How much did Sauron know?

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:35:26 -0600, "Bill O'Meally"
<omeallymd.TakeThisOut@wise.rr.com> wrote:

>I do note that Curse chose one of Stan's (of all people) posts to
>resurrect, and after a long period of not engaging in the practice to
>boot. Knowing how Stan feels about this practice, could this have been
>Morgoth's Curse (I don't suspect he chose the name by accident! )
>engaging in a bit of mischief?

While I admit that I enjoy tweaking Stan's nose from time to time,
this was not one such occasion. I merely resurrected an interesting
thread and I was as surprised as anyone when Stan responded and
effectively accused me of forging a post. I had a blistering reply
ready to send when it occurred to me that it might all be a
misunderstanding. I decided to wait a few days and see whether my
hunch was correct. It proved to be a wise decision; the entire
incident proved to be misunderstanding due to factors that none of us
could have foreseen.

Incidentally, I resurrected two threads on January 8 and January 13,
but, alas, they were swallowed up by the sporge storm that occurred at
the same time.

http://tinyurl.com/ywyx7u and http://tinyurl.com/ypho3y

Morgoth's Curse
 >> Stay informed about: How much did Sauron know? 

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:25:40 +0100, Troels Forchhammer
<Troels.RemoveThis@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:

>Personally I don't mind the resurrection all that much -- many of
>the topics we've discussed over the years can profitably be taken up
>again, adding new insights and at places even perspectives from
>newly published material.

Our Wise Sage has spoken, Stan. Heed his wisdom!
>
>I would, however, encourage the practice of making a summary in
>order to provide a context.

I must concede that this incident has made me rethink my position
on this suggestion. I once deemed it unnecessary because we could
always locate the entire thread on Google, but now I understand that
it is not necessarily the case. I may indeed adopt this policy in the
future when I resurrect threads.

Morgoth's Curse
 >> Stay informed about: How much did Sauron know? 

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:46:32 +0100, Troels Forchhammer
<Troels.RemoveThis@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:

>I remember when I was updating the links for the CotW page from the
>old Google form to the new form, there were many threads that I had
>trouble finding, even if I knew what the subject was, searcing on the
>exact subject string didn't return any matches.
>
>One suspicion is that the Google groups database is simply too large
>for reliable searching -- I admit that my database theory is rather
>rusty (it being some 15 years since I took the course, and I haven't
>worked with it since), but it seems unlikely that they can search
>every single article in the database in the search-time they report,
>or that they have every single word and possible phrase indexed, so I
>assume that they're applying some sort of 'intelligent' algorithm
>that only searches the most likely candidates -- and which will
>occasionally leave out the ones you want.

My own archives include more than 100,000 messages, but that only
extends back to 2002 and I have also merged threads from AFT & RABT in
order to make it easier to follow discussions. I also deleted a lot
of off-topic garbage, It wouldn't surprised me if the combined
Tolkien newsgroups contained a million or more posts.

Forte Agent requires at least a minute or more to search that
archive, so I suspect that you are correct and that the "instant"
search results of Google involve either an indexing system or an
intelligent algorithm or both. On the other hand, of course, Google
does use computers that are much more powerful than my DELL Inspiron.

Doesn't Google also use cookies to keep track of your searches?
Would that influence or direct searches?

>Did you try to restrict the search to the Tolkien groups? And
>possibly also specify 'Sauron' in the subject, or restrict the dates
>(e.g. to 2003-07-01 -- 2004-06-30)? It could be interesting to know
>if Google can find the right message if you narrow down the relevant
>articles using other parameters -- after all, I suppose that most of
>the regulars here use Google quite often, and searching is going to
>become increasingly complex as the size of the database increases.

I wish that Google would allow us to purchase and download copies of
the archives of specific newsgroups, but that will never happen.

Morgoth's Curse
 >> Stay informed about: How much did Sauron know? 

