Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
on 15 Nov 20:20
nextcollapse
“Well I read in a book that I was there. I can’t actually remember more than a few hundred years back.”
Ashildr from Doctor Who was brilliant.
kamenlady@lemmy.world
on 15 Nov 20:52
nextcollapse
I’m wondering now, how our little brains would adapt to living like for thousands of years. Would we really start forgetting things that are waaaay back?
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
on 15 Nov 20:55
nextcollapse
You would forget most everything. Even big events would become fuzzy. Do you remember what you had for lunch on this date when you were 5?
Glitterbomb@lemmy.world
on 15 Nov 21:13
nextcollapse
It’s Friday. Rectangle pizza
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
on 15 Nov 21:18
nextcollapse
Is that just regular pizza with rectangles on it?
ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com
on 15 Nov 21:47
nextcollapse
This one never had lunch at a public school in the 80s/90s…
Also a common thing at mine, oranges cut to a size where you could put them in your mouth to wear like a boxing mouth guard. Called them orange smiles…
Depending on how old they are and where they grew up, my assumption would be the Pizza Hut Big Foot, a massive rectangular pizza that was roughly 1 foot by 2 feet, cut into squares
They were great, no clue why they stopped making them
Nah, it’s just shitty memory. I have had quite the happy childhood, actually.
I don’t find myself reminiscing a lot and in the rare cases I do, there are quite some gaps. Even in more recent times. If I really try to dig, maybe it comes back, but I assume it’s “use it or lose it”.
Yeah, I have shitty memory too… Sometimes my friends talk about something we did 15-20 years ago and half the time it unlocks a memory, the other half I can’t recall at all
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
on 16 Nov 00:35
nextcollapse
Yeah, that’s it normal, hence why they remember and you don’t dude… you don’t think that’s not strange? That multiple friends recall events easily and you don’t…?
Different people remember different things? It’s really not that complicated. What one brain decides is worth holding onto might not be worth it to another.
Hell, even what we do remember is half hallucinated to fill in the gaps (probably not the right word for it, but you get the idea)
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
on 19 Nov 17:57
collapse
i don’t fucking remember most of yesterday, my brain is just extremely judicious about what it retains and catalogues.
on the other hand i can regale you about physics and how railways work and stuff like that…
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
on 16 Nov 00:34
collapse
That still ain’t normal dude. You’re supposed to be able to recall memories from any point of your life…
So, what’s your point? Other people might have a lot more boring childhood anecdotes to tell, but it’s not like I’m suffering in any kind. I still remember people or useful skills - the stuff I do use.
As an added benefit of growing up quite poor, I probably just had less unique experiences I actually could recall. Like, I’ve been on three travel vacations overall. Kinda like those COVID years blurred together for most people.
You actually can’t. Human memory is really quite terrible. Most of your older memories are likely distorted by other people telling you about them, or even just the natural decay that occurs whenever you recall a memory.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
on 16 Nov 04:30
collapse
That is just factually incorrect
And what people lie to themselves to make them feel better. Humans are great at recollection, why would you claim otherwise…?
The age 0-3 is the only time you should have zero recollection, anything else is something you should talk to neurologist or psychologist about, but sure lie to make yourself feel better I guess…?
There’s a common misconception that trauma is the main cause of childhood amnesia. A logical assumption but is completely unfounded.
Fun quote from that article, you absolute scholar
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
on 16 Nov 13:46
collapse
I did say usually, I didn’t say only cause you muppet.
And did you actually read the article?
But if there are significant memory gaps that may be related to childhood trauma—it may be time to seek support. A therapist is a great place to start. If you sense there’s a medical issue causing your memory loss, give your doctor a call.
Trauma is a cause, but it’s unfounded for the main cause. Which I never stated, maybe read the entire article and don’t take a specific quote out of context…?
Unfounded means it isn’t usually. It means there is no correlation. It’s not usually.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
on 16 Nov 15:14
collapse
There’s a sentence before that with a major detail you are ignoring.
Unfounded for the main cause, it’s still a cause of the amnesia.
See this quote further down…. You did actually read the article… yeah…? You aren’t just taking a quote of context and using that for the entire basis of your asinine argument… are you…?
But if there are significant memory gaps that may be related to childhood trauma—it may be time to seek support. A therapist is a great place to start. If you sense there’s a medical issue causing your memory loss, give your doctor a call.
So yes, it is absolutely a cause as that SHOULD prove without a doubt….
The unreliability of memory has been known pretty well for a long time. It’s why eye witness testimony in court should not be given nearly as much weight as the average person gives it.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
on 16 Nov 13:49
collapse
Right, but remembering nothing isn’t normal either… especially at the young age of 30, you seem to be ignoring major details here.
Just because some events are distorted doesn’t mean all should be. This seems to be the key part of the conversation that you’ve missed. I wasn’t absolute in any of my statements, yet you have been.
Which is factually incorrect, you should be able to recall specific events at all part of your life, your link doesn’t say otherwise now does it…?
The first sentence of your link says the opposite of everything you have claimed…
Despite the vivid and convincing detail with which people can recollect emotional experiences from their past, emotional memory is malleable.
Says its malleable, where does it say it gets erased…? You aren’t conflating these two vastly different things are you…?
But I didn’t say you don’t remember anything. I just pointed out that anything you do think you remember…is very likely wrong. It might be correct, but you can’t know that.
unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
on 15 Nov 23:29
nextcollapse
It wasnt specified what was meant by childhood. The further back you go the less you remember. I remember a lot more about 6-10 grade than 1-6 grade.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
on 16 Nov 00:36
collapse
You should still be able to recall specific events at all portions of your life, it’s abnormal not to, but you can defend it and ignore potentially life limiting issues if you want.
unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
on 16 Nov 08:40
nextcollapse
But the person didn’t say he remembered nothing. He said half the time he didn’t remember what friends talked about. Another person said they were fuzzy on their childhood.
