If anything, he's underrated - J.R.R. Tolkien Discussion

[–] ShogunofYonkers (78001) 6 years ago

Tolkien's writing was amazing, the man could really spin a tale
His only misstep was the Tom Bombadil character in The Fellowship of the Ring and some associated short stories

What a truly awful and stupid character
I've read The Lord of the Rings many times and I always skip the Tom Bombadil chapter...that guy was a bore, the worst character
ever

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 5 years ago

I have to disagree, Tom Bombadil is a reminder that there's more to Middle-Earth than even the wisest know. He's a counterpoint to Sauron & Saruman & all who seek power over others; they're grimly serious, he's filled with merriment. That doesn't make him silly, but rather much wiser than all would-be power-seekers. In a way, he reminds me of the happiness that radiates from someone like the Dalai Lama, precisely because he has rejected the pursuit of power & control ... and yet even the High Elves & Gandalf speak of Tom as being older & more powerful than any of them.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 5 years ago

Excellent points. Hear, hear!

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 5 years ago

I didn't have a problem with Tom Bombadil.

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (78001) 5 years ago

I may be in the minority on this one
To each their own

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 5 years ago

That's fair enough & I'm certainly not going to attack you for it. There's too much of that sort of thing online anyway. I don't want to add to it.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Tom Bombadil was a character involved in the deeper mythology beyond Sauron and the rings of power. His power and character shows that there are indeed "other forces" at work besides those of evil; without his character's presence you have to rely on Gandalf alone to confirm the presence of a "good force"; Tom confirms the things Ganalf talks about are real.

But that being said; I always found the character odd as well; and somewhat out of place ( I think he is supposed to feel out of place). I think his inclusion works in the books but I think that for the film it was a good idea to omit that character.

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (78001) 5 years ago

That's a good take on the matter
It always irked me that a magical being would sit out the big one to drink wine with his girlfriend but whatever

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Yes, it does seem to undermine the tension in a silly way by having a character who could just sing and skip all the way to Mount Doom and be completely unstoppable along the way and then just drop the ring in there and never even slightly feel tempted by it; but he is like "nah, I don't really feel like it today".

I get that the character represents forces not corrupting their purpose and focusing on what they are 'supposed' to focus on and not letting outside forces influence and corrupt their purpose. I think that is why the ring holds no power over him because he has no interest in anything outside his designed purpose. I found this to be odd within the story as well; so I feel you. I would not call it a mistake; it does serve a purpose effectively but I think I also don't 'like' it.

I think too it interferes with another interesting aspect of the story that comes later. There are only 2 characters in the book that are never really tempted by the ring; the Nature God character Tom and Faramir (which I hate that they undermine him in the films). Faramir is such an interesting character; he had such an inner strength of character he was nigh incorruptible (which is in contrast to his brother who was physically mighty and brave but easily corrupted). Tom is like a god so his ability to resist the ring is not 'that' impressive. However the fact that Faramir almost laughs at the idea do the temptation is just so interesting and I think often overlooked.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 5 years ago

I always had the sense of Tom being an embodiment of Nature, which has no concepts of Good & Evil, but simply is. He's also spoken of as Eldest, a being who was there before the first dark lord Morgoth, Sauron's master, came to Middle-Earth. So from Tom's eons-long perspective, even a dark lord is a passing thing, a perhaps inevitable part of the flawed world, but ultimately always a temporary one. Which is immensely difficult for beings like ourselves to understand, beings who see & live in the immediate, the Now, I'll grant you.

And as for "flawed"—Tolkien makes clear in The Silmarillion that even the "flaw" was foreseen by The One & woven into the primal design of creation. In which case Tom's existence & his long perspective are also part of that primal design, with a purpose known to The One, if not to us.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

You can say that is one of the reasons why Tolkien was such a brilliant writer; the way he wrote this out with this character almost seems beyond human reason; but he did not do it accidentally. Tolkien purposefully wrote that character that way. I think what Tolkien was saying about Tom is that nature is good (the embodiment of nature is good). Things are "good" when they are aligned with their purpose. That is the moral lesson and if utter devotion is given to that alignment with purpose you cannot be corrupted.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 5 years ago

I like that, very well said! :)

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Thanks; I appreciate the compliment; you don't see too much of that on this site.