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:58:21 -0500, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown.DeleteThis@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:45:53 -0600 from Morgoth's Curse
><morgothscurse2002.DeleteThis@nospam.yahoo.com>:
>> This is the complete text of the post as it originally appeared on
>> December 16, 2003, at 8:48 AM when Stan Brown responded to a post
>> thread started ...
>
>
>Sat, 23 Feb 2008 04:50:21 -0500 from Stan Brown
><the_stan_brown.DeleteThis@fastmail.fm>:
>> please provide the URL in Google of the article I posted
>
>Troels has done that for you. I withdraw my doubts, and I tender my
>apology for doubting you.

Accepted.

>I still don't understand why I couldn't find the article with three
>different searches on its contents.

I seem to recall that the entire Internet suffered the equivalent
of a seizure at the time when Pakistan tried to block YouTube. There
are even some nuts who are blaming that for the recent power outages
in Florida. I would not go so far, but I wonder if it might have
caused server problems or glitches with Google searches. Does anybody
know if other search engines experienced similar problems?

In any case, Stan, we had better enjoy it while we can. Some
experts are already predicting that Internet will collapse when it
becomes too complex and we will all return to the Dark Ages. ^_^

Hmmmm. I really should buy that battle axe that I have my eye
on. It's always wise to have such an argument handy when the
barbarians appear.

Morgoth's Curse
 >> Stay informed about: How much did Sauron know? 

"Morgoth's Curse" <morgothscurse2002 DeleteThis @nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message

> Hmmmm. I really should buy that battle axe that I have my eye
> on. It's always wise to have such an argument handy when the
> barbarians appear.
>
> Morgoth's Curse

The battle axe works best in the strong arms of a seasoned Dwarf.
I would suggest you try to find a sword with a name, or at least of elven
smithing. Those seem to work best for men.

-W
 >> Stay informed about: How much did Sauron know? 

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 04:50:21 -0500, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown.TakeThisOut@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>> >I could be mistaken, but I don't believe I did, and neither does
>> >Google. Please provide a citation.
>>
>> This is the complete text of the post as it originally appeared on
>> December 16, 2003, at 8:48 AM when Stan Brown responded to a post
>
>That's not a citation. As I showed already, Google is unable to pull
>up this article by any of several phrases and keywords. If I
>actually posted it, which I beg leave to doubt, please provide the
>URL in Google of the article I posted, not of the article you say I
>was responding to.

The fact that I was easily able to locate the thread and post using
Google whereas you could not suggested that there might be a problem
with either your server or your operating system. I did not feel
qualified to speculate on which it might be, so I supplied the
complete text of the post as an alternative. I also hoped that the
additional information would enable you to find it more easily.

>And even if I did post that, why must you drag up years-old threads?
>And if you cannot control this strange compulsion, why do you not
>summarize the old thread before responding, as was discussed (and, I
>thought, agreed) in this newsgroup?

We have thrashed this out before, Stan. I would normally refer
you to Google, but that is rather pointless at this point in time. I
will simply reiterate that this is a discussion forum. It is not a
chat messenger (although it can certainly be used as such if you are
so inclined.) As such, nearly all discussions are eligible for
further examination regardless of whether the discussion is active or
not. I readily acknowledge that there are threads which should not be
resurrected: flame wars, irrelevant political discussions and topics
which time and circumstance have rendered void (such as movie spoilers
or speculation on books that have since been published.) Thread
resurrection can be abused and inevitably will--just as normal posts
and current threads are abused by trolls, spammers and sporgers.

There are risks inherent in every endeavor. Thread resurrection
also offers numerous benefits: It helps us to avoid newsgroup
bloat--which is something we ought to consider given that every
additional thread only makes the archives more difficult to search. It
permits people who are otherwise too busy to participate in the
discussions. It encourages people to devote more thought and effort
to a post without the pressure imposed by a immediate response. It
allows us to thwart the louts who hijack or derail threads. (We have
all seen innumerable discussions abandoned because certain posters
insisted on turning it into an astringent political discussion rather
than a discussion of Tolkien's works.) It enables us to gauge how
attitudes and opinions have evolved. It allows new people to provide
fresh and interesting insights and encourages the discussion to branch
out in new directions. In other words, it has the potential to be a
useful tool.

