Message-ID: <3914FAED.CA3EC7C7@worldnet.att.net> From: Kent Reply-To: tokent@yahoo.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: of rings and dragons Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 29 Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 05:10:50 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.14.29.144 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 957676250 63.14.29.144 (Sun, 07 May 2000 05:10:50 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 05:10:50 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!howland.erols.net!news-out.worldnet.att.net.MISMATCH!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!wnslaves2!wnmasters3!bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:18640 You know, it's strange when you re-read the LOTR as an adult. You start wondering about motives and such. 1. Have you ever wondered why Sauron bothered to gather up the rings of power (except the elven 3), deal them out to various dwarves and men, and then try to get them back again? Why didn't he just hold on to them to start with? Okay, he got the nine men under his sway, but what about the dwarves? I know about the dragons getting at a few of them (were they doing Sauron's bidding in this, by the way?) but it seems he just wanted the dwarves' rings back: it's written somewhere that Gandalf found Thrain in Dol Goldur broken from the amount of torture Sauron inflicted on him to get that ring back. So as far as the Dwarven 7, what was Sauron's point? Did he just fail in getting Dwarves under his sway and decide to try again by doling out the 7 rings to more hapless humans? Maybe he needed the ones he recovered to acquire lots of gold to pay the armies he had on his side during the War of the Ring? 2. Now this isn't a Tolkien original, but you'd think He'd have addressed this one since he used it also: Why do dragons like treasure hordes? The gold, jewels, armor, wealth can't possibly do them any good. What would they want to buy that they need so much gold for that a little creative flapping of wings and strategic breathing couldn't get them by force? Is their main goal in life just to lie-around on other people's stuff? Are they just nature's ultimate freeloaders? Perhaps the actually subside on precious metals for a diet. Maybe the lost Dwarf rings were actually consumed by them. Kent ###### Message-ID: <39150B4E.3A5FB2EF@uchicago.edu> From: sam th X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.3.36 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: of rings and dragons References: <3914FAED.CA3EC7C7@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 41 NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.135.118.39 X-Trace: uchinews 957680452 128.135.118.39 (Sun, 07 May 2000 01:20:52 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 01:20:52 CDT Organization: The University of Chicago Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 01:21:03 -0500 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!uchinews!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:18613 Kent wrote: > You know, it's strange when you re-read the LOTR as an adult. You start > wondering about motives and such. > > 1. Have you ever wondered why Sauron bothered to gather up the rings of > power (except the elven 3), deal them out to various dwarves and men, > and then try to get them back again? Why didn't he just hold on to them > to start with? Okay, he got the nine men under his sway, but what about > the dwarves? I know about the dragons getting at a few of them (were > they doing Sauron's bidding in this, by the way?) but it seems he just > wanted the dwarves' rings back: it's written somewhere that Gandalf > found Thrain in Dol Goldur broken from the amount of torture Sauron > inflicted on him to get that ring back. So as far as the Dwarven 7, > what was Sauron's point? Did he just fail in getting Dwarves under his > sway and decide to try again by doling out the 7 rings to more hapless > humans? Maybe he needed the ones he recovered to acquire lots of gold > to pay the armies he had on his side during the War of the Ring? The rings were intentioned by Sauron (then know as Annatar - bringer of gifts to Celebrimbor, the co-creator) to enslave both men and dwarves. Humans were easy. Dwarves were not corruptible in the way that he desired, but the rings did cause them to become over-desirous of gold, which led to the downfall of several of them. When this plot failed, he gathered together the rings that were left (3 or 4 having been consumed by dragons) and kept them. As far as we know, the are never again after the Third Age. -- sam th sam@uchicago.edu http://sam.rh.uchicago.edu ###### From: mark@pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: of rings and dragons Organization: PC-InTOUCH Linux Conspiracy Message-ID: <3915499b.8604278@news.verio.net> References: <3914FAED.CA3EC7C7@worldnet.att.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Lines: 43 Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 11:01:25 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.172.26.176 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: dfw-read.news.verio.net 957697131 198.172.26.176 (Sun, 07 May 2000 10:58:51 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 10:58:51 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!iad-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!dfw-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:18620 On Sun, 07 May 2000 05:10:50 GMT, Kent wrote: >You know, it's strange when you re-read the LOTR as an adult. You start >wondering about motives and such. > >1. Have you ever wondered why Sauron bothered to gather up the rings of >power (except the elven 3), deal them out to various dwarves and men, >and then try to get them back again? Why didn't he just hold on to them >to start with? Okay, he got the nine men under his sway, but what about >the dwarves? I know about the dragons getting at a few of them (were He was trying to enslave the Dwarves like he'd enslaved the nine Men. He didn't realize that Dwarves didn't respond to the Rings in the way he expected, so he tried to take them back. The Dwarves were so secretive (especially about the Rings) that he had trouble finding them again. As for why he wanted them back, he may have feared that the remaining Rings could get into the hands of someone who knew how to use them properly. If Galadriel, say, were to find some of the Seven, she could become a substantial threat. >2. Now this isn't