One more note that I will say though; it is interesting that only a 'divine' type of being could reach that proper (perfect) alignment with purpose. For 'mortal' beings (including elves) it was not possible to be so incorruptible. As in Dante's Divine Comedy Human Reason (represented by Virgil) can only get a mortal so far, you cannot reach paradise (or Tom's perfect alignment with nature and purpose) without divine intervention of some kind. I like that demonstration of showing the limits of what 'humans' can achieve on their own (because no matter how 'good' we try to be we cannot be perfect and incorruptible which is why we have to stay Vigilant against becoming corrupted). Bu this is also why I find Faramir such an interesting character; he seemed to carry this incorruptible spirit but he was still mortal; or maybe he was just so 'surrendered' to the 'divine' good he no longer even considered his own will. I would have loved it if Faramir was explored a little more. I would love to know how a mortal man was able to 'laugh' off the temptation of the ring (which no one seemed to be able to do).

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 5 years ago

Just from memory, wasn't Faramir described by Gandalf as being more like the ancient Numenoreans than many of his people? And of course he was Gandalf's pupil, disliked as such by his father, who saw Gandalf as more of a rival or interloper than an ally & advisor?

I also look to Tolkien's devout Catholicism as a possible answer, in that Faramir's goodness was essentially a gift of grace—not fated programming or anything like that, but the potential for that goodness, which in his case was fulfilled because of the choices he made of his own free will. And if Bilbo had the strength to give up the Ring after possessing it for long, then there's precedent for Faramir, someone of sufficient moral & spiritual character, to willingly refuse the temptation of it, I would think.

All of this being an example of the subtlety & complexity that some critics of Tolkien just don't seem to see. :)

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

That is a great analysis of Faramir and I think you touched on something I did not consider. That is the aspect of grace and of spirituality. Faramir's ability resist did not come from within himself, his own character; it was grace that augmented his character and spirit. I like that so much.

Oh yes, there is so much depth to Tolkien; so much nuance and subtlety; people that compare Martin to him I think have not taken one deeper look into Tolkien; so much spirituality, nuance and complexity; depth of character and lore. Martin's stuff is all 100% surface level; sure it is a good show and he has some intriguing history lore (mostly in the shape of 'mystery boxes") and he does good with showing moral grayness and dynamic political drama. But it is all shallow; there is no depth. A song of Ice and Fire feels like something that was written to be a movie series or TV show (that is what Martin's background is as a writer). Tolkien I think never even dreamed LOTR could be turned into a film.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 5 years ago

Martin began as a fine science-fiction writer in the 1970s; ironically, those early writings deal with myth & metaphor at a much more subtle & complex manner than GoT. When I read that he faulted Tolkien for neglecting the practical details of worldbuilding (economics, politics, etc.), I realize that he was missing the very nature of Tolkien's work, always described by Tolkien himself as not being a novel, but rather a Romance, in the original sense of the word.

You're right in referencing the spiritual aspect of LotR. (I especially like your referencing Dante & Virgil above.) I was raised Catholic; and even without knowing that Tolkien was Catholic, when I first read LotR at the age of 14, in December of 1967, I felt that Catholicism in my bones, as it were. In the same way that C. S. Lewis described a sense of Holiness in first reading George McDonald, I got a sense of something rich & deep & somehow touching on the sacred, something with transcendent meaning. Of course, as a very callow 14-year old, I lacked both the vocabulary & the extensive background to really understand why I felt what I did. I only knew that I did.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

I am not too familiar with his work from back then; I know he did some writing for Twilight zone or outer limits or something but I am only really familiar with his GoT (ASoIaF) works. Which is entertaining sure don't get me wrong, he is not a bad author. He just has no depth or 'spirituality' to his work; it is superficial shallow entertainment and little more than that.