I fail to understand why it is acceptable to refer people with
questions to the Google archives and yet it is not acceptable to use
those archives to enrich our discussions.

In conclusion, some may have noticed that I was not particularly
active in these newsgroups last year. While I found time to make a
few posts, I had to devote most of the 2007 to caring for my
terminally ill father. He passed away on September 11 and I had to
spend the much of the next few months wrapping up his affairs and
helping my family cope with our loss. My father never wished to be a
burden to his children and I honor his wishes by resurrecting such
discussions as I would have participated in had I been free of any
obligation at that time.

Morgoth's Curse
 >> Stay informed about: How much did Sauron know? 

Morgoth's Curse <morgothscurse2002 DeleteThis @nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:46:32 +0100, Troels Forchhammer
> <Troels DeleteThis @ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:

>> One suspicion is that the Google groups database is simply too large
>> for reliable searching

At least their web index is clearly distributed. You can get
(slightly) different results at different times, depending which part
if the Google-cluster is working on it.

> so I assume that they're applying some sort of 'intelligent'
> algorithm that only searches the most likely candidates

They use a distributed map-reduce algorithm, which indeed concentrates
on the most likely ones.

> On the other hand, of course, Google does use computers that are
> much more powerful than my DELL Inspiron.

They use the same class of computers (cheap standard models), they
just use a lot of them

> Doesn't Google also use cookies to keep track of your searches?

Yes. Unless you disable them. Which I recommend.

> Would that influence or direct searches?

Hopefully not... but that's easy to test if you're really interested.

> I wish that Google would allow us to purchase and download copies of
> the archives of specific newsgroups, but that will never happen.

I suppose if you wrote a little script to pull all available articles
from one NG, they wouldn't stop you.

- Dirk
 >> Stay informed about: How much did Sauron know? 

In message <news:nkuqr3dlgk4e7a74o10h7kr0s9s64e6ert@4ax.com>
Morgoth's Curse <morgothscurse2002 RemoveThis @nospam.yahoo.com> spoke these
staves:
>
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:40:30 -0500, Stan Brown
> <the_stan_brown RemoveThis @fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>> I think the deal is that Sauron, and Morgoth before him, were
>> psychotic. Psychosis is characterized by delusions, more or less
>> well systematized.
>>
>> Morgoth managed to convince himself that Ilúvatar didn't exist,
>> that there would be no accountability unless the Valar were strong
>> enough to defeat him -- and for thousands of years they weren't.
>
> I think that this statement should be qualified. I never had the
> impression that Morgoth believed that Iluvatar did not exist,

I seem to recall something along those lines, but at the moment the
best thing that I can find is an implied suggestion in 'Myths
Transformed' of /Morgoth's Ring/:

But there was seen the effect of Melkor upon Sauron: he
spoke of Melkor in Melkor's own terms: as a god, or even
as God.
[MR (HoMe X), 5,1 'Myths Transformed', Text VII]

The implication of the last words is that Morgoth possibly did think
of himself as God, capitalized, which would mean that he saw himself
as having the authority of Eru.

I think it is consistent with the nature of Morgoth to think that he
did, eventually, manage to delude himself into thinking that the lies
he told Men (see ('Adanel's Tale' -- an appendix to the Athrabeth in
/Morgoth's Ring/): that _he_ was the one they should worship as God
and Master.

> but rather believed (and not without cause) that Iluvatar would not
> intervene.

This belief is, in the text quoted above, attributed to Sauron, who
probably deluded himself with the notion that the Valar
(including Melkor) having failed, Eru had simply abandoned
Eä, or at any rate Arda, and would not concern himself
with it any more.
[ibid.]

The text, as I understand it, sees this as the result of severe
misunderstandings born in a flawed perspective (the theme of evil
being incapable of understanding good). One of the main causes
discussed is the Downfall, which of course still leaves the question
why Sauron thought he would get away with all that about Rings,
wraiths and world-domination earlier in the Second Age.