a Tolkien original, but you'd think He'd have >addressed this one since he used it also: > >Why do dragons like treasure hordes? The gold, jewels, armor, wealth >can't possibly do them any good. What would they want to buy that they >need so much gold for that a little creative flapping of wings and >strategic breathing couldn't get them by force? Is their main goal in >life just to lie-around on other people's stuff? Are they just nature's >ultimate freeloaders? Perhaps the actually subside on precious metals >for a diet. Maybe the lost Dwarf rings were actually consumed by them. Thorin raises the same complaint in _The Hobbit_: that dragons hoard stupid amounts of treasure and then "never enjoy a brass ring of it". Since, in Tolkien's story, dragons were created by Morgoth, we don't know what their motivation was after Morgoth died. They're not active in the War of the Ring, and if Smaug was around in the Second Age he apparently didn't do anything to assist Sauron. So I assume they're not motivated by anything. They just accumulate stuff and sit on it. ###### From: Tamim Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: of rings and dragons Date: 7 May 2000 12:14:09 GMT Organization: University of Helsinki Lines: 43 Message-ID: <8f3mmh$quh$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi> References: <3914FAED.CA3EC7C7@worldnet.att.net> <3915499b.8604278@news.verio.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: sirppi.helsinki.fi X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 957701649 27601 128.214.205.27 (7 May 2000 12:14:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.helsinki.fi NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 May 2000 12:14:09 GMT User-Agent: tin/1.4.2-20000205 ("Possession") (UNIX) (OSF1/V4.0 (alpha)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!skynet.be!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeed2.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:18654 Mark Wells wrote: > As for why he wanted them back, he may have feared that the remaining > Rings could get into the hands of someone who knew how to use them > properly. If Galadriel, say, were to find some of the Seven, she > could become a substantial threat. He might have wanted to pass them on to some humans or hobbits if he ever got the one back. I don't think Galadriel would have used that even if she hadn't here own ring, the seven were influenced by Sauron, the three were not.Of course sauron might not have realised this, but the three were stronger than the seven, that even sauron knew, I think. Why would it bother him if for example glorofindel got one of the seven, sure that would increase his power, but not enough to be a threat to Sauron, and naturally it would have been an advantage to sauron if Glorofindel wore one of the seven when Sauron got the one back. > Thorin raises the same complaint in _The Hobbit_: that dragons hoard > stupid amounts of treasure and then "never enjoy a brass ring of it". > Since, in Tolkien's story, dragons were created by Morgoth, we don't > know what their motivation was after Morgoth died. They're not active > in the War of the Ring, and if Smaug was around in the Second Age he > apparently didn't do anything to assist Sauron. So I assume they're > not motivated by anything. They just accumulate stuff and sit on it. Morgoth might have thought it an advantage when he created the dragons that they would have an intrest on treasures. More money to Morgoth less for the elves. The dragons were IMO quite independent creatures even in the first age as can be seen of the actions of Glaurung. But still maybe they were collecting treasures and sitting on them, guarding them until Melkor, their master would come back and take what is rightfully theirs. Somehow I feel the Dragons were the only creatures that were truly loyal to Morgoth, they didn't seem to hold any grudge against him. Naturally this is just speculation. Tamim, the TROLL ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: of rings and dragons Date: 07 May 2000 22:09:07 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 43 Message-ID: <6ug0ru9l7g.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <3914FAED.CA3EC7C7@worldnet.att.net> <3915499b.8604278@news.verio.net> <8f3mmh$quh$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 957730147 659 10.0.3.2 (7 May 2000 20:09:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 May 2000 20:09:07 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:18681 Tamim writes: > Mark Wells wrote: > > > Thorin raises the same complaint in _The Hobbit_: that dragons hoard > > stupid amounts of treasure and then "never enjoy a brass ring of it". > > > Since, in Tolkien's story, dragons were created by Morgoth, we don't > > know what their motivation was after Morgoth died. Like most of Morgoths creatures: do more of the same (what else?), no matter whether their Lord is gone (for ever, or he may return, who are they to know?). > Morgoth might have thought it an advantage when he created the dragons > that they would have an intrest on treasures. More money to Morgoth less > for the elves. Do not forget Morgoths lust for the Elven treasures in Aman, when he was released from Mandos. He knew the Elves had brought treasures with them, so why not make an treasure-homing missil^H^H^H^H^H^Hcreature to strip them of those, and to destroy their living places in the process. > Somehow I feel the Dragons were the only creatures that were truly loyal > to Morgoth, they didn't seem to hold any grudge against him. He never enslaved them (like he did the Orcs). They were part of his "elite troups". Such usually do not mutiny. > Tamim, the TROLL Trolls, another type of Morgothian creature that never rebelled (and todays Usenet trolls are far more Orcs than Trolls). -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Nerd, Geek, Hacker, Unix Guru, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, LARPer, Mystic Use a WIMP (Windows Icons Mouse Pulldowns) interface - or get one with a CLUE (Command Line User Environment)? ###### From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: of rings and dragons Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 01:16:05 -0400 Organization: Oak Road Systems Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: <3914FAED.CA3EC7C7@worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: a5.79.c0.5e X-Server-Date: 8 May 2000 05:14:26 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:18743 Said rincewind@worldnet.att.net (Kent) in rec.arts.books.tolkien: >Why do dragons like treasure hordes? The gold, jewels, armor, wealth >can't possibly do them any good. You might as well ask the same question of people. If they were valued just for their actual *uses*, gold and jewels would be much less expensive. But they are valued because somehow, without rational reason, people want them. (Yes, it is rational to want them as a store of wealth. But they are only a store of wealth because *other* people are willing to pay money for them, without rational reason. Circular reasoning.) So perhaps dragons like them for exactly the same reason as humans -- or magpies. Or here's a new theory for you: Gold, like every other solid, evaporates at room temperature. I don't know the rate, but it's imperceptibly slow because gold atoms are so very heavy. Whatever the rate is, it's faster at higher temperatures, though doubtless never very fast. Perhaps dragons are sensitive to this immensely diffuse vapor, and get a buzz from the very mild heavy-metal poisoning. :-) As for jewels, Ungoliant (parent of Shelob) ate gems and converted their substance to her own body, so somehow they could function as food for her. Perhaps the dragons do that too, but more likely they just like the sparkle. The word is "hoards", by the way. A "horde" is a large number, usually of people. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/ Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm Tolkien FAQs: http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien more FAQs: http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/faqget.htm ###### From: Anthony Rebello Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: of rings and dragons Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 16:03:31 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 34 Message-ID: <8f6og7$duo$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <3914FAED.CA3EC7C7@worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.252.37.7 X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon May 08 16:03:31 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x35.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 165.252.37.7 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDarebello Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:18802 In article , brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) wrote: > > You might as well ask the same question of people. If they were > valued just for their actual *uses*, gold and jewels would be much > less expensive. But they are valued because somehow, without > rational reason, people want them. (Yes, it is rational to want > them as a store of wealth. But they are only a store of wealth > because *other* people are willing to pay money for them, without > rational reason. Circular reasoning.) > > The value of gold is not altogether irrational. It has great value for three reasons of varying rationality. First it is considered beautiful when properly forged. If fact it is generally considered to be one of the most aesthetically appealing metals. Second it is rare. Even ugly rocks that are rare are considered valuable and gold, which is also beautiful, is thus considered doubly valuable. Lastly and probably most rationally, ever since the advent of trade people have tried to agree on a medium of exchange, a widely recognized currency, so that when they went to acquire 200 bushels of wheat they didn't have to bring 5 goats with them or whatever. I would think that the first to reasons for the value of gold would appeal to dragons just as easily as to humans. As far as its value as a currency, Tolkien admits in The Hobbit that although dragons know the value of their hoard at the current exchange rate very accurately. They never spend any of it. However, I seem to recall some stories of dragons using valuable items of their hoard as bribes to warriors or thieves to get them to carry out some mischievous deed or other. If anyone knows of a particular story in Tolkiens works let us know. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: of rings and dragons Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 14:16:16 -0400 Organization: Oak Road Systems Lines: 81 Message-ID: References: <3914FAED.CA3EC7C7@worldnet.att.net> <8f6og7$duo$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: c7.ae.b0.36 X-Server-Date: 8 May 2000 18:15:16 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!bignews.mediaways.net!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!falcon.america.net!news.mindspring.net!newsfeed.mindspring.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:18842 Said arebello@my-deja.com (Anthony Rebello) in rec.arts.books.tolkien: > The value of gold is not altogether irrational. It has great value >for three reasons of varying rationality. First it is considered >beautiful when properly forged. If fact it is generally considered to >be one of the most aesthetically appealing metals. "Beautiful" is not a matter of rationality, Anthony. By definition beauty is not an attribute of the object but of the observer's feelings. Remember "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." To say that something "is beautiful" is not at all the same as saying that it "is massive" or "is green". In fact, judgments of beauty *are* altogether irrational. That word "is" is very slippery, and can lead to saying things that seem true but aren't. There's a fascinating Web page on this topic and on the English variant called E-Prime. See http://www.crl.com/~isgs/speak_e.htm Oops -- that page seems to have gone to the bit bucket in teh sky. A search at Altavista turned up a different page, of which I've read just the beginning: http://www.hilgart.org/e-prime_and_linguistic_revision.html A simpler introduction is at http://members.icanect.net/~zardoz/eprime.htm and teh homepage appears to be http://www.generalsemantics.org/Articles/E-Prime_intro.htm > Second it is rare. >Even ugly rocks that are rare are considered valuable and gold, which >is also beautiful, is thus considered doubly valuable. Again, that repeated word "considered" betrays that this is a value judgment, not a matter of rationality. It's also not true. Erbium is a relatively rare element, but is not considered particularly valuable. Though rarer elements are IN GENERAL more expensive than commoner ones, there are a lot of exceptions. In particular, I'm pretty sure I remember reading an essay of Asimov's pointing out a number of elements less common than gold but