I am not catholic and was not really raised religiously; but even I picked up on the spiritual Themes that Tolkien touched in a way that (IMO) not even Lewis could achieve with his 'fictional' work. I think Lewis put too much into the spiritual messaging and his work comes across a bit 'preachy'. Which is okay for what he was going for; but what Tolkien did created a more universal message that embedded itself into a really incredible fantasy story and setting. I like how you point this out; got the sense of something touching on the sacred, transcendent meaning. Yes exactly; it touched on something very deep in the human experience, something we can't really just say out loud; there are no words that can sufficiently describe it; it can only be told through a story or music (like the works of Bach or Brahms; they touched on something spiritual). If there is a 'true' God this would be how the communication would work, I think.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 5 years ago

A wonderful, thoughtful reply. :)

I agree, the difference between Lewis & Tolkien is the difference between the zeal of the convert & being born into a faith, not having to emphasize what comes as naturally as breathing to one born into it. I'm not a practicing Catholic now, but I retain that sense of the sacred, which as you say is found in so much great art—Bach & Brahms, most definitely! For me, also the work of the English Romantic poets. And I'm sure that we both have & could name many other personal examples.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Thanks; this has been a very pleasant conversation and I like that I got some new outlook on things that I have wondered about; I think the point about Faramir and his gift of grace was such a wonderful way of putting words to something I felt but couldn't describe; that was awesome. :)

There is something to be said with both approaches; often times the 'natural as breathing' approach can be a bit divorced from deep passion. I got the impression Lewis was much more passionate about his message while Tolkien was more natural and didn't want to let his religious belief overtake his emphasis on a more universal spiritual experience that is only augmented by his catholic faith and Christianity. Both are good; but I have never been able to respond to Lewis like I did with Tolkien for that reason I think.

That is a good point about poetry too; I didn't think to include that but absolutely; the expression of art is the communication to the spiritual. It can't be done directly.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 5 years ago

I agree.

And one of the things I've enjoyed about this conversation is the civility, which isn't too common online, as we know. It's a pleasure!

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Yeah; I try to be very civil with people; even when I disagree as long as I think people are being reasonable or making a good faith argument. I can tend to get a bit aggressive with people that are not arguing in good faith or unreasonable or rude. The most common thing I see on this site is condescending and passive insults; stuff like "you aren't smart enough to see x, y, or z" or the similar ad hominems and bad faith arguing. it can get frustrating at times. But then nice conversations like this more than make up for the bad ones. :)

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 5 years ago

Bombadil is The Rings’ Dionysus. I think it’s a shame he was not in the movies, but I don’t think the film makers had the talent to include him.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

I don't know if it was about the talent of the the filmmakers; more about the pacing issues it would create and the fact that the general audience would not 'understand' his significance. In a film media The old Forrest and Fog on the Barrow Downs type chapters would not fit and would absolutely disrupt the pacing.

Also without delving into the deeper lore, which they could not do in the film; there was no way to effectively include the character. There would have to be way too much exposition dialogue going along with it and that never turns out too well in a finale film product.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 5 years ago

I like that description!

reply

[–] Moonglum9 (11320) 5 years ago

His only misstep was the Tom Bombadil character in The Fellowship of the Ring and some associated short stories

What a truly awful and stupid character

Hey derry dillo! What have you got against old Tom, ring-a-Lillo? You must be Old Man Willow and your heart is a-rotten. Ding-a-ling-ding, Hi-Oh, Hey!

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

They probably just hated the first few chapters of the fellowship of the ring. It's sluggish because he's building the foundation of his world.

Other th hand that, it gets going after Tom Bombadil.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 5 years ago

Yeah, maybe so, but I still love all that stuff. It builds up the world, the Black Riders are creepy every time (and menacing, and ominous!), and I LOVE the birthday part stuff. It's a great opener: Bilbo going invisible at his birthday/surprise farewell party.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 5 years ago

Absolutely agree! In fact, the quiet, slow introduction to the peaceful Shire, with the first hints of something bigger & more ominous outside, has its own subtle power. We get to know & feel the daily flow of life there, the tranquil & pastoral landscape ... and ever so steadily, almost unseen at first, the presence of the greater world begins to make itself known. Those second-hand reports of the Black Riders by Frodo's friends, having just missed catching up to him but clearly getting closer & closer, gives an undercurrent of tension & dread. And then their first on-page appearance--brrrr!

