why not talk about the three?

[Chris Hoelscher]

at the Council of Elrond. Elrond (and others) refused to reveal the
possessors The Three. WHY? At this same meeting they openly discussed the
possessor of The One and its intended disposition - much more "dangerous"
information to be made public (within the council attendees, that is) - so
if the attendees could be trusted with intel on The One, why not on The
Three? (or is/was there another reason for withholding the information?)

Chris Hoelscher

[Eruvatar]

"Chris Hoelscher" <chrisho...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:uZWdnSyF8qOgsuHS...@insightbb.com

I believe the Elves held this knowledge as a sacred trust and were
loathe to discuss it at will with any other people of
middleearth.Fearing that any posessor of this knowledge would be
subjeect to revealing the info out of mistake,torture,treachery, or any
other number of reasons.In other words the less who knew the better for
all concerned.These are just my thoughts and are of course not 100%
accurate.

Eruvater@ middleearthblog.blogspot.com

[Dan C]

Simple. It's a basic security fundamental. The fewer people who know
about something, the more secure that knowledge is. Why tell people who
don't need to know? That information was completely irrelevant to the
matters at hand during the Council of Elrond.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as the Facehugger impregnated him.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Thanks, Obama: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/politica/thanks.jpg

[derek]

On Apr 4, 10:17 am, "Eruvatar" <Eruva...@Arda.com> wrote:
> "Chris Hoelscher" <chrishoelsc...@insightbb.com> wrote in message

You and Dan both miss the real question - we all know why the Elves
won't talk of the Three, but why then were they not so secretive about
the One. I think that was quite simple: nobody was likely to believe
in the danger of the One ring unless they could see it first. As far
as anybody else knew, it was already lost or destroyed. It needed
Gimli to demonstrate that it was not simple to destroy (I shudder to
think what might have happened to Rivendell if he _could_ have broken
it with an axe!)

[Steve Morrison]

On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 14:38:13 +0000, Dan C wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 07:23:45 -0400, Chris Hoelscher wrote:
>
>> at the Council of Elrond. Elrond (and others) refused to reveal the
>> possessors The Three. WHY? At this same meeting they openly discussed
>> the possessor of The One and its intended disposition - much more
>> "dangerous" information to be made public (within the council
>> attendees, that is) - so if the attendees could be trusted with intel
>> on The One, why not on The Three? (or is/was there another reason for
>> withholding the information?)
>
> Simple. It's a basic security fundamental. The fewer people who know
> about something, the more secure that knowledge is. Why tell people who
> don't need to know? That information was completely irrelevant to the
> matters at hand during the Council of Elrond.

Yes. I've always assumed that they /had/ to discuss the One, because
what to do with it was largely what the Council was about! But there
was no need to discuss the whereabouts of the Three.

[Steve Morrison]

On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:13:55 -0700, derek wrote:

> It needed Gimli to
> demonstrate that it was not simple to destroy (I shudder to think what
> might have happened to Rivendell if he _could_ have broken it with an
> axe!)

But Gimli did nothing but speak at the Council (in canon, that is!)

[derek]

oops, how embarassing Time to reread the books.

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message <news:jM-dnUpXo8T1BOHS...@posted.toastnet>
Steve Morrison <rim...@toast.net> spoke these staves:

>
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 14:38:13 +0000, Dan C wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 07:23:45 -0400, Chris Hoelscher wrote:
>>>
>>> at the Council of Elrond. Elrond (and others) refused to reveal
>>> the possessors The Three. WHY? At this same meeting they openly
>>> discussed the possessor of The One and its intended disposition

[...]

>>
>> Simple. It's a basic security fundamental.

[...]

>
> Yes. I've always assumed that they /had/ to discuss the One,
> because what to do with it was largely what the Council was about!
> But there was no need to discuss the whereabouts of the Three.

I agree -- the Council would have been fairly pointless without
discussing the fate of the One Ring, but revealing more about the
Three would have jeopardized their Keepers /needlessly/ -- see also
how Aragorn reacts when Frodo speaks of Galadriel wielding her Elven-
ring (I am not sure if this, in context, could mean some lesser Ring
than one of the Three -- one of the 'essays in the craft' that
Gandalf speaks of).