less expensive as well. Can anyone supply teh specifics? > Lastly and >probably most rationally, ever since the advent of trade people have >tried to agree on a medium of exchange, a widely recognized currency, >so that when they went to acquire 200 bushels of wheat they didn't have >to bring 5 goats with them or whatever. I addressed this point, but perhaps I was not clear. At first glance, it is rational to acquire and hold gold as a store of value, because other people will pay me for it when I need to buy something else. So far it *seems* rational. But ask yourself, what guarantee have we that people won't suddenly or gradually stop wanting gold? People right now only want it because *other* people want it. Essentially it's just a fad, a fashion, though one that has laster for thousands of years. Compare the tulip boom in 18th- century Holland: tulip bulbs were very rational investments, until suddenly they weren't rational any more because no one wanted to buy them any more. So if you look below the surface, the money aspects of gold aren't rational either. (And alkso, most governments no longer use gold to back their currencies.) There *is* a rational basis to the value of gold: it is useful in dental work, electrical connectors, and various other applications. Read /The Door into Summer/ by Robert A. Heinlein: one of the sub- themes is that the hero finds himself in a time when gold is no longer used for money and now is priced based on its industrial uses. Summary: I'm afraid your three examples of "rational" value to gold are all irrational. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/ Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm Tolkien FAQs: http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien more FAQs: http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/faqget.htm ###### From: "Durin VII" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien References: <3914FAED.CA3EC7C7@worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: of rings and dragons Lines: 29 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: <_LDR4.21365$0o4.226973@iad-read.news.verio.net> Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 14:37:04 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.139.30.25 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 957810810 209.139.30.25 (Mon, 08 May 2000 18:33:30 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 18:33:30 GMT Organization: Verio Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!intermedia!iad-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:18840 Stan Brown wrote in message news:MPG.1380179ef3dc1b6798b0e0@news.mindspring.com... > Said rincewind@worldnet.att.net (Kent) in rec.arts.books.tolkien: > Or here's a new theory for you: Gold, like every other solid, > evaporates at room temperature. I don't know the rate, but it's > imperceptibly slow because gold atoms are so very heavy. Whatever > the rate is, it's faster at higher temperatures, though doubtless > never very fast. Perhaps dragons are sensitive to this immensely > diffuse vapor, and get a buzz from the very mild heavy-metal > poisoning. :-) Here's another theory. Morgoth put much ofhis 'essence' into gold. Maybe they could somehow tap some of his power , feeding off gold. Or maybe they were just trying to get closer to their beloved master :^) > The word is "hoards", by the way. A "horde" is a large number, > usually of people. > > -- > Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA > http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/ > Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm > Tolkien FAQs: http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien > more FAQs: http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/faqget.htm ###### From: pbachjson@aol.comnojunk (PaulB) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: of rings and dragons Lines: 45 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder05.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 08 May 2000 18:52:55 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler Message-ID: <20000508145255.06690.00003026@nso-ft.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!bignews.mediaways.net!newsfeed.icl.net!triton.skycache.com!152.163.239.129!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:18834 In article , brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) writes: >> Lastly and >>probably most rationally, ever since the advent of trade people have >>tried to agree on a medium of exchange, a widely recognized currency, >>so that when they went to acquire 200 bushels of wheat they didn't have >>to bring 5 goats with them or whatever. > >I addressed this point, but perhaps I was not clear. > >At first glance, it is rational to acquire and hold gold as a store >of value, because other people will pay me for it when I need to >buy something else. So far it *seems* rational. But ask yourself, >what guarantee have we that people won't suddenly or gradually stop >wanting gold? People right now only want it because *other* people >want it. Essentially it's just a fad, a fashion, though one that >has laster for thousands of years. Compare the tulip boom in 18th- >century Holland: tulip bulbs were very rational investments, until >suddenly they weren't rational any more because no one wanted to >buy them any more. > > Another point to be made is that if you are never going to spend your gold, i.e. it is going to sit around like another object rather than be used as a trading tool, it loses it's value to you, because you have essentially stopped using it as a value marker for other things. Although, others such as dwarves would still want it and value it. In this might be the key to the whole question. Gold a treasure to a dragon is valuable as a bait in a trap to lure prey into its clutches. The greater the treasure the more likely people will try to recover it. OTOH, if the dragon is too good at cultivating a reputation of ferocity, people will wise-up and the number of people caught in its trap will dwindle, so as the reputation grows it is necessary to range abroad more for food. Breathe Peace PB "... the essence of myth [is] that it have no taint of allegory to the maker and yet should suggest incipient allegories to the reader..." C. S. Lewis, having read "The Lay of Leithian" ###### From: philip_tucker@my-deja.com Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: of rings and dragons Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 19:20:45 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 39 Message-ID: <8f741q$s2f$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <3914FAED.CA3EC7C7@worldnet.att.net> <3915499b.8604278@news.verio.net> <8f3mmh$quh$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.71.9.192 X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon May 08 19:20:45 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 63.71.9.192 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDphilip_tucker Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.bme.hu!news.iif.hu!fu-berlin.de!news.maxwell.syr.edu!