Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6357678" data-attributes="member: 59082">That is not my contention at all. I just don't think this was his main approach towards creating his story, both based upon what I've read of him and from my own experience with world building and story writing. Sure, but I don't think one need to so consciously craft these ideas based upon these so-called laws of Nature (or supernature). I think that there is a more natural way, which is less that of intellection and more of imagination. To perhaps over-simplify, "letting the imagination flow" vs. "intellectual architecture." To use an example, Elves have their own laws - but they are not the laws of Tolkien's intellect, that are the laws of the imaginal. One need not buy into some kind of metaphysical ontology; one could view the imaginal simply as a part of our own mind that is beyond, or deeper than, the conscious intellect. That there is a deeper mind, or sub-conscious, has been agreed upon by most psychologists for over a hundred years.Yes, agreed. Again, agreed. Although it is an interesting inquiry as to what defines an artistic rendering as "good" or not. But that is probably best left aside for now.Bummer! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Fair enough. My only objection to that is that you are essentially saying to Tolkien (and Coleridge) "You are wrong about your own process. What is actually going on is this." I don't have an issue with that in and of itself - we all do this all the time - but the problem is when we greatly reduce someone else's framing to such an extent that key elements are lost.Neither do I entirely, at least in terms of interpretation. I feel strong that there is "something" there - something which they refer to in idealistic, metaphysical, quasi-mystical terms, and that it isn't easily reducible to modernist, postmodernist, realist, objectivist, or materialist frameworks.Well here you end the inquiry by saying "no such thing." I'm advocating for more of an open-minded, even agnostic (vs. closed atheistic) perspective. I'm not saying theistic or belief, but experiential-symbolic. My experience of sub-creation is that what Coleridge, Jung et al refer to is a living reality, regardless of how we interpret it. It could simply be deep mind beyond the surface waves of conscious thinking. Again, we don't have to posit a metaphysical or supernatural reality to recognize the existence of aspects of consciousness that are beyond the usual reach of the conscious intellect.Again, I'm not saying that Tolkien didn't engage in "deploying cultural motifs," but that I think it was far less than central than you imply. But your outright discarding ("no such thing") of anything having to do with deep imagination, the collective unconscious etc, clarifies why you would hold such a view. Without the deep imagination etc, all we're left with is the workings of the conscious mind, of intellection, and imagination is reduced to Coleridgian fancy. My experience, and what I've read from others, disagrees strongly with this kind of reductionism.It is not either/or. But again, the "imaginative flow" and "deliberate crafting" are two separate processes, which I have likened to rough draft and revision phases of a novel, respectively. But here's the important part: in my opinion, the richest, most vital and alive works of fantasy involve a deep experience of the former autonomously from the latter. Deliberate crafting has its place, but it can get in the way of deep imagination - in a similar way that thinking about playing drums can impede rhythmic flow. The imaginative, creative process involves a kind of letting go (and thus "flow"). Deliberate crafting is a secondary process of revision, organization, consolidation, etc - very important, but it is secondary to the richness of imaginative vision - which is less intentional, less deliberate, and more receptive.Yeah, and here is where I'd disagree with them, or rather say "Yes, but how about this also." I don't see Romanticism as "wrong" just as I don't see Modernism or Postmodernism as "wrong." Actually, they all hold truth, but all are partial. When we combine them things get rather interesting. Actually, postmodernism can validate romanticism by saying, "Yeah, what you're saying is true, but it is through the lense of your subjectivity." Mere modernism simply negates romanticism by saying it is "wrong" (that said, I don't think postmodernism goes far enough because it still reduces it somewhat).Sure, but it depends upon what axis you are using.Very well said.Yeah, true.Sure, but a post-postmodern, or what some call "integral" (see Gebser, Aurobindo, Wilber, et al), would re-introduce Tolkien's romantic quasi-mysticism, not in a pre-modern metaphysical way, but as a dymamic, symbolic, multi-layered expeirence of the imaginal, the deeper aspects of mind that are beyond the ken of modernist rationalism. But we're quite far from this yet.</blockquote>

Verification