You told both that wasn’t normal and suggested childhood trama. Being slightly to one side of a normal distribution curve doesn’t mean anything.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
on 16 Nov 15:08
collapse
At the ages they specified, that’s NOT normal, maybe at 60 years yes, but not THAT young. You can’t just ignore key details and make your own story up.
Also, when people say half the time, it’s not a precise amount obviously, and you don’t think that’s not part of people lying to themselves? It’s probably less than half, but they don’t want to admit it, hence the approximation that’s quite obviously not the right amount.
They also stated it was half the time they don’t recall and the other half the story reminded them, so until that point, they didn’t recall anything actually… so why are you making shit up and lying here?
I don’t t entirely know why your getting down voted, because I tend to agree. I entirely remember my childhood. My wife can’t remember ever existing before about 9 years old except in very few extremely specific cases. We don’t think anything terrible happened, but neither of us really know. I kinda think it’s the entire reason she’s avoided therapy, dont want to unlock Pandora’s Box.
abies_exarchia@lemm.ee
on 15 Nov 23:28
nextcollapse
This is a really interesting part of the Red Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
on 15 Nov 23:52
collapse
Yes and no, probably. You will remember important bits and will reconstruct/imagine other things just like you do now. Even with our short lifes not all the things you “remember” actually happened.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
on 15 Nov 21:18
nextcollapse
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
on 16 Nov 00:04
collapse
So there were five godlike beings sent to fight Sauron. Only one of them did his job.
I need to reword it.
You are the big cool powerful god. One of your servants, a minor much less powerful god does bad things to the world. So you send five your other servants just as powerful as the bad one to deal with him.
A lot of time passes. Three of those spend their time chilling. One joins the bad one. The last one turns out too weak. Who solves the problem? Four hobbits.
You really should reconsider your politics after that.
root_beer@midwest.social
on 16 Nov 00:39
nextcollapse
Isn’t much of the power of the Maiar in diplomacy and setting events in motion? Gandalf was as much of an interloper and manipulator as he was anything else, and his hiring Bilbo as a thief was the penultimate piece of his mission, as inadvertent as I’m not entirely sure it was. Right? No, really, I’m kinda asking, I don’t know for sure.
As stated in unfinished tales, Gandalf didn’t know that Bilbo would find the ring on the adventure. He originally wanted to help Thorin since having dwarves in the lonely mountain would prevent Sauron from attacking Gondor and Lothlórien from the north. The ring finding it’s way to Gollum and then Bilbo was almost definitely due to slight meddling from Eru (just as Gollum’s death was due to Eru loosening the rocks under his feet) so Gandalf could orchestrate the fellowship’s journey.
boydster@sh.itjust.works
on 16 Nov 04:02
nextcollapse
Wait till you learn about Melkor! He’s a Vala, or one of the Valar, which is a higher order than the Maiar, and was basically super-Sauron from the before times
And he was scared of Ungoliant, and we don’t know what she is, besides nasty, and hungry, and shaped like a huge spider (well, spiders are shaped like her, probably).
(He also got his foot almost cut off by an elf in single combat and walked with a limp ever after — well, at least until he got his hands and feet cut off by the rest of the Valar, I suppose —, but elves were mighty back then.)
Do we know that the Istari who go east were just chilling? I thought they were trying to rally men in the east to fight Sauron. They might even have fought some of his troops in the far off east during the Battle of the Black Gate? Or were those just fan theories and never actually confirmed?
To be fair, the istari were diminished Maiar who weren’t allowed to use their full power, and Sauron was a full Maia with no qualms about flexing his true strength.
Had Manwë been given the license to send just Eönwë, then Sauron would’ve been rekt in a year tops
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
on 16 Nov 21:59
collapse
Why were their powers limited?
DrDominate@lemmy.world
on 16 Nov 22:22
nextcollapse
It’s complicated but basically the gods learned that flexing their full strength caused cataclysmic events. Not ideal. But in doing so they got rid of Sauron’s daddy, so it wasn’t all gloom. But it did mean they weren’t keen on the idea of going rampage mode to deal with a lesser threat.
The lore reason is essentially that defeating Sauron was mankind’s coming-of-age story (the age of elves was ending, and mankind was set to take over control of middle earth), and having a bunch of maiar come in and wreck Sauron wouldn’t teach men to stand up for what’s right. Instead, Eru told Manwë to send the istari to guide men and elves to defeat Sauron on their own
The “real” reason is that it wouldn’t be a very good story if Manwë just sniped Sauron from the hidden West with magic
NineMileTower@lemmy.world
on 15 Nov 20:34
nextcollapse
Is Middle-earth juxtaposed between Top-earth and Bottom-earth or Right-earth and Left-earth?
mipadaitu@lemmy.world
on 15 Nov 20:42
nextcollapse
Inner earth and outer earth.
NineMileTower@lemmy.world
on 15 Nov 20:47
nextcollapse
The serious answer is it’s juxtaposed with East and West. West being the Undying Lands of Valinor, and East being the much less well-explored Land of the Sun.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 16 Nov 08:31
collapse
Oh lawdy-lawd, I never realised Maija Mehiläinen is nationalist propaganda as well.
That’s the Finnish name for it, works a lot better, I think.