We had a discussion a while back on how much the Elves had told
Elendil and his sons, as well as their earlier Númenórean allies,
about the Master Ring. I can't remember now if we came to any
conclusion, and I don't have time to search for the thread now (I'm
leaving for Corby, England, this afternoon, and I'll have very
limited internet access, and even more limited time, for the duration
of the trip).

--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

Truth in science can be defined as the working hypothesis
best suited to open the way to the next better one.
- Konrad Lorenz

[Geza Giedke]

moreover, the Three might still have a use independent of the fate of
the One Ring:
(a) it was not *known* that they would lose their power if the One was
destroyed (and I do not think that the keepers of the Three would have
revealed their identity if the rings still had power after the
destruction of the One)
(b) in the case that the One was regained by Sauron and then lost again,
keeping the Three secret might allow to have them available once Sauron
was defeated (by whatever means that might have been done).

But I think if more info about the Three had been important for the task
at hand, it would have been provided at the Council.


regards
Geza

--
Now come ye all,
who have courage and hope! My call harken
to flight, to freedom in far places!
Lays of Beleriand

[Morgoth's Curse]

On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:17:50 GMT, "Eruvatar" <Eruv...@Arda.com>
wrote:

Another possibility: The wielders of the Three had each
effectively vowed to never reveal the location of the rings. Since
neither Galadriel nor Cirdan were present at the Council, Elrond could
not reveal the whereabouts of the Three without breaking his promise
to them. (As the lore master of the Eldar, he would have been only
too familiar with the importance of keeping vows.) It's noteworthy
that while Galadriel acknowledged that she wielded one of the Three,
she did not reveal the location of the other two rings.

Morgoth's Curse

[Hallaril]

On Apr 6, 8:14 am, Morgoth's Curse
<morgothscurse2...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
 snip

>(As the lore master of the Eldar, he would have been only
>too familiar with the importance of keeping vows.)

snip

Yes Eldar keeping vows had such a beneficial effect in the history of
Middle Earth. Elrond's ancestors especially thrived because Eldar
kept their vows.

Tamim

[Morgoth's Curse]

As opposed to the consequences of breaking an oath?

Morgoth's Curse

[Hallaril]

On Apr 23, 9:25 pm, Morgoth's Curse

<morgothscurse2...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:

> >Yes Eldar keeping vows had such a beneficial effect in the history of
> >Middle Earth. Elrond's ancestors especially thrived  because Eldar
> >kept their vows.
>
> >Tamim
>
>         As opposed to the consequences of breaking an oath?

snip

'If none can release us,' said Maglor, 'then indeed the Everlasting
Darkness
shall be our lot, whether we keep our oath or break it; but less evil
shall we
do in the breaking.

[Geza Giedke]

in Arda, some beauty must be bought with evil...


Feanor: "[...] and this doom I add: the deeds that we shall do shall be
the matter of song until the last days of Arda." (Silm, ch 9 "Of the
Flight of the Noldor")

Manwe: "Dear-bought those songs shall be accounted, and yet shall be
well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to
us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Ea, and evil yet be
good to have been." (Silm, ch 11 "Of the Sun and Moon and the Hiding of
Valinor")


The full qutoe is:
"We have sworn, and not lightly. This oath we will keep. We are
threatened with many evils, and treason not least; but one thing is not
said: that we shall suffer from cowardice, from cravens or the fear of
cravens. Therefore I say that we will go on, and this doom I add: the
deeds that we shall do shall be the matter of song until the last days
of Arda." (Silm, ch 9)

[Stan Brown]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:03:50 +0200, Geza Giedke wrote:
> in Arda, some beauty must be bought with evil...
>
>
> Feanor: "[...] and this doom I add: the deeds that we shall do shall be
> the matter of song until the last days of Arda." (Silm, ch 9 "Of the
> Flight of the Noldor")

Oh dear, no!

Fëanor's statement was "A implies B" -- some evils can nonetheless
result in beauty.

Your statement was "B implies A" -- some beauty cannot be had unless
you accept evil.