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!intermedia!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:18781 > Morgoth might have thought it an advantage when he created the dragons > that they would have an intrest on treasures. More money to Morgoth less > for the elves. The dragons were IMO quite independent creatures even in > the first age as can be seen of the actions of Glaurung. If they were independant, why did they never (at least, as far as I can tell) try to use the rings for their powers? Or, at least try to hoard them along with their other treasures? Since dragons don't directly use the treasures they keep, one can assume they simply hoard things that others value and get some kind of power kick out of it. Since the rings were about the most valuable things around, it stand to reason that they would want them, too. But, there's no evidence they did anything with the rings but destroy them. Or, perhaps dragons were similar to dwarves and simply valued sparkly shiny treasures more than magical ones. > But still maybe > they were collecting treasures and sitting on them, guarding them until > Melkor, their master would come back and take what is rightfully theirs. > Somehow I feel the Dragons were the only creatures that were truly loyal > to Morgoth, they didn't seem to hold any grudge against him. Naturally > this is just speculation. Again, if they were keeping treasures for Melkor, it seems like they would want to keep the rings for him. - Philip Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: Tamim Khawaja Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: of rings and dragons Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 22:49:31 +0300 Organization: Helsingin Yliopisto Lines: 29 Message-ID: <39171A4B.9F0B982E@mappi.helsinki.fi> References: <3914FAED.CA3EC7C7@worldnet.att.net> <8f6og7$duo$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: in56.in.helsinki.fi Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 957815412 10302 128.214.189.56 (8 May 2000 19:50:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.helsinki.fi NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 May 2000 19:50:12 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!nntp.inet.fi!inet.fi!newsfeed2.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:18824 Stan Brown wrote: > > > "Beautiful" is not a matter of rationality, Anthony. By definition > beauty is not an attribute of the object but of the observer's > feelings. Remember "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." To say > that something "is beautiful" is not at all the same as saying that > it "is massive" or "is green". In fact, judgments of beauty *are* > altogether irrational. > > True it is in the eye of the beholder. Still due to evolutionary reasons there are things that are seen as beautiful or ugly by virtually all humans, whatever the culture or upbringing. A half rotten body of a human is ugly to most people. So even if the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the beholders's eyes are often similar. To a worm feeding on the body the body would seem beautiful. I think most humans not knowing what gold is would regard it as more beautiful than lead. I have to admit that this is not the primary reason why gold was valuable even before it became important in computers etc. The fashion theory you put forward is naturally the biggest reason for it's value. But why it became fashionable in the first place: it was rare and relatively beautiful in most peoples eyes. Tamim, the TROLL ###### From: Tamim Khawaja Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: of rings and dragons Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 22:57:01 +0300 Organization: Helsingin Yliopisto Lines: 17 Message-ID: <39171C0D.B4D20FEB@mappi.helsinki.fi> References: <3914FAED.CA3EC7C7@worldnet.att.net> <3915499b.8604278@news.verio.net> <8f3mmh$quh$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi> <8f741q$s2f$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: in56.in.helsinki.fi Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 957815861 10701 128.214.189.56 (8 May 2000 19:57:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.helsinki.fi NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 May 2000 19:57:41 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!nntp.inet.fi!inet.fi!newsfeed2.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:18826 philip_tucker@my-deja.com wrote: > >snip > Again, if they were keeping treasures for Melkor, it seems like they > would want to keep the rings for him. How would they have known how powerful the rings were. We know that it wasn't easy to know what the one ring was. Even for gandalf it took time. The dragons didn't use magical artefacts (to my knowledge) and they definitely could not have used the dwarven rings. They didn't need swords, helmets, staffs or rings, they were quite formidable without these trinkets. To them the rings were just pieces of gold. They probably didn't melt the rings by purpose as others have pointed out but along with everything else the poor dwarf was wearing. Tamim, The TROLL ###### Message-ID: <39184991.E790C0BD@uiuc.edu> From: Brian Cleereman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: of rings and dragons References: <3914FAED.CA3EC7C7@worldnet.att.net> <8f6og7$duo$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 122 Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 12:23:29 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.174.38.86 X-Complaints-To: abuse@uiuc.edu X-Trace: vixen.cso.uiuc.edu 957893176 128.174.38.86 (Tue, 09 May 2000 12:26:16 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 12:26:16 CDT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:18921 As far as your beauty comments go, then I guess you see no value in art either, or at least as only irrational objects? The day beauty becomes an 'irrationality' becomes