Sulevi Riukulehto suggested that the book may have carried a political message. This view depicts the beehive as a well-organised militarist society and Maya as an ideal citizen. Elements of nationalism also appear when Maya gets angry at a grasshopper for failing to distinguish between bees and wasps (whom she calls “a useless gang of bandits” [Räubergeschlecht] that have no “home or faith” [Heimat und Glauben]) and at a insulting fly, whom Maya threatens to teach “respect for bees” and with her stinger. Riukulehto interprets this to mean that respect is based on the threat of violence. Collectivism versus individualism is also a theme. Maya’s independence and departure from the beehive is seen as reproachable, but it is atoned by her warning of the hornets’ attack. This show of loyalty restores her position in the society. In the hornet attack part of the story, the bees’ will to defend the hive and the heroic deaths of bee officers are glorified, often in overtly militarist tones.
This is fun because Maija is a very common name for women in Finland. Not this generation particularly but it’s like the Finnish equivalent of Mary or something to the generation that was born around 30’s-40’s. For some reason it was exploding in popularity from the the 1900’s (as in the oughts, not the century) to 1930 in Finland. And seeing how Tolkien definitely took influence from Finnish, I wonder if there might be an actual connection.
edit I changed the example name from Jennifer to Mary as I realised “Mary Poppins” is translated as “Maija Poppanen” in Finnish
Oh I haven’t heard of French Maias, but I did know Sweden has Maja, that’s probably where it came to Finnish from, I’d wager. Yeah, Wikipedia says the Scandic equivalent is Maja, yeah. It’s a deviation on “Mary” as I suspected from Mary Poppins.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
on 16 Nov 21:47
collapse
For some reason it was exploding in popularity from the the 1900’s (as in the oughts, not the century) to 1930 in Finland.
It’s because everyone wanted to associate their kids with the English Queen Mary. Idk why. My Italian grandparents named all their kids after English royalty too.
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
on 15 Nov 22:16
nextcollapse
Doesn’t matter. While that amazon shitshow tells a different story, Gandalf (as Radagast and Saruman) only arrived in the third age, long after the War of the Last Alliance. Gandalf might be infinitely older than Elrond yet wasn’t there.
Infomatics90@lemmy.ca
on 16 Nov 17:01
nextcollapse
I thought the way it was worded, it was still technically the second age?
WillBalls@lemmy.world
on 16 Nov 17:19
nextcollapse
The second age ended with the ending of the war of the last alliance, so Gandalf did arrive later, but not “long after”
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
on 16 Nov 18:05
collapse
I assume you forgot a “not” after the “but”. I just looked it up though, Gandalf left Valinor for Middle Earth around 1000 T.A. I don’t know about you, but I’d consider that “long after” the War of the Last Alliance.
Huh I guess you’re right, my bad. 1000 years is definitely long for men, but I’d say midish for elves ¯\(ツ)/¯
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
on 16 Nov 18:42
collapse
I guess it depends. Elrond is around 7.000 years old when having this conversation with Gandalf, so 1.000 years might be like 10 years to a 70-year old. Arwen is less than 3.000 years old, so maybe 1.000 years to her is more like 10 years to someone in their late 20s (and as someone in their early 30s, that’s a damn long time)? To Galadriel or Cirdan on the other hand 1.000 years might just be like ”Damn, I slept in again, what age is it?“
You raise a really good point on what the passage of time must feel like to young elves. I’d like to think that elves younger than 1000 years are treated with lots of eye rolls from their elders for brashness, similar to Treebeard telling Merry and Pippin to not be so hasty
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
on 16 Nov 21:44
collapse
Now imagine 400-500 year old senior Elros eyerolling his twin brother’s juvenile stupidity lol
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
on 16 Nov 21:43
collapse
This does raise the question “Does your age count when you’re in Valinor?”
Because it’s literally the undying lands. Are we really going to pull rank between two functionally ageless beings? Seems petty.
CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
on 16 Nov 21:49
collapse
It’s not about rank or age. It’s about who’s been present at the last battle of the War of the Last Alliance. Also, at the time of the depicted scene Elrond never was in Valinor, so at this point in time Gandalf definitely easier Elrond’s senior by orders of magnitude.
Assman@sh.itjust.works
on 15 Nov 23:18
nextcollapse
Am I wrong or do the wizards not remember their lives before they were sent to middle earth?
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
on 15 Nov 23:59
nextcollapse
I don’t think the original books ever told anything about it.
Iirc the books themselves didn’t say, but Tolkien’s letters say something to the effect of the Istari only having vague memories of their time as Maia, with the exception of things that they were explicitly meant to remember, e.g. Olórin’s memories of being sent back after his physical death while fighting Durin’s Bane.
They know that they are, in our parlance, embodied angels or minor gods, but they don’t remember a ton of where they came from
That’s a very good question, and one that I don’t know the answer to. I would guess no, as the point of the Istari losing their memories was to make them more like the people they were sent to save; it’s not something about being embodied that made them lose their bodyless memories, it was part of their mission. The balrogs had no such mission
it’s not something about being embodied that made them lose their bodyless memories
Isn’t it though? I get that Tolkien may have specified that the Istari not having their memories aided in them being more like the people they were sent to save, but…
Perhaps it is a property of being a body that you can not have the properties that the spirits do. A body is a finite.
IIRC having watched a lot of Nerd of the Rings and whatnot, a lot of the depictions of Balrogs have them as sort of fiery angels instead of the gory beasts we have in the Peter Jackson movies. Now if Balrogs are a sort of angelic but demonic things, then I’d go with your assumption, but if they were the Peter Jackson beast-like, then I think mine could work. In the sense that if being embodied means you just can’t retain all the knowledge you have in the spirit realm and the body affects your spirit as well, then having that sort of raging demonic beasts would make sense as even if they were higher beings while disembodied, while being embodied they’d just feel the rage and fury of the body and wouldn’t recall anything about being a Maia before eventually being disembodied again.
That was probably very incoherent. It was influenced by the thoughts I had when I used to do a lot of nitrous.
I haven’t read anything in the legendarium that supports your theory that the hröa (body in quenya) restricts the fëa (soul).
