Deep\Interesting Questions

Of course you can make suggestions -- we even have a separate forum for it:


That said, the prohibition on discussion of religion -- as well as politics -- came about due to acrimony and hurt feelings, and contributed little or nothing to the health of the forum -- rather the reverse, in fact. There were several attempts to accommodate those subjects, in various ways, but none worked. It's highly unlikely we'll revive them.

I'll add that these rules long predate my membership here, but having explored the TTF catacombs, I have no desire to see that kind of vitriol rise to the surface again.

We're not a democracy so yes, we take suggestions but also have the rules we do for a reason. There've been enough trolls, fights, arguments, off-topic crap and things in the past that we have the rules we do because they're necessary. No one is required to post here but if you do, you do have to follow the forum rules, end of discussion.

You can, of course, discuss anything you like in PMs, as long any correspondents agree.

Erestor Arcamen said:

We're not a democracy

Click to expand...

No, you're an oligarchy, a system where power is held by a small, exclusive group, not the ordinary members.
A group that is usually

• powerful
• well-connected
• self-appointed (hi, admins 👋)

Its common traits are

• A few people make decisions for everyone
• Regular members have little to no real influence
• Rules can be changed whenever it suits the people in charge
• Censorship can usually be exercised
• “Participation” exists mostly for show

Basically rule of few over the many.
Yep, that's you. Enjoy it.

Erestor Arcamen said:

We're not a democracy so yes, we take suggestions but also have the rules we do for a reason. There've been enough trolls, fights, arguments, off-topic crap and things in the past that we have the rules we do because they're necessary. No one is required to post here but if you do, you do have to follow the forum rules, end of discussion.

Click to expand...

I hope you're not accusing me of being a troll. I feel like many people think I'm a troll and I don't know why because I don't seem like a troll. ALSO, there should be limits on reasons mods can delete someones post. like some guy said i violated the rules, but using my knowledge of the rules and the rulebook itself, i politely proved him wrong and explained why he was wrong and then he deleted my post for 'arguing against mod'.

Alexander Scamilton said:

I hope you're not accusing me of being a troll. I feel like many people think I'm a troll and I don't know why because I don't seem like a troll. ALSO, there should be limits on reasons mods can delete someones post. like some guy said i violated the rules, but using my knowledge of the rules and the rulebook itself, i politely proved him wrong and explained why he was wrong and then he deleted my post for 'arguing against mod'.

Click to expand...

Not at all. I wasn't referring to anyone in this thread or that's currently active really. In the past we've had some trolls and very unfriendly, offensive people who've used the religious forums and such to push their own beliefs and then attack anyone who had a differing view. While those extreme cases are limited, there've been other incidents where we've had to shut threads down for similar, less extreme reasons. So it's much easier to keep the religion and politics off the site. We do have a section that some users use to share their favorite religious music and there's religious discussion on the Discord but that's it.

I didn't mean to 'discuss' religion. However, the title of the thread mentions morality, and it eventually got taken here (If this was prefixed by 'I believe that', it wouldn't be asserted as a true fact, but a belief). A discussion of making bad decisions and morality is one thing, but outright statements that one certain religious belief is the deciding factor as to what 'moral' is is getting into discussing religion. A Wiccan goth can be just as moral, or even moreso. When I was invited here, I was told this place had rules about not discussing religion, which was one thing that drew me to register. I like the rules as they are, even if there is clearly some leniency toward certain beliefs. Again, my 2¢. I'll get back to the Tolkien here and watch and quietly make notes on how certain religious beliefs are allowed to stretch the boundary of the 'religion' rule.

• Religion
  • Religion should ONLY be discussed when in the context of J.R.R. Tolkien's life and any influence it may have had on him in building his legendarium.

The Rules

I think the moderators do a great job managing this site. I remember some of the threads about politics and religion that became very hateful and am glad they are no longer allowed. There are plenty of other places where people can have discussions on those topics.

As a Mod, this is the one rule I see violated most often.

"The goal of TTF is to insure everyone has a good time and enjoys discussing Tolkien and his works. Obviously we will not all agree with one another but everyone should respect the opinions of others. "Making rude remarks to another member or attacking them for holding views different from your own will not be tolerated." If you see this taking place, please report to a moderator immediately. Do notrespond to the aggressor".