While Fëanor's statement was at least partly self serving, it was
optimistic. Yours is different and is pessimistic.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-04-27 11:27:32 +0000, Stan Brown said:

> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:03:50 +0200, Geza Giedke wrote:
>> in Arda, some beauty must be bought with evil...
>>
>>
>> Feanor: "[...] and this doom I add: the deeds that we shall do shall be
>> the matter of song until the last days of Arda." (Silm, ch 9 "Of the
>> Flight of the Noldor")
>
> Oh dear, no!
>
> Fëanor's statement was "A implies B" -- some evils can nonetheless
> result in beauty.
>
> Your statement was "B implies A" -- some beauty cannot be had unless
> you accept evil.
>
> While Fëanor's statement was at least partly self serving, it was
> optimistic. Yours is different and is pessimistic.

It's more complicated than that. "O felix culpa quae talem et tantum
meruit habere redemptorem!" -- and, for the 999th time, let us remember
that JRRT was a Roman Catholic. Some beauty (or perhaps is is safer to
say "some particular beauties") indeed cannot be had without evil.

--
John W Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://www.SKenSoftware.com/Double%20Falshood

[derek]

On Apr 27, 10:06 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2012-04-27 11:27:32 +0000, Stan Brown said:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:03:50 +0200, Geza Giedke wrote:
> >> in Arda, some beauty must be bought with evil...
>
> >> Feanor: "[...] and this doom I add: the deeds that we shall do shall be
> >> the matter of song until the last days of Arda." (Silm, ch 9 "Of the
> >> Flight of the Noldor")
>
> > Oh dear, no!
>
> > Fëanor's statement was "A implies B" -- some evils can nonetheless
> > result in beauty.
>
> > Your statement was "B implies A" -- some beauty cannot be had unless
> > you accept evil.
>
> > While Fëanor's statement was at least partly self serving, it was
> > optimistic. Yours is different and is pessimistic.
>
> It's more complicated than that. "O felix culpa quae talem et tantum
> meruit habere redemptorem!" -- and, for the 999th time, let us remember
> that JRRT was a Roman Catholic. Some beauty (or perhaps is is safer to
> say "some particular beauties") indeed cannot be had without evil.

For possibly the first time, I'm in complete agreement with John.
Stan's right that the two statements are different, but they're not
exclusive and both are certainly true in Tolkien's world.

[Geza Giedke]

Stan Brown schrieb am 04/27/2012 01:27 PM:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:03:50 +0200, Geza Giedke wrote:
>> in Arda, some beauty must be bought with evil...
>>
>>
>> Feanor: "[...] and this doom I add: the deeds that we shall do shall be
>> the matter of song until the last days of Arda." (Silm, ch 9 "Of the
>> Flight of the Noldor")
>
> Oh dear, no!
>
> Fëanor's statement was "A implies B" -- some evils can nonetheless
> result in beauty.

you're right concerning Feanor's statement; but Manwe's was "for the

price could be no other"

> While Fëanor's statement was at least partly self serving, it was
> optimistic. Yours is different and is pessimistic.

ack, but it's not my take but Tolkien's, I think. It was (to me) one of
the more striking ideas of Silm, (explained also before in a brief
conversation of Eru, Manwe and Ulmo) that evil is justified by the
beauty it (can) create. The theme is also touched on by Sam in
discussion with Frodo about "good tales" (where inside and outside view
of what is "good" may differ a lot).

Although it seems to me like one of the better attempts at theodicy, I'm
not convinced: I find it morally hard to justify a Creator who lets his
creatures suffer just for the sake of beauty. If for the sake of his own
enjoyment, the moral case is clear; if for the sake of the creatures
enjoyment, one might ask: why not instill them with a different sense of
beauty, where it can be achieved without evil?

regards
Geza

[Stan Brown]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:39:40 +0200, Geza Giedke wrote:
> It was (to me) one of
> the more striking ideas of Silm, (explained also before in a brief
> conversation of Eru, Manwe and Ulmo) that evil is justified by the
> beauty it (can) create.

I don't recall any such statement, or anything that can be
interpreted that way. Could you maybe post a specific pointer?