All beings in Arda initially had hröar, but hröar are susceptible to harm regardless of the status of the fëa within (see Morgoth’s wounds, and Sauron and Saruman’s deaths) that could cause the fëa to become unbodied. In the case of the fëa becoming unbodied, the fëa would have to be powerful enough to exist on its own, create a new body (Sauron after the fall of Númenor), be otherwise tied to the world (Sauron after the war of the last alliance with the one ring), or dissipate into nothing (Sauron after the destruction of the one ring and Saruman after his death by Grima’s)
I wouldn’t say “restricts”, as much as “limits”. I do have a difference in mind for what I mean by that, but I understand just using cursive probably isn’t enough to communicate it.
May I ask what texts are you referring to that actually touch on this? I’m not implying disagreement or that I’ve read them, I definitely haven’t, my depth basically goes to the depth of ‘I read most of Silmarillion as a teenager’. I’m curious because I might be inclined to read them if I see them.
dissipate into nothing (Sauron after the destruction of the one ring
Tell me if I’m wrong, and I probably am, but isn’t this because Sauron poured so much of his essence (fëa I suppose) into the ring that after it was destroyed, he lost so much of his power as to not be able to exist anymore and thus dissipated into nothing? So before he did that, if his body was destroyed, he was able to hang on, but after the Ring was destroyed, he wasn’t powerful enough and thus “truly” died.
But yeah I don’t see anything contradicting my thoughts in that paragraph of yours. I’m just saying that for the while that any Maia inhabits a body, they’re less powerful than they are when disembodied, although I don’t know if then we also have to consider where that power can be applied to, as in the Seen and the Unseen.
I think I understand what you mean. A physical body does obey laws of physics and thus restricts the “true freedom” of a whisp or spirit. However, a hröa can also focus and direct the energies innate to a fëa, which could make the being more powerful. In Fëanor’s case, his fëa was the brightest and strongest of all the elves, and when he died, his hröa actually disintegrated due to the power of his fëa leaving, so one could argue (without much evidence) that his spirit was stronger than a physical body could truly handle (but this falls apart when looking at Morgoth or the other Vala’s bodies that don’t burn up).
There’s not a lot of text specifically surrounding the fëa and hröa, but some of it can be gleaned from the silmarillion, or unfinished tales. Tolkien liked his mysticism a lot more in the earlier drafts of the legendarium, so unfinished tales will probably suit you more (although some of those drafts aren’t considered “canon” in light of the silmarillion’s later publishing and research, but that’s another matter entirely).
You’re exactly right with Sauron. He was originally able to shape shift into anything (fun fact: his first appearance was Tevildo Lord of cats, then altered to Thû the necromancer who could turn into a werewolf, then finally Sauron), but after the fall of Númenor, he lost that ability and was left with his body looking dark and evil. By pouring his fëa into the one ring, he risked total doom by its destruction since he wouldn’t have enough power left to maintain even a spiritual form on middle earth.
I don’t think there’s any evidence that a Maiar with a hröa is weaker than a Maia without a hröa. There’s no interaction between a pure fëa Ainur and an embodied Ainur, so there’s no way to get a definitive answer. I would say that without a hröa, the fëa can’t be “focused” and is therefore weaker (from the wiki (no source provided): “According to the Elves, the fëa is powerless without the hröa, and likewise the latter would die without the former.”)
Huh, you do get what I mean. Have you ever imbibed any illicit substances, or just good narratives? (I’m hoping the answer is “both”, but I don’t judge.)
However, a hröa can also focus and direct the energies innate to a fëa, which could make the being more powerfu
That’s a very good point.
I don’t think there’s any evidence that a Maiar with a hröa is weaker than a Maia without a hröa.
I don’t think “weaker”. I just think limited until the body burns up and their full might is revealed, sort of. Like if they had to fight another maia, that is. Like a huge bodybuilder in a weird costume that limits their actions, but if you actually started a fight with them, they’d just punch you “for real” and the cardboard of their costume wouldn’t be in the way, it’d just tear off while they’re punching you through the costume.
I would say that without a hröa, the fëa can’t be “focused” and is therefore weaker (from the wiki (no source provided):
I get your point, but I think it’s more about the sort of fight that’s going on. Like if you have a lense, it’s not gonna make the light source more powerful, but it can focus it into a neater beam, making it more powerful in that spot, but then that focusing would mean that there’s less light going around “the room” in general. Like a beam of light that’s as powerful as an orb of light would burn your eyes if directed at you, but also, would be less blinding than an orb of light if directed away from you. So in that sense, the hröa being able to focus power would be a positive and a negative, depending on the type of environment/enemy you’re facing.
I get what you’re saying, but it doesn’t work that way in middle earth according to Tolkien. We have lots of instances of Ainur vs Ainur combat where they don’t pop out of their hröa for more power. The best example is the war of wrath where the host of the valar (including Eönwë, a Maia) goes against Morgoth, the mightiest of the valar, and there’s no mention of that happening. It could be that Tolkien omitted it, but that’s a big enough fight that I think it would have been mentioned if it occured
Well, the pure power wouldn’t matter if it wasn’t concentrated enough to destroy the hröa their enemies was using to influence the Seen, I guess. Like they’d have first destroy their enemies physical being to be able to influence their incorporeal being?
And to do that, you’d want to focus your power, so you’d need a “lens” of sorts, meaning you’d use a body to fight the enemy?
Oh wait no, Morgoth didn’t have a physical body in that fight? Uh, I’d probably do well to read the Silmarillion again lol.
Of course not! Just because he didn’t write it doesn’t mean you can’t imagine it. It just means there’s no precedent for it, so you have to be creative
Morgoth did indeed have a body for the entirety of the war of wrath.