the day in my opinion when we have lost our souls. To simply reason as a computer can reason, and not to appreciate the beauty in a painting, a flower, a piece of jewelry, is the day when we have simply become biological computers, awaiting the day when electrical computers will become more efficient so that we can replace ourselves. As far as your 'rare' comments go, yes, there are elements and compounds which are more rare on this earth than gold. Such as palladium and platinum, which are also traded as commodities, and erbium, which is unstable in its elemental state. Also, gold IS the only element which does not oxidize or corrode, thus making it a more valuable way of storing 'wealth' than something such as erbium, which also has fewer industrial applications than gold. Hence, the value is determined by supply and demand... which I consider rational. Rhenium for example, which I have worked with in the casting industry, is not typically considered valuable, though it is rare. But since its inception as a key component in nickel superalloy casting, its value has increased to above the value of gold, due to supply and demand. You could invest in Rhenium... if you were convinced that nickel superalloy won't be replaced by the newer, better, cheaper alternative tomorrow. As far as your comments about the chances that gold will fall out of popularity and will lose its value, ala tulips in Holland. Well, the same argument can be made for U.S. Dollars, the Yen, and the Euro, which actually have less 'real' value than gold, except for their ability to be thrown in a fire for heat. These also only have value because other people want them. If you insist on quoting history, consider the value of the German Mark in post-WWI days, when it was not supported by gold and when the government simply printed paper to 'pay' its debt. Historically gold has kept its value longer than any other method of exchange, from the very first coins ever minted. I am not William Jennings Bryan, and I do not endorse the gold standard, however there are reasons behind gold, if simply that people want it, and have wanted it for THOUSANDS of years. If people want it for 'irrational' reasons, then I'm sure you, being rational, will find a way to take advantage of their 'weakness' for this 'worthless' media. Stan Brown wrote: > Said arebello@my-deja.com (Anthony Rebello) in > rec.arts.books.tolkien: > > The value of gold is not altogether irrational. It has great value > >for three reasons of varying rationality. First it is considered > >beautiful when properly forged. If fact it is generally considered to > >be one of the most aesthetically appealing metals. > > "Beautiful" is not a matter of rationality, Anthony. By definition > beauty is not an attribute of the object but of the observer's > feelings. Remember "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." To say > that something "is beautiful" is not at all the same as saying that > it "is massive" or "is green". In fact, judgments of beauty *are* > altogether irrational. > > That word "is" is very slippery, and can lead to saying things that > seem true but aren't. There's a fascinating Web page on this topic > and on the English variant called E-Prime. See > http://www.crl.com/~isgs/speak_e.htm > Oops -- that page seems to have gone to the bit bucket in teh sky. > A search at Altavista turned up a different page, of which I've > read just the beginning: > http://www.hilgart.org/e-prime_and_linguistic_revision.html > A simpler introduction is at > http://members.icanect.net/~zardoz/eprime.htm > and teh homepage appears to be > http://www.generalsemantics.org/Articles/E-Prime_intro.htm > > > Second it is rare. > >Even ugly rocks that are rare are considered valuable and gold, which > >is also beautiful, is thus considered doubly valuable. > > Again, that repeated word "considered" betrays that this is a value > judgment, not a matter of rationality. > > It's also not true. Erbium is a relatively rare element, but is not > considered particularly valuable. Though rarer elements are IN > GENERAL more expensive than commoner ones, there are a lot of > exceptions. In particular, I'm pretty sure I remember reading an > essay of Asimov's pointing out a number of elements less common > than gold but less expensive as well. Can anyone supply teh > specifics? > > > Lastly and > >probably most rationally, ever since the advent of trade people have > >tried to agree on a medium of exchange, a widely recognized currency, > >so that when they went to acquire 200 bushels of wheat they didn't have > >to bring 5 goats with them or whatever. > > I addressed this point, but perhaps I was not clear. > > At first glance, it is rational to acquire and hold gold as a store > of value, because other people will pay me for it when I need to > buy something else. So far it *seems* rational. But ask yourself, > what guarantee have we that people won't suddenly or gradually stop > wanting gold? People right now only want it because *other* people > want it. Essentially it's just a fad, a fashion, though one that > has laster for thousands of years. Compare the tulip boom in 18th- > century Holland: tulip bulbs were very rational investments, until > suddenly they weren't rational any more because no one wanted to > buy them any more. > > So if you look below the surface, the money aspects of gold aren't > rational either. (And alkso, most governments no longer use gold to > back their currencies.) > > There *is* a rational basis to the value of gold: it is useful in > dental work, electrical connectors, and various other applications. > Read /The Door into Summer/ by Robert A. Heinlein: one of the sub- > themes is that the hero finds himself in a time when gold is no > longer used for money and now is priced based on its industrial > uses. > > Summary: I'm afraid your three examples of "rational" value to gold > are all irrational. > > -- > Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA > http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/ > Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm > Tolkien FAQs: http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien > more FAQs: http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/faqget.htm ###### From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: of rings and dragons Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 15:57:27 -0400 Organization: Oak Road Systems Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <3914FAED.CA3EC7C7@worldnet.att.net> <8f6og7$duo$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <39184991.E790C0BD@uiuc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: c7.ae.b3.55 X-Server-Date: 9 May 2000 19:56:22 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!feeder.qis.