Was the One Ring sentient? (proposed FAQ entry)
Stan Brown
I promise to answer this question. Before putting my answer into the
FAQ, I'd like to get comments and (I'm sure) improvements from the
group. Since there are multiple points of view on this issue, I'd
like to represent the major ones fairly.
(FWIW, I was of the opinion that the Ring was not sentient, but just
gave off some sort of "field of evil". While I think it is possible
to explain most of what happened on that basis, I don't think that
explains why the Ring would slip on or off a finger. So I have come
around to the view that the Ring was sentient, though I still think
it was Frodo and not the Ring speaking to Gollum on Mount Doom.)
Was the One Ring sentient? (Draft version 0.1)
=========================
The /American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language/ (Third
Edition, 1992) defines "sentient" as "1. Having some perception;
conscious. ... 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling." When people
ask whether the Ring was sentient, typically they aren't
wondering whether it could feel but whether it could make choices
and act on a definite purpose.
While we cannot answer definitely "Yes" or "No", it is consistent
with what Tolkien has written to say that the Ring could act
independently.
When telling Frodo about the Ring's history, Gandalf says "A Ring
of Power looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off
treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it. At most he plays
with the idea of handing it on to someone else's care - and that
only at an early stage, when it first begins to grip. But as far
as I know Bilbo alone in history has ever gone beyond playing,
and really done it. He needed all my help, too. And even so he
would never have just forsaken it, or cast it aside. It was not
Gollum, Frodo, but the Ring itself that decided things. The Ring
left him." (I 2 68-69)
And a little later, Gandalf makes the point again with more
examples: "The Ring was trying to get back to its master. It had
slipped from Isildur's hand and betrayed him; then when a chance
came it caught poor Déagol, and he was murdered; and after that
Gollum, and it had devoured him. It could make no further use of
him: he was too small and mean; and as long as it stayed with him
he would never leave his deep pool again. So now, when its master
was awake once more and sending out his dark thought from
Mirkwood, it abandoned Gollum. Only to be picked up by the most
unlikely person imaginable: Bilbo from the Shire!" (I 2 69)
In a Letter, Tolkien says directly, "Even from afar [Sauron] had
an effect upon it, to make it work for its return to himself." L
#246 332)
So if the Ring could act to bring about its purpose -- getting
back to Sauron -- then why did it expose itself to Bilbo? More
directly, when "an Orc would [suit] it better" doesn't such a
choice argue that the Ring was not making choices?
Gandalf meets this objection: The fact that Bilbo picked up the
Ring was not the Ring's doing, and not Sauron's. "There was more
than one power at work, Frodo. ... beyond any design of the
Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was
meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker." (I 2 69) In other
words, someone other than the Ring chose Bilbo -- Eru? the Valar?
-- we are not told. On this view, where the Ring made a choice
was in slipping off Bilbo's finger and betraying him to the Orcs
(Hobbit V 99), as it had betrayed Isildur (UT GF 279). And it's
quite possible that the Ring tried to betray Frodo by slipping onto
his finger at the Prancing Pony in Bree (I 9 176), though Aragorn
seems to blame Frodo (I 9 177).
On the other hand, it is certainly possible to argue that the
Ring didn't make choices any more than an ant does: that in
effect it operated out of instinct, a sort of Sauron-tropism.
Tolkien's word "trying" is not conclusive: we often speak of a
lower animal "trying" to do something where we don't imply
conscious thought. We can even say that ivy "tries" to get better
sunlight when it grows up the side of a house.
It is one thing to state that the Ring was sentient and made
choices; though that is not the only possible interpretation. It
goes much further to say that the Ring spoke to Gollum on Mount
Doom. (VI 3 979) That is a much more controversial issue, for
which you are referred to the Tolkien Newsgroups FAQ entry "Did
the Ring itself speak to Gollum on Mt. Doom?" at
<http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/Internal.html#RingSpeak>.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://oakroadsystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ: http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/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/tech/faqget.htm
Aris Katsaris
"Stan Brown" <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.17497a976...@news.odyssey.net...
> In the FAQ of the Rings <http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm>
> I promise to answer this question. Before putting my answer into the
> FAQ, I'd like to get comments and (I'm sure) improvements from the
> group. Since there are multiple points of view on this issue, I'd
> like to represent the major ones fairly.
For starters how frequently an asked question is this? Before showing
us the answer to judge, IMO it's needed to demonstrate the frequency
of the question to judge the need for a possible inclusion.
(the problem with FAQs that are many dozens pages long is that
nobody reads them. Best put in FAQs only the real frequently asked
questions)
Aris Katsaris
Troels Forchhammer
> I promise to answer this question. Before putting my answer into the
> FAQ, I'd like to get comments and (I'm sure) improvements from the
> group. Since there are multiple points of view on this issue, I'd
> like to represent the major ones fairly.
>
> (FWIW, I was of the opinion that the Ring was not sentient, but just
> gave off some sort of "field of evil". While I think it is possible
> to explain most of what happened on that basis, I don't think that
> explains why the Ring would slip on or off a finger. So I have come
> around to the view that the Ring was sentient, though I still think
> it was Frodo and not the Ring speaking to Gollum on Mount Doom.)
I never even considered the possibility of the Ring speaking - I'll
have to read the passage again to see if I can make that make sense
at all ;-)
> Was the One Ring sentient? (Draft version 0.1)
> =========================
>
> The /American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language/ (Third
> Edition, 1992) defines "sentient" as "1. Having some perception;
> conscious. ... 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling." When people
> ask whether the Ring was sentient, typically they aren't
> wondering whether it could feel but whether it could make choices
> and act on a definite purpose.
I have no doubt that the Ring could somehow sense it's surroundings -
how else could it 'pick' such critical moments to slip off (and posibly
on) fingers.
> While we cannot answer definitely "Yes" or "No", it is consistent
> with what Tolkien has written to say that the Ring could act
> independently.
<snipped excellent treatment>
You might reference the speach of the black sword in Narn i Hîn
Húrin to show that Tolkien was not averse to sentient inanimate
objects.
> It is one thing to state that the Ring was sentient and made
> choices; though that is not the only possible interpretation. It
> goes much further to say that the Ring spoke to Gollum on Mount
> Doom. (VI 3 979) That is a much more controversial issue, for
> which you are referred to the Tolkien Newsgroups FAQ entry "Did
> the Ring itself speak to Gollum on Mt. Doom?" at
> <http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/Internal.html#RingSpeak>.
I would think that the frequency with which references to this
question pops up would justify the inclusion of the above in the
RingFAQ - otherwise I might just have to raise question repeatedly
myself ;-)
(I know I'm a pest, but I really think this question is extremely
interesting, and that is - for me - a valid factor in deciding whether
to include the question).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Please reply to (t.f...@mail.dk)
For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided
into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from,
and (d) rocks.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites)
Mark Constantino
>questions
Chicken dung! What you really want to know is which type of varnish Tolkien
prefers? The dead do not tell their secrets and magicians never reveal their
jokes.
But the answer is easily obtained from experiment and the idea of "magnitude of
material effect". The guy on the left is no Xena.
Strider
"Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:abodoj$74n$1...@usenet.otenet.gr...
I would suspect that since the movie this is a question that is being
asked fairly frequently, for it is clear that in the movie the ring is
indeed sentient in some way: The damn thing speaks. As the movie
Gandalf says, "It wants to be found."
So imo this is a worthy question to be included and addressed in the
FAQ.
