causing destructive obsession and pain on the way. The comparison can be present where the person uses something to 'escape', yet the effect is the opposite, imprisonment (or rather, dissociation between realism and delusions, both being exacerbated to amount to a 'walking death' as understood in the framework of LotR: death=unnatural severance of body/fëa). Certainly not all drugs are believed to have been 'designed' for specific imprisonment (and are certainly not the work of one singular entity), but many come from complex misunderstandings of natural processes which people attempt to override anyway, in the arrogance of controlling nature and substances, and sometimes even wills. However, most 'drugs' are merely material-based and therefore their effects are fully controllable by a strong will. The Ring is certainly more than that in its direct effects on the mind, but here is where the twist is: as you have written too, although any of our own theories about "psychological drugs" would have likely made any of the Maiar laugh, it is still ultimately better than "overly mystifying" the power of the Ring and what it can understand or relate to, because it cannot. I can feel with your statement that there is a lot of "belittling Frodo" done, but somehow I worry about justifying his struggles with an "Oh, that *Ring*, is so wow amazing" (or terrifying, or insert any superlative, especially "unique"), so as to quantify Frodo's amount of struggle and admire him in return for his lack of being appreciated. I sense this approach to lead to a pre-determined place, so I usually try to find some other approach if I can.
Until then - why do you consider the Ring exceeds the analogy of divorce and stuff? First of all, I'd like to say that my impression is that JRRT indeed had his Adam & Eve Factor in his life. I really can't pronounce myself on this but it makes for a good reason why his religion was a positive to him, and did not seem bleak and binding. What I mean by Adam & Eve Factor is the ultimate connection which transcends material life, and this is representative (and rare in our times) of two people who come from the same energy seed, if you will. If they are married and living out their life together, then material and spiritual are married.
There is also the possibility of them not living out their life together, but still being married spiritually (I'm not entering into the discussion on strictly-hetero yet, and there's also a question on whether Eve is the right person, etc...)
Now Sauron, being of the Maiar, had no such Factor, until he "Split" part of himself and put it into the One Ring. But in the mythology, Ilúvatar doesn't accept stuff that infringes on Free Will. So it's not real (remember when he asks Aulë whether he wanted to make Dwarves just to rule over them like puppets...). You could say that he put his "Soul" into the Ring, but it's not supported by the Secret Fire, and so he doesn't recognize it as an independent entity either.
I think the analogy stands, if you consider the spiritual: the Ring is not a "Living" connection - but a "Dead" parallel coincidence.
The partner in any relationship may be treated as an "Object", and especially when applying an outside influence to bind them to oneself: such as religion. I am having my doubts about who really invented religion, the complex relational system to the world, organized as dependence through perceived mediation.
Reply
I think your interpretation of 'marriage' (or 'divorce') in this context is much wider than that the article's author had in mind: what you wrote about Sauron splitting off a part of himself, or the Secret Fire, doesn't enter into the concept applied in the essay. That's one reason why I felt that his reading didn't address all the implications. Another is that the Ring provokes fantasies of power and an all-devouring, powerful Oneness that doesn't have much to do with the common notion of marriage, let alone marriage as a sacrament. (Also, this illusory Oneness is contrasted with the Twoness of Frodo and Sam. :)
The analogy is an interesting one, and I find it more useful than Shippey's drug/addiction analogy, but it doesn't quite cover all the facets for me.
Reply
I see - the article's author did not imply all those things I did...
Now I also see that I didn't mean 'divorce' as a counter to the Catholic sacrament (they ban divorce and so would deem certain things threatening), but perhaps as: the Ring must first 'separate' in order to make 'one' with something else, something that would not have entered into it otherwise. Galadriel states that the Ring makes one alone; however it remains questionable how much and on which levels it succeeds in 'divorcing' Frodo and Sam (it separates Frodo from his Shire memories, etc, it tries to sow mistrust and separates their destinies in the end, but doesn't ever break the bond - and would it try to mould them together in a different type of relationship afterwards, or suggest such? Many things in LotR deal with such an altered reality, in the sense that you have the same elements, but with a differing core, evil mocking good).
Other facets? I can now imagine the article better from how you describe it... I can imagine its limitations in the same sense that it takes several elements and combines them to provide an interpretation, but disregarding (a little bit) the *pre-existing* relationship between those elements. Am I correct?
Reply
Now, quoting something in the discussion above
It is in and of itself inherently evil, because Sauron put much of his own evil into it. It imposes its will on others, and actively works to return to Sauron. One can't say that about any drug.
There are unfortunately certain things, 'devices', in our world, which can be traced back to their makers, supposed to lead to such a pre-determined outcome - whilst causing destructive obsession and pain on the way. The comparison can be present where the person uses something to 'escape', yet the effect is the opposite, imprisonment (or rather, dissociation between realism and delusions, both being exacerbated to amount to a 'walking death' as understood in the framework of LotR: death=unnatural severance of body/fëa). Certainly not all drugs are believed to have been 'designed' for specific imprisonment (and are certainly not the work of one singular entity), but many come from complex misunderstandings of natural processes which people attempt to override anyway, in the arrogance of controlling nature and substances, and sometimes even wills. However, most 'drugs' are merely material-based and therefore their effects are fully controllable by a strong will. The Ring is certainly more than that in its direct effects on the mind, but here is where the twist is: as you have written too, although any of our own theories about "psychological drugs" would have likely made any of the Maiar laugh, it is still ultimately better than "overly mystifying" the power of the Ring and what it can understand or relate to, because it cannot. I can feel with your statement that there is a lot of "belittling Frodo" done, but somehow I worry about justifying his struggles with an "Oh, that *Ring*, is so wow amazing" (or terrifying, or insert any superlative, especially "unique"), so as to quantify Frodo's amount of struggle and admire him in return for his lack of being appreciated. I sense this approach to lead to a pre-determined place, so I usually try to find some other approach if I can.
Reply
Leave a comment