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 5 years ago

Plus, it's enhanced on a second, third, (etc.) reading. Frodo meandering around the Shire, dilly-dallying and delaying might make a reader go "Just GO! GO!" at first, but the second time, knowing that the Shire will be forever altered by the War of the Ring, and Frodo himself will be so altered he cannot remain in Middle Earth, lends those scenes a real melancholy.

There's a line somewhere in Fellowship (I think...) about how all stories in Middle Earth are at least a little sad. I clocked it in my re-read last year and it really made me think, "Yeah, I guess they all kind of are..." Naysayers constantly complain about how "predictable" the book is, but they haven't paid attention. "Predictable" would be to have an unequivocal stomping of Evil by Good, but the story gives a bittersweet ending. It doesn't end "all's well!" for the main character. It ends very well, but not *all*. It's also not "just" Good v. Evil with no moral complications. Gollum, Boromir, Frodo... all are tempted and succumb at point to the Ring. Gandalf even loses his temper sometimes.

It's more complex than impatient people realise.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 5 years ago

Yes, that sense of bittersweet loss is a powerful thread winding through & binding together the entire epic, isn't it? That gives the story its lasting & deep emotional resonance.

I also think spending a fair amount of time amongst the simple pleasures of the Shire, tells us much about the ability of both Bilbo & Frodo to endure the Ring for so long. Hobbits aren't particularly interested in power & glory & splendor for themselves; the little joys of everyday life are more than enough for them. They can appreciate & admire glory & splendor when they see it in the Elves & in Men like Aragorn; but they see it as being the rightful portion of those people, not something that they themselves crave desperately. A comfortable home, good food, good company, a mug of beer ... all of that is the world's plenty in itself for them.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 5 years ago

And that was really kind of the point of the original Hobbit book, too, was that gold isn't that important. Glory isn't that important. Sure, save the day, be a hero, be adventurous, but at the end of it all, it isn't war or glory or gold, it's a filled pipe with a good friend.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 5 years ago

Would that more people in our own world felt that way!

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

I don't know of too many people that say he "wasn't a very good writer". Only people that don't like Tolkien are people that don't really like fantasy; in which case they are not judging him on his writing prowess but instead judging the content of what he is writing about (which of course is not a fair or objective judgement).

Most people that know good writing acknowledge Tolkien among the best (deservedly so). So I do not think he is underrated; I think he is treated (for the most part/generally speaking) with the proper amount of reverence.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 5 years ago

For the most part, you're probably right. I have heard doubters and naysayers harp on about it though. I made the post last year when I was in the middle of a re-read and re-watch of all things Middle Earth, and I was augmenting it by zipping around reading articles, etc. I probably ran into some particularly dim expressions of dislike for Tolkien that day and came on here to fly my Hobbit flag high.

But they are out there. And they are remarkably persistent. The number of times people still claim the eagles as a plot hole despite numerous reasons why flying would have been a bad idea (if not impossible) is baffling. I guess it's the 21st century age of speed-opinions, though, where research is anathema.

Sometimes these critics baffle me, though. George R.R. Martin, for instance, although he professes to like Tolkien overall (I believe; from what I've read, anyway), keeps moaning that Gandalf ought to have remained dead. That he could miss the clearly-intended parallels (NOT allegory, heaven no!) with Christian theology and the themes of the book is strange to me, since he's a lover of the genre (obviously) and even enjoys Tolkien. When I saw him make that statement in an interview I thought, "How did you miss that one...?"

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

I think there are always a few people that will try to find flaws in anything they don't like, sometimes desperately. IF you don't like something anything that even feels like a flaw will really stand out. Hating on Tolkien and Lord of the Rings has been a 'thing' since the films came out. but it is a very small minority and mostly among those that did not even read the book; so they watch the film and then said Tolkien was a bad writer; which is absurd since they didn't read him. They just didn't like the film adaptation.

Anyone that says the eagles are a plot hole, 100% for sure, did not read the books. Eagles were conscious beings and too proud to be mounted like a steed; that is why they "didn't just ride the eagles to mount doom". In addition to that; they aren't immortal if they tried just flying into Mordor they would likely be killed easily. It is honestly one of the stupidest and not thought out criticisms I have ever heard.