He sees SO many posts where a member shares their view, invites others to participate in it, and the minute a view differs, the original poster challenges it, often somewhat sarcastically. This has then turned from "discussion" to "argument" - and the view originally expressed is not a "perspective" (a true perspective is always willing to discuss) - but is an "opinion."

Such is not presenting or adding to "having a good time and enjoying Tolkien and his works." Some good members have even left the site, as they felt they could not post anything without it being attacked.

A few members on the "I'm going to challenge evereything you say" sicd of the coin (and the edges of them too) have (wisely) chosen to leave on their own. Others have been served Thor's hammer in the end, but only after extensive efforts by the Mods to get them to align with the Site's objectives. And the Site's objectives are the reason for all the 'rules' in place. They're not just 'rules to be rules.' They are rules engineered to deliver the goal - and every place existing has its goal and its rules to 'get there.'

Argument ensues not from 'rules' but from differing objectives. But a place is not required to change its objectives to sserve a member. A member is required to work within and help achieve the goal of the place.

If we can't tolerate the objective of the place, as a member, our choice is but one - just as Melkor had but one - to leave, and 'go their own way'... elsewhere.,, where the goals of the place are more aligned with the members.

We thank and appreciate all the members who find TTF a suitable place for their own goals and objectives.

"But the ultimate problem of Free Will in its relationship to the foreknowledge of a Designer (both on the plane of Umbar and of the Mind and the blending of both in Incarnate Mind), Eru, "the Author of the Great Tale", was of course not resolved by the Eldar." Tolkien, Fate And Free Will, The Nature of Middle-Earth

This is nonetheless followed by two paragraphs, one of which reads [They are the Eldar]:

"They said that, though this likeness is only a “likeness”, not an equation, the nearest experience of the Incarnates to this problem is to be found in the author of a tale. The author is not in the tale in one sense, yet it all proceeds from him (and what was in him), so that he is present all the time. Now while composing the tale he may have certain general designs (the plot for instance), and he may have a clear conception of the character (independent of the particular tale) of each feigned actor. But those are the limits of his “foreknowledge”. Many authors have recorded the feeling that one of their actors “comes alive” as it were, and does things that were not foreseen at all at the outset and may modify in a small or even large way the process of the tale thereafter. All such unforeseen actions or events are, however, taken up to become integral parts of the tale when finally concluded. Now when that has been done, then the author’s “foreknowledge” is complete, and nothing can happen, be said, or done, that he does not know of and will or allow to be. Even so, some of the Eldarin philosophers ventured to say, it was with Eru."

Is Tolkien speaking through the Eldar here? In any case, at the end of the paragraphs there's a note [very rough and faint] which begins: "Let the Music of Ainur [be an] ancient legend from Valinorean days. (. . .)"

And within the conception that follows, Tolkien apparently ascribes to Eru a less than complete foreknowledge of the Music and the resulting Tale, with respect to which, Carl Hostetter notes: "in apparent contradiction of the absolute omniscience ascribed to God in both Catholic and classical theistic thought."

That is, Eru did not have complete knowledge in the First Stage of the Music, but had it after taking up alterations by created wills ("good" or bad) and adding his own. That's why the Second Stage is here described as: "the theme now transformed."

But again, is Tolkien just "thinking with the pencil here", quickly, roughly, without necessarily being in any "final conclusion" mode? So many questions, so little time.

Anyway as an aside I still have a clock with "hands" and numbers as God once intended

Elthir said:

"But the ultimate problem of Free Will in its relationship to the foreknowledge of a Designer (both on the plane of Umbar and of the Mind and the blending of both in Incarnate Mind), Eru, "the Author of the Great Tale", was of course not resolved by the Eldar." Tolkien, Fate And Free Will, The Nature of Middle-Earth

Click to expand...

Me and Tolkien be twinning, I said like the exact same in my previous post. I mentioned free willl existing with divine forknowledge or something like that.

Vardarianna said:

My big question is 'Why do so many people deny science?'

Click to expand...

Erurávennë said:

Define 'science'.

Click to expand...