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:18911 Said cleerema@uiuc.edu (Brian Cleereman) in rec.arts.books.tolkien: > As far as your beauty comments go, then I guess you see no value in art >either, or at least as only irrational objects? The day beauty becomes an >'irrationality' becomes the day in my opinion when we have lost our souls. I think you misunderstood me, or else you are objecting to something I did not say. I find beauty in a number of things, and they give me pleasure. But I know the difference between a matter of rational thought and a matter of irrational emotion, and questions of beauty definitely belong to the latter. I never argued against beauty or its appreciation, just against someone's erroneous claim that beauty is a rational consideration. Why does that fact bother you? ###### Message-ID: <39189BDD.E55FF215@uiuc.edu> From: Brian Cleereman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: of rings and dragons References: <3914FAED.CA3EC7C7@worldnet.att.net> <8f6og7$duo$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <39184991.E790C0BD@uiuc.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 35 Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 18:14:38 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.174.38.86 X-Complaints-To: abuse@uiuc.edu X-Trace: vixen.cso.uiuc.edu 957914086 128.174.38.86 (Tue, 09 May 2000 18:14:46 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 18:14:46 CDT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:18922 Stan Brown wrote: > Said cleerema@uiuc.edu (Brian Cleereman) in rec.arts.books.tolkien: > > As far as your beauty comments go, then I guess you see no value in art > >either, or at least as only irrational objects? The day beauty becomes an > >'irrationality' becomes the day in my opinion when we have lost our souls. > > I think you misunderstood me, or else you are objecting to > something I did not say. > > I find beauty in a number of things, and they give me pleasure. But > I know the difference between a matter of rational thought and a > matter of irrational emotion, and questions of beauty definitely > belong to the latter. > > I never argued against beauty or its appreciation, just against > someone's erroneous claim that beauty is a rational consideration. > > Why does that fact bother you? Well, in that case you seem to be arguing not against somebody's argument, but against his relatively minor point that this behavior is rational or not. Behavior does not need to be rational to be explainable, and since people have different ideas of 'rational', just as they have different ideas of 'beautiful', I think it is important to realize that the arguments are valid, just not the assertion of 'rationality'. I did not mean to debate the issue of rationality, just as I do not debate the issue of beauty, but seek to explain some of the problems you had with his statements, ala your tulip and erbium arguments. Would you call the currency system irrational? You had three points in your argument, and I addressed all three points, perhaps I needed to do so in a less emotional manner? Taking even less than two sentences of my post to talk about the importance of beauty, which you did omit from your post? Your above argument seems to be addressing only a small part of mine, and you seem to have forgotten about defending your other two points. ###### From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: of rings and dragons Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 00:03:14 -0400 Organization: Oak Road Systems Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <3914FAED.CA3EC7C7@worldnet.att.net> <8f6og7$duo$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <39184991.E790C0BD@uiuc.edu> <39189BDD.E55FF215@uiuc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: c7.ae.b2.4e X-Server-Date: 10 May 2000 04:02:44 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed.icl.net!europa.netcrusader.net!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:18906 Said cleerema@uiuc.edu (Brian Cleereman) in rec.arts.books.tolkien: >Well, in that case you seem to be arguing not against somebody's argument, but >against his relatively minor point that this behavior is rational or not. I suppose I have an unhealthy obsession with accuracy and clarity. If someone wants to call astrology a science, I'm not going to let that pass. (They're free to believe in it, but they're not free to call it a science or imply that it is a somehow viable alternative point of view to e.g. physics.) In the same way, if someone wants to call a sense of beauty a rational reason for amassing gold, that's simply not using the word "rational" in the standard English way. They're free to argue that dragons, or people, or magpies amass gold because they find it pretty, but beauty is emphatically not a property of the gold, and it is IRrational to claim that it is. If that's a minor point to you, well, I don't know what to tell you. ###### From: Tamim Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: of rings and dragons Date: 10 May 2000 17:50:41 GMT Organization: University of Helsinki Lines: 43 Message-ID: <8fc7hh$46v$2@oravannahka.helsinki.fi> References: <3914FAED.CA3EC7C7@worldnet.att.net> <8f6og7$duo$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <39184991.E790C0BD@uiuc.edu> <39189BDD.E55FF215@uiuc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: sirppi.helsinki.fi X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 957981041 4319 128.214.205.27 (10 May 2000 17:50:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.helsinki.fi NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 May 2000 17:50:41 GMT User-Agent: tin/1.4.2-20000205 ("Possession") (UNIX) (OSF1/V4.0 (alpha)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!algonet!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeed3.