I believe that in Tolkien’s writings, the only Ainur that lost their bodies were Sauron (during the fall of Númenor, then when the ring was destroyed), Saruman (killed by Grima), Gothmog (killed by drowning/stabbed in the fountain during the fall of Gondolin), Durin’s Bane (killed by Gandalf the grey), and possibly an unnamed balrog (if indeed dead, then slain by Glorfindel during the fall of Gondolin). There’s some mention in Melkor’s Ring(?) that during Melkor’s first chaining, his original body was slain, but I’m not sure if that’s backed up by other writings about his first chaining. Regardless, it’s a pretty small club of fëa separated Ainur, so I’d think that if there was a benefit to splitting from the hröa, it would be made clear
threaded - newest
“Well I read in a book that I was there. I can’t actually remember more than a few hundred years back.”
Ashildr from Doctor Who was brilliant.
I’m wondering now, how our little brains would adapt to living like for thousands of years. Would we really start forgetting things that are waaaay back?
You would forget most everything. Even big events would become fuzzy. Do you remember what you had for lunch on this date when you were 5?
It’s Friday. Rectangle pizza
Is that just regular pizza with rectangles on it?
This one never had lunch at a public school in the 80s/90s…
Also a common thing at mine, oranges cut to a size where you could put them in your mouth to wear like a boxing mouth guard. Called them orange smiles…
Depending on how old they are and where they grew up, my assumption would be the Pizza Hut Big Foot, a massive rectangular pizza that was roughly 1 foot by 2 feet, cut into squares
They were great, no clue why they stopped making them
Or they’re from Detroit
Fair point, I forgot about Detroit style
A breadtangle of pizza
youtu.be/fK5CLplRIno?si=ePl380K01Kj3Uh1Y
"The Man from Earth"
Such a gem of a movie
I’ve already forgotten most of my childhood and I’m only around 30. So I’d assume, yes.
That’s… that’s not normal.
Thats usually trauma suppressing memories, sorry mate,
Nah, it’s just shitty memory. I have had quite the happy childhood, actually.
I don’t find myself reminiscing a lot and in the rare cases I do, there are quite some gaps. Even in more recent times. If I really try to dig, maybe it comes back, but I assume it’s “use it or lose it”.
Yeah, I have shitty memory too… Sometimes my friends talk about something we did 15-20 years ago and half the time it unlocks a memory, the other half I can’t recall at all
Yeah, that’s it normal, hence why they remember and you don’t dude… you don’t think that’s not strange? That multiple friends recall events easily and you don’t…?
No, it’s been like that all my life
That’s still not normal dude.
Whatevs
Different people remember different things? It’s really not that complicated. What one brain decides is worth holding onto might not be worth it to another.
Hell, even what we do remember is half hallucinated to fill in the gaps (probably not the right word for it, but you get the idea)
i don’t fucking remember most of yesterday, my brain is just extremely judicious about what it retains and catalogues.
on the other hand i can regale you about physics and how railways work and stuff like that…
That still ain’t normal dude. You’re supposed to be able to recall memories from any point of your life…
So, what’s your point? Other people might have a lot more boring childhood anecdotes to tell, but it’s not like I’m suffering in any kind. I still remember people or useful skills - the stuff I do use.
As an added benefit of growing up quite poor, I probably just had less unique experiences I actually could recall. Like, I’ve been on three travel vacations overall. Kinda like those COVID years blurred together for most people.
You actually can’t. Human memory is really quite terrible. Most of your older memories are likely distorted by other people telling you about them, or even just the natural decay that occurs whenever you recall a memory.
That is just factually incorrect And what people lie to themselves to make them feel better. Humans are great at recollection, why would you claim otherwise…?
The age 0-3 is the only time you should have zero recollection, anything else is something you should talk to neurologist or psychologist about, but sure lie to make yourself feel better I guess…?
Fun quote from that article, you absolute scholar
I did say usually, I didn’t say only cause you muppet.
And did you actually read the article?
Trauma is a cause, but it’s unfounded for the main cause. Which I never stated, maybe read the entire article and don’t take a specific quote out of context…?
Unfounded means it isn’t usually. It means there is no correlation. It’s not usually.
There’s a sentence before that with a major detail you are ignoring.
Unfounded for the main cause, it’s still a cause of the amnesia.
See this quote further down…. You did actually read the article… yeah…? You aren’t just taking a quote of context and using that for the entire basis of your asinine argument… are you…?
So yes, it is absolutely a cause as that SHOULD prove without a doubt….
Which means not usually.
That it could be caused doesn’t mean it is usually caused.
The unreliability of memory has been known pretty well for a long time. It’s why eye witness testimony in court should not be given nearly as much weight as the average person gives it.
Right, but remembering nothing isn’t normal either… especially at the young age of 30, you seem to be ignoring major details here.
Just because some events are distorted doesn’t mean all should be. This seems to be the key part of the conversation that you’ve missed. I wasn’t absolute in any of my statements, yet you have been.
Which is factually incorrect, you should be able to recall specific events at all part of your life, your link doesn’t say otherwise now does it…?
The first sentence of your link says the opposite of everything you have claimed…
Says its malleable, where does it say it gets erased…? You aren’t conflating these two vastly different things are you…?
But I didn’t say you don’t remember anything. I just pointed out that anything you do think you remember…is very likely wrong. It might be correct, but you can’t know that.
It wasnt specified what was meant by childhood. The further back you go the less you remember. I remember a lot more about 6-10 grade than 1-6 grade.
You should still be able to recall specific events at all portions of your life, it’s abnormal not to, but you can defend it and ignore potentially life limiting issues if you want.
I think you have a life limiting issue.
Being able to remember everything from your past is extremely rare.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthymesia
You realize normal is somewhere in the middle…? Between remembering nothing and everything…?