> Eventually Morgoth became so engrossed in his own ambitions and
> designs that he ceased to think of the ultimate consequences of
> his actions. He was, after all, a nihilist whose ultimate goal
> was the destruction of everything.

To Morgoth the ultimate consequence was that he alone would exist --
or at least that no other wills should exist than his alone.

Hence his endeavour always to break wills and subordinate
them to or absorb them into his own will and being, before
destroying their bodies. This was sheer nihilism, and
negation its one ultimate object: Morgoth would no doubt,
if he had been victorious, have ultimately destroyed even
his own 'creatures', such as the Orcs, when they had served
his sole purpose in using them: the destruction of Elves
and Men.
[ibid]

This of course means that he was unable to see more clearly what
would be the ultimate consequence -- he forgot about Eru, or, I would
say, he managed to delude himself into believing his own lies. I
don't think he was, in the end, capable of imagining the ultimate
consequences (in much the same way that Sauron was incapable of
imagining anyone attempting to destroy the One Ring).

>> Sauron observed that Ilúvatar took no interest in the world for
>> the whole Age of Stars and First and Second Ages of Sun,
[...]
>> The intervention of Ilúvatar was a huge surprise to him.

Yes -- and then he managed to have his delusions /confirmed/ by this
intervention . . .

It would appear that he interpreted the 'change of the
world' at the Downfall of Númenor, when Aman was removed
from the physical world, in this sense: Valar (and Elves)
were removed from effective control, and Men under God's
curse and wrath.
[ibid]

And of course he came to see the Valar as being precisely like
himself (though less successful, obviously) -- a view in which he was
confirmed by Saruman.

>> But Sauron's delusion was that he had managed to forget his
>> knowledge of the Great Music, and Ilúvatar's statement that
>> everything any of the Ainur did would be taken up and
>> transformed into part of that Music.

Precisely.

> I wonder if that was in fact part of how Sauron was initially
> corrupted. He might have disapproved of some of Melkor's actions
> at first, but excused "excesses" on the basis that Iluvatar would
> eventually incorporate it into the plan anyway. Sooner or later,
> of course, Sauron would cease to even think of Iluvatar and would
> consider only the will of Morgoth or his own.

That is a . . . curious idea

Tolkien does state that Sauron was, initially, fascinated by Melkor's
efficiency -- his 'apparent will and power of Melkor to effect his
designs quickly and masterfully'.

But this doesn't address the question you raise: how did Sauron, who
'probably knew more of the 'Music' than did Melkor', manage to ignore
that and side with Morgoth initially?

Sauron was fascinated by the efficiency of Morgoth's will, and would
see it as a way to achieve the order and co-ordination that Sauron
desired, but can we believe that Sauron thought that Melkor would
bring that about? Or was he excusing himself with the
rationalization, you mention?

At first glance the latter seems to me as likely as the former,
though it is quite possible that there are more possibilities that I
haven't seen, but some of which are even more likely.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong.
- Wolfgang Pauli, on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague
(Thus speaks the quantum physicist)
 >> Stay informed about: How much did Sauron know? 

On Mar 1, 5:40 pm, Troels Forchhammer <Tro....RemoveThis@ThisIsFake.invalid>
wrote:

>
> Tolkien does state that Sauron was, initially, fascinated by Melkor's
> efficiency -- his 'apparent will and power of Melkor to effect his
> designs quickly and masterfully'.
>
> But this doesn't address the question you raise: how did Sauron, who
> 'probably knew more of the 'Music' than did Melkor', manage to ignore
> that and side with Morgoth initially?
>
> Sauron was fascinated by the efficiency of Morgoth's will, and would
> see it as a way to achieve the order and co-ordination that Sauron
> desired, but can we believe that Sauron thought that Melkor would
> bring that about? Or was he excusing himself with the
> rationalization, you mention?
> --
> Troels Forchhammer

I have a hunch that Sauron probably _started out_ thinking that he was
'using' Morgoth, sort of like Saruman tried to sell Gandalf on the
idea that they could 'ride the storm' of Sauron's victory in the Third
Age (albeit on a vastly smaller scale).