Now from a story telling standpoint I somewhat agree; Gandalf's sacrifice is someone negated (the moment of his sacrifice at least) because he is brought back. But it is not a flaw; as you point out it is done for a specific reason; it is the theme of resurrection that comes from Christianity. So I get where Martin's 'criticism' comes from; and I 'loosely' agree that it does undermine the significance of the sacrifice in Fellowship; but it makes up for that by presenting a new and deeply theological theme of the spirit and overcoming death by death.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 5 years ago

Being an (admittedly quite amateur) a student of both Tolkien & Carl Jung, I was always struck by the similar look of the trees they painted, at roughly the same period of time. And I always felt that Tolkien's work ran very deeply into the roots of the psyche, as did Jung's (and William Blake's before either of them).

So everyone involved in this discussion might enjoy this longish post about those similarities between the two men & their work:

https://beccatarnas.com/2014/05/16/the-red-book-and-the-red-book-jung-tolkien-and-the-convergence-of-images-2/

For me, it touches on & reinforces feelings I've long had about the true power of Tolkien's writing, the power that puts him in the ranks of so many great, visionary creators who came before him, and makes him far more than just a superb genre writer.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

I'll take a look at this later but Fundamentally I agree; Tolkien's work was far just beyond great fantasy genre books; he successfully touch on something spiritual (deep within the human psyche or collective unconscious as Jung would describe it). If there is a human soul; Tolkien was speaking directly to it in his work. That is an level of writing few others have reached.

reply

[–] twinA (4921) 5 years ago

June 29, 2020 Monday 1:55 p.m.

In many ways a good writer (or storyteller, really; not distinguishing between the two) is a good decision maker. Since decisions are representative of one's consciousness, it can usually indicate a high degree of morality. It's safe to say that Tolkien, being a well-mannered high-minded individual who was unaccustomed to snobbery towards others, the case made in the previous statement fits him like a glove.

~~/o/

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

An astute observation.

reply

[–] liscarkat (18932) 4 years ago

One thing this guy had was incredible insight into what nerds and geeks want to read. Rings, swords, dwarfs, quests, and all that crap--he hit the mother lode of dork lit and made a fortune.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

That doesn't seem to have been his objective at all. He loved fairy stories and mythology, he brought his love of each to his stories he told to his children, and as those stories percolated and evolved, he started to write them down, refine them, and turn them into stories for consumption outside the family. His focus always remains with the myths, the worlds, and the idea of fairy stories. He's not aiming at the "nerd" market. In a way, he doesn't have to: he is the nerd market.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 4 years ago

Yes, the nerd market came after. And I'm not sure that Tolkien would have been entirely pleased with their approach to his work, to put it mildly. He was a scholar, an intellectual, a devout Catholic; all of those things are reflected in & shape his work. I think of him as being quite similar to William Blake in creating a personal mythology, drawn from deep within his psyche & life experience, that worked with universal archetypal material that appeals to countless readers around the world.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

It might be that because it's personal it becomes universal. I've found this a lot. The more personal the story the more people relate to it, because they see your humanity in themselves.

Of course, I can't say for certain, having never met the man, and I am not him (obviously), but I am quite confident that Tolkien would have been really unhappy with what Lord of the Rings has become. I suspect he would not have cared for the Jackson films (Christopher Tolkien objected to them turning his father's work into action movies; I think J.R.R. would have agreed), and he certainly (as certain as I can be) would have loathed the tie-ins and Pizza Hut deals and action figures.

Nerds, I think, he would have liked. He obviously loved his mythology, and sharing it with others who obsessed over the language as he did, and loved the lore as he did, well, I think he would have smiled at that. He wouldn't like people bickering and insulting each other over it all, but getting deep into it? Sure. Plus, he would have seen the positive: this boom would sell books and more people would become enthralled by his mythology.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 4 years ago

I can easily imagine Tolkien studiously delving into the derivation & development of the word "nerd" as well. :)

Agree that he would had heartily disliked the merchandising of something so deeply personal & meaningful to him & to countless devoted readers. There's a good reason many of his first enthusiastic readers were among the then-current counterculture: the simple joys of life, the love of Nature & environmental concerns, the antipathy to power & to those who obsess over it so destructively, the importance of living with a deeper purpose & transcendent meaning to existence, the encounter & communion with the Sacred. I know that Tolkien had rather mixed feelings about some of his flakier hippie admirers, but the best of them found much to admire & respect in his work.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

Oh, he'd be etymologically fascinated by nerd.