I never said everything, and remembering nothing isn’t normal.
But the person didn’t say he remembered nothing. He said half the time he didn’t remember what friends talked about. Another person said they were fuzzy on their childhood.
You told both that wasn’t normal and suggested childhood trama. Being slightly to one side of a normal distribution curve doesn’t mean anything.
At the ages they specified, that’s NOT normal, maybe at 60 years yes, but not THAT young. You can’t just ignore key details and make your own story up.
Also, when people say half the time, it’s not a precise amount obviously, and you don’t think that’s not part of people lying to themselves? It’s probably less than half, but they don’t want to admit it, hence the approximation that’s quite obviously not the right amount.
They also stated it was half the time they don’t recall and the other half the story reminded them, so until that point, they didn’t recall anything actually… so why are you making shit up and lying here?
I don’t t entirely know why your getting down voted, because I tend to agree. I entirely remember my childhood. My wife can’t remember ever existing before about 9 years old except in very few extremely specific cases. We don’t think anything terrible happened, but neither of us really know. I kinda think it’s the entire reason she’s avoided therapy, dont want to unlock Pandora’s Box.
This is a really interesting part of the Red Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson
Yes and no, probably. You will remember important bits and will reconstruct/imagine other things just like you do now. Even with our short lifes not all the things you “remember” actually happened.
Perfect casting, too
I SEEN IT!!
I mean, sure he was alive. But he wasn’t physically there.
I didn’t understand this so I looked it up.
lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Maiar
Pretty cool.
So there were five godlike beings sent to fight Sauron. Only one of them did his job.
I need to reword it.
You are the big cool powerful god. One of your servants, a minor much less powerful god does bad things to the world. So you send five your other servants just as powerful as the bad one to deal with him.
A lot of time passes. Three of those spend their time chilling. One joins the bad one. The last one turns out too weak. Who solves the problem? Four hobbits.
You really should reconsider your politics after that.
Isn’t much of the power of the Maiar in diplomacy and setting events in motion? Gandalf was as much of an interloper and manipulator as he was anything else, and his hiring Bilbo as a thief was the penultimate piece of his mission, as inadvertent as I’m not entirely sure it was. Right? No, really, I’m kinda asking, I don’t know for sure.
As stated in unfinished tales, Gandalf didn’t know that Bilbo would find the ring on the adventure. He originally wanted to help Thorin since having dwarves in the lonely mountain would prevent Sauron from attacking Gondor and Lothlórien from the north. The ring finding it’s way to Gollum and then Bilbo was almost definitely due to slight meddling from Eru (just as Gollum’s death was due to Eru loosening the rocks under his feet) so Gandalf could orchestrate the fellowship’s journey.
Wait till you learn about Melkor! He’s a Vala, or one of the Valar, which is a higher order than the Maiar, and was basically super-Sauron from the before times
And he was scared of Ungoliant, and we don’t know what she is, besides nasty, and hungry, and shaped like a huge spider (well, spiders are shaped like her, probably).
(He also got his foot almost cut off by an elf in single combat and walked with a limp ever after — well, at least until he got his hands and feet cut off by the rest of the Valar, I suppose —, but elves were mighty back then.)
But in the end, the task was successful, so everyone did what they were supposed to… Right?
Nice try, Saruman.
–Saruman the White
Do we know that the Istari who go east were just chilling? I thought they were trying to rally men in the east to fight Sauron. They might even have fought some of his troops in the far off east during the Battle of the Black Gate? Or were those just fan theories and never actually confirmed?
There’s no exact details given for what the blue wizards (the two in the east) were up to. Tolkien only said they were sewing dissent against Sauron
“Sewing dissent against Sauron”
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c8c3b14d-e7ac-49d5-87cb-7d61077299cd.jpeg">
To be fair, the istari were diminished Maiar who weren’t allowed to use their full power, and Sauron was a full Maia with no qualms about flexing his true strength.
Had Manwë been given the license to send just Eönwë, then Sauron would’ve been rekt in a year tops
Why were their powers limited?
It’s complicated but basically the gods learned that flexing their full strength caused cataclysmic events. Not ideal. But in doing so they got rid of Sauron’s daddy, so it wasn’t all gloom. But it did mean they weren’t keen on the idea of going rampage mode to deal with a lesser threat.
The lore reason is essentially that defeating Sauron was mankind’s coming-of-age story (the age of elves was ending, and mankind was set to take over control of middle earth), and having a bunch of maiar come in and wreck Sauron wouldn’t teach men to stand up for what’s right. Instead, Eru told Manwë to send the istari to guide men and elves to defeat Sauron on their own
The “real” reason is that it wouldn’t be a very good story if Manwë just sniped Sauron from the hidden West with magic
Is Middle-earth juxtaposed between Top-earth and Bottom-earth or Right-earth and Left-earth?
Inner earth and outer earth.
No
Front earth and back earth
Yes. It’s the inner goo of the earth cube.
Or? And!
Hamburger earth or hotdog earth?
Beginning-earth and End-earth
Guess where we are
The serious answer is it’s juxtaposed with East and West. West being the Undying Lands of Valinor, and East being the much less well-explored Land of the Sun.
What’s north and south?
More Middle-earth. South is Harad, and north is Forodwaith. Both of which are regions of Middle-earth.
Maiar is the plural
Small nerd gripe. Maia is the singular form of Maiar. “I am a Maia,” or “I am one of the Maiar” get you there
Maia who?
Maia he
Maia ha ha
God, I love this community.
something-something Núma Númenor
!lemmysings@lemm.ee
.
Maia the bee!
Oh lawdy-lawd, I never realised Maija Mehiläinen is nationalist propaganda as well.
That’s the Finnish name for it, works a lot better, I think.