You have to be kidding, right?
The definition of science is similar in most dictionaries. Here are a couple:

Oxford:
sci·ence
/ˈsīən(t)s/
noun: science

1. 1.
   the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

---

Merriam-Webster:

1
a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.
modern science
the laws of science
The program encourages students to pursue a career in science.

b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
c: a particular area of scientific study
biology, physics, chemistry, and other sciences


2
a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
the science of linguistics

b: something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
They travel so much that they have packing their clothes down to a science.
There is a science to making the best batch of iced tea.—Paul Stephen
Now, the whole art of pitching is the science of the swing and miss …—Brian Bannister, quoted in The Boston Globe


3
: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
Cooking is both a science and an art.

“I call all times soon” — Aslan

I've never looked up the word "science" because I feared there might be math involved.

Ah did I get away with a Lewis reference here? And did I mention that all the Mods look exceptionally bright today.

Tolkien

"But they would have said it is the continual clash of umbar, the "chances" of ambar as a fixed arrangement which continues to work out inevitably (except only for "miracle": a direct or mediate intervention of Eru, from outside umbar and ambar), and a purposeful will that [?ramifies] a story or tale (as an excerpt from the total drama of which Eru is the author or as that Drama itself). "

"Until the appearance of Will all is mere preparation, interesting only on a quite different & lower plane: like mathematics [run away] or observing the physical events of the world or in a similar way the workings of a machine. Will first appeared with the Ainur/Valar, but except for Melkor and those he dominated their wills being in accord with Eru effected little change in Ambar or deflected Umbar."

Italic type as published in Fate And Free Will, The Nature of Middle-Earth.

And as before, "they" are the Eldar.

But I made this section into two paragraphs. The words "run away" are also my addition.

It's just that I have heard this question before and failing to distinguish the type of science makes all the difference:
1. Observational science - testable and repeatable
2. Historical (origins) science - extrapolation of current rates and processes back into the past.

And yet all 'sciences' are based on our 'current best hypotheses and understandings.' They are always in flux, and as we well know, change as 'new things' are observed.

Gravity, for example, exists. But our best 'sciences' postulate at least 5 different ways for 'how it really works', all of them grounded in 'the best available knowledge,' none of them presenting a fully satisfactory answer. It's kind of like asking a question on TTF, and if there are 7 people speaking into it, we'll have at least 39 different answers by the 10th post..!

The "core" of the Sun does not exist at its center. It exists slightly off-center, yet we cannot explain why - mathematically, or hypothetically.

What is 'science' really? It is merely the search for 'explanations' of observed and observable things. Yet no 'science' has come up with 'the absolute answer' for any given thing to date.

No, no - Science is as much 'myth' still, since man is still in his infancy, as any other mythology written.
It is best defined as "the process of observing, and trying to explain what it is we observe and why in terms we're not even sure have their own ultimate validity in the scientific field yet."

But... this is just Ent's opinion.

I've read a bit on Galileo** over the the years.
He [famously] said .."the Book of Nature is written in the language of mathematics," meaning, to understand nature, one must discern the mathematical relationships between physical phenomena. "Measure what is measurable and what is not measurable find a way to make it measurable."

This approach moves away from the [classical] Aristotelian view of physical phenomena which asked "why does such-and-such happen" (a metaphysical question) to "How do these things that we physically experience through our senses relate to each other?" (a mathematical question)
The "why' is not measurable.... the "how" is measurable (if the tech for doing so is available)

From wikipedia, :

• Pendulum Motion: He recognized a mathematical relationship between a pendulum's length and its period, or time of swing.
• Falling Bodies: He discovered the relationship between the distance an object falls and the square of the time it has been falling (the law of free fall).
• Acoustics: He was among the first to theorize the relationship between the pitch of sound and the frequency of sound waves.

**A little Renaissance trivia.... four famous people known by the Christian names (aka "First names"....your first name was your Christian name, your last name was/is your Surname)...anyway, Galileo (Galilei), Michelangelo (Buonorroti), Raphael (Sanzia) and Donatello (di Niccolò di Betto Bardi) **

** And, yes, three of the four are also *sigh* Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles🙄

Ent said:

Gravity, for example, exists.

Click to expand...

If you say so

Elthir said:

If you say so

Click to expand...

The good news is, there's a cat for every situation.

Speaking of which -- and science . . .

If you try to fail and succeed, did you fail or succeed?