I remember that Eru says he can make good out of Melkor's marring of
Arda, but that's not the same as saying that the ultimate good
justifies the marring, or that the ultimate result is better than
Arda would have been without Melkor's marring.

[Geza Giedke]

Stan Brown schrieb am 04/28/2012 01:32 PM:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:39:40 +0200, Geza Giedke wrote:
>> It was (to me) one of
>> the more striking ideas of Silm, (explained also before in a brief
>> conversation of Eru, Manwe and Ulmo) that evil is justified by the
>> beauty it (can) create.
>
> I don't recall any such statement, or anything that can be
> interpreted that way. Could you maybe post a specific pointer?

I was thinking of the following quote from the Valaquenta:

"And Iluvatar spoke to Ulmo, and said: 'Seest thou not how here in this
little realm in the Deeps of Time Melkor hath made war upon thy
province? He hath bethought him of bitter cold immoderate, and yet hath
not destroyed the beauty of thy fountains, nor of my clear pools. Behold
the snow, and the cunning work of frost! Melkor hath devised heats and
fire without restraint, and hath not dried up thy desire nor utterly
quelled the music of the sea. Behold rather the height and glory of the
clouds, and the everchanging mists; and listen to the fall of rain upon
the Earth! And in these clouds thou art drawn nearer to Manwe, thy
friend, whom thou lovest.'

Then Ulmo answered: 'Truly, Water is become now fairer than my heart
imagined, neither had my secret thought conceived the snowflake, nor in
all my music was contained the falling of the rain. I will seek Manwe,
that he and I may make melodies for ever to my delight!' And Manwe and
Ulmo have from the beginning been allied, and in all things have served
most faithfully the purpose of Iluvatar."


I would also read the following as supporting the "evil as a source of
beauty" reading:

"And it seemed at last that there were two musics progressing at one
time before the seat of Iluvatar, and they were utterly at variance. The
one was deep and wide and beautiful, but slow and blended with an
immeasurable sorrow, from which its beauty chiefly came. [...]"

since the cause of sorrow more often than not was evil.

> I remember that Eru says he can make good out of Melkor's marring of
> Arda, but that's not the same as saying that the ultimate good
> justifies the marring, or that the ultimate result is better than
> Arda would have been without Melkor's marring.

fair enough, but if Eru is simply repairing/reacting to Melkor#s marring
of Arda, that would give Melkor independent power, whereas Eru states:

"Then Iluvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest
among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am
Iluvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that
ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme
may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any
alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove
but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he
himself hath not imagined.'"

This last sentece I read as "whatever hateful deeds you do, Melkor, they
are just my way to bring more beauty about". Thus if Eru is the
"uttermost source" of Melkor's evil ways and supposing that Eru is not
evil himself, there must be a more than balancing good, and the only one
alluded to repeatedly throughout Silm is the beauty conceived due to
suffering, sorrow, violence -- Melkor's (so-called) "marring" of Arda.
(Since if the above argument holds, Arda Unmarred might be a dull place.)

[Stan Brown]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:08:14 +0200, Geza Giedke wrote:
>
> Stan Brown schrieb am 04/28/2012 01:32 PM:
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:39:40 +0200, Geza Giedke wrote:
> >> It was (to me) one of
> >> the more striking ideas of Silm, (explained also before in a brief
> >> conversation of Eru, Manwe and Ulmo) that evil is justified by the
> >> beauty it (can) create.
> >
> > I don't recall any such statement, or anything that can be
> > interpreted that way. Could you maybe post a specific pointer?
>
> I was thinking of the following quote from the Valaquenta:
>
> "And Iluvatar spoke to Ulmo, and said: 'Seest thou not how here in this
> little realm in the Deeps of Time Melkor hath made war upon thy
> province? He hath bethought him of bitter cold immoderate, and yet hath
> not destroyed the beauty of thy fountains, nor of my clear pools. Behold

It looks like we were thinking of the same passage.

But there is still a logical difference between "beauty or good can
come about from evil" (which Eru said) and "beauty or good has evil
as a necessary source" (which you said).