This is fun because Maija is a very common name for women in Finland. Not this generation particularly but it’s like the Finnish equivalent of Mary or something to the generation that was born around 30’s-40’s. For some reason it was exploding in popularity from the the 1900’s (as in the oughts, not the century) to 1930 in Finland. And seeing how Tolkien definitely took influence from Finnish, I wonder if there might be an actual connection.
edit I changed the example name from Jennifer to Mary as I realised “Mary Poppins” is translated as “Maija Poppanen” in Finnish
In France I know a Maia, in Sweden a Maja!
Oh I haven’t heard of French Maias, but I did know Sweden has Maja, that’s probably where it came to Finnish from, I’d wager. Yeah, Wikipedia says the Scandic equivalent is Maja, yeah. It’s a deviation on “Mary” as I suspected from Mary Poppins.
It’s because everyone wanted to associate their kids with the English Queen Mary. Idk why. My Italian grandparents named all their kids after English royalty too.
Doesn’t matter. While that amazon shitshow tells a different story, Gandalf (as Radagast and Saruman) only arrived in the third age, long after the War of the Last Alliance. Gandalf might be infinitely older than Elrond yet wasn’t there.
I thought the way it was worded, it was still technically the second age?
The second age ended with the ending of the war of the last alliance, so Gandalf did arrive later, but not “long after”
I assume you forgot a “not” after the “but”. I just looked it up though, Gandalf left Valinor for Middle Earth around 1000 T.A. I don’t know about you, but I’d consider that “long after” the War of the Last Alliance.
Huh I guess you’re right, my bad. 1000 years is definitely long for men, but I’d say midish for elves ¯\(ツ)/¯
I guess it depends. Elrond is around 7.000 years old when having this conversation with Gandalf, so 1.000 years might be like 10 years to a 70-year old. Arwen is less than 3.000 years old, so maybe 1.000 years to her is more like 10 years to someone in their late 20s (and as someone in their early 30s, that’s a damn long time)? To Galadriel or Cirdan on the other hand 1.000 years might just be like ”Damn, I slept in again, what age is it?“
You raise a really good point on what the passage of time must feel like to young elves. I’d like to think that elves younger than 1000 years are treated with lots of eye rolls from their elders for brashness, similar to Treebeard telling Merry and Pippin to not be so hasty
Now imagine 400-500 year old senior Elros eyerolling his twin brother’s juvenile stupidity lol
This does raise the question “Does your age count when you’re in Valinor?”
Because it’s literally the undying lands. Are we really going to pull rank between two functionally ageless beings? Seems petty.
It’s not about rank or age. It’s about who’s been present at the last battle of the War of the Last Alliance. Also, at the time of the depicted scene Elrond never was in Valinor, so at this point in time Gandalf definitely easier Elrond’s senior by orders of magnitude.
Am I wrong or do the wizards not remember their lives before they were sent to middle earth?
I don’t think the original books ever told anything about it.
Iirc the books themselves didn’t say, but Tolkien’s letters say something to the effect of the Istari only having vague memories of their time as Maia, with the exception of things that they were explicitly meant to remember, e.g. Olórin’s memories of being sent back after his physical death while fighting Durin’s Bane.
They know that they are, in our parlance, embodied angels or minor gods, but they don’t remember a ton of where they came from
Do the balrogs have the same memory issues?
That’s a very good question, and one that I don’t know the answer to. I would guess no, as the point of the Istari losing their memories was to make them more like the people they were sent to save; it’s not something about being embodied that made them lose their bodyless memories, it was part of their mission. The balrogs had no such mission
Isn’t it though? I get that Tolkien may have specified that the Istari not having their memories aided in them being more like the people they were sent to save, but…
Perhaps it is a property of being a body that you can not have the properties that the spirits do. A body is a finite.
IIRC having watched a lot of Nerd of the Rings and whatnot, a lot of the depictions of Balrogs have them as sort of fiery angels instead of the gory beasts we have in the Peter Jackson movies. Now if Balrogs are a sort of angelic but demonic things, then I’d go with your assumption, but if they were the Peter Jackson beast-like, then I think mine could work. In the sense that if being embodied means you just can’t retain all the knowledge you have in the spirit realm and the body affects your spirit as well, then having that sort of raging demonic beasts would make sense as even if they were higher beings while disembodied, while being embodied they’d just feel the rage and fury of the body and wouldn’t recall anything about being a Maia before eventually being disembodied again.
That was probably very incoherent. It was influenced by the thoughts I had when I used to do a lot of nitrous.
I haven’t read anything in the legendarium that supports your theory that the hröa (body in quenya) restricts the fëa (soul).
All beings in Arda initially had hröar, but hröar are susceptible to harm regardless of the status of the fëa within (see Morgoth’s wounds, and Sauron and Saruman’s deaths) that could cause the fëa to become unbodied. In the case of the fëa becoming unbodied, the fëa would have to be powerful enough to exist on its own, create a new body (Sauron after the fall of Númenor), be otherwise tied to the world (Sauron after the war of the last alliance with the one ring), or dissipate into nothing (Sauron after the destruction of the one ring and Saruman after his death by Grima’s)
I wouldn’t say “restricts”, as much as “limits”. I do have a difference in mind for what I mean by that, but I understand just using cursive probably isn’t enough to communicate it.
May I ask what texts are you referring to that actually touch on this? I’m not implying disagreement or that I’ve read them, I definitely haven’t, my depth basically goes to the depth of ‘I read most of Silmarillion as a teenager’. I’m curious because I might be inclined to read them if I see them.
Tell me if I’m wrong, and I probably am, but isn’t this because Sauron poured so much of his essence (fëa I suppose) into the ring that after it was destroyed, he lost so much of his power as to not be able to exist anymore and thus dissipated into nothing? So before he did that, if his body was destroyed, he was able to hang on, but after the Ring was destroyed, he wasn’t powerful enough and thus “truly” died.