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:18902 Brian Cleereman wrote: > Stan Brown wrote: >> Said cleerema@uiuc.edu (Brian Cleereman) in rec.arts.books.tolkien: >> > As far as your beauty comments go, then I guess you see no value in art >> >either, or at least as only irrational objects? The day beauty becomes an >> >'irrationality' becomes the day in my opinion when we have lost our souls. >> >> I think you misunderstood me, or else you are objecting to >> something I did not say. >> >> I find beauty in a number of things, and they give me pleasure. But >> I know the difference between a matter of rational thought and a >> matter of irrational emotion, and questions of beauty definitely >> belong to the latter. >> >> I never argued against beauty or its appreciation, just against >> someone's erroneous claim that beauty is a rational consideration. >> >> Why does that fact bother you? > Well, in that case you seem to be arguing not against somebody's argument, but > against his relatively minor point that this behavior is rational or not. > Behavior does not need to be rational to be explainable, and since people have > different ideas of 'rational', just as they have different ideas of 'beautiful', > I think it is important to realize that the arguments are valid, just not the > assertion of 'rationality'. I did not mean to debate the issue of rationality, > just as I do not debate the issue of beauty, but seek to explain some of the > problems you had with his statements, ala your tulip and erbium arguments. > Would you call the currency system irrational? You had three points in your > argument, and I addressed all three points, perhaps I needed to do so in a less > emotional manner? Taking even less than two sentences of my post to talk about > the importance of beauty, which you did omit from your post? Your above > argument seems to be addressing only a small part of mine, and you seem to have > forgotten about defending your other two points. Life is irrational. There is no reason for me to do anything. I could just sit here, do nothing and die. Tamim, The TOROG ###### From: Tamim Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: of rings and dragons Date: 10 May 2000 17:53:20 GMT Organization: University of Helsinki Lines: 29 Message-ID: <8fc7mg$46v$3@oravannahka.helsinki.fi> References: <3914FAED.CA3EC7C7@worldnet.att.net> <8f6og7$duo$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <39184991.E790C0BD@uiuc.edu> <39189BDD.E55FF215@uiuc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: sirppi.helsinki.fi X-Trace: oravannahka.helsinki.fi 957981200 4319 128.214.205.27 (10 May 2000 17:53:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.helsinki.fi NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 May 2000 17:53:20 GMT User-Agent: tin/1.4.2-20000205 ("Possession") (UNIX) (OSF1/V4.0 (alpha)) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed1.uni2.dk!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!newsfeed3.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!news.helsinki.fi!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:18903 Stan Brown wrote: > Said cleerema@uiuc.edu (Brian Cleereman) in rec.arts.books.tolkien: >>Well, in that case you seem to be arguing not against somebody's argument, but >>against his relatively minor point that this behavior is rational or not. > I suppose I have an unhealthy obsession with accuracy and clarity. > If someone wants to call astrology a science, I'm not going to let > that pass. (They're free to believe in it, but they're not free to > call it a science or imply that it is a somehow viable alternative > point of view to e.g. physics.) > In the same way, if someone wants to call a sense of beauty a > rational reason for amassing gold, that's simply not using the word > "rational" in the standard English way. They're free to argue that > dragons, or people, or magpies amass gold because they find it > pretty, but beauty is emphatically not a property of the gold, and > it is IRrational to claim that it is. > If that's a minor point to you, well, I don't know what to tell > you. What would be a rational point for wanting gold. Because it is needed in computers which make you richer advance sciense and makes life easier? What is the rationality in wanting to make life easier or happier. In the end all motives are irrational Tamim, the TROLL ###### From: nystulc@cs.com (Nystulc) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: of rings and dragons Lines: 34 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder05.news.cs.com X-Admin: news@cs.com Date: 14 May 2000 04:42:08 GMT References: Organization: CompuServe (http://www.compuserve.com/) X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler Message-ID: <20000514004208.12873.00004013@nso-fj.news.cs.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!triton.skycache.com!152.163.239.131!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.cs.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:19137 In article , brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) writes: >"Beautiful" is not a matter of rationality, Anthony. By definition >beauty is not an attribute of the object but of the observer's >feelings. Remember "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." To say >that something "is beautiful" is not at all the same as saying that >it "is massive" or "is green". In fact, judgments of beauty *are* >altogether irrational. I would probably say "non-rational", as opposed to "irrational," as I would prefer to avoid the implication that assessments of beauty are opposed to reason or wisdom. I would also avoid any implication that such instinctual "non-rational" reactions have no basis in reality. Unless our instincts go awry, then things that we percieve as "beautiful" do in fact tend to be good for us -- though the manner in which they are good for us are often too complex for us to rationally assess. People who who ignore beauty and seek ugliness often do so at peril to their own physical and mental wellbeing. Take the beauty of gold. It is beautiful because it is shiny and yellowish, like sunlight. We know that sunlight is, to a certain extent, good for us, and the instincts that propel us to seek such qualities may also be good. The color and brightness of objects around us -- the manner in which they reflect light (or absorb it) -- can greatly influence our mood and even our mental health. As one who has lived for a time in a dark-panneled basement appartment, I can attest that this is true. It may be foolish to avoid one's instincts in such matters. Gold has other qualities besides its beauty that make it valuable. It is malleable, ductile, and completely inert. The latter quality makes it the only metal that is completely indestructible with time. It is probably these qualities, more than its beauty, that make it valuable. -- John Whelan