'...deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and
ultimate purpose, knowledge, rule, order, all the things that we have
so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by
our weak and idle friends.'

So said Saruman to Gandalf, and it sounds a _lot_ like what I imagine
Sauron telling _himself_ a long, long time ago. He probably even
_meant_ it at the start, just as Saruman probably passed through a
stage where he really did tell himself sincerely that he was using
Sauron to do good.

Sauron, by at least some accounts, started by giving Morgoth
_information_ from within the ranks of the loyal Ainur, he was a spy
before he was openly in Morgoth's service. My _hunch_ is that he
started out trading information for favors or other information, and
in the early stages he probably used what he was gaining from Morgoth
in constructive ways. So it began, I suspect.

I also note that Sauron and Saruman are both members of Aule's Maiar,
or started out so. I have a theory about why Aule's people seem
especially vulnerable to Melkoric temptation: they are fascinated by
the _materials_ of the world, and the arts and cracts and sciences of
their manipulation. When they seek to make the world better, their
instinct is to apply the same thinking that works when dealing with
the inanimate to the animate.

But when dealing with the inanimate one is limited only by own's own
skills and resources and knowledge, and the laws of nature laid down
by God. There's no issue of the wishes of the iron ore or the silicon
or the rock or the water. When dealing with living things and
especially with _people_, you simply can't control everything,
sometimes the other person will say 'no' to your plan for their best
interest, and you have to take that no for an answer even if they
really would be better off doing it your way.

Even the Valar are limited by this, and I don't think Sauron fully
grasped the 'why' of it. His instinct was to treat people and living
things as if they were _materials_ to be shaped and manipulated.
Saruman probably shared that weakness, and it was part of what made
Saruman so vulnerable to Sauron. On a deep, basic level, they
'thought alike'.

Even Aule made that mistake in a sense, he was longing for someone to
talk to and to teach and to share his interests (besides the Ainur),
and he approached this longing as a 'problem to be solved', he tried
to deal with it with an engineering project, so to speak, in creating
the Dwarves, the same way he'd have dealt with a need for a new kind
of tool or machine. Luckily for him, he was prepared to face up to
his own error when it was pointed out to him, while Sauron and Saruman
chased the same mirage to their own doom.
 >> Stay informed about: How much did Sauron know? 

Johnny1a <shermanlee1 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sauron, by at least some accounts, started by giving Morgoth
> _information_ from within the ranks of the loyal Ainur, he was a spy
> before he was openly in Morgoth's service.

Hm. Is that in HoME? If yes, where?

> I also note that Sauron and Saruman are both members of Aule's Maiar,
> or started out so. I have a theory about why Aule's people seem
> especially vulnerable to Melkoric temptation: they are fascinated by
> the _materials_ of the world, and the arts and cracts and sciences of
> their manipulation.

Or, in other words, in "technology" as opposed to "pure science". Which
matches Tolkien's explanation of why Tom Bombadil isn't affected by
the Ring (letter #153).

> Even Aule made that mistake in a sense, [...]

Yes. He is, one could say, the prototype

- Dirk
 >> Stay informed about: How much did Sauron know? 

I just want to make a comment on reviving old threads.. I think this
would benefit newbies like me who were not part of the old
discussions. It is a boring task to go through archives searching for
interesting discussions.. it would be nice if someone revives some
interesting old discussions periodically.
 >> Stay informed about: How much did Sauron know? 

In message
<bb6a9ce0-5590-4bd4-8b3e-37bad0c3f095 DeleteThis @q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
Johnny1a <shermanlee1 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> spoke these staves:
>

[What was Sauron thinking of, when he changed sides?]

> I have a hunch that Sauron probably _started out_ thinking that he
> was 'using' Morgoth, sort of like Saruman tried to sell Gandalf on
> the idea that they could 'ride the storm' of Sauron's victory in
> the Third Age (albeit on a vastly smaller scale).