But yeah I don’t see anything contradicting my thoughts in that paragraph of yours. I’m just saying that for the while that any Maia inhabits a body, they’re less powerful than they are when disembodied, although I don’t know if then we also have to consider where that power can be applied to, as in the Seen and the Unseen.
I think I understand what you mean. A physical body does obey laws of physics and thus restricts the “true freedom” of a whisp or spirit. However, a hröa can also focus and direct the energies innate to a fëa, which could make the being more powerful. In Fëanor’s case, his fëa was the brightest and strongest of all the elves, and when he died, his hröa actually disintegrated due to the power of his fëa leaving, so one could argue (without much evidence) that his spirit was stronger than a physical body could truly handle (but this falls apart when looking at Morgoth or the other Vala’s bodies that don’t burn up).
There’s not a lot of text specifically surrounding the fëa and hröa, but some of it can be gleaned from the silmarillion, or unfinished tales. Tolkien liked his mysticism a lot more in the earlier drafts of the legendarium, so unfinished tales will probably suit you more (although some of those drafts aren’t considered “canon” in light of the silmarillion’s later publishing and research, but that’s another matter entirely).
You’re exactly right with Sauron. He was originally able to shape shift into anything (fun fact: his first appearance was Tevildo Lord of cats, then altered to Thû the necromancer who could turn into a werewolf, then finally Sauron), but after the fall of Númenor, he lost that ability and was left with his body looking dark and evil. By pouring his fëa into the one ring, he risked total doom by its destruction since he wouldn’t have enough power left to maintain even a spiritual form on middle earth.
I don’t think there’s any evidence that a Maiar with a hröa is weaker than a Maia without a hröa. There’s no interaction between a pure fëa Ainur and an embodied Ainur, so there’s no way to get a definitive answer. I would say that without a hröa, the fëa can’t be “focused” and is therefore weaker (from the wiki (no source provided): “According to the Elves, the fëa is powerless without the hröa, and likewise the latter would die without the former.”)
Huh, you do get what I mean. Have you ever imbibed any illicit substances, or just good narratives? (I’m hoping the answer is “both”, but I don’t judge.)
That’s a very good point.
I don’t think “weaker”. I just think limited until the body burns up and their full might is revealed, sort of. Like if they had to fight another maia, that is. Like a huge bodybuilder in a weird costume that limits their actions, but if you actually started a fight with them, they’d just punch you “for real” and the cardboard of their costume wouldn’t be in the way, it’d just tear off while they’re punching you through the costume.
I get your point, but I think it’s more about the sort of fight that’s going on. Like if you have a lense, it’s not gonna make the light source more powerful, but it can focus it into a neater beam, making it more powerful in that spot, but then that focusing would mean that there’s less light going around “the room” in general. Like a beam of light that’s as powerful as an orb of light would burn your eyes if directed at you, but also, would be less blinding than an orb of light if directed away from you. So in that sense, the hröa being able to focus power would be a positive and a negative, depending on the type of environment/enemy you’re facing.
Definitely both 😎
I get what you’re saying, but it doesn’t work that way in middle earth according to Tolkien. We have lots of instances of Ainur vs Ainur combat where they don’t pop out of their hröa for more power. The best example is the war of wrath where the host of the valar (including Eönwë, a Maia) goes against Morgoth, the mightiest of the valar, and there’s no mention of that happening. It could be that Tolkien omitted it, but that’s a big enough fight that I think it would have been mentioned if it occured
Well, the pure power wouldn’t matter if it wasn’t concentrated enough to destroy the hröa their enemies was using to influence the Seen, I guess. Like they’d have first destroy their enemies physical being to be able to influence their incorporeal being?
And to do that, you’d want to focus your power, so you’d need a “lens” of sorts, meaning you’d use a body to fight the enemy?
Oh wait no, Morgoth didn’t have a physical body in that fight? Uh, I’d probably do well to read the Silmarillion again lol.
To my knowledge, Tolkien never wrote about a battle between an unbodied fëa and a hröa
Well shit, does that end the theorising? So did Morgoth have a body or not whilst in that fight you were describing?
Of course not! Just because he didn’t write it doesn’t mean you can’t imagine it. It just means there’s no precedent for it, so you have to be creative
Morgoth did indeed have a body for the entirety of the war of wrath.
I believe that in Tolkien’s writings, the only Ainur that lost their bodies were Sauron (during the fall of Númenor, then when the ring was destroyed), Saruman (killed by Grima), Gothmog (killed by drowning/stabbed in the fountain during the fall of Gondolin), Durin’s Bane (killed by Gandalf the grey), and possibly an unnamed balrog (if indeed dead, then slain by Glorfindel during the fall of Gondolin). There’s some mention in Melkor’s Ring(?) that during Melkor’s first chaining, his original body was slain, but I’m not sure if that’s backed up by other writings about his first chaining. Regardless, it’s a pretty small club of fëa separated Ainur, so I’d think that if there was a benefit to splitting from the hröa, it would be made clear
The books mention nothing about their memories at all. just them arriving to middle earth and being given names by the elves and other races.
Hey Gandalf, fuck off. Were you literally there 3,000 years ago? Or are you just going “You’re younger than me, so you know fuckall”?
Fuckin boomer
Gandalf: I was there in spirit!
That’s my take.
Bro I was alive during Rodney King riots.
Doesn’t mean my opinion is more valid than someone actually there.
Christian Earth: 6000 years old
Middle Earth: 30,000 years old
Middle Earth wins again
Jesus vs Gandalf power scalers go!!!
Modern depictions of Jesus are correct because after the crucifixion Jesus came back as Jesus the White.
ItsTheSamePicture.jpg