Tolkien embodies the best of the hippie spirit. He truly loves nature and community without getting up his own butt about it - seemingly, anyway. The hippie movement was a fad and was, I think, a bit too "me-focused". Self-realisation is what I say it is for me! That kind of thing. Tolkien was more about looking around and immersing oneself in the bounty of the natural world. In some ways, he was a perfect blend of Hippies and "The Man".

That said, I think his total disinclination towards technology was a bit too Luddite. I mean, I am typing this internet message via my computer, after all. A good argument can be made against the horrifying levels we have taken industrialization to, but technology in-general? No, I think there's plenty of decency there.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1536) 4 years ago

"Self-realization" is the exact word. :)

Genuine hippies (there were quite a lot of superficial wannabes) were striving for that very thing. The only real problem is that they (we) were so young, often unable to see the difference between faddish fleeting aspects (the outward trappings) and what was real & vital in the long run (the inner life). But this is part of being young & feeling as if there's all the time in the world. I don't dismiss the pursuit of joy & immediacy; it's important to have & appreciate those parts of life. But there's also hard work over the long haul, often painful work, in the process of growing. Tolkien's long-lived characters of wisdom & deep knowledge embodied that: Gandalf, the Elves, Treebeard, etc.

I'll admit to mixed feelings about technology, even as I do so over this computer. The unease over what technology might do the human beings is part of the English Romantic tradition, which carried over to America in the likes of Emerson & Thoreau. My objections are only focused on those who think all technology is good & only good. But like all aspects of human life, it's a double-edged sword & casts its own shadows. I guess I'd say that for me, technology is part of the whole, but not the entirety of the whole in & of itself, as some tend to think.

"The hippie and 'The Man'" is a wonderful way of putting it, then!

I find it interesting that Tolkien shares that quality with Patrick McGoohan, both of them devout Catholics, both of them troubled by some of the ways society was developing, both of them wanting to preserve what was best & most nourishing in past traditions, and both of them addressing their concerns & beliefs through a deeply personal work of art that continues to enthrall new generations. And both of them in some ways "The Man" while also being countercultural in their own way, and embraced by young people. "Countercultural" in the broadest sense of the word, delving into the prevailing culture & critiquing it, I mean.

I'm really enjoying this discussion. :)

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9601) 4 years ago

Hippies, I mean, that's just any movement, right? There were lots of people who were well-intentioned, good people, good minds at work, who were in the Occupy movement, but there were also a lot of people who just came along for the ride. "Yeah! F Wall Street!"

I think with the Hippies, a lot of it got baked into pretension. It was a lot of air. Nobody wanted any rules, so you sit around in a circle draped over a hookah pipe going, "I think everything is so, like, cosmic, man!" and everybody nods. It's this nothing statement that sounds deep, but you don't have anything behind it. No rules, no truth, no nothing, and so it gets too wishy-washy. Go, do the mushrooms, hit the LSD, but when you come back from that trip, so what? What did you learn? What did you bring back? If you're just getting baked and don't ever want to go somewhere, you just collapse.

It's like this: a lot of Hippies (and likeminded people) like the idea of "seeking" truth, but they aren't prepared to find it. In fact, finding Truth would be anathema to them; then they'd have to start building something more concrete.

Tolkien knew that the concrete was around us. It's the trees. It's the world. It's the air and the water. Yeah, he infused that wisdom into the Elves and others (Bombadil).

Tech is a tool. Use it well, it's good. We're having a cool conversation about truth and philosophy. I think that's positive. I also think Tolkien made points about tech making things too easy, basically. So, I think if we're not using it to become lazy and complacent, or to harm people or nature, tech's cool. If it's a distraction or a harm, it's not cool.

Interesting about Catholicism... Maybe it's because it's a system, a tradition, it has roots, but it's also based in some love. I think that's when religion is at its finest: it gives a grounding and shapes Eternal concepts that are unfathomable otherwise. As long as one doesn't get caught up in the rhetoric for its own sake (not unlike tech), it's good.

reply