Al
the softrat
Live with it!
the softrat "He who rubs owls"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
"A new study shows that licking a frog can cure depression. The
down side is, the minute you stop licking, the frog gets
depressed again." --Jay Leno
Pradera
Użytkownik the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> w wiadomooci do grup dyskusyjnych
napisał:vp40euk24puafkof3...@4ax.com...
> NO! THE FUCKING RING WAS NOT SENTIENT!
>
> Live with it!
He failed on most IQ tests - got only 20-30... when encountered a problem
'choose a symbol' he always pointed the round ones...
--
Pradera.
'I am known under many names...
Sigurd to some...Pradera to others...
In 1997 I was called Dorxter...
So yes, you may call me Pradera.'
Nystulc
>It is one thing to state that the Ring was sentient and made
>choices; though that is not the only possible interpretation. It
>goes much further to say that the Ring spoke to Gollum on Mount
>Doom. (VI 3 979) That is a much more controversial issue, for
>which you are referred to the Tolkien Newsgroups FAQ entry "Did
>the Ring itself speak to Gollum on Mt. Doom?" at
><http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/Internal.html#RingSpeak>.
Except that referencing this site via a link will provide no information that
you could not provide yourself far more efficiently. Jensen's FAQ devotes
about a single line each to both sides in the "Ring Speaks debate".
This is the only way he could be "balanced" (depending on what you call
"balanced"). After all, the argument in favor of the Ring speaking consists of
a single line: "Tolkien says the Ring Spoke, so There!" Jensen's summary of
the counterarguments, which could easily make a long essay, is by no means
adequate, but if he were to provide one, he would no doubt be accused of an
unbalanced presentation.
BTW, I was reading through your other posts, and, while most is great, I
thought one answer was misleading. Your answer to the question "Why did Sauron
cripple himself by making the Ruling Ring?" begins with the phrase "Because he
had to."
Sauron did not "have to" do anything, unless you take his goals into account.
Stating these goals would make a more appropriate and direct answer to the
question. Sauron wanted to enslave the world. For this he needed more power.
The creation of the Ruling Ring was part off a scheme to enhance his power by
stealing to himself the Power of the Elves, whom he had tricked into investing
their inherent power into magic Rings.
And, of course, you fail to immediately challenge (and acknowledge by
implication) the false assumption of the question - which is that Sauron was
crippled by the creation of the Ring. He was not crippled, not even when not
wearing it. When he did wear it, however, his power was considerably enhanced.
Only the Ring's destruction would cripple him, and that was something which he
never envisioned, for he had made the Ring virtually indestructible by any
being of lesser power.
Nystulc
>For starters how frequently an asked question is this? Before showing
>us the answer to judge, IMO it's needed to demonstrate the frequency
>of the question to judge the need for a possible inclusion.
>(the problem with FAQs that are many dozens pages long is that
>nobody reads them. Best put in FAQs only the real frequently asked
>questions)
Stan Brown's "FAQ of the Rings" is not a general Tolkien FAQ, but rather a
specialized Q&A providing trivia about Rings of Power. This question is quite
appropriate for inclusion. The only debatable issue is whether he should call
his site an "FAQ" or maybe something else to avoid confusion, so that newbies
looking for the real FAQ don't go to the wrong place.
Mark Constantino
>
OOooooooou!
TemporaryGaBe
>conscious. ... 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling." When people
>ask whether the Ring was sentient, typically they aren't
>wondering whether it could feel but whether it could make choices
>and act on a definite purpose.
I would take one more step and say that the Ring _did_ experience sensation and
feeling. When Bombadil wore the Ring, it expanded to fit his finger. When
Frodo got it back it obviously shrank to fit his own. If the Ring could not
feel, how would it "know" when to stop shrinking? I would also think the Ring
has to know the difference between living and nonliving matter, because if it
didn't, wouldn't it shrink to fit the chain? It might be difficult to imagine,
but this is a magical Ring, and I would certainly be open to the possibility
that the Ring had some "mind" of its own.
gabe
Pradera
Użytkownik TemporaryGaBe <tempor...@aol.com> w wiadomości do grup
dyskusyjnych napisał:20020513161504...@mb-mk.aol.com...
> >"1. Having some perception;
> >conscious. ... 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling." When people
> >ask whether the Ring was sentient, typically they aren't
> >wondering whether it could feel but whether it could make choices
> >and act on a definite purpose.
>
> I would take one more step and say that the Ring _did_ experience
sensation and
> feeling. When Bombadil wore the Ring, it expanded to fit his finger.
When
> Frodo got it back it obviously shrank to fit his own. If the Ring could
not
> feel, how would it "know" when to stop shrinking?
seems though that Sauron was the first to invent elastic metal.
AC
>Sauron did not "have to" do anything, unless you take his goals into account.
>Stating these goals would make a more appropriate and direct answer to the
>question. Sauron wanted to enslave the world. For this he needed more power.
>The creation of the Ruling Ring was part off a scheme to enhance his power by
>stealing to himself the Power of the Elves, whom he had tricked into investing
>their inherent power into magic Rings.
I don't think that enhancing his power and making "more" power are the
same thing. I don't think that the Ring gave Sauron any "more" power
as a direct mathematical statement (ie. 1+1=2). I think by putting
forth his power into the Ring he gained a great ability to dominate
minds, which appears to have been the Ruling Rings purpose.
>
>And, of course, you fail to immediately challenge (and acknowledge by
>implication) the false assumption of the question - which is that Sauron was
>crippled by the creation of the Ring. He was not crippled, not even when not
>wearing it. When he did wear it, however, his power was considerably enhanced.
> Only the Ring's destruction would cripple him, and that was something which he
>never envisioned, for he had made the Ring virtually indestructible by any
>being of lesser power.
He was indeed crippled by the lack of the Ring. As Tolkien said in
Letters, he was effectively less powerful in the Third Age than he was
during the Second.
--
AaronC
Troels Forchhammer
> So I have come
> around to the view that the Ring was sentient, though I still think
> it was Frodo and not the Ring speaking to Gollum on Mount Doom.)
Just reread the passage with this view in mind, and I now (for the first
time) see how it can be construed to mean that the Ring spoke to
Gollum. Don't believe it either!
I guess the counter arguments have been presented thoroughly and
repeatedly here, so I won't go into that - I just wanted to state for the
record that though I strongly support the idea of a sentient Master Ring,
I do not believe that it spoke at Mount Doom!
--
Troels Forchhammer
Please reply to t.f...@mail.dk
They both savoured the strange warm glow of being much more
ignorant than ordinary people, who were only ignorant of
ordinary things.
-- Discworld scientists at work (Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites)
Jay Random
Pradera wrote:
>
> Remembering shapes and elasticity is not a matter of being sentient... it
> seems though that Sauron was the first to invent elastic metal.
The Ring did not simply alter its size to fit the wearer's finger.
Sometimes it altered its size specifically so as _not_ to fit, as when
it slipped off of Isildur's finger. (I'm not sure it's stated just how
Gollum came to lose it, but I suspect it was another case of
expanding-Ring syndrome.) Tolkien quite specifically states that the
Ring `no longer had any use for Gollum'. To use things (or people) as
instruments implies goals, what the Scholastics called `final causes';
to have goals implies sentience, if not outright intelligence.
You may try to shrug this off by saying that Gandalf was speaking
figuratively. But the essential `narrative protocol' of fantasy
literature, including the Northern myths & legends that so profoundly
informed Tolkien's life & work, is that _the pathetic fallacy is to be
taken as literally true_. In real life (or in a story in a `realistic'
setting), if I say my ring fell off my finger on purpose, I am
attributing an impossible quality to it. Rings don't have a sense of
purpose; they don't do things on their own. If a character in a
`realistic' novel says something of this kind, we know one of two
things: either he's telling a tall tale for humorous effect (the
Murphy's Law method of attributing malice to inanimate objects), or he's
out of his head. We know he's an unreliable narrator. In fantasy, we
_must_ assume that the narrator is reliable unless & until we are given
information to the contrary. Rings _can_ be sentient in a work of
fantasy; horses can fly, the dead can walk the earth, men can be
immortal, the world can be flat & teeming with incorporeal spirits. We
have only the author's word for what constitutes `reality' inside his
story. We have Tolkien's word that the Ring made decisions on its own &
was trying to get back to its master. By the rules of the game, we have
to accept that as the literal truth within the frame of the tale.
(Gandalf, incidentally, proved himself many times to be the most
reliable narrator of all the characters in LOTR. His statements are
almost always in accord with Tolkien's own pronouncements about that
world, & in fact he often seems to speak as an author-surrogate.
Whenever Tolkien needs to give the readers background information, &
also needs to feed it to the other characters, he generally has Gandalf
do it, because Gandalf can speak to both audiences at once.)
Aris Katsaris
"Jay Random" <jra...@bondwine.ca> wrote in message
news:3CE0451...@bondwine.ca...
>
> Pradera wrote:
>
> > Remembering shapes and elasticity is not a matter of being sentient... it
> > seems though that Sauron was the first to invent elastic metal.
>
> The Ring did not simply alter its size to fit the wearer's finger.
> Sometimes it altered its size specifically so as _not_ to fit, as when
> it slipped off of Isildur's finger. (I'm not sure it's stated just how
> Gollum came to lose it, but I suspect it was another case of
> expanding-Ring syndrome.) Tolkien quite specifically states that the
> Ring `no longer had any use for Gollum'. To use things (or people) as
> instruments implies goals, what the Scholastics called `final causes';
> to have goals implies sentience, if not outright intelligence.
I disagree... I think that objects in Tolkien's universe can have "will" without
having sentience. Morgoth's will may be imbued throughout the world, and
Sauron's will may have been bound inside the ring, and Eol's dark will might
still live on inside Gurthang, and elven sword might be "glad" when they had
the chance to kill orcs, and the Silmaril may have chosen to bear Beren's
touch...
...but IMO sentience is something different, awareness of one's own self.
I don't think that the Melkor element is sentient, even though it may have
a "will". Nor do I think that the Ring or the Silmaril was sentient...
Gurthang's a somewhat different matter because it seems even more self-aware
than most other objects when it responds to Turin's question - but then again
who was there to witness it speaking except soon-to-be-dead Turin himself?
Aris Katsaris
Stan Brown
>...but IMO sentience is something different, awareness of one's own self.
>I don't think that the Melkor element is sentient, even though it may have
>a "will". Nor do I think that the Ring or the Silmaril was sentient...
Couldn't the Ring be sentient because of sharing not only part of
Sauron's power but part of Sauron's soul? (That's a new thought with
me, so it might be completely silly.)
As for the Silmaril being sentient, we do read that before Morgoth's
throne "the jewel suffered [Beren's] touch and hurt him not." That
sounds a bit like the Silmaril making a decision.
What do others think?
Stan Brown
>NO! THE FUCKING RING WAS NOT SENTIENT!
>
>Live with it!
Well, _that_ was constructive!
Jay Random
Aris Katsaris wrote:
>
>
> ...but IMO sentience is something different, awareness of one's own self.
> I don't think that the Melkor element is sentient, even though it may have
> a "will". Nor do I think that the Ring or the Silmaril was sentient...
Then we're using `sentience' to mean two different things, & it's not at
all surprising that we come up with different answers. Generations of
incorrect usage by science fiction writers have convinced many persons
that `sentient' = `intelligent' or `self-aware'. Not so:
sentient, adj. 1. having the power of perception by the senses. 2.
characterized by sensation. (Random House Dictionary)
sentient, adj. having the power of perception by the senses. (Canadian
Oxford)
sentient, adj. 1 : capable of sensation and of at least rudimentary
consciousness 2 a : consciously perceiving: AWARE -- used with _of_ b
: conscious or capable of fine distinctions or perceptions : SENSITIVE
3 : capable of receiving and reacting to sensory stimuli 4 : marked by
the stimulation or exercise of the senses or of conscious perception
(Webster's Third New International Dictionary)
Sentient, A. adj. 1. That feels or is capable of feeling; having the
power or function of sensation or of perception by the senses. (Oxford
English Dictionary, 1st ed.)
sen·tient adj. 1. Having sense perception; conscious. 2. Experiencing
sensation or feeling. (American Heritage Dictionary)
That will do to go on with. AHD includes the notion of consciousness in
its definition, but does not specifically mention _self_-consciousness.
Merriam-Webster mentions consciousness but allows that it may be
`rudimentary'. The other definitions merely refer to sense perception,
without any implication of consciousness.
When _I_ say the Ring was sentient, I mean that it was capable of
sensing & reacting to its surroundings (which is obviously true), & that
it had certain functions or faculties suggestive of mental capacity,
such as will, the ability to choose or reject a bearer, & (most
important of all) the power to influence its wearer by suggestion.
Recall Sam's vision of `Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age',
overthrowing Barad-dūr & turning Mordor into a garden, while he had the
Ring on. What I do _not_ mean is that it was necessarily self-aware,
that it had any mental process so complete & integrated that we should
call it a `personality'. It had various mental functions, & some of
these were exceedingly powerful: we should not be surprised at this, for
they came from the spirit of Sauron. It was not a complete, functioning
mind in itself: we should expect this, for Sauron made the Ring to
express his own will to power, not to be capable of contradicting it.
Edro
would also think the Ring has to know the difference between living >and
nonliving matter, because if it didn't, wouldn't it shrink to fit the
>chain?
My only problem with that is when it shrunk to fit the persons finger why
wouldn't it shrink enough so that the person wearing it could not remove it?
BTW IMO I do believe the Ring was sentient(although I don't believe it spoke).
Edro
the softrat
wrote:
>the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>>NO! THE FUCKING RING WAS NOT SENTIENT!
>>
>>Live with it!
>
>Well, _that_ was constructive!
>
the softrat "He who rubs owls"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
"This is all very interesting, and I daresay you already see me
frothing at the mouth in a fit; but no, I am not; I am just
winking happy thoughts into a little tiddle cup." (Nabokov,
Lolita)
Kristian Damm Jensen
>
> On Mon, 13 May 2002 22:16:06 -0400, qx1...@bigfoot.com (Stan Brown)
> wrote:
> >the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >>NO! THE FUCKING RING WAS NOT SENTIENT!
> >>
> >>Live with it!
> >
> >Well, _that_ was constructive!
> >
> Sometimes I think that I am too subtle for this newsgroup.
As subtle as a sledgehammer.
--
Kristian Damm Jensen | Feed the hungry at www.thehungersite.com
kristian-d...@cgey.dk | Two wrongs doesn't make a right,
ICQ# 146728724 | but three lefts do.
Troels Forchhammer
> Aris Katsaris <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> > ...but IMO sentience is something different, awareness of one's own
self.
> > I don't think that the Melkor element is sentient, even though it may
have
> > a "will". Nor do I think that the Ring or the Silmaril was sentient...
>
> Couldn't the Ring be sentient because of sharing not only part of
> Sauron's power but part of Sauron's soul? (That's a new thought with
> me, so it might be completely silly.)
I think this is very similar to the thought I was trying to develop, when
I suggested that the Ring might have shared some of Sauron's Flame
Imperishable (I have this idea that the FI is a necessary though perhaps
not sufficient requirement for a soul).
I do think that whatever sentience / awareness the One Ring had, this
had its ultimate source in the power that came from Sauron - I don't
think he had the power to create a new awareness - merely a semi-
independent extension of his own will and awareness.
I do not believe that the Ring had an awareness of itself as an independent
entity - rather I believe it had an awareness of its maker (or master - it
never had other masters than Sauron, so it's hard to tell the difference)
his will and wishes. The Ring would - if its consciousness was sufficiently
developed - IMO have understood itself as an extension of its maker.
> As for the Silmaril being sentient, we do read that before Morgoth's
> throne "the jewel suffered [Beren's] touch and hurt him not." That
> sounds a bit like the Silmaril making a decision.
>
> What do others think?
It does indeed.
I don't think it would be entirely out of question either - the use of
personification - attributing conscious will and awareness - to animals
and objects are common in myth, and Tolkien seems IMO to have
been consciously utilizing the traditional narrative devices of the North
European mythical tradition.
This rather opens the field. When Gandalf says that "_It_ may slip off
treacherously..." he is speaking of the Rings of Power in general - does
this mean that all the Rings of Power were to some extent sentient?
Though IMO this would be to a lesser extend than the Master Ring.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Please send replies to <t.f...@mail.dk>
"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."
Wolfgang Pauli, on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague
Troels Forchhammer
>
<snipping dictionary definitions of sentience>
For the record I belive the One Ring was conscious.
>
> When _I_ say the Ring was sentient, I mean that it was capable of
> sensing & reacting to its surroundings (which is obviously true), & that
> it had certain functions or faculties suggestive of mental capacity,
> such as will, the ability to choose or reject a bearer, & (most
> important of all) the power to influence its wearer by suggestion.
> Recall Sam's vision of `Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age',
> overthrowing Barad-dūr & turning Mordor into a garden, while he had the
> Ring on. What I do _not_ mean is that it was necessarily self-aware,
> that it had any mental process so complete & integrated that we should
> call it a `personality'. It had various mental functions, & some of
> these were exceedingly powerful: we should not be surprised at this, for
> they came from the spirit of Sauron. It was not a complete, functioning
> mind in itself: we should expect this, for Sauron made the Ring to
> express his own will to power, not to be capable of contradicting it.
I think we agree on the basics here.
I believe the One Ring was capable of pursuing a goal - making
rational decisions and formulating strategies towards obtaining that
goal, but I do _not_ believe that the Ring was capable of formulating
that goal - the final cause must come from Sauron.
This formulating of goals - or final causes if you will - is IMO at
the core of the personality, so I cannot believe either that the Ring
had what we should call a personality.
Aris Katsaris
> Aris Katsaris <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >...but IMO sentience is something different, awareness of one's own self.
> >I don't think that the Melkor element is sentient, even though it may have
> >a "will". Nor do I think that the Ring or the Silmaril was sentient...
>
> Couldn't the Ring be sentient because of sharing not only part of
> Sauron's power but part of Sauron's soul? (That's a new thought with
> me, so it might be completely silly.)
Didn't Tolkien says that each soul under Eru is indivisible? I'll have to
search for that.
> As for the Silmaril being sentient, we do read that before Morgoth's
> throne "the jewel suffered [Beren's] touch and hurt him not." That
> sounds a bit like the Silmaril making a decision.
Yes, I said, I believe they can have a will and make decisions without
being sentient...
Aris Katsaris
Tim Howe
Jay Random <jra...@bondwine.ca> wrote in message news:<3CE0451...@bondwine.ca>...
> Pradera wrote:
>
> >
> > Remembering shapes and elasticity is not a matter of being sentient... it
> > seems though that Sauron was the first to invent elastic metal.
>
>
> The Ring did not simply alter its size to fit the wearer's finger.
> Sometimes it altered its size specifically so as _not_ to fit, as when
> it slipped off of Isildur's finger. (I'm not sure it's stated just how
> Gollum came to lose it, but I suspect it was another case of
> expanding-Ring syndrome.) Tolkien quite specifically states that the
> Ring `no longer had any use for Gollum'. To use things (or people) as
> instruments implies goals, what the Scholastics called `final causes';
> to have goals implies sentience, if not outright intelligence.
not necessarily. It certainly implies Saruon's sentience, but not
necessarily the ring's. The ring could have been pre-programmed so to
speak to behave in certain ways without actually making decisions of
it's own. We don't think of computers as being sentient despite some
behaviors which may appear as such. For example, Saruon "programmed"
the ring to either slip on or off at any time it may place an enemy
into peril. Or if an owner possessed it too long without concern for
using it. Gollum lost the ring only after he no longer really needed
to use it most of the time. Isildur was an enemy. Frodo was an enemy
(with regards to slipping onto his finger in Bree). However the ring
was also unable to do anything physical beyond changing size. And
that could be activated by the presence of a "spirit" or a "soul"
alone, hence it does not change while on the chain etc. Now, how it
recognized an enemy I don't know. It might be anyone other than
Saruon, or possibly it is triggered by some personality trait.
Also, interestingly, I don't know that the ring did change size for
Tom Bombadil. I'll have to re-read the passage but didn't he just
slip it onto the tip of his finger, implying that it does not change?
> You may try to shrug this off by saying that Gandalf was speaking
> figuratively. But the essential `narrative protocol' of fantasy
> literature, including the Northern myths & legends that so profoundly
> informed Tolkien's life & work, is that _the pathetic fallacy is to be
> taken as literally true_. In real life (or in a story in a `realistic'
> setting), if I say my ring fell off my finger on purpose, I am
> attributing an impossible quality to it. Rings don't have a sense of
> purpose; they don't do things on their own. If a character in a
> `realistic' novel says something of this kind, we know one of two
> things: either he's telling a tall tale for humorous effect (the
> Murphy's Law method of attributing malice to inanimate objects), or he's
> out of his head. We know he's an unreliable narrator. In fantasy, we
> _must_ assume that the narrator is reliable unless & until we are given
> information to the contrary.
Or it's a way of describing something as accurately as possible
without delving into an excessively long explaination. Or possibly
Gandalf does not know the exact nature of the ring because no one does
other than Saruon, and he isn't talking. The powers of the ring were
well known to all the wise, but the physical attributes mabye less so.
We know that despite his long struggle, Gandalf had to travel all the
way to Minas Tirith to study before he could say for sure that Frodo's
even WAS the one ring. Afterall, only one being held the ring before
it passed out of knowledge other than Saruon.
Which raises another question, if the one ring is sentient, does that
imply that the other rings of power are too? Gandalf's comment about
the ring seems to apply universally in this regard so I'd say yes.
> Rings _can_ be sentient in a work of
> fantasy; horses can fly, the dead can walk the earth, men can be
> immortal, the world can be flat & teeming with incorporeal spirits. We
> have only the author's word for what constitutes `reality' inside his
> story. We have Tolkien's word that the Ring made decisions on its own &
> was trying to get back to its master. By the rules of the game, we have
> to accept that as the literal truth within the frame of the tale.
But even decisions do not imply sentience necessarily, they merely
imply a sufficiently adequate set of rules or instincts. I'd argue
that ants are not sentient, but they do make decisions. Plants are
definately not sentient but they too make decisions in a way. To
imply sentience we'd have to prove that the ring somehow understood
the decisions.
Frankly though, given the tone of the stories, I agree that the ring
is sentient. In that it is at least dimly self-aware and makes
considered decisions. But I don't know that I can prove it, devil's
advocate and all that.
cheers
-Tim
Jay Random
Tim Howe wrote:
>
> Which raises another question, if the one ring is sentient, does that
> imply that the other rings of power are too? Gandalf's comment about
> the ring seems to apply universally in this regard so I'd say yes.
I doubt it. Sauron made the One, himself & unaided. The Elven-smiths of
Eregion had great powers, but the conferring of sentience on inanimate
objects was probably not among them. (Fëanor may just possibly have
given sentience to the Silmarils, but he was a far greater craftsman
than any of his descendants including Celebrimbor. And if the Silmarils
had sentience -- the argument for this is similar to that for the One
Ring, but much less strong -- it may instead have derived from the
Valar, who blessed the Silmarils & filled them with the radiance of the
Two Trees.) I very much doubt that Sauron would have taught them such an
art, especially since he used it himself to make the Ruling Ring. It is
in any case quite certain that a portion of Sauron's own _fëa_ went into
the One Ring & not any of the others, & that alone makes it an object of
a higher order than the rest of the Great Rings. I don't think the
evidence warrants attributing sentience to any of the Rings but the One.
AC
wrote:
>Aris Katsaris <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>>...but IMO sentience is something different, awareness of one's own self.
>>I don't think that the Melkor element is sentient, even though it may have
>>a "will". Nor do I think that the Ring or the Silmaril was sentient...
>
>Couldn't the Ring be sentient because of sharing not only part of
>Sauron's power but part of Sauron's soul? (That's a new thought with
>me, so it might be completely silly.)
>
>As for the Silmaril being sentient, we do read that before Morgoth's
>throne "the jewel suffered [Beren's] touch and hurt him not." That
>sounds a bit like the Silmaril making a decision.
>
>What do others think?
I don't know. It could be just a bit of a literary device. On the
flip side, magnets don't need to be sentient for two north poles to
repulse each other.
--
AaronC
AC
wrote:
We don't know enough about the other Rings of Power to state what the
Elves of Eregion could or could not do. They appeared to have made a
ring that had the power to hold back the march of Time, to stop decay.
I woudl say that was a pretty extraordinary thing.
As to the One Ring, if we are to believe that Tolkien meant what he
said when he stated that souls are indivisablle, then we cannot
believe that Sauron could split off a part of his fea and place it in
the Ring. What Sauron did was very similiar to what Morgoth did in
putting forth the greater part of his power into Arda.
My hunch is that the Ring had some form of rational power, something
akin to a "program". If I were Sauron and I were to put forth so much
of my native strength into the Ring, then I would want some mechanism
that, if I and my Ring were seperated, that it would work its way back
to me. That would be very prudent.
--
AaronC
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>It
>goes much further to say that the Ring spoke to Gollum on Mount
>Doom. (VI 3 979) That is a much more controversial issue, for
>which you are referred to the Tolkien Newsgroups FAQ entry "Did
>the Ring itself speak to Gollum on Mt. Doom?" at
><http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/Internal.html#RingSpeak>.
Quite a brief entry.
The question of Eagles flying the Ring to Mount Doom is an interesting
one; but I think the likeliest story-internal answer is a simple one.
An Eagle carrying the Ring would not remotely have had the strength of
purpose to resist Sauron's command once under the Ring's influence,
and flying alone in the air would have been much easier for Sauron to
detect.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Stan Brown
>having sentience. Morgoth's will may be imbued throughout the world, and
>Sauron's will may have been bound inside the ring, and Eol's dark will might
>still live on inside Gurthang, and elven sword might be "glad" when they had
>the chance to kill orcs, and the Silmaril may have chosen to bear Beren's
>touch...
I don't understand what you are saying here. Except for "glad" --
which meets the definition of sentience -- all your examples of
having a "will" don't seem like that to me at all. To me, having
"will" implies having desires and doing something intended to
achieve them -- which again means sentience.
The way you're using "will" seems to me a lot more like the effect
of curses: bad things happen to people who are exposed, but it's the
curse itself operating and not the cursed object. And even then, the
"will" doesn't inhere in the object, but is the will of the person
who made the curse.
Maybe I haven't understood your point at all. Can you try to make it
a bit more clear?
the softrat
<kristian-da...@MOVEcgey.com> wrote:
>the softrat wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 13 May 2002 22:16:06 -0400, qx1...@bigfoot.com (Stan Brown)
>> wrote:
>> >the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>> >>NO! THE FUCKING RING WAS NOT SENTIENT!
>> >>
>> >>Live with it!
>> >
>> >Well, _that_ was constructive!
>> >
>> Sometimes I think that I am too subtle for this newsgroup.
>
>As subtle as a sledgehammer.
I'm about as subtle as a chainsaw, but lacking the social grace.
the softrat "He who rubs owls"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
"Grey is his rodenthood and his teeth are lellow."
Aris Katsaris
> Aris Katsaris <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >I disagree... I think that objects in Tolkien's universe can have "will"
without
> >having sentience. Morgoth's will may be imbued throughout the world, and
> >Sauron's will may have been bound inside the ring, and Eol's dark will might
> >still live on inside Gurthang, and elven sword might be "glad" when they had
> >the chance to kill orcs, and the Silmaril may have chosen to bear Beren's
> >touch...
>
> I don't understand what you are saying here. Except for "glad" --
> which meets the definition of sentience -- all your examples of
> having a "will" don't seem like that to me at all. To me, having
> "will" implies having desires and doing something intended to
> achieve them -- which again means sentience.
I used "sentience" as a synonym for "self-awareness". Having "will"
for me simply implies having desires - doing something about them
isn't that necessary. Wasn't Sauron's will after all raised to impotence,
to the point where he *couldn't* do anything to achieve his desires?
"Will" as I use it may be a simple instinct, like a hungry dog wanting to
eat, or even an insect laying eggs. Not necessary a sign of sentience.
> The way you're using "will" seems to me a lot more like the effect
> of curses: bad things happen to people who are exposed, but it's the
> curse itself operating and not the cursed object.
Umm... no. I made no reference at all to the people "exposed", I'm simply
saying that it's not a "concscious" decision of the objects in questions. Their
behaviour is caused by their inherent nature, or their sharing in the will of
their makers.
If you would call an insect sentient simply because it "does things intended
to achieve its goals", or because it's aware of its environents, then those
objects were sentient. It's just not the definition I'm using.
Aris Katsaris
John B. Whelan
> On 13 May 2002 19:46:27 GMT, nys...@cs.com (Nystulc) wrote:
> >Sauron did not "have to" do anything, unless you take his goals into account.
> >Stating these goals would make a more appropriate and direct answer to the
> >question. Sauron wanted to enslave the world. For this he needed more power.
> >The creation of the Ruling Ring was part off a scheme to enhance his power by
> >stealing to himself the Power of the Elves, whom he had tricked into investing
> >their inherent power into magic Rings.
>
> I don't think that enhancing his power and making "more" power are the
> same thing.
He did not "make" more power, he appropriated it. He tricked the
elves in investing their creative power into artifacts, and then
seized control of those artifacts.
> I don't think that the Ring gave Sauron any "more" power
> as a direct mathematical statement (ie. 1+1=2).
Where do you think the power that the Elves invested in their rings
went, when the Elves lost control of said rings?
> I think by putting
> forth his power into the Ring he gained a great ability to dominate
> minds, which appears to have been the Ruling Rings purpose.
In other words, by creating the One Ring, he gained "more" of the type
of power he wanted - power to dominate minds. And, of course, by
dominating other minds, he gained fairly direct control over the
inherent powers of others in addition to his own. Do you really argue
that one's power does not increase when another creature becomes one's
slave?
> >And, of course, you fail to immediately challenge (and acknowledge by
> >implication) the false assumption of the question - which is that Sauron was
> >crippled by the creation of the Ring. He was not crippled, not even when not
> >wearing it. When he did wear it, however, his power was considerably enhanced.
> > Only the Ring's destruction would cripple him, and that was something which he
> >never envisioned, for he had made the Ring virtually indestructible by any
> >being of lesser power.
>
> He was indeed crippled by the lack of the Ring. As Tolkien said in
> Letters, he was effectively less powerful in the Third Age than he was
> during the Second.
Sauron without the Ring was "crippled" compared to Sauron with the
Ring, but NOT compared to Sauron before he made the Ring (which is
what we are discussing). If, after making the Ring, Sauron had
immediately misplaced it, his power would not have increased, but
neither would it have been diminished. Only the destruction of the
Ring would cripple Sauron, and that was an eventuality he never
counted on.
"While he wore it, his power on Earth was actually enhanced. But even
if he did not wear it, that power existed and was in 'rapport' with
himself: he was not 'diminished'. Unless some other siezed it and
became possessed of it. If that happened, the new possessor could (if
sufficiently strong and heroic by nature) challenge Sauron, become
master of all that he had learned or done since the making of the One
Ring, and so overpower him and usurp his place."
Conrad Dunkerson
> As for the Silmaril being sentient, we do read that before Morgoth's
> throne "the jewel suffered [Beren's] touch and hurt him not." That
> sounds a bit like the Silmaril making a decision.
I'd call that more a use of figurative language. Similar to saying
that 'my car suffered my insistence that we drive to work again'.
I do not think it is indicative of sentience in the jewels - it can
be read that way, but I don't think that was Tolkien's intent.
As to the Ring. It shows some 'tendencies' which can be ascribed to
sentience but could also be put down to 'fate' or 'programming'. It
is possible that the Ring did not so much act voluntarily as inherently
influence events to bring suffering on any bearer other than Sauron...
like a traditional 'cursed object'. Alternatively, it could have some
simple defined parameters that it would follow without having any
understanding of self. Either of these can explain any of the
'actions' of the Ring (short of speaking if we were to accept that
reading).
Against the idea of true sentience and self-motivation are the various
times that the Ring was used in actions against Sauron's best
interests. If the Ring was aware and had a choice it should not under
any circumstances have made Sam seem menacing to the Orcs at the tower
of Cirith Ungol.
Ideologically speaking it should have been impossible for Sauron to
'create' a sentience... and since there is no mention of a spirit
being bound into the Ring the usual side-step around that problem does
not seem to apply. If the Ring were sentient - how?
That said, I believe the intent likely WAS for something like an
awareness/sentience, but limited in scope. Think of Sam's elven rope
which held perfectly for a long climb down the cliff and then came
loose with a half-hearted tug... this appears to be a clear case of
'decision making', but do we consider the rope sentient? I think it
is more likely that the rope (and the Ring) had a 'greater degree of
functional applicability'... they could be relied on to be more
useful/attuned to the owner's purposes than a regular item, but they
would still only act within a limited range defined by their natures.
Trevor Barrie
Stan Brown <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Was the One Ring sentient? (Draft version 0.1)
>=========================
>
>The /American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language/ (Third
>Edition, 1992) defines "sentient" as "1. Having some perception;
>conscious. ... 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling." When people
>ask whether the Ring was sentient, typically they aren't
>wondering whether it could feel but whether it could make choices
>and act on a definite purpose.
In other words, whether the ring was rational, or perhaps
"self-willed". Sentience is a tangential issue.
>Gandalf meets this objection: The fact that Bilbo picked up the
>Ring was not the Ring's doing, and not Sauron's. "There was more
>than one power at work, Frodo. ... beyond any design of the
>Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was
>meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker." (I 2 69) In other
>words, someone other than the Ring chose Bilbo -- Eru? the Valar?
>-- we are not told. On this view, where the Ring made a choice
>was in slipping off Bilbo's finger and betraying him to the Orcs
>(Hobbit V 99), as it had betrayed Isildur (UT GF 279). And it's
>quite possible that the Ring tried to betray Frodo by slipping onto
>his finger at the Prancing Pony in Bree (I 9 176), though Aragorn
>seems to blame Frodo (I 9 177).
I don't recall any evidence that Aragon possessed any ringlore of note,
so I wouldn't put much weight on this. (And it's not even clear that he
blamed Frodo; he was dubious of the suggestion that the Ring wound up
on Frodo's finger by "accident", but that could be read both ways.)
>It is one thing to state that the Ring was sentient and made
>choices;
<grump> You're still saying "sentient", even though you point out up
front that sentience is not, in fact, what we're discussing here.
Stan Brown
There's much more agreement on the main points than I had expected.
Here's a revised version, based on helpful comments from a number of
people. Unless somebody comes up with a real show-stopper, this
entry or something close to it will be added to the FAQ of the Rings
in a few days.
(If you want to know what's changed since version 0.1, diffs are
posted as a separate article in this thread.)
Was the One Ring sentient? (Draft version 0.2)
=========================
(This FAQ entry is based in part on the May 2002 thread "Was the One
Ring sentient?" in r.a.b.t. You can retrieve the entire thread at
>http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=MPG.17497a976...@news.odyssey.net .)
The /American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language/ (Third
Edition, 1992) defines "sentient" as "1. Having some perception;
conscious. ... 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling." When people
ask whether the Ring was sentient, typically they aren't
wondering whether it could feel but whether it could make choices
and act on a definite purpose. But we shall see evidence that the
Ring is sentient under both parts of the definition.
While we cannot answer definitely "Yes" or "No", it is consistent
with what Tolkien has written to say that the Ring could act
independently. This is also consistent with the traditions of
myth, where objects do think and feel. We see another example in
Turin's talking sword in /The Silmarillion/ ("Of Turin Turambar"
225)
What in the story suggests that the Ring could sense its
surroundings and make decisions?
When telling Frodo about the Ring's history, Gandalf says "A Ring
of Power looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off
treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it. At most he plays
with the idea of handing it on to someone else's care - and that
only at an early stage, when it first begins to grip. But as far
as I know Bilbo alone in history has ever gone beyond playing,
and really done it. He needed all my help, too. And even so he
would never have just forsaken it, or cast it aside. It was not
Gollum, Frodo, but the Ring itself that decided things. The Ring
left him." (I 2 68-69)
And a little later, Gandalf makes the point again with more
examples: "The Ring was trying to get back to its master. It had
slipped from Isildur's hand and betrayed him; then when a chance
came it caught poor Déagol, and he was murdered; and after that
Gollum, and it had devoured him. It could make no further use of
him: he was too small and mean; and as long as it stayed with him
he would never leave his deep pool again. So now, when its master
was awake once more and sending out his dark thought from
Mirkwood, it abandoned Gollum. Only to be picked up by the most
unlikely person imaginable: Bilbo from the Shire!" (I 2 69)
The Ring certainly seems to choose to accept a master or abandon
one. Recall its betrayal of Isildur in the River near the Gladden
Fields. The Ring not only seems to make choices, it must be able
to sense its surroundings. When it grows smaller to stay on a
finger (remember that Bilbo's was less than half the diameter of
Sauron's or Isildur's) or larger again to slip off a finger, the
Ring must be able to sense the size of the finger that is wearing
it.
In a Letter, Tolkien says directly, "Even from afar [Sauron] had
an effect upon it, to make it work for its return to himself." L
#246 332)
So if the Ring could act to bring about its purpose -- getting
back to Sauron -- then why did it expose itself to Bilbo? More
directly, when "an Orc would [suit] it better" doesn't such a
choice argue that the Ring was not making choices?
Gandalf meets this objection: The fact that Bilbo picked up the
Ring was not the Ring's doing, and not Sauron's. "There was more
than one power at work, Frodo. ... beyond any design of the
Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was
meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker." (I 2 69) In other
words, someone other than the Ring chose Bilbo -- Eru? the Valar?
-- we are not told. On this view, where the Ring made a choice
was in slipping off Bilbo's finger and betraying him to the Orcs
(Hobbit V 99), as it had betrayed Isildur (UT GF 279). And it's
quite possible that the Ring tried to betray Frodo by slipping onto
his finger at the Prancing Pony in Bree (I 9 176), though Aragorn
seems to blame Frodo (I 9 177).
While these passages do suggest a sentient Ring, and most people
who posted to this thread accept that interpretation, it's
possible to interpret them in other ways: perhaps the Ring
operates out of instinct or like a computer program.
Some would argue that the Ring didn't make choices any more than
an ant does: that in effect it operated out of instinct, a sort
of Sauron-tropism. Tolkien's word "trying" is not conclusive: we
often speak of a lower animal "trying" to do something where we
don't imply conscious thought. We can even say that ivy "tries"
to get better sunlight when it grows up the side of a house.
Tim Howe (5c818355.02051...@posting.google.com, 14 May
2002) suggests another intriguing "non-sentient Ring"
explanation: Sauron may have programmed the Ring as we program a
computer or a robot. Computer programs can be fantastically
complicated and can _seem_ to make decisions -- the simple
"Eliza" program of the 1960s could even simulate a psychiatric
session with a real patient -- but all the sentience lies with
the programmer and we don't think of the computer or the program
as sentient. Howe points out that the Ring's actions could be
explained by the program "slip on or off a finger at any time it
will place an enemy in peril, and abandon an owner who possesses
the Ring too long without using it." Such a program would have
the effect of making the Ring turn up eventually if it were ever
separated from Sauron -- and as an immortal he could afford to
wait.
But even though one can give explanations that don't require the
Ring to be sentient, it seems likely that Tolkien intended it to
be so. This "pathetic fallacy", though a logical error in the
real world, is a standard part of many myths, and would therefore
quite likely be a standard part of Tolkien's myth as well.
It is one thing to state that the Ring was sentient and made
choices. Though that is not the only possible interpretation,
most opinions on r.a.b.t seem to go that way. Whether the Ring
spoke to Gollum on Mount Doom. (VI 3 979) is a much more
controversial issue, for which you are referred to the Tolkien
Newsgroups FAQ entry "Did the Ring itself speak to Gollum on Mt.
Doom?" at <http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/Internal.html#RingSpeak>.
Stan Brown
As promised, here are the diffs between versions 0.1 and 0.2. ">"
marks lines added, and "<" marks lines removed. (The program, by the
way, is a DOS command-line shareware program that I wrote. If
interested, have a look at
<http://oakroadsystems.com/sharware/cmp.htm>.)
** comparing ring sentient? 0.1 and ring sentient? 0.2
3a4,7
> (This FAQ entry is based in part on the May 2002 thread "Was the One
> Ring sentient?" in r.a.b.t. You can retrieve the entire thread at
> http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=MPG.17497a976...@news.odyssey.net .)
>
9c13,14
< and act on a definite purpose.
---
> and act on a definite purpose. But we shall see evidence that the
> Ring is sentient under both parts of the definition.
13c18,24
< independently.
---
> independently. This is also consistent with the traditions of
> myth, where objects do think and feel. We see another example in
> Turin's talking sword in /The Silmarillion/ ("Of Turin Turambar"
> 225)
>
> What in the story suggests that the Ring could sense its
> surroundings and make decisions?
36a48,56
> The Ring certainly seems to choose to accept a master or abandon
> one. Recall its betrayal of Isildur in the River near the Gladden
> Fields. The Ring not only seems to make choices, it must be able
> to sense its surroundings. When it grows smaller to stay on a
> finger (remember that Bilbo's was less than half the diameter of
> Sauron's or Isildur's) or larger again to slip off a finger, the
> Ring must be able to sense the size of the finger that is wearing
> it.
>
59,65c79,111
< On the other hand, it is certainly possible to argue that the
< Ring didn't make choices any more than an ant does: that in
< effect it operated out of instinct, a sort of Sauron-tropism.
< Tolkien's word "trying" is not conclusive: we often speak of a
< lower animal "trying" to do something where we don't imply
< conscious thought. We can even say that ivy "tries" to get better
< sunlight when it grows up the side of a house.
---
68,73c114,120
< choices; though that is not the only possible interpretation. It
< goes much further to say that the Ring spoke to Gollum on Mount
< Doom. (VI 3 979) That is a much more controversial issue, for
< which you are referred to the Tolkien Newsgroups FAQ entry "Did
< the Ring itself speak to Gollum on Mt. Doom?" at
< <http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/Internal.html#RingSpeak>.
---
> choices. Though that is not the only possible interpretation,
> most opinions on r.a.b.t seem to go that way. Whether the Ring
> spoke to Gollum on Mount Doom. (VI 3 979) is a much more
> controversial issue, for which you are referred to the Tolkien
> Newsgroups FAQ entry "Did the Ring itself speak to Gollum on Mt.
> Doom?" at <http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/Internal.html#RingSpeak>.
>
** Time: 0.0 s Lines in file 1: 73 file 2: 120
** The files are significantly different (15+62 lines in 6 blocks)
Russ
Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>"Stan Brown" <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.174a3d4ff...@news.odyssey.net...
>
>> As for the Silmaril being sentient, we do read that before Morgoth's
>> throne "the jewel suffered [Beren's] touch and hurt him not." That
>> sounds a bit like the Silmaril making a decision.
>
>I'd call that more a use of figurative language.
Well, I assume he's citing in opposition to Varda's hallowing against impure
and mortal touch. I simply put this in the same category as Beren being able
to pass the Girdle of Melian because his Doom was stronger. Beren's doom was
stronger than even Varda's hallowing. In short, Beren had a pretty strong
backer.
Russ
Trevor Barrie
Stan Brown <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>The /American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language/ (Third
>Edition, 1992) defines "sentient" as "1. Having some perception;
>conscious. ... 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling." When people
>ask whether the Ring was sentient, typically they aren't
>wondering whether it could feel but whether it could make choices
>and act on a definite purpose. But we shall see evidence that the
>Ring is sentient under both parts of the definition.
But the ability to make choices and act on a definite purpose isn't
_any_ part of the definition of "sentient".
Stan Brown
Trevor Barrie <tba...@cs.toronto.edu> wrote in
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
I saw your earlier comment just after I posted version 0.2.
How would you (and others) suggest fixing the FAQ entry? What
exactly _is_ the question? Should I change it to "Was the Ring
alive?" or "Could the Ring think?" or just what? Should I keep the
question but then in an introductory paragraph explain that that
really opens up a whole cluster of questions beyond mere sentience?
Morgoth's Curse
wrote:
>
>There's much more agreement on the main points than I had expected.
>Here's a revised version, based on helpful comments from a number of
>people. Unless somebody comes up with a real show-stopper, this
>entry or something close to it will be added to the FAQ of the Rings
>in a few days.
I was planning to write a much longer treatise on this point, but I
see that I don't have much time so I will advance my theory now: What
if the Ring was not sentient, but (whether by design or by accident)
exploited the sentience of whomever wore it?
The issue of exactly WHY the Ring should be sentient has bugged me for
years. Sauron could not conceive of anyone willingly destroying the
Ring and it seems to me equally unlikely that he ever thought that he
would lose it or have it taken it from him. (Let's not forget that
Sauron was never known for his foresight.) Why then would he
"program" the Ring to return to him?
Gandalf & Galadriel both stressed that the Ring gave power according
to the stature of the bearer. Might this statement be taken to mean
that the Ring depended upon the intellect and character of its bearer
to "make" decisions? It would certainly be oriented towards evil
since it was created by Sauron, but it could act on ALL of the
bearer's conscious or unconscious desires. Ergo, Gollum had
unconsciously grown to hate the Ring and the effect that it had on his
existence, therefore it "abandoned" him by slipping off his finger at
the first opportune moment. Bilbo was unconsciously wary of using a
magical ring with largely unknown powers and the Ring "betrayed" him
at a singularly inconvenient moment. Both the LoTR and UT acknowledge
that Isildur's affection for the Ring waned just before it betrayed
him. I also find it striking that all three examples of how the Ring
tempted its bearer were also examples of their unconscious desires:
Gollum desired revenge and fish, Boromir wanted the power to govern
other men and prevail in battle and Sam's love of gardening was the
most significant component in his temptation. This also explains (at
least in part) why the Ring had no effect upon Tom Bombadil: He was
free of evil and had no ambition or desire to govern others and
therefore there was nothing the Ring could act upon.
In sum, the Ring was indeed somewhat like a computer: It had the
hardware, but lacked the software which only the bearer could provide.
Morgoth's Curse
Stan Brown
>The issue of exactly WHY the Ring should be sentient has bugged me for
>years. Sauron could not conceive of anyone willingly destroying the
>Ring and it seems to me equally unlikely that he ever thought that he
>would lose it or have it taken it from him. (Let's not forget that
>Sauron was never known for his foresight.) Why then would he
>"program" the Ring to return to him?
This is an interesting point. You are right about Sauron being
short-sighted; I think we see one of Tolkien's themes in that.
I think you raise a strong argument against Sauron building
decision-making power or even programming into the Ring. But then,
the same argument would say that the Ring doesn't make a mortal
invisible because Sauron had no need for invisibility and never
thought that a mortal would ever wear the Ring.
Can you distinguish between those to conclusions from similar
premises?
Troels Forchhammer
> Trevor Barrie <tba...@cs.toronto.edu> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >In article <MPG.174f64a1b...@news.odyssey.net>,
> >Stan Brown <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >>The /American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language/ (Third
> >>Edition, 1992) defines "sentient" as "1. Having some perception;
> >>conscious. ... 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling." When people
> >>ask whether the Ring was sentient, typically they aren't
> >>wondering whether it could feel but whether it could make choices
> >>and act on a definite purpose. But we shall see evidence that the
> >>Ring is sentient under both parts of the definition.
> >
> >But the ability to make choices and act on a definite purpose isn't
> >_any_ part of the definition of "sentient".
>
> I saw your earlier comment just after I posted version 0.2.
>
> How would you (and others) suggest fixing the FAQ entry? What
> exactly _is_ the question? Should I change it to "Was the Ring
> alive?" or "Could the Ring think?" or just what? Should I keep the
> question but then in an introductory paragraph explain that that
> really opens up a whole cluster of questions beyond mere sentience?
I'd suggest that the question is "what was the One Ring's level of
consciousness?"
This would allow the treatment of sentience in the primitive meaning
given in Online Plain Text English Dictionary:
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~ralph/OPTED/v003/wb1913_s.html
"Sentient (a.) Having a faculty, or faculties, of sensation and
perception.
Specif. (Physiol.), especially sensitive; as, the sentient extremities
of
nerves, which terminate in the various organs or tissues."
- and continue by discussing higher levels of conscience - from the
question of ability of making choices through the question of (free?)
will to the ultimate question of human-like intelligence/personality
Again from Online Plain Text:
"Conscious (a.) Possessing knowledge, whether by internal, conscious
experience or by external observation; cognizant; aware; sensible."
and
"Consciousness (n.) The state of being conscious; knowledge of one's
own existence, condition, sensations, mental operations, acts, etc"
I think that there can be no question that the One Ring is sentient
in the sense cited above - the One Ring is undoubtedly capable
of perceiving its surroundings - whether only the wearer or in a
more generalized sense.
Whether this sentience is any more than what we'd see in e.g. a
computer or industrial robot acting on 'sensations' from a CCD
camera is (I guess) anybody's guess.
I don't believe that there is any way of distinguishing - within the
context of the story - between full human-like consciousness and
a sufficiently advanced "programming" - sort of like a special case
of Clarke's oft cited statement about the indistinguishability of
advanced technology and magic. Another point might be made by
referring to Asimov's "Caves of Steel".
We tend to accept consciousness in Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, Men,
Ents, Eagles and other races, but we hesitate to accept the same
in a Ring (or rather - some people hesitate ;-).
If we could reach a consensus that the "acts" of the One Ring are
insufficient to distinguish them as being results of a conscious
mind or a very advanced "programming" (for lack of a better
word), I think much would be achieved.
For the record I do believe that the One Ring was conscious in a
limited way. It was capable of working towards the goals of
Sauron even when not in contact with him - and even when he
was seriously weakened and disembodied after the Last Alliance.
It was also capable of formulating strategies (or at the very least
choosing between them) towards achieving these goals.
I also think that the Ring's consciousness was severely limited -
thus I think that it was self-aware only to the extend that it was
aware of itself as an extension of Sauron.
I further do believe that the Ring didn't have a free will - Sauron
would forever have formulated the end motives of the Ring - the
final causes if you want.
I believe I've seen somewhere that Tolkien stated that if someone
other than Sauron mastered the One Ring it would be to him as
if it was destroyed - yet we still see Gandalf reluctant of taking
the Ring though he could no doubt master it - he was still scared
of the power the _Ring_ would then gain, even though Sauron
himself would be pretty powerless (as we saw when it was
destroyed). The consciousness (my word here - you need not
agree ;-) of the Ring was therefore not dependent on Sauron,
but I still believe that it would not be capable of formulating
new goals - it would still be an instrument of evil, not capable
of e.g. redemption as it didn't have the necessary attributes
for redemption - e.g. a soul.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Please reply to (t.f...@mail.dk)
The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of
thinking with which we created them.
Albert Einstein