That is an intriguing and attractive idea, though I'm not sure that
I'm going to buy into it -- not right away, at least

Saruman was, after all, of the same order as Sauron and, according to
the descriptions in UT originally a peer of Sauron, so there is at
least a minimum of justification to the idea that he might be able to
ride off the storm and gradually steer Sauron in a more desirable
direction (though I think it is more likely that Saruman believed
this even less than Gandalf and only wanted to weather the storm --
to be on the winning side).

The original gap between Sauron and Melkor, however, was mind-
staggering. The idea that Sauron would be able to exert any kind of
control over Melkor would seem to me exceedingly naive -- personally
I would find it much easier to believe that Sauron was blinded by the
sheer power of Melkor, and forgot to look at what Melkor was using
his power for.

But on the other hand Sauron has at other times shown a tendency
towards self-delusion, so perhaps I shouldn't balk at adding a little
naivité

I've been reading Tom Shippey's essay, 'Orcs, Wraiths, Wights,
Tolkien's Images of Evil' in /Roots and Branches/, where he spends
some effort on the question of that aspect of evil, which is the
corruption of good. He argues convincingly that this was a topic
which occupied not only Tolkien, but also Lewis, and goes on to
mention various examples.

Shippey makes it clear that it is not unimportant how a person is
corrupted to evil, and so I think the question of Sauron's corruption
deserves some attention.

I don't know if it is significant that Sauron almost inevitably used
the lure of power when he tried to corrupt others, with the Rings of
Power and above all the One Ring embodying this above all else.

In view of what Tolkien wrote about Sauron initially being drawn to
Melkor by his 'apparent will and power of Melkor to effect his
designs quickly and masterfully,' it could be argued that Sauron in
later ages was merely trying to corrupt others in the same way as he
himself was corrupted.

<snip>

> Sauron, by at least some accounts, started by giving Morgoth
> _information_ from within the ranks of the loyal Ainur, he was a
> spy before he was openly in Morgoth's service.

I don't remember reading that anywhere -- where is it from?

> I also note that Sauron and Saruman are both members of Aule's
> Maiar, or started out so. I have a theory about why Aule's people
> seem especially vulnerable to Melkoric temptation: they are
> fascinated by the _materials_ of the world, and the arts and
> cracts and sciences of their manipulation. When they seek to make
> the world better, their instinct is to apply the same thinking
> that works when dealing with the inanimate to the animate.

I have been thinking that their easy corruptibility is related to
their work with the /hroa/ of Arda -- precisely because this is where
the power of Melkor expresses itself the clearest: the power to
manipulate matter.

It appears to me that our thinking takes its outset in the same
place: the desire to manipulate, to order and dominate the material
world, and by extension also its inhabitants. I don't, however, think
that Sauron thought he could manipulate Melkor any more than he
thought he could manipulate Aulë, but he would be fascinated by
Melkor's far greater ability to manipulate and dominate the world and
that, I think, could easily have blinded him to the ends towards
which Melkor used his power.

We agree entirely that Sauron would try to control, to order, shape
and manipulate the Eruhíni in the same way he would, as a maia of
Aulë, order, shape and manipulate the /hroa/ of Arda.

<snip>

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo
- /The Fellowship of the Ring/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
 >> Stay informed about: How much did Sauron know? 

On Mar 22, 6:38 am, "Bill O'Meally" <omeall... RemoveThis @wise.rr.com> wrote:
> harsha wrote:
> > I just want to make a comment on reviving old threads.. I think this
> > would benefit newbies like me who were not part of the old
> > discussions. It is a boring task to go through archives searching for
> > interesting discussions.. it would be nice if someone revives some
> > interesting old discussions periodically.
>
> That is one of the roles that new blood can perform. Feel free to start
> a thread of your own with any questions or thoughts on Tolkien's works.
> Rather than simply reviving an old thread, bring your own perspective to
> the group with a new one.

That is what I would ideally want to do. But my experience in other
forums and groups shows that when new threads are created about
previously discussed topics, the newbies aren't treated well by the
regulars. The new viewpoints aren't noted and they are simply directed
to previous discussions.
 >> Stay informed